Linux-Advocacy Digest #360, Volume #30 Wed, 22 Nov 00 01:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: The real question about Claire Lynn (Russ Lyttle)
Re: The Sixth Sense (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Sixth Sense (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Mike Byrns)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Mike Byrns)
Re: The Non Sense: people who are clueless about the WindowsNT registry... (was
Re: The Sixth Sense) ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Alan)
Re: The Sixth Sense (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Sixth Sense (T. Max Devlin)
Time for a Lynn bait.... here goes! (Jacques Guy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real question about Claire Lynn
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 05:32:19 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Well, we all know that she's another typical ignorant female whinger, who for
> some reason considers herself a authority on why linux is not up to scratch.
>
> But the real question is, does she have a big set of tits?
Your stupid blind prejudiced whining might have some strength if Claire
Lynn were truly female. The jury is out on that subject.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:36:55 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:7bmR5.21465$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
>> > Well, duh. Links are only useful to someone with a filesystem that
>> > understands them.
>>
>> No, they work fine in any number of cross-platform way. File
>> servers, ftp servers, etc. all follow symlinks.
>
>With translation at the server OS end, obviously. What makes you think
>there would be any difference if you wrote an FTP server for Windows that
>treated a shortcut like a link ?
That's the point; they don't.
[...]
>The point of a shortcut is that anything making use of the shell's features
>can use them, and the extra features they offer.
And the point of a link is that anything can make use of the link; the
shell can add whatever extra features it wants without screwing up how
anything else uses the link.
[...]
>> And their usefullness is clearly as limited.
>
>And has the same extra features, where links are limited.
You don't want to start discussing what is a feature, what is a
function, and what is horse shit, Christopher. You'll lose.
Each of those "extra features" is what limits the usefulness of
shortcuts. If they were just the way you use them, they might, as you
wish us to believe, be considered a useful and handy feature of the
Windows shell/OS. But they're also a bunch of other things, bolted
together to add "extra features" to what started out as a clone of the
Macintosh's aliases feature.
>> > > When symlinks
>> > > were added into the filesystems all existing programs automatically
>> > > could use their advantages.
>> >
>> > I've yet to bump into a Win32 program that couldn't make use of a
>> shortcut.
>>
>> Yes, clearly limited.
>
>How so ?
<*snicker*>
[...]
>> > Being able to transport these things between machines just by emailing or
>> > copying to a floppy disk ? How do symlinks do these things ?
[...]
>That's interesting, but something I already knew. Care to answer the
>question now ?
When you tell your computer to "email this", it emails the target, not
the link. This avoids the problem, so common it would be funny if it
weren't so pathetic, of emailing the link when you actually meant to
email the file. Despite your claims of wondrous portability, sending
someone a link to a local resource generally doesn't work, even in
Windows.
[...]
>> Agreed, but given symlinks most of the reasons to have shortcuts go away.
>
>Given shortcuts, most of the reasons for symlinks go away. Your point ?
I think the point is simply that you're mistaken. Other than all the
things that "shortcuts" are other than shortcuts, there is no reason to
have them if you have symlinks. However, if you have shortcuts (even
ones that are only shortcuts), you still have reason to use symlinks.
A symbolic link is not "merely" an alias. Its a lot simpler than that;
it has to do with the file system, not the shell. Shortcuts aren't even
simply aliases; if they were, they'd be less troublesome. They're also
PIF configurations, URLs, and files with very special handling
(differences in how they are presented by DOS and Windows, and the
opaque treatment of files with .lnk extensions.)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:38:48 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>A shortcut is, to all intents and purposes, a symlink to a shell object.
A more grossly inaccurate, yet broad sweeping, statement of the issue I
doubt we will ever be privileged to view.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 05:34:37 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 03:38:22 GMT, Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> >It's just that elitist attitude from it's proponents that is holding and will
> >continue to hold linux back from widespread adoption.
>
> Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense.
>
> The "elitist" attitude is largely confined to a few vocal morons. The
> developers for the most part aren't "nasty elitists" as anyone who's
> reviewed the goals of KDE and GNOME, the largest two linux projects
> (barring perhaps the kernel itself), would know.
>
> And no, it doesn't "appear to be holding Linux back", Linux is doing
> just fine, and will most probably continue to do so.
So far I've not seen one shred of evidence to suggest that Linux (or any UNIX for
that matter) is making any inroads on the desktop at all. There are a variety of
places that do large scale web hosting that post their log analyses showing that
UNIX is not being used on the desktop. Proteus is one
http://www.proteusweb.com/browsermonitor/.
ALL UNIXes combined don't even make up a percent. And for those few nasty
elitists -- just remember that a few rotten apples can spoil the bunch.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 05:38:44 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Chris,
>
> The only reason why Xfce could cause X to lock is when you start a
> console based program from the panel. You should add "term" in front of
> your command to start a terminal to run your application.
>
> Recent version of Xfce (ie version > 3.5.1, latest being 3.6.1) feature
> a workarround for that problem (that is also present in other guis since
> not specific to Xfce).
>
> In any case the reboot was not necessary, pressing ctl+alt+backspace
> would have killed the X server and returns to the console.
>
> It proves that MS-Windows has succeeded in something, at least : People
> think that all OS are as weak as MS-Windows (all flavors, NT included),
> I mean, an application (X in this case) that crashes not necessarily
> means the whole computer needs to be restarted.
Two words: "User experience". When X crashes and takes all the X apps with
it or locks up so you have to press ctrl+alt+backspace the user experience
is virtually identical to when Windows 9x does the same thing -- all work is
lost and the user needs to start over. It's particularly troublesome that
ctrl+alt+backspace is so conceptually similar to ctrl+alt+del.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Non Sense: people who are clueless about the WindowsNT registry...
(was Re: The Sixth Sense)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 05:44:13 GMT
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Giuliano Colla wrote:
> > > >
<trimmed>
> >
> > You're right, however, that programs' access to the registry is
> > much faster than the search because programs typically do not
> > access the entire registry at once, they merely access their
> > few keys.
>
> Could it be that programs' access to registry is performed through
> ClassID which is handled differently from the text string used both by
> regedit and by a program trying to gather informations about other
> programs?
Hand the man a cigar. The registry is used for both initializations and
dynamic changes while the programs run.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 05:44:19 GMT
Here is another e-mail html virus just found out
'"Romeo and Juliet" bug spreads on Outlook '"
The HTML code first instructs Windows to save the attachments to the
machine's hard drive. Then the virus reads addresses from the Windows
Address Book and sends itself to people listed there.
http://yahoo.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-3802629.html?pt.yfin.cat_fin.txt.ne
Still lurking in here occasionally, but have to be at work in 7 hours
Goodnight all.
Alan
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 10:22:28 +1300, . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> The "so many other virii" you mention are, I presume, the earlier
>> generation of Office macro viruses. When an infected document was
>> emailed, launching it on the recipient system would infect that host.
>> The action of the trojan was to cause other documents on that system to
>> become vectors, so that when they were emailed, they spread the trojan.
>> Mostly Word, but also Excel, supported such viruses (and still do),
>> though any VB-enabled application would work. While again similar to
>> the previous waves of basically MS-only viruses in concept, they were a
>> distinct, though precursor, mechanism.
>
>No, I wasn't referring to office macro virii, I was talking about the
>scripted email virii that could change shit on your computer as soon as
>you read the HTML email, if you never changed your security settings by
>default. One specific example was kak, which changes the registry and
>sends itself out as a signature.
>
>I have a patch from MS for that one specific flaw, but I can't help
>wondering if they fixed the problem or just moved it somewhere harder to
>find...
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:54:59 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>I'd be surprised if programmatically referencing shortcuts was any different
>from programmatically referencing any other shell object, as well.
I'm surprised, quite frankly, that you don't know this concretely.
Nevertheless, the point is moot; programmatic references are not the
issue. It is one of simple definition. Your "shell object reference"
shortcut is an API, with nothing specific behind it. It could be a PIF,
it could be printer, it could be a ppp dialer, it could be a simple
alias. It might be some strange file with .lnk in the extension (when
viewed in DOS) that refuses to load at all into any program, include a
text editor.
A Unix symbolic link, in complete contrast, is not simply an abstraction
in an API. It is a function of the file system, a part of the operating
system, as well as a transparent mechanism accessed through a
standardized API.
[...]
>> > The point of a shortcut is that anything making use of the shell's
>> > features can use them, and the extra features they offer.
>>
>> Yes - a typical special-case situation in windows.
>
>Not a special case at all in Windows. A _common_ case.
Being a special case *is* a common case, in Windows. ;-/
[...]
>Shortcuts use UNC paths and will try to reconnect to the machine that the
>target is on. The drive letter it is connected to is irrelevant.
So I presume this means the share name is entirely relevant?
>> > > > I've yet to bump into a Win32 program that couldn't make use of a
>> > > shortcut.
>> > >
>> > > Yes, clearly limited.
>> >
>> > How so ?
>>
>> In case you haven't noticed, not everything is a win32 program, although
>> a certain company would like to force you to use nothing else.
>
>Everything running on Windows is, by definition, a Win32 program.
Yea. Sure, fine, whatever. Resistance is futile, you will be
assimilated. ;-)
[...]
>> > That's interesting, but something I already knew. Care to answer the
>> > question now ?
>>
>> If you knew how that works, why did you ask about printers, network
>> shares, etc? Of course they all work through symlinks.
>
>But they don't. The *hardware ports* can be symlinked, the devices
>themselves cannot. I can't create a symlink to a printer on some given
>machine, move that symlink to another machine and then expect it to work.
Why would you move a symlink? Its less work to create another symlink
wherever you want the new one to be.
>There is a difference between the *hardware ports* that the devices connect
>to and the objects that represent the actual devices in the UI. That's the
>fundamental difference between shortcuts and symlinks.
You're forgetting your own boondoggle. How are you going to get to any
"actual devices" through the Win32 API?
>> > > Agreed, but given symlinks most of the reasons to have shortcuts go
>> away.
>> >
>> > Given shortcuts, most of the reasons for symlinks go away. Your point ?
>>
>> Hardly. The most useful cases for symlinks are directories and devices.
>
>For which shortcuts work perfectly from within the shell, where they are
>meant to.
And symlinks work from everywhere, so there's no need for shortcuts.
QED
>> Shortcuts don't even come close, even if you supply all the special-case
>> software that understands them.
>
>And symlinks don't come close for all the useful things shortcuts do either.
>So what ?
So that's simply a matter of Microsoft glomming things together, not any
kind of value to anyone using their products. Symlinks are more useful
as shortcuts than shortcuts are, that's what. That shortcuts are also
weird special "shell objects" in the Win32 API that are used for various
types of references, aliases, icons, links, and configurations has
little to do with it, other than that such complexity makes shortcuts
far less suitable as shortcuts, and therefore they cannot even begin to
approach the functionality of symbolic links.
>They're different concepts, meant for different things. Each has advantages
>and disadvantages. Is that really so hard to deal with ?
No, I think the theory is rather easy to deal with. It looks to me like
you're grasping at straws, trying to make monopoly crapware look good,
same as you've been doing for years.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:56:49 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>
>"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 02:59:32 GMT,
>> Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>> >
>> >"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:8up1nu$2dr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >
>> >> >NT has, and always will have support for multiple platforms. Just because
>> >> >MS doesn't ship them, doesn't mean it's not there. You are smart enough
>> >> >to realize this, aren't you?
>> >>
>> >> Since MS has a total monopoly on NT (obviously), what exactly is the
>> >> difference between "MS doesn't ship them" and "it's not there" ?
>> >
>> >I never said that "it's not there", nor did anyone else.
>> >
>> >Claims were made that somehow because NT isn't shipping, in a box,
>> >for PPC, that somehow NT doesn't support it or the technology isn't
>> >there.
>> >
>> >I think any intelligent person (yourself included) would reasonably
>> >conclude that NT certainly has the ABILITY and the TECHNOLOGY to
>> >run on those platforms, or most any other, it's just that MS doesn't
>> >have a financial incentive to do so.
>> >
>> >I was merely combating the unintelligent claims that somehow because
>> >MS isn't shipping them, that NT has lost this ability.
>> >
>> >> There are older systems out there running NT on non-x86 platforms,
>> >> but for all practical purposes (such as setting up a new system),
>> >> NT is x86-only.
>> >
>> >But that doesn't mean that NT could only run on x86, wouldn't
>> >you agree?
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >NT has always had >2GB file support on every platform it's yet been
>> >> >ported to:
>> >> >
>> >> >IA32
>> >> >MIPS
>> >> >PPC
>> >> >ALPHA
>> >> >SPARC
>> >>
>> >> I did not know that MS ever got NT running on a SPARC.
>> >
>> >During internal tests. This is according to Dave Cutler who is most
>> >likely a trustworthy source.
>> >
>> >-Chad
>> >
>> >
>>
>> On what architecture, other than IA32, can I buy a recent copy of NT for, now?
>
>Do you wish to start a new thread? The topic of this thread is what
>platforms NT has the capability of running on.
>
>Either keep on topic, or lets start a new thread. Your question is getting
>off topic.
>
>No, I'm not avoiding the question because it's been asked and answered several
>times in this thread and it's no more relevant now than it was then.
Now, that's what I call tap-dancing. :-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 06:09:19 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Time for a Lynn bait.... here goes!
Hey sweetie pie! (cream pie, of course)
Here's one from comp.windows.misc:
Ok, so I have Win2k running on a Micron Millenia (P3-733, with Via
Apollo 133 Mhz bus chipset). Two problems:
1. Everytime I try to put the system into standby, it tells that my
video card driver (Nvidia GeForce 256) won't allow it. What's weird is
that this didn't happen until I put my Plextor 12/10/32A CD-RW drive
in. Even weirder is the fact that I went back and reinstalled Win2k
and didn't reinstall the Plextor software. Everything worked fine for
a couple of days and then all of a sudden it started doing it again.
All that I had reinstalled was WinZip.
2. Recently, my sound started cutting out after a few minutes. I can't
pinpoint it to anything in particular and it's starting to drive me
nuts. I always have to reboot to get my sound back and usually I have
to kill the power because it hangs during the reboot.
You don't read comp.windows.misc, do you, sweetie cream pie in the
Billy Goats's face?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
