Linux-Advocacy Digest #256, Volume #30 Wed, 15 Nov 00 20:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: OS stability (sfcybear)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Giuliano Colla)
Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers! ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Linux INstability & Netscape : Insights? (Donn Miller)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Linux INstability & Netscape : Insights? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux INstability & Netscape : Insights? (tom)
Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft? ("Chad Myers")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Giuliano Colla)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:55:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 04:09:22 GMT, sfcybear wrote:
> >WHO CARES WHAT YOU THINK.
>
> A lot of people care what I *do*. You may dismiss my comments on COLA
> as inconesquential. I wouldn't fault you for doing so, but I would
point
> out that
>
> (1) The same could be said for your incoherent ramblings.
I address the topic at hand. Which you have not even though I have asked
you to stay with the topic. and drop the insults.
> (2) Deeds speak louder than words. And all those Linux users who
> keep sending me thank you letters certainly care what I do.
Welll it certanly helped make you an egotitical jerk. Linux supporter,
programer or not.
>
> --
> Donovan
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:13:39 GMT
Stuart Fox wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you, I can do it myself. What I noted is that on a NT4
> > server version it is not provided. Which I find suspicious.
> >
>
> Indeed. Very suspicious that they didn't include a utility that was
> only released last year in a product that they released in 1996. I
> think you might be on something here. Or not.
>
Looking with a cold mind to my remark and your reply, they make me think
of a couple of guys in a burning building, with flames coming out from
each window, fire brigade working frantically around, windows crashing
and so on, which say one another "Don't you smell smoke somewhere?"
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: I WANT WIN2k drivers!
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:14:46 GMT
"Marc Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:52:24 GMT, Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Milton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 07:51:04 +1000, "steve erntner"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >how hard is it to get drivers for aztech sound cards???
> >>
> >> In Linux, it's relatively simple.
> >> http://lhd.zdnet.com/db/searchproduct.cgi?_catid=12
> >>
> >Linux does seem to support alot of discontinued products.
> >
> >> >all i want are win2k drivers for em...but do they exist?
> >nooooooooooooooooo
> >> >im about to break down and cry
> >>
> >> Don't use second-rate OS's and you won't be easily disappointed.
> >
> >He shouldn't have bought from a second rate sound card company, Aztech
went
> >out of business over a year ago.
> >
>
> * alert! alert! Double-standard detected! *
>
> You know, one of the points about Windows *.* that is always harped upon
> is how great driver support happens to be for peripherals. That
> vendors make Windows drivers first and everyone else gets sloppy
> seconds, if anything at all.
>
If you want a good legacy driver support than use Win9x not Win2K. Also if
you read my other message I give him a suggestion on a driver to TRY, which
was a Sound Blaster 16 driver. NT or 2K doesn't have the greatest driver
support but it a hell of alot more stable than Win9x.
> I'm got an ATI Rage Fury Pro that's less than a year old. Still doesn't
> have non-beta 3D Win2k drivers. And the beta level drivers are very buggy.
>
Who fault is that? Microsofts or ATI (who writes the driver)?
> So what is it? Does the driver support for Windows only count as a benefit
> when it's good? Or when the driver is non-existent or crashes the system,
> then driver support or lack thereof is not a Windows issue? Because that's
> the game Wintrolls seem to want to play. If so, Linux as a whole can't be
> blamed for bad or non-existent drivers. Same game, same rules.
>
Legacy driver support is a pot luck sometimes, when a company goes under
who should support the hardware? BTW I was wrong it more like 3 years
since Aztech went under.
> Of course, that's merely a pissing point for advocacy --- it doesn't
> help the end user of either OS who can't use his device <grin>
>
Amazing I am the ONLY so far to give the user a suggestion on a driver to
try, since he didn't provide a model of the card.
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux INstability & Netscape : Insights?
Date: 15 Nov 2000 18:12:31 -0600
tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At that point while reading the man pages for "zip", things locked up
> again. Never could get out of that gracefully till I stumbled up ctrl-
> q (iirc) which rebooted the computer. From there, I just gave up and
> went back into Win98.
How much memory do you have, by chance? Also, did you add any swap space for
your Linux partition?
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 20:20:48 -0500
Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > And what the GUI have to with blurring the distinction between programs
> > and data?
>
> The whole _point_ of the modern GUI is to try and move away from the idea of
> having a distinction between programs and data, towards just manipulating
> the data.
>
Maybe in Microsoft OSes, but do UNIX/Linux GUIs attempt to blur the
distinction?
>
> I consider this a Good Thing. Why should I have to worry about launching
> (the right) programs to get at my data ? Why can't I just open up the file
> and work on it there ?
>
That's fine if the file is a data file, but bad if the file is a program (and
the user
does not know that it is a program).
>
> > > > Nope. This is why UNIX/Linux is good. Have different browsers for mail
> and
> > > > desktop, with the mail browser having no associations with shell
> scripts,
> > > > if one so desired.
> > >
> > > *shrug*. To each their own - I _like_ my UI consistency.
> > >
> >
> > Windows users do prefer appearance to reality. I would not associate
> > shell scripts with an interpreter in any file manager, nor would some
> > users need to use more than one file manager, but options are good.
> > Unless, of course, they threaten the One True Browser.
>
> Would you like to get to the point, or do you have some more anti-Windows
> rhetoric to blather ?
>
Your preference (and MS OSes appeal to that preference) of a consistent
GUI over a consistent OS is far more damning thab anything I could say.
>
> > > >
> > > > But would the person have known that it was a shell script, or even
> > > > what a shell script is?
> > >
> > > They would have known it wasn't the usual text file.
> > >
> > > And if they didn't, it wouldn't have made a difference anyway.
>
> ANd if it happened on any other platform, it wouldn't have made a difference
> anyway.
Accept that other platforms don't associate shell scripts with interpreters.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 20:24:10 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > > "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No, you think that because you are using the concept of programs
> acting
> > > on
> > > > > data files.
> > > >
> > > > Yes. And the blurring of that distinction by Microsoft is part of the
> > > problem.
> > >
> > > No, it's Xeorix's fault.
> >
> > There is a difference between having a GUI and blurring the distinction
> > between programs and data.
>
> That is the whole point of GUI.
Windows GUIs maybe, not UNIX/Linux GUIs.
>
>
> > > > > In the Windows, Mac, OS/2 etc GUIs you manipulate and execute
> > > > > icons, whose behaviour is determined globally and identifiable by
> the
> > > icon
> > > > > and/or extension.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And the average user knows what the icon for Visual Basic is?
> > >
> > > Probably, but it's a buzzword for him.
> > > OTOH, he *does* know what a text file should look like, and VBS files
> aren't
> > > even similar to TXT files.
> > >
> >
> > If he sees the *.vbs file before clicking it.
>
> Who is talking about the extention, I'm talking about the icon.
> You can't miss that.
>
But does the user see the icon of an email attachment?
>
> > > You choice, I like not having to learn new things to do the same task
> > > everytime I open a program.
> > >
> >
> > At a command prompt, type command, options, and arguments. Hmm.. not
> > exactly learning new things each time I run a program.
>
> I like to *remember* how it's done?
> So I can do it more quickly.
> That is why I need to remember (aka, learning) new things.
And what is hard to remember about what I said above?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 20:27:38 -0500
Curtis wrote:
> Colin R. Day wrote...
> > Curtis wrote:
> >
> > > Les Mikesell wrote...
> > > > > But how can that happen? Outlook opens the file using the default
> > > > > associated application as defined by the user of the system. The file
> > > > > cannot determine what opens it. That's ridiculous.
> > > >
> > > > Are you trying to claim that all the people who opened
> > > > ILOVEYOU.TXT.vbs really were well advised about
> > > > how this was different from other email, knew exactly
> > > > what would happen next, and blew up their networks
> > > > on purpose? What is ridiculous is that they had no
> > > > idea, and no way of telling what it was about to do.
> > >
> > > If the ignorant user is gungho to make things happen automagically
> > > through file associations, then he should face his own waterloo with that
> > > attitude.
> >
> > Hey, answer my question. Did these users explicitly associate shell
> > scripts with an interpreter, or was it the default setting?
>
> It's the default setting based on the type of user (ignorant ones) that
> the OS is aimed at. How is the ignorant user going to direct the script
> to the relevant interpreter when he/she receives a legitimate one to run.
Maybe ask a more experienced user? And when would an unguided
newbie have to run a shell script anyway?
>
>
> The default setting is no problem for the experienced, informed user who
> can simple CHANGE the default setting. The whole mess exists because of
> the valiant attempts being made to have computers usable by the ignorant.
I don't know that I would call Microsoft's attempts "valiant".
>
> The machine becomes vulnerable as a result.
>
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:42:25 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Les Mikesell wrote:
> >
> >
> > Careful there - as usual you are putting too much trust in the wrong place.
> > That last one is a buggy applet actually distributed and signed by
> > Microsoft.
> > Is Microsoft an 'unknown' site for you? You can fix this bug, but anyone
> > else
> > can send it back to you and if you trust Microsoft it will open the hole
> > again.
>
> This is why I have long advised that Windows systems should NEVER allow
> modifications from Microsoft.
>
Personal experience of today.
Because of a problem of crappy Win ME whose DOS has become unable to
support ANSI terminal sequences, I was forced to look into MS site to
find a fix. No way, so I had to resort to on line chat. Got a page
telling that only IE supports the sophisticated software required.
I was forced to install IE 5.5 (from a magazine CD). To avoid risks I
installed in my Win NT which runs in a sandbox (Virtual Machine hosted
by Linux), and I carefully avoided to install Active-X, VB scripts and
all fancy stuff.
I went to the page, and got a message that I was missing a vital piece
of IE. I Click on Ignore (only option besides accept), and a new message
tells me that I'm going to upgrade IE with VB support.
I click again on abort, and only then it gives up, to show a plain html
page, which I could have read with Linx.
Well VB scripts are dangerous, useless 99.99% of times, but as soon you
connect to MS they try to stuff it in your mouth. Moreover to show you a
simple html page they want you to use IE.
One starts to be paranoid and think that MS has builtin vulnerability in
order to fulfill some obscure goal (customer control, earth domination,
conquer of Solar System....?).
For the record, the html page was telling that apparently they forgot
about ANSI. They don't parse anymore config.sys. Suggested solutions:
boot from floppy with ANSI.SYS in Config.sys, or (unsupported), hand
edit with an HEX editor io.sys, in order to add ANSI.SYS to the default
devices list!
I found it really modern and full of performance.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux INstability & Netscape : Insights?
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 20:45:12 -0500
tom wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Too true; but it hasn't ever taken me out of X11 that I can remember.
> >
> > You may want to look into using KDE's Konqorer until Mozilla comes
> > out.
>
> The "crash" itself didn't take me out. I somehow forced my way out.
>
> > > Is there a decent newsreader out there for Linux that also has the
> > > ability to view images, or is at least comparable to Free Agent?
> >
> > http://www.superpimp.org
>
> Pan looks promising. Dumb question: which file(s) do I need to
> download? I know Mandrake can use rpm's, but there are about five
> different one's listed, perhaps for different systems? (I have a P266.)
Look for i386 or i586 in the rpm name.
Download all such packages, as there may be depencies.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 16 Nov 2000 00:48:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: It's a failing and design flaw of Linux, would you please admit this
: and move on? Linus, Red Hat, and several others have admitted this
: flaw and are fixing it, why can't you?
I *am* willing to admit that not being able to go bigger than 2GB
is a flaw. I am *not* willing to admit that this flaw has anything
to do with high-end databases, since they use partitions anyway,
despite the fact that you don't seem to know that.
------------------------------
From: tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux INstability & Netscape : Insights?
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:48:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How much memory do you have, by chance? Also, did you add any swap
space for
> your Linux partition?
128 Megs of RAM. Before installation, I had Partition Magic give Linux
a little under 3gigs, and then carved off about 150-250 Megs (don't
remember exactly) for swap.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: so REALLY, what's the matter with Microsoft?
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 00:48:50 GMT
"Gary Connors" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > Past record? MS' support for Alpha (which had a reasonable sized
> > market) was pretty good. Many recent products (including Office,
> > Visual Studio 6, and many BackOffice products) are available on
> > Alpha. All recent patches are available on alpha. Many of the
> > new add-on features (scripting engines, Java VMs, etc) are
> > still being released with Alpha support.
> >
> > What past record, other than the very good one, are you referring to?
> >
> > -Chad
>
> How about PPC support? It EXISTED, at one time. Some people actually
> ran it. MS killed it.
Demand waned. No enough 3rd party developers were interested, designers
of PPC and manufacturers weren't willing to assist in application
development. Support on all fronts for NT on that platform and MIPS was
luke-warm. MS had to make a business decision. No one complained.
Compaq, however, killed the Alpha support, not MS.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 01:05:46 GMT
Christopher Smith wrote:
[snip]
> > I assumed it operated on the same bugs that so many other virii have
> > taken advantage of.
>
> Such as ?
>
> > So replace ILOVEYOU with the virus of your choice
> > that IS related to the above problems, and the point is still valid.
>
> Examples ?
>
> > Is ILOVEYOU another one of the fireworks/south park attachment clones
> > instead? If it's an attachment the user has to run manually, it's not a
> > virus...
>
> Yes, it has to be run manually. No, it's not a virus. It's a trojan and,
> as such, is possible under any OS.
That's a rather bold assertion.
Easy example. I put in an html page (or html e-mail) a link. Visible
string tells anything reasonable such as www.microsoft.com, or
Photograph, etc. Underlying link (which you don't see) contains:
"C:\WINDOWS\rundll.exe User,ExitWindows". This, with crappy MS software
(OS+IE or OS+OE) will shut down your computer even if you have disabled
ActiveX, VB, and Javascript.
Technically is a trojan, but anybody can be fooled and no other OS (IE
is now part of the OS, they say!) in the world, however bad, is
vulnerable to such a simple trick.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
