Linux-Advocacy Digest #989, Volume #30 Wed, 20 Dec 00 12:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows review (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Conclusion (sfcybear)
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? (John Travis)
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! (John Travis)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! (John Travis)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Jeff Glatt)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Jeff Glatt)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows Stability (mp3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:25:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ayende Rahien
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:51:32 +0200
<91jn3f$kg0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Curtis
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:33:44 -0500
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>> >
>> >|
>> >| "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >| > JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>> >| >
>> >| > | Having to use keys whilsts using a GUI sort of defeats one of the
>main
>> >| > | object of having a GUI, especially in Windows, is so that it is
>easy
>> >| > | for people to use without having to memorise shortcut keys.
>> >| >
>> >| > If you put the word 'exclusively' before 'use' in your first
>sentence,
>> >| > I'd agree with you completely on that. :=)
>> >|
>> >| Had to use a mousless computer recently, I've to admit that I simply
>> >| switching to CLI made it all so much comfortable.
>> >
>> >Exactly. This is why I can't understand the arguments in favour of using
>> >a GUI without the mouse. Yes, it can be done, but it would be tedious to
>> >say the least.
>>
>> Just to be slightly bizarre -- Amiga had that capability. It was
>> tedious, though, but it worked. :-)
>
>Windows too, I imagine it is just as tedious as the Amiga.
It's not quite the same. Windows uses the ALT key as a "harbinger"
for the text-based menus, and then one can walk through the
menus using the arrow keys, or press the underlined shortcut
(programmed using an '&' in the resource editor, IIRC).
Windows also has the ability to change the keyboard focus by
using the TAB key; the SPACE key does various things, such as
pushing a button, toggling a toggle, or bringing down the
scrollable list portion of a drop-down combo box. (This is not
unique to Windows, BTW -- Motif has it, too.)
Amiga was much more tedious, but also somewhat more elegant;
one moved the Intution *pointer* -- similar to the mouse
pointer [*] -- by simultaneously depressing (IIRC) ALT and
an arrow key. One can also simulate mouse clicks by
using either left CTRL ALT, or right CTRL ALT. The longer
one held down ALT arrow, the faster the pointer moved.
I don't remember if Amiga had TAB navigation. It was probably
something each application had to program. Amiga requesters
were a little weird, although easy enough to program.
The Windows method makes more sense if one assumes everything has
a pulldown menu -- and a lot of things do, nowadays.
>Can I do the same on *nix? I'm asking, not insulting.
>From what I've seen, shortcuts are totally random in Linux.
Windows is a little more polished -- but then, Microsoft is
good at putting good polish on bad software. :-)
As far as Unix/Linux is concerned -- Unix/Linux doesn't really do
shortcuts, apart from ALT-Fn or CTRL-ALT-Fn, which are intercepted
and processed somewhere deep in the video driver. Shortcuts are a
function of the widget set -- either Qt (KDE) or Gtk (Gnome); as far
as I know, both support keyboard shortcuts, although I don't know
offhand how they are specified.
>Currently I'm using Gnome, will be switching to KDE2 in a few days.
KDE 1.2 is quite usable, although I mostly use it for its
window manager and terminal emulator (one complaint thereon is
that its cut and paste is a bit iffy). I don't know about KDE2.
[*] The Amiga had a co-processor, which could generate 8 hardware
sprites -- and even more, if one got creative at editing the
coprocessor instruction list, which was very well integrated
with VSprites (V = virtual) and Bobs (= blitter objects, not
to be confused with Microsoft's BOB); the Intutition pointer
was just sprite 0 -- or perhaps a VSprite; I don't recall now.
One could even manipulate multiple screen resolutions; the effect
was somewhat like pulling sheets of paper out of a file, revealing
what's underneath.
And yes, the Amiga had a mouse; events therefrom were routed
to the Intuition pointer in the more or less usual fashion.
Some Amigites even used joysticks -- although the Amiga joystick
only used switches, not potentiometers, which made it clumsy.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 85 days, 21:24, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:26:33 GMT
David Casey wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > "taking a turn at the government teat"???
> > > Isn't that just an insulting way of saying the government pays for the
> > > armed forces? Where else do you expect the military to get funding
> > > but from the government? Bakes sales? Charging money for HMMWV
> > > rides?
> >
> > Why not? That's how our schools end up raising money for frills like
> > desks and blackboards.
>
> And of course, you're hard at work to fix that problem, right?
No, I'm sitting here on my ass posting messages.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:15:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Chad C. Mulligan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 17 Dec 2000
> [...]
> >The essence remains a properly administered NT system is as stable as
any
> >UNIX. At this time getting the proper administration skills to the
system
> >when they are needed is the problem.
>
> Bullshit.
Just ask him to prove his claim. You will find out very fast that he has
NOTHING to back up just about anything he says.
>
> --
> 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! =-----
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:43:51 GMT
And Steve spoke unto the masses...
>Ain't it the truth..............
Steve is back...Yeah! Kinda sad who you are agreeing with though :)
>>On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 05:53:21 GMT, "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>Ah, these past few weeks have reminded me of just spaced out these Linux
>>zealots are, but how dedicated they are to their frugal ways.
<wrapped and formatted for our reading pleasure>
LOL. These last few weeks have reminded me why I kill filed you in the first
place. You don't know anything about Gnu/Linux, or anything *nix, or computing
for the most part. You can't read for shit. You assume anything anyone says
who uses anything other than windows is a flame against all things microsoft.
<snip>
jt
/
anti-aliasing V //just checking off a old flames
--
Debian Gnu/Linux [Woody]
2.4.0-test9-ReiserFs|XFree4.0.1|nVidia.95 Drivers
You mean there's a stable tree?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:49:07 GMT
And [EMAIL PROTECTED] spoke unto the masses...
>On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:20:16 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite
>number of monkeys) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Obviously why on my PC, such "archaic" hardware as:
>>
>>SoundBlaster Live!
>
>Tell me how you get surround sound, or digital audio via the digital
>audio spid/f connector under Linux?
OSS. Go read the changelog.
>Tell me about LiveWare for Linux?
Tell ME why the fuck liveware bluescreens me in w2k anytime anyone other than
admin tries to use the surround mixer? Check perms...correct.
Uninstall/reinstall drivers...done. I would like to see some of the stuff from
Liveware though, and I assume we will soon. Other stuff, like making everyone
sound like a chipmunk is less than useful IMO.
>>Creative Annihilator 2 (GeForce 2 GTS based card)
>
>And you get full use of all the 3d stuff and acceleration under Linux?
Yes. The latest X releases are quite acceptable IMO.
<snipped poor reasoning>
jt
--
Debian Gnu/Linux [Woody]
2.4.0-test9-ReiserFs|XFree4.0.1|nVidia.95 Drivers
You mean there's a stable tree?
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[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, 20 Dec 2000 16:08:32 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Tholen tholes and thereby pontificate:
> >
> >> > Ah, I see. So we're supposed to do what in these forums
> >(fora?), again?
> >>
> >> Come to conclusions using a little logic.
> >
> >Spoken by the god of uselessnet, Tholen!
>
> No no. Tholen is extremely logical. Pedantic, argumentative,
> nitpicky, but quite logical. He will also catch you in
> contradictions -- he's already caught me in one. This from
> my admittedly very short (maybe a week at most) engagement
> with him in debate.
>
> (As an example -- we are quibbling about whether a power
> switch is intuitive in another thread.)
I take it you haven't seen Jeff's compendium of Tholen quotes where
what he says is merely situational, that is, he contradicts himself
quite often. Tholen's a buffoon, nothing more. I've seen your
"discussion" with the god of uselessnet and all I can say is, never
has so much been said of something so minor by the likes of Tholen,
i.e., he of little sense!
- Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:55:20 GMT
And [EMAIL PROTECTED] spoke unto the masses...
>Sounds like the default gateway problem with Mandrake that screws up
>ppp. See the setup groups for information.
>
>>P.S.: Welcome back, heather69. I suspect you will regale us with stories
>> about your retail experience in "major chainstores", and how
>> Linux is the "numero uno" returned item, right? What will your
>> relation to the manager be this time? Will she be your aunt? Your
>> daughter? Your brother's wife?
>
>Huh????
Hmmm... the mandrake ngs. I remember when Steve liked LM 7.0. He even posted
several messages to alt.os.linux.mandrake. Coincidence :)?
jt
--
Debian Gnu/Linux [Woody]
2.4.0-test9-ReiserFs|XFree4.0.1|nVidia.95 Drivers
You mean there's a stable tree?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:13:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 07 Dec 2000 01:23:28 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> If someone has root, nothing on the system can be trusted. We're talking
>> about a secure installation where one user can steal someone elses passwords
>> just by emulating a Login prompt. You can't do that in NT without leaving
>> very obvious signs.
>
>Actually, you don't even need to be root. All you have to do is djinn
>up a little circuitry between the keyboard port and the motherboard.
>The circuit logs all keystrokes to a box; you come by later, retrieve
>the box, and dump the keystrokes and look for passwords.
This is already being done by the FBI, among others. There are four
ways of doing it, as far as I can tell.
[1] Hack the keyboard cable, which at one end plugs into the PC, but
at the other end usually has a special purpose connector. This
probably has a lot of work in it -- opening a modern keyboard
isn't too bad, but there are a lot of screws there; better to
hack another keyboard, then go in and replace it under some
pretext.
[2] Place an adapter between the keyboard and the computer. Older
keyboards use a 5-pin interface which is physically larger;
these would need an adapter for newer motherboards, anyway.
Or, one can reverse the situation; newer keyboards have 6 pins
in a physically smaller connector. If done well, the unwary user
won't be able to tell the difference. (I have two standard adapters
in front of me; one of them is 2 inches long, and the other is
a cable with two ends on it. One could rather easily hack the
cable, but the results would be extremely obvious, visually.)
This is arguably the simplest, but also the most prone to detection.
[3] Modify the motherboard, which usually has the keyboard connector.
This would probably be very messy, but would be completely
invisible until a technical type removes the computer's cover, and
knows exactly what to look for in a doctored system.
One drawback might be that any "bugs" placed here would have
problems transmitting (most cases are metal; the FCC frowns
upon excessive radiation from the components which are running
at 100 MHz or GHz frequencies in any event), so one might have
to also hack the power supply to send impulses down the wire.
Or one might replace the motherboard and power supply with
custom jobs (expensive if one wants it done well, but quite
doable) that does everything a standard motherboard and a
standard power supply does, plus that little undocumented extra. :-)
[4] Insert an extra card, or doctor an existing one, into the
motherboard slot. While not directly monitoring the keyboard,
this card may be able to provide invaluable information (invaluable
to the FBI, that is) on various things in the system. Of course,
a suspicious user may look at the back and wonder what that
extra card is doing in there.
That circuitry might be able to draw power and function as a
low-level transmitter (aka "bug") as well. That's probably
simpler than attempting to jerry-rig a tiny recording device
into something about 2 inches long. (FM transmitters can
fit into microphones -- and one could probably even hack
something like Poochie [a robot dog] to have him broadcast --
one variant already has a microphone to "respond to your voice",
according to one ad.)
I'd have to look at the keyboard connector specs, but one of
them has to be +5 (or perhaps +12), the other ground, in order
for the keyboard to do anything intelligent at all.
This is also all quite beyond the realm of software capture hacks.
>
>Anyway, you completely ignored my comment about null sessions.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 85 days, 22:11, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:31:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 05 Dec 2000 08:58:26 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 23:17:44 GMT, Christopher L. Estep
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:90h8b7$110de$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >You mean "each and ever trifling configuration change"
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for correcting my mistake Aaron.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I guess the CTRL-ALT-DEL to logon on NT is on of ms's in-jokes at their
>> >> gullible customers.
>> >
>> >This unalterable (at least in NT 4) way of forcing identification is
>> >actually a strength in the NT security model.
>> >
>> >You can (and most companies do) lock down terminals (or Linux/UNIX boxes)
>> >in similar fashion.
>>
>> There is nothing magic about c/a/d/. ANY keystroke combination could
>> have been used equally. If the keyboard driver isn't secure then no
>> part of the OS can be considered secure.
>>
>> For MS, the advantage using c/a/d/ has is making people accidentally
>> reboot other operating systems.
>
>/c/a/d doesn't reboot my Linux boxes.
It doesn't reboot Linux boxes, either; it initiates the command line
(on my system, anyway; YMMV)
/sbin/shutdown -t3 -r now
which basically means the box is going down (the -t3 means a
three-second delay between the shutdown warning and SIGKILL;
'man shutdown' for details).
However, anyone with access to /etc/inittab can fix that; look
for the line beginning with 'ca::' and put a pound sign in
front of it, then 'telinit q' ('man init' for more details).
There, no more CTRL-ALT-DELETE. (Sorry if I've given away
one of your secrets, Aaron. :-) :-) :-) )
Whether this can be adapted for gettys isn't clear to me; that
would be the logical thing to do. One could in theory put
something in inittab which kills any process executing /bin/login,
forcing getty to die and restarting the login sequence (which would
leave telltale printout lines on any legitimate login console). One
issue, however, is whether one should kill -9 all user-level processes
(the only sure way to get at that rogue login capture daemon) or not,
prior to the login attempt. Of course, that would be highly
disruptive, albeit reasonably secure.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 85 days, 22:31, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:36:00 GMT
Followup-To:
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 06 Dec 2000 19:04:24 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Tom Wilson wrote:
[snip]
>> Are we talking about a false dialog being left on the server console or a
>> workstation or are we talking about physically pre-empting the logiin
>> sequence with a trojan?
>
>Oooooooops, Funkendolt never even considered the first possibility.
One could in theory emulate the actual three-netry login widget
of an NT box; the naive user might get suckered, but the slightly
more knowledgable (or lucky) one would hit CTRL-ALT-DEL and get --
the six-button session manager. Whoops!
Or, one could emulate the screen saver until C-A-D, then get --
the six-button session manager, again.
How one gets around that, I've no idea. I'm not knowledgable
enough about NT to hack it like that -- and I'd rather write
beautiful programs that make money, anyway. :-)
(In a pinch, I could skip the "beautiful" part.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random ugliness here
up 85 days, 22:49, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
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, 20 Dec 2000 16:39:02 GMT
>"Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Tholen tholes:
>
>> >>> Correction: Tholen uses OS/2
>>
>> >> Tholen isn't that smart.
>>
>> > You're right that Tholen isn't that smart. In fact, he's rather
>dumb.
>
>> Have been for a decade.
>
>I edited your comments so that they would say what you meant. No
>thanks necessary, Tholen!
HAHAHAHAH!!! Good one, Joe!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
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, 20 Dec 2000 16:40:08 GMT
>The Ghost In The Machine writes:
>> Ah, I see. So we're supposed to do what in these forums (fora?), again?
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Come to conclusions using a little logic.
Or in the case of Tholen, very, very, very little logic... in the form
of "circular"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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, 20 Dec 2000 16:42:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Joe Malloy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:08:32 GMT
<WP406.1341$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >Tholen tholes and thereby pontificate:
>> >
>> >> > Ah, I see. So we're supposed to do what in these forums
>> >(fora?), again?
>> >>
>> >> Come to conclusions using a little logic.
>> >
>> >Spoken by the god of uselessnet, Tholen!
>>
>> No no. Tholen is extremely logical. Pedantic, argumentative,
>> nitpicky, but quite logical. He will also catch you in
>> contradictions -- he's already caught me in one. This from
>> my admittedly very short (maybe a week at most) engagement
>> with him in debate.
>>
>> (As an example -- we are quibbling about whether a power
>> switch is intuitive in another thread.)
>
>I take it you haven't seen Jeff's compendium of Tholen quotes where
>what he says is merely situational, that is, he contradicts himself
>quite often. Tholen's a buffoon, nothing more. I've seen your
>"discussion" with the god of uselessnet and all I can say is, never
>has so much been said of something so minor by the likes of Tholen,
>i.e., he of little sense!
No, I haven't, and logic can be used badly, especially where
nitpicking is concerned. Case in point: the "intuitiveness"
of the power button we're now debating -- what point is it
being logical when we're discussing intuition?
So maybe I should have picked a slightly different word;
he does seem to want to get on people's nerves. Fortunately,
I have a thick head....erm, I mean, thick nerves, um...maybe
I'm just thick. :-)
>
>- Joe
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random thick skin here
up 85 days, 22:57, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:49:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ayende Rahien
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 5 Dec 2000 01:00:03 +0200
<90hqk6$164b5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:90h7km$14a6j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Well, actually, Windows can do this too. Not as well, not as easily,
>> >and not as conveniently, but it can do it.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Wow, I never thought I would see you give even small praise to windows.
>>
>> Are you having a sick day or something max?
>
>File>Print>Print To File
>
>How much simplier can it get?
How much more redundant can it get? :-)
Or did you mean
File>Print = Print To File
(which is usually what I see on Windows menus anyway,
right under File>Printer Setup) ?
In which case, it's pretty simple, and Windows did one thing
more or less right -- the Win32 Metafile concept can be
generated using Win32 protocol to a different HDC, one
that goes to a file -- or to the printer. Mind you,
fonts can get screwed up; not much one can do about that
except install (allegedly?) printer-compatible ones.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 85 days, 23:03, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: mp3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:43:45 -0500
Nik Simpson wrote:
> There are a lot of factors. First on the list is to use a quality hardware
> vendor. The number of times I've seen people complain about stability then
> when you inquire it turns out they are running some hacked up PoS with parts
> picked up from the bargain basement parts bin.
>
OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and Linux all run fine on "bargain(sp?)
basement parts". Are you saying Win2K can not? Are you saying you need
to pay a premium price for Win2K hardware to get stability?
> Next, don't go loading any old piece of software, just the applications you
> need for the task at hand. Above all, don't go looking for the
> driver-de-jour and loading it just because its available, this is
> particularly true with Graphics drivers. In a serious NT environment you
> have a system that you can use to test out new drivers, service packs etc
> and don't install on production machines until you are satisfied that they
> are not going to hose things up.
>
> Third put it into a machine room environment with protected power adequate
> cooling etc. All the sort of amenties you expect for proper IT environment.
These reasons for getting stability are exactly why no self respecting
admin should use Win2K.
1. "don't go loading any old piece of software, just the applications
you need for the
task at hand"
Are you saying installing old applications can make Win2K
unstable? Every Unix I've
seen old applications either run or don't run, they don't make the
computer unstable.
2. "Above all, don't go looking for the driver-de-jour and loading it
just because
its available, this is particularly true with Graphics drivers. In a
serious NT
environment you have a system that you can use to test out new
drivers, service
packs etc and don't install on production machines"
Are you saying that 3rd party manufactures don't actually test thier
own drivers
and leaves that up to the customer to do? That can get pretty
expensive. Never
had that problem running Unix. Are you saying Microsoft doesn't
actually test
their own service packs? Gee, I thought they made a stable OS. How
can it be
stable if "service packs" can cause a system instability? Are you
saying you need
to buy your own computer for testing? Isn't that was driver
certification is for?
Never seen that on Unix.
Amazing the bullshit you put up with and the extra costs you absorb for
stability.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
