Linux-Advocacy Digest #69, Volume #31 Tue, 26 Dec 00 20:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 ("Jeepster")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Why Advocacy? (Form@C)
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Jim Richardson)
CPRM HDs to have deleterious effect on Linux? ("Greg S. Trouw")
Oops...posted before noticing this one - NT ("Greg S. Trouw")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? ("John W. Stevens")
Could only... ("worldviewer")
Re: ATA RIPOFF! ALERT! ("Greg S. Trouw")
Re: ATA RIPOFF! ALERT! (Andy Newman)
Re: Why Advocacy? (genkai wa doko da)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("SWMyers")
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jeepster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 23:54:28 -0000
Hi
Its horses for courses I guess.....
I am not for or against win or linux....its a matter of getting the job done
using whatever is at hand and whatever is best for the job in hand.
Thanks for all your replies anyway...even kiwiunixman who I would like to
believe does not represent the majority of linux users in his rudeness.
--
11:54pm up 1 day, 14:39
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 23:58:50 GMT
What advantages?
Well, to the Linux geek (who is only using Linux to be different, and could
care less about functionality) nothing.
To the professional, looking for a unified, UNIX solution for their
business...
FreeBSD offers a lot of advantages on all fronts, but most noticeably as a
server platform.
FreeBSD may be for Intel platforms, but this advantage is not lost on
features as:
1.The BSD file system is journaling, providing quality throughput on
operations
2.The FreeBSD Virtual memory "slice" is far more efficient and advanced then
the Linux Swap partition. Speed and efficiency when psychical RAM is
limited is noticeable.
3.The unified administration system provides a foundation for more advanced
admin tools to function off of (beginning with UNIFORM FILE PATHS)
4.The methods used to perform processes like Kernel upgrades are SIMPLE not
complicated. You visit the ports collection, and get your newer, stable
kernel.
5.Standards: FreeBSD has more standards for it's operation than Linux ever
had. Uniformity makes your system more supportable.
6.The "Ports" collection. Visit the name of your desired program, type
"make" and "make install", and ALL the program's DEPENDENCIES and LIBRARY
files are COMPILED, INSTALLED and CONFIGURED automatically. Try this in
Linux, it's a PROJECT not a task. This makes component upgrades easier.
7.Security: Flaws in FreeBSD's Kernel and default services collection are
addressed quickly by the FreeBSD team. Linux security flaws are addressed
rapidly, but implementation is hindered by complication inherent in the
platform. FreeBSD has no such complication factors (except for it's UNIX
standing, but a trained admin can work with it.)
8.No claim to "workstation" fame. FreeBSD is a service platform, and makes
NO shame of it. FreeBSD has the ability to serve AS a workstation, but the
administrator / installer has the option of selecting and tuning
appropriately to the task. If a server is required, install your desired
services through the installer, and get about your business configuring it.
Don't hem and haw over revision compatibility, worry about downtime, and
work endlessly on "incompatible upgrade" problems with your pre-compiled
binary collection (rpm's and to a lesser extent, deb's.)
FreeBSD is uniform, and therefore supportable by 3rd parties. Linux is NOT.
Linux is seriously 'forked'. Something that Linux advocates swore would
never happen.
This is why FreeBSD is superior.
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:ddW16.67214$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Just because you've had a picture perfect Linux experience doesn't
mean
> > all
> > > the people I test for also have perfect experiences.
> > >
> > > I don't use Linux in a professional environment. I hope to, one day.
But
> > > now, Linux is just a crappy plaything. My personal problem is it's
not
> > > getting better. On the desktop, it sucks. As a server? Only a few
> > > distro's are even worth my 10 minutes. And god help me if I call tech
> > > support.
> >
> > As a server, I find all the distributions of Linux useless, as I can get
a
> > BSD for the same price, get a higher quality product and lose nothing in
the
> > process.
>
> Not that I'm anti-BSD... I'd love to try it if I had a spare CPU.
> But what is better about it? I understand that OpenBSD code is well
> scoured of insecurities, but what other advantages does BSD offer?
>
> And what do you see as any disadvantages to BSD for the linux geek?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Chris
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 00:00:57 GMT
Five years.
And I still see the horrible RedHat Linux "Control Panel" is still
lingering.
Although there are some advantages to the Control Panel, Linuxconf has
pretty much overridden it in functionality and features, making the Control
Panel items useless.
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 05:42:33 GMT, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >Just because you've had a picture perfect Linux experience doesn't mean
all
> >the people I test for also have perfect experiences.
> >
> >I don't use Linux in a professional environment. I hope to, one day.
But
> >now, Linux is just a crappy plaything. My personal problem is it's not
> >getting better.
>
> Really ? Not getting better over what time frame, 1 week ? How long have
> you been using it ?
>
> > On the desktop, it sucks. As a server? Only a few
> >distro's are even worth my 10 minutes. And god help me if I call tech
>
> You obviously haven't looked into it very hard as a server OS. It's
> a first rate server OS.
>
> >As for Bill choking off the competition, I'd love to see the competition
> >come up with something as impressive as Windows 2000, let alone Windows
98.
> >As far as getting things done went, the products are superior.
>
> Depends on what you want to do with them. If you're trying to say that
> they are superior as server operating systems, I'd say that's false (and
> in the case of Win98, laughably so)
>
> >GUI based compilers won't solve the problems plaguing Linux, or the
software
> >installation system.
>
> Well duh ! That's sort of obvious. I don't think anyone besides you has
> even proposed such a stupid idea.
>
> > It'd be nice to have a uniform package format,
> >something that all Linux's would have. From uniform packages would
> >inherently come simpler software installation.
>
> RPM is used for most distributions, so it's close to uniform. Certainly,
> every major software release for Linux includes an RPM version.
>
>
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 00:06:56 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<qh726.106644$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
<snip>
>> Why on earth would someone advocate Windows?
>
>Because some things are better on Windows?
>
>Because more hardware on Intel machines is supported on Windows than on
>Linux?
>
<flame-resistant underware on>
I note that you are running KDE2 on Mandrake. That is about as near to
Windows as you are going to get under Linux! One of my brothers is an
ardent Linux fan (he'll probably read this) and would dearly love to
"convert" me to the cult of Tux but, as you appear to point out above, the
two OSs are completely different!
They start from two different premises:
Windows
totally proprietory but based on quite well documented routines.
Obviously has to make money as the programmers are paid.
(Linux+X+GUI of your choice) is far too new to be able to fully compete
with windows. It isn't a fair comparison. Linux *really* comes into its own
on the command line where it really hammers DOS! So much time & money has
been poured into windows now that I seriously doubt if the Linux-based
alternative can ever really catch up, never mind replace it.
Obviously, because of the age of the original Windows GUI, it has built up
a wide following - especially in business where there are a lot of
advantages (this *is* what it was designed for after all!). Employees can
use quickly installed systems which need minimum maintenance. Its use as a
games platform is completely wrong, so any arguments about how hard it is
to get it to recognise the latest video/sound/whatever hardware are
irrelevent as these arguments also apply to Linux/KDE/Gnome/etc..
Linux
(almost) totally non-proprietory and based on routines which would like
to be well-documented (but I havn't got round to finishing off the MAN page
yet... happens too often - 'nuff said). Very often doesn't need to make
money as the programmers arn't paid (much).
Started off as a "cheap", "cut-down" unix clone when unix was the os of
choice for mainframes. These were *never* maintained by users - only by the
gurus who later became "IT" people. Consequently it was never designed to
be user-friendly, just quick to use by people who spent their lives using
it. Still cheap (becuase of GNU) but not quite so "cut-down" as it used to
be.
Linux is a better os for servers etc, with, probably, a more stable core.
Lets face it, no-one in their right mind would use an early Win95 for a
server! Unfortunately it gets its stability at a high price. It *has* to be
constantly updated in order to run new software packages. There is no
alternative, the software writers want to use the latest libraries which
the library writers want to improve! The various methods of updating have,
unfortunately, become almost proprietory because no one distributor is big
enough to force everyone onto their system (it has been tried though!) Even
the RPM system is failing because it is being "improved" to version 4. Why?
Did V3 have enough bugs to make it unusable? If so, how did it last so long
and become so widely accepted?
Linux was never intended as a business or home pc os. It was a learning
tool. It has now grown too big for its original purpose but not big enough
for what people want to do with it. Consequently hardware manufacturers
arn't really interested in writing drivers for it. Why should they? They
won't sell any serious quantity and they are in the business of making
money! This is why many drivers are rare/flakey - the guy that writes them
doesn't get paid! Without its hardware support where can it go?
I have to admit that I am not a Linux fan (you may have guessed by now). I
*like* playing with windows. I find even KDE2 clumsy and counter-intuitive
in comparison. Sure, the software is very clever indeed but it *still*
needs a lot of work when it comes to the user interface. At least we don't
need to worry about the mounting and umounting of disks, so beloved of unix
and Linux users until recently, now. That went out at about the same time
as DOS replaced CP/M!
At the end of the day, the only reason for a business to switch its office
over to Linux is financial. They pay less for the software. Unfortunately,
they also find that they have to pay a lot more to support it. It will be a
fine balancing act to decide just how big a system is needed to justify the
change. For the home user, I'm not sure that either Linux or Windows is the
right system. Windows is now too expensive (compared to the hardware cost)
and Linux still needs a huge dose of "user friendliness" before we can plug
in this year's cards and run last-year's games. It is far too unforgiving
as it stands.
OK, that's enough for now. I've had my say for the moment.
<flame-resistant underware temporarily put to one side...>
--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:05:40 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Tim Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 23 Dec 2000 16:37:31 -0800;
> >Let's check Win95 against these:
> >
> >Scheduling: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
>
> DOS doesn't have scheduling.
Actually, it did.
DOS was designed to be a single tasking OS. IOW, DOS scheduled one and
only one task (or, "process", if you prefer), allocating it 100% of all
non-kernel cycles.
The fact that some bright programmers later wrote "task scheduling
extensions" for DOS, including TSR's, and (*ahem*), my own MPI
executive, do not invalidate the point, they simply illustrate a very
basic point: at the lowest, most basic level, an OS is a library.
;-)
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:08:14 -0700
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> [snippalage]
>
> Java
> ordinarily provides few of these services, but, in some cases where
> the underlying OS is limited (e.g., Linux with respect to threads,
Just curious, mind you, but how are Linux threads "limiting"?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:27:42 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 07:10:41 +0200,
Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > AFAIK, none of MS major products was finished in time, all of them
>slipped
>> > past their deadlines.
>> > Win2K was no exception in this matter.
>> > Linux used to follow "release early & often" paradigm, the 2.4 kernel is
>a
>> > big exception.
>> > Linus should put his foot down and say, that is enough, nothing gets in
>> > anymore, now we fix the bugs, and then we release, the rest can *wait*
>for
>> > 2.5 or 2.6 kernel.
>> >
>>
>> He already did. Only bugs are being fixed now, no new function. The
>current
>> 2.4 kernel is in very good shape.
>
>That is still over a year overdue.
>Why did he abandoned the "release early & often" paradigm?
>
>
Are you truly that misinformed? you can get the latest release of 2.4pre at
kernel.org or mirrors daily. Linus has not abandoned release early and often.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Greg S. Trouw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: CPRM HDs to have deleterious effect on Linux?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:12:03 -0700
Sorry for the bit of cross-posting here, but thought some of you
would be interested. Anyway, just noticed this posted recently. It
seems that certain hardware vendors have been working to include a copy
protection scheme into the ATA standard for IDE hard drives.
ftp://fission.dt.wdc.com/pub/standards/x3t13/technical/e00148r2.pdf
ftp://fission.dt.wdc.com/pub/standards/x3t13/technical/e00152r0.pdf
http://www.research.ibm.com/resources/magazine/2000/number_2/solutions200.html#two
Anyway, there was an article posted at the Register, with suggestion
given to problems this could pose to free software and to Linux.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15682.html
""This plan seems to pose a threat to free operating systems. We will
surely not be authorized in the US to implement free software to access
any of the centrally-controlled data. So a free GNU/Linux
system won't be able to do it."
"If users accept the domination of centrally-controlled data, free
software faces two dangers, each worse than the other: that users will
reject GNU/Linux because it doesn't support the central control
over access to these data, or that they will reject free versions of
GNU/Linux for versions "enhanced" with proprietary software that support
it. Either outcome will be a grave loss for our freedom.""
Also, John Gilmore from the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) is
calling for a boycott of these devices.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15686.html
In describing this situation he also suggested that this is only the tip
of the iceburg on what has been or is being proposed. ""(This disk
drive stuff is just the tip of the iceberg; they're doing the same thing
with LCD monitors, flash memory, digital cable interfaces, BIOSes, and
the OS. Next week we'll
probably hear of some new industry-wide copy protection spec, perhaps
for network interface cards or DRAMs.)"
------------------------------
From: "Greg S. Trouw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Oops...posted before noticing this one - NT
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:13:10 -0700
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: 27 Dec 2000 00:18:25 GMT
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000 00:00:57 GMT, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>Five years.
>
>And I still see the horrible RedHat Linux "Control Panel" is still
>lingering.
>
>Although there are some advantages to the Control Panel, Linuxconf has
>pretty much overridden it in functionality and features, making the Control
>Panel items useless.
Ah-huh. So you've offered at least one example of Linux improving, since
they didn't have Linuxconf five years ago (-;
They didn't have KDE or GNOME five years ago either. You don't think these
represent advances in usability ? How about added support for true type
fonts, 3d hardware acceleration, automatic detection of sound and video cards,
configuration tools such as linuxconf and YAST, GUI based installs and
easy default installs ? How about font anti-aliasing (still very new, works
with XFree 4.02) I think there have been a bunch of substantial improvements.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:19:02 -0700
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> My point is that it's gotten much harder to define exactly what
> constitutes an OS.
Actually, that's pretty easy to do.
An operating system is that particular library of code that eliminates
the need for each an every application to write it's own hardware
management, access control and isolation code.
In short, the OS is the "device library".
Over the years, the concept of OS has been extended to include the idea
of access control, as the OS is the code best suited to control access
to the hardware . . . and the concept has also been extended to include
the concept of "insulating the application space from hardware
differences" . . . IOW, hiding the difference between a PS/2 keyboard,
and a USB keyboard.
> Is it the interface, the implementation, or both?
Both.
> While Win95 obviously is not an operating system and NT4 obviously is,
> they both implement a very similar set of interfaces. Much the same
> is true of, say, Java on Solaris and Java on DOS.
I would disagree . . . Win95 very obviously is an OS, and more. There
are some things in the Win95 kernel that do not properly belong in a
kernel, but in general, the Win95 kernel fits the definition of "a
library whose purpose is to supply device management, isolation and
access control."
> In addition, our current concept of an "operating system" is still
> machine-centric, whereas many modern applications are not. What is
> the OS of a database application consisting of an Oracle/Solaris
> database server, fed by an industrial monitoring device based on QNX,
> served by an Enhydra-based app server and Apache web servers running
> on a farm of Linux and FreeBSD boxes, and accessed via the public
> Internet by pretty much every conceivable combination of desktop OS
> and browser software?
There are many OS'en in that picture. How is this relevant?
> Obviously, no single OS predominates.
Yes . . . but again, how is this relevant to a discussion as to what is,
or is not, and OS? Clearly there can be many different implementations
of the concept of "Operating System".
> But in
> the eyes of uninformed people like most of the Winapologists here,
> Windows is doing the "hard work" of rendering HTML.
Windows is pretty much doing *ALL* of the work of presenting the
contents of an HTML stream . . . assuming, of course, that you are
running IE on/in Windows!
;-)
> They're entirely
> unaware of what had to happen in order for that HTML to be generated
> in the first place.
True . . . what's your point, here?
> As a result, they naturally envision Windows as
> being the "dominant" OS in the mix, even though, in reality, it's
> being used as a dumb terminal and not much else.
Ah. I get it.
Yeah, most people don't realize that they are connecting to, and using,
one of the most powerful computer systems in the world, when they pick
up their telephone handset and dial a number.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "worldviewer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "worldviewer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Could only...
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 00:19:43 GMT
Could only happen in America:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4277328.html?tag=st.ne.1002.bgif.ni
http://www.zfree.co.nz
------------------------------
From: "Greg S. Trouw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ATA RIPOFF! ALERT!
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:22:14 -0700
>Has anyone else seen additional, independent reporting of the stuff
that
>the Register is reporting???
Yes, see my post below (sorry didn't see this one until after I went
to post). It came from a Register link, but pulled up some technical
documents on this standard. But the most convincing that there's
something to this, is this technical document on the proposal here
ftp://fission.dt.wdc.com/pub/standards/x3t13/technical/e00148r2.pdf
As to the Register, I've heard much of the same from back when I was
posting in Intel.etc. A lot of people would go to argue that they're
just biased. But the question that would come up again and again, was
"biased against whom?" The problem is if someone is "biased" against
everyone and gives the same treatment to all, then it doesn't
technically qualify as bias. For all they've had to say about
Chipzilla, they've also had things to say about Chimpzilla as well.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: ATA RIPOFF! ALERT!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 00:46:10 GMT
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
>Maybe the Register is being dismissed in this fashion in "certain
>circles" who don't want to face what it has to say... (read your Chomsky!).
Or the "elites" who started it all in the first place don't want
it talked about too much.
------------------------------
From: genkai wa doko da <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 00:25:41 GMT
In article <92al2c$f11$03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > This is unfair. Take USB, as Xmas has passed I now have a USB mouse
> > which worked fine under windows, yet I know that I really don't want
the
> > pain of configuring USB under Linux and would prefer to wait until
2.4.
> > Linux is a better OS technically, but many end users are not as
> > concerned if it does not easily support hardware and perhaps more
> > importantly software. Linux will in time.
> >
>
> Maybe USB-support is not perfect in Linux. So I donīt buy USB-Devices
> because I want the OS and not a special kind of a mouse.
In my small experiance with USB under windows 98 it's horrible. THe USB
mouse I have works for about 5 minutes usually less then the driver
stops responding. My girlfriend has a USB scanner at work, the thing was
constantly disconnecting itself and you couldn't reconnect it (via the
tray icon that said connect) I set it up on the parport and it's run
flawlessly ever since. I am just going to avoid USB.
> Never understood why people are playing on a computer. I prefer
playing
> poker once a week with real guys (turkish and russian) because this is
real
> 3D.Maybe one day babelfish will be useful to translate the
> four-letter-words.
all a matter of taste, you couldn't drag me kicking and screaming to a
card game. I use to enjoy my once out weekly pool nights with my friends
but blowing stuff up or solving puzzles on a computer is quite excellent
if you ask me.
brian
--
RCS/RI, Retro Computing Society: http://www.osfn.org/rcs/
RIFUG, RI Free Unix Group: http://www.rifug.org/
Dropdead, my band: http://www.dropdead.org/
my videogame stuff: http://www.gloom.org/~gauze/
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "SWMyers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 00:43:28 GMT
"DishDude" wrote
> I get Dennis' jokes just fine, thank you... I just happen to think they
> suck. (BTW, I'm 40, so I *do* know who Claude Rains is, and your N'sync
> reference obviously doesn't apply to me.) Dennis Miller's humor is more
> often intellectually forced humor that just doesn't 'flow' naturally.
> For every good zinger he puts out there, he lays about 2 dozen duds.
> Every time I hear Dennis Miller, I'm reminded of the old addage about a
> blind squirrel finding a nut every now and then. Listening to Dennis's
> humor is more _painful_ for me than it is enjoyable... to the degree of
> reaching "a point of diminishing returns" when I have to wince or gag 20
> times or so in order to get one good belly laugh from him.
I was always lukewarm to Dennis until I saw him live. I saw him roast a
heckler for 20 minutes because the guy wouldn't shut up. I can normally
follow a lot of his historical and literature references (I don't always get
the point of the reference for a while.....), but for 20 minutes I watched
him just nail this guy. The references were coming fast and furious and were
spot on as to looks, behavior, and attire. The guy finally left the joint
and the poor people that were with him (family I think - including his wife)
stayed until intermission - I think they were afraid of what Miller would
say to them.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 00:43:43 GMT
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:46:57 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:07:23 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >> Borlands Delphi versions 3,4 and 5.
>> >
>> >Nope. Delphi works just fine on a user account if you've installed it
>> >from that user account. You don't need systemwide access.
>>
>> It would be nice if you could install it from one account and use it
>> from a different one, don't you think?
> Borland provides a tool to import the registry into the users hive,
> but it's still not very good.
Having such a tool is The Wrong Thing though. It would be much better
to put default settings into a globally-readable place (HKCS?) and then
save any changes to a user-specific location (HKCU?). On startup, read
the global settings, then the local ones, so that local overrides
global. No need for a special tool or a complicated install procedure.
There has to be a reason that so many programs don't do this. There's
only so much stupidity to go around. My theory is that it is a pain to
do for some reason. Haven't done Win32 for quite a while, so I can't
say for sure.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.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 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
******************************
