Linux-Advocacy Digest #748, Volume #30 Fri, 8 Dec 00 17:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Uptimes strike back (mlw)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Just in case anybody is wondering about reliability (mlw)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 14:35:27 -0600
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > We're not talking about obtainint root. In fact, obtainint root
first
> > would
> > > > invalidate this claim.
> > >
> > > I knew you'd say that.
> > >
> > > How about this, if you don't mind paying a lot for the product:
> > >
> > > Invisible Keylogger Stealth for NT at
http://www.amecisco.com/iksnt.htm
> > >
> > > Any user can install it locally, or you can install it remotely
> > > using some tools in the NT Hacking Kit (also known as the NT Resource
> > > Kit). Copy the software to %systemroot%\system32\drivers\scsi.sys (or
> > some
> > > other innocent-looking name. Then push the Registry changes to the
remote
> > > machine using regini.exe (from the NTRK). Then reboot the system
using
> > another
> > > Microsoft-provided hacking tool, shutdown.exe:
> >
> > Sorry, but this is not something "any user can install" in a locked down
> > system. Specifically, in a locked down system, standard users are
prevented
> > from installing device drivers (which is what this is). They don't have
> > permissions to modify that registry.
> >
> > If you're logging in remotely with cleartext, remember, we're talking
about
> > a secure login here.
>
> Ah, so the scenario has changed. Okay, I'm done. You might
> consider learning rather than arguing.
The scenario has not changed. Here are my original post (which this thread
is a subthread of) I posted on 12/7.
"You do that. If you figure out a way to do it without requiring admin
privs
to install on a locked down system, I'll send you $50. (I'm not joking
either). Not exactly a stellar return for your investment of time, but not
chicken scratch either."
Note the use of the words "without requring admin privs to install on a
locked down system."
To which you responded with:
"In HACKING EXPOSED, 2nd Edition, Chapter 5 "Hacking Windows NT", various
ways of obtaining root priviledge are discussed. They conclude that
it is no cakewalk, but that you must take strenuous administrative steps.
The one they recommend most is getting Windows 2000 (in lieu of grabbing
SP6a and some more recent hot-fixes.)"
Which you are describing ways of obtaining admin privs through hacking.
I responded with:
"We're not talking about obtainint root. In fact, obtainint root first
would
invalidate this claim."
Then you responded:
"I knew you'd say that. How about this, if you don't mind paying a lot for
the product:"
And then go on to describe a product which needs admin privs to install on a
locked down system.
The scenario has not changed. Perhaps you simply didn't know what you were
arguing about.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 14:38:59 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Try Netscape then. They gave their browser away for free, and then
started
> >charging for it after they'd already built up their monopoly.
>
> Not. They used a shareware model, quite successfully, until MS bundled
> IE. Then they opened their source code.
Netscape released it's first browser in 1994. For free, mind you. They
started charging in early 1995. Microsoft released it's first browser
(bundled with the OS, mind you) in August 1995. Less than 9 months after NS
started charging. Before netscape started charging, nearly all browsers
were free as well.
Netscape did not open it's source code until 1998.
In otherwords, it was successful for almost 2 years, despite it's
competition giving away it's product and bundling it with the OS.
You seem to like to revise history, Max.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 20:55:09 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>> Steve Mading writes:
>>>>> I would disagree strongly. Using the typewriter keys (like hjkl) is
>>>>> much, much faster than losing the home-row placement of your fingers
>>>>> to go hit the arrow keys, or the 'ins/home/end.etc...' keys, or to
>>>>> move the mouse.
>>>> Except that while you're typing, if you want to go back and correct an
>>>> error, you first have to get out of insert mode by finding that escape
>>>> key, which isn't on the home row, and then you have to get back into
>>>> insert mode with the i key, which also isn't on the home row.
>>> To hit ESC, you don't have to move your whole arm, just stretch
>>> your finger a bit (Especially so on the older keyboards for which
>>> VI was designed, which put the escape key at the left edge of the
>>> numbers row.)
>> To hit cursor keys, you don't have to move your whole arm, just
>> stretch your finger a bit.
> Dave, I don't know ANYBODY who's right pinky finger can even extend
> to the backspace, \, or past right side of the Enter key on a traditional
> 101-key keyboard without moving the wrist...and hence the entire
> fore-arm.
And I don't know ANYBODY who's left pinky finger can even extend to
the Esc key on a traditional 101-key keyboard without moving the
wrist...and hence the entire fore-arm.
> Are you claiming to have detachable fingers?
No more so than Steve Mading.
>>> Not only that, but you use your LEFT hand, while the
>>> RIGHT stays by the hjkl keys.
>> Not if I want to type yuioopnm, for example.
> Besides Dave Tholen, BIGGEST FUCKING IDIOT IN THE UNIVERSE,
Once again, there's the invective that you rely on whenever you lack
a logical argument. You're so transparent, Aaron.
> the set of people who wants to type "yuioopnm," consists of who exactly?
The same set of people who want to type hjkl, Aaron.
>>> To hit 'i', you don't have to move
>>> your hand at all. You would have to be a really terrible typist to
>>> lose track of the home row just becuase you hit a key on the top row.
>>> Now, when you have to move your whole hand by swinging your forearm
>>> in order to reach the 'special keys', then you have to look down
>>> to find your finger positions.
>> Not with the layout on my keyboard.
> Catering to One-of-a-kind pieces should not be the goal
> of mass-distributed software.
Hardly a "One-of-a-kind pieces".
>>> The only thing I would change about
>>> HJKL would be to have made it be JKL; instead, so that you use all
>>> four home-row fingers rather than just three of them with the index
>>> finger doing double-duty. But this is a very small difference.
>> I've seen some cursor movement implementations that put the 'up'
>> key on the row above hjkl and the 'down' key on the row below
>> hjkl, presumably because too many people complained about having
>> difficulty keeping track of which letter was up and which was down.
> And this supports the argument for using arrow keys how, exacty?
The same way Steve's statement supported the argument for using hjkl,
Aaron.
> By the way, you STILL haven't seen a doctor about getting your
> rectum re-routed out of your skull...have you....
By the way, you STILL haven't practiced what you preach, have you?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 20:57:52 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
> Tore Lund wrote:
>> Steve Mading wrote:
>>> I wrote:
>>>> Steve Mading writes:
>>>>> To hit ESC, you don't have to move your whole arm, just stretch
>>>>> your finger a bit (Especially so on the older keyboards for which
>>>>> VI was designed, which put the escape key at the left edge of the
>>>>> numbers row.)
>>>> To hit cursor keys, you don't have to move your whole arm, just
>>>> stretch your finger a bit.
>>> Wow! So I assume then that your planet is populated by aliens with
>>> sinewy 8-inch long fingers that can bend sideways and splay out
>>> in any direction from the palm? [snip]
>> I think you missed the sarcasm here.
> I think you missed the Tholen-stupidity there...
How ironic.
> Dumb Dave was actually serious.
I was just as serious as Steve, who claimed that you didn't have to
move your whole arm to hit Esc.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes strike back
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 16:00:31 -0500
Pedro Coto wrote:
>
> Well, I have been reading a lot about uptimes
> lately and I want to give my little point of view.
>
[snipped]
It is clear to me that you are missing a few points here.
"uptime" is very important because one should be in complete control
when a system goes down. In Windows NT, the typical BSOD means that it
went does unexpectedly. That is "bad."
Also, uptime is important, and while redundancy has a place, there are
often times where a single server NEEDS to be up for a long period of
time. Take a SQL database server. Unless you have gone through the pains
of setting up a whole distributed environment, you need to rely that the
server remains operable.
In a lot of web site designs, there are many web servers handling 99% of
the traffic and one SQL database handling the globally unique data.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 20:59:49 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
> Steve Mading wrote:
>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>> There's a simple solution to all of this.
>>> If in doubt, hit the escape key. This puts you in command mode.
>>> Then hit type "i" to begin inserting at your current location.
>>> Problem solved.
>> This is essentially what I do, as do most experienced vi users.
>> The problem comes from thinking of 'insert' as a mode. Think
>> of it as an command action (insert the following stuff...), and
>> then think of 'esc' as the 'done with that action' key. I often
>> gratuitously hit 'esc' when I come back to the editor after my
>> attention has been drawn away, and I don't even do it consiously.
>>
>> What I like about vi is that it lets you mix the activity of
>> 'editing code' with the activity of 'composing code' without
>> having to look down at the keys to move your hand from one
>> part of the keyboard to the other. (And any 'clunkiness'
>> experienced from not being in insert mode by default is more
>> than made up for by the ultra-powerful commands available that
>> save shitloads of time when editing already-written code (which
>> is what programmers spend the majority of their time in an editor
>> doing. The initial type-a-lot-of-stuff-at-once stage is only the
>> first sliver of time spent. Then you have to go back and fix all
>> your mistakes, and for that I insist on the power of vi.)
> Damn straight.
And that somehow makes the use of hjkl for cursor movement intuitive?
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just in case anybody is wondering about reliability
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 16:04:30 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:x35Y5.2420$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "SwifT -" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, mlw wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't know about anyone else, I heard that about the initial release
> > > > of Win2K, and we have heard the same about every release and SP of
> > > > NT/2K. This game of "The next service pack will be solid" got really
> old
> > > > back in NT 4.0 SP1. Does anyone seriously believe that MS has any
> > > > credibility when it comes to reliability?
> > >
> > > Since SP4, NT4 is stable enough. I bet it will be the same for 2K. It's
> > > just that 2K isn't ready yet for the big test (unless you pump several
> > > million $'s in it - like Microsoft does).
> >
> > Time will tell, but if history is any indication, 2K will be service
> packed
> > to death the same as its' predecessor. After seeing it for so many years,
> > I'll have a hard time buying any statements to the contrary.
>
> Hmm.. I guess because the Linux kernel 2.2 has 17 service packs (not to
> mention the thousands of patches to programs and utilities) that Linux fits
> this as well.
General stability is rarely the reason why a kernel is updated. It is
usually because of driver improvements or features. Where as NT service
packs are almost always intended as stability improvements.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:02:40 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
> Steve Mading wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> Not exactly uncommon. When my VCR is "off", it's still on by
>>> enough to keep a clock running and monitor its programming to
>>> determine whether to turn "on" (or should I say "more on") and
>>> record a program. Doesn't make the power switch any less
>>> intuitive.
>> Actually, I would say that that sort of power switch is highly
>> unintuitive. Intuitively, you'd expect that turning something
>> off would, you know, actually turn it off.
> Don't confuse the tholen-dolt with reason.
As opposed to your nonsense, Aaron?
> He's having a difficult enough time as it is.
How ironic. Do you still believe that nothing about a computer
is intuitive?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:06:13 GMT
Lee Sau Dan writes:
>>>> The fact that it needs to be learned is what makes something
>>>> not intuitive.
>>> So, walking and talking are intuitive, aren't they?
>> Did I say that walking and talking do not need to be
>> learned?
> I was to tired. :(
>
> So, walking and talking aren't intuitive, are they?
Well, I don't know of any infant that just happens to start
speaking some language not heard from the person or persons
rearing it. Do you?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:22:48 GMT
Russ Lyttle writes:
>>>>>>>> Steve Mading writes:
>>>>>>>>>> Why are you citing evidence that destroys your argument, Aaron?
>>>>>>>>>> Familiarity (or experience, to use my word for it) does not have
>>>>>>>>>> to be universal before something can be declared "intuitive".
>>>>>>>>>> Here's a good rule of thumb: if you need to consult the manual,
>>>>>>>>>> it's not intuitive.
>>>>>>>>> Everyone has to "consult the manual" (or a friend, or the on-line
>>>>>>>>> help) at some point early in their learning process.
>>>>>>>> I know some first-time computer users that did not need to consult
>>>>>>>> the manual or a friend to know what to do with the power cord, for
>>>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>> I have earned a lot of money plugging in power cords for people.
>>>>>> Congratulations. I know people who replace water heaters, and they
>>>>>> also plug in the power cord for customers while installing the
>>>>>> replacement appliance.
>>>>>>> The first electronics job I had was making calls to fix TV sets.
>>>>>> Not to install them? Televisions that hadn't yet been used don't
>>>>>> usually require fixing.
>>>>> Both. The most common was after the set was at home. Most people, by
>>>>> that time, were trying to install the sets themselves.
>>>> And you're claiming that they didn't know enough to plug it in? Do
>>>> these people use a toaster? A lamp? A microwave oven?
Note: no response.
>>>>>>> About half the time the problem was the power cord wasn't plugged in.
>>>>>> But was it because they didn't know that it had to be plugged in, or
>>>>>> had it accidently become unplugged without them knowing it? There's
>>>>>> a big difference there. I've seen it happen to people many times.
>>>>> They didn't know all the subtilities of operating a power cord.
>>>> What "subtleties"?
>>>>> Plug it in all the way.
>>>> What's subtle about that?
Note: no response.
>>>>> Unplug it before moving the set.
>>>> Are you saying that the cord was damaged from strain?
>>> No, I'm saying that your description of how to use a power cord is
>>> missing sum subtilities. Such as : a power cord has *two* ends.
>> What has that got to do with unplugging before moving the set?
Note: no response.
>>> On a toster one end is usually fixed to the toster.
>> On many televisions, one end is usually fixed to the television.
Note: no response.
>>> On TV sets and computers neither end is fixed.
>> Not always. My television does not have a detachable power cord.
> It does if the set is in the US.
The set is in the US, and the power cord cannot be removed from the
rear of the unit.
> If you open the case the power cord comes unplugged from the set.
When people move a set around, they don't usually open the case
first. You were talking about moving a set around, not opening
a case. Do try to be consistent.
> You have to use a "cheater" cord to power
> up the set once it has been opened.
But you weren't talking about opening a set. You were talking about
moving a set around, which doesn't require that it be opened up.
> Sometimes the set end comes loose,
> especially if someone doesn't unplug before moving the set.
If you're talking about some internal connection that can't be seen
by the user, then that doesn't serve as an argument against my claim
that the power cord is intuitive.
> It can often be reinserted by simply pushing on the back of the set
> near the power cord.
Does that somehow make the power cord not intuitive?
>>> You need to make sure *both* ends are plugged in.
>> Same situation applies. Usually people know how to do that, but were
>> simply unaware that one end had come unplugged.
Note: no response. It's very easy to be unaware of an internal
connection coming loose.
>>> Also power cords are polarized. Try to plug them in the wrong way and
>>> they don't fit properly.
>> The polarized plugs that I've used won't fit at all if you try to do
>> it the wrong way. My television has a three-prong plug, however. Only
>> goes one way.
> I'll send you the next three pronged plug I get that has had the third
> prong bent or broken by the user. I kept one for years that someone had
> managed to plug the third prong into the hot side of the socket. They
> didn't understand why their GFI tripped every time they turned on the
> set.
Was it bent or broken intentionally so that the set could be plugged
into a outlet that hadn't been upgraded with three-prong outlets? I
can't think of any other reason why someone would do that.
> The classic case for this is an event in Idaho where a technician
> plugged a multi-pronged cord in backwards and killed himself when the
> research reactor he was working on "pulsed". No one living could
> understand why he went to the trouble to bend those pins to make it fit.
Does that make the power cord non-intuitive?
>>>>> If the light doesn't come on check the power cord. That sort of thing.
>>>> What's subtle about that?
>>> People don't do it. For computers it is worse. The light on the computer
>>> can come on, but not the monitor, or vice versa.
>> Same situation applies. Usually people know how to do that, but were
>> simply unaware that one of the two was unplugged.
> If the power cord was that intuitive, they would have checked, now
> wouldn't they?
Did they succeed in plugging both in, in the first place? When something
stops working that was previously working, they tend to think of what
might have changed. If there is no reason for the power cord to have
become unplugged, then it makes sense to consider the possibility that
there is a problem with the unit itself and not the power cord.
> They wouldn't bend prongs to get it plugged in. They
> would unplug it before trying to work on the set. In this industry, you
> cannot assume that anything is intuitive for a sufficient percentage of
> your customer base.
And just what percentage of the people do you need to plug power cords
in for them?
>>>>>>> I learned very quickly not to just plug in the cord and send a bill
>>>>>>> for $50. I would futz around a while, take the back off, look intent.
>>>>>>> Then put the back on and plug it in.
>>>>>> You're admitting to what some people would consider a "dishonest"
>>>>>> service call?
>>>>> No. They got charged the same, the fee for one hour service call.
>>>> Even if it took one minute?
>>> Yes. The minimum charge is one hour. Same as auto repair shops and other
>>> such services.
>> Why? Travel time for an on-site visit can be justified, but why a
>> minimum? Would you like to pay for an hour long-distance telephone
>> call, even if it lasted only a minute?
> Never had your own service business have you? Overhead, book keeping,
> accounting, taxes, etc. all mean that a charge less than a minimum is a
> loss. The service charge for one hour is that minimum in this case.
It takes you an hour to do all the book keeping, accounting, and so on
for a one-minute service call?
>>>>> I just decided not to upset them by pointing out that they didn't know
>>>>> how to operate a power cord.
>>>> Which would have been rather presumptuous of you.
>>>>>>> When PCs came out, there were more power cords not to be plugged in
>>>>>>> and thus more business.
>>>>>> Some people prefer to have experts install new gizmos for them.
>>>>>> Doesn't mean that they don't have the intuition to plug it in for
>>>>>> themselves.
>>>>> But that doesn't mean the power cord is all that "intutive" either.
>>>> Doesn't mean it isn't "intutive" [sic] either.
>>>>>>>>>SNIP<<
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:25:11 GMT
Russ Lyttle writes:
> Steve Mading wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> Not exactly uncommon. When my VCR is "off", it's still on by
>>> enough to keep a clock running and monitor its programming to
>>> determine whether to turn "on" (or should I say "more on") and
>>> record a program. Doesn't make the power switch any less
>>> intuitive.
>> Actually, I would say that that sort of power switch is highly
>> unintuitive. Intuitively, you'd expect that turning something
>> off would, you know, actually turn it off.
> California is having power problems right now because of this problem.
> It applies not only to VCRs but to TV sets, computers, and many other
> new pieces of electronic equipment. The HDTV I worked on pulled over 10
> amps when the power switch was in the "off" position.
What was it doing? And was it designed to that? And is that 10 amps
from a 120 VAC outlet? What in an HDTV could possibly need 1200 watts
when off?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:27:46 GMT
JM writes:
>> Steve Mading writes:
>>>>> To hit ESC, you don't have to move your whole arm, just stretch
>>>>> your finger a bit (Especially so on the older keyboards for which
>>>>> VI was designed, which put the escape key at the left edge of the
>>>>> numbers row.)
>>>> To hit cursor keys, you don't have to move your whole arm, just
>>>> stretch your finger a bit.
>>> Wow! So I assume then that your planet is populated by aliens with
>>> sinewy 8-inch long fingers that can bend sideways and splay out
>>> in any direction from the palm?
>> Not at all.
>>> Neato. Meanwhile us poor humans have fingers that don't bend that
>>> way. For us humans, to move the fingers 8 inches to the left
>>> requires that the *wrist* slides over, which means the the whole
>>> forearm is moving too, hinged at the elbow.
>> My keyboard has its cursor keys on the right, at about the same
>> distance from the home row as the Esc key.
> What? Is your keyboard made out of foil or something?
Illogical. What does foil have to do with anything?
> The escape key's usually near the "1" key,
On the contrary, it's by the F1 key. The tilde is next to the "1" key.
> but the cursor keys are miles away.
Mighty big keyboard you have there.
>>>>> Not only that, but you use your LEFT hand, while the
>>>>> RIGHT stays by the hjkl keys.
>>>> Not if I want to type yuioopnm, for example.
>>> Huh?
>> Those letters aren't on the home row.
> They are if you've been painting new letters on people's keyboards to
> confuse them!
Is that something you do?
Any relation to "Moul"?
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 21:37:11 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 14:13:35 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> Tom Wilson wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > "B. P. Uecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> > > Tom Wilson wrote in <msGX5.2276$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > [deletia]
> > > >> > >The problem with
> > > >> > > Linux (aside from the fact that open source development is a
black
> > > >> > > hole) is that it tries to be everything to everyone and masters
> > > >> > > nothing. It is basically acceptable as a server platform but
> > beyond
> > > >> > > its circle of devotees (and dolts who who can do no better than
> > parrot
> > > >> > > slashdot) it has no mindshare. Linux on the desktop will never
> > happen
> > > >> > > and on the server end it is mainly a toy for easily distracted
> > geeks
> > > >> > > who will eventually find another bandwagon to hop on. I give
it
> > > >> > > another couple of years before it joins OS/2 in the trash heap.
> > And
> > > >> > > I'm a generous man.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Linux will never be a desktop OS - I agree. Those who think this
are
> > a
> > > >bit
> > > >> > deluded.
> > > >>
> > > >> Why not.
> > > >>
> > > >> The entire auto industry (WORLDWIDE) uses Solaris/HP/AIX/IRIX as a
> > > >> desktop OS. VERY successfully...and with minimal support staff
> > compared
> > > >> to LoseDOS. The ENTIRE Unix desktop support team for GM is 20
people
> > > >> (not counting on-site hardware techs)....for 5,000-10,000 unix
seats.
> > > >>
> > > >> In comparison, the same number of Windows seats takes a couple
HUNDRED
> > > >> windows ADMINS.
> > > >
> > > >I'm not talking the business side of things. I'm talking for home
users.
> > > >Linux is still very weak in the game department (Performance as well
as
> > >
> > > So? That's merely a matter of marketshare and has very little
> > > to do with the actual attributes of operating systems. Also,
> > > WinDOS was at one time in the same place BeOS is now nevermind
> > > Linux.
> > >
> > > >availability). Hardware support has a long way to go yet. This of
course
> > >
> > > Lesse... anandtech linux benchmarks for 3D acceleration
> > > with GeForce2, G400, Voodoo5, Ragee 128 and Intel 815.
> > >
> > > That's not a bad showing actually. While nothing short of the
> > > market leader (NT5 included) will 'run everything', that goal
> > > really isn't necessary.
> > >
> > > You're grossly overstating the scope of the problem.
> >
> > Perhaps so... I just call 'em as I see 'em. Time will tell of course and
I
> > hope you're right. I think Linux is one of the best things to happen to
> > computers in quite a while. If I weren't developing for Windows, i'd be
> > running it all the time.
> >
> > In the good news department: I just got offered a programming position
at
> > this software house that develops coding libraries and such. I'm
considering
> > it ONLY because they're wanting to branch into Linux.
>
> Jump on it...with the stipulation that you *WILL* be doing that
> by a specific date.
After money is discussed, of course....Don't forget the money. ;)
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
