Linux-Advocacy Digest #333, Volume #31 Mon, 8 Jan 01 06:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Hatred? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Donn Miller")
Re: KDE Hell ("Donn Miller")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz")
Re: Could only... (Ian Davey)
Re: Why NT? (Shane Phelps)
Re: Windows 2000 (Ed Allen)
Re: Windows 2000 (Ed Allen)
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (Ian Davey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 04:50:36 -0500
craig nellist wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > So far, I've managed to steer clear of Neutered Technology machines.
>
> Good for you.
>
> > Are you saying that Excel works differently on Neutered Technology as
> > opposed to Lose95 and Lose98?
>
> No, it doesn't. I would say that it is infinitely more stable on NT than on
> 95/98 though. Give it a try if you're dealing with large amounts of data.
Still doesn't change the fact that it takes several hours of point-click
operations (to the point of painful fatigue) to do data manipulations
which can be accomplished with a few minutes of script-writing in Unix.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 04:51:23 -0500
craig nellist wrote:
>
> Hi Aaron,
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Apart from making yourself look like an idiot?
> >
> > Strike 1.
> >
> > Try again.
>
> Making yourself look like a moron?
>
> *waits for strike 2*
>
> > > I've seen you reply to 100+
> > > line posts, where your only contribution (if it can be called that) was
> to
> > > write LOSE (or some variant) where the original poster had written
> > > Win[32|NT|dows]. Is there some point to you doing this?
> >
> > Annoys the fuck out of you, doesn't it.
>
> It annoys me in the sense that you have nothing worthwhile to contribute.
> The fact that you even take the time to do it is rather amusing.
Unix admins have FAR more free time than LoseDOS admins.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 05:08:17 -0500
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:wQf66.378$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> After going back to FreeBSD i was amazed at how neat and orderly /etc is.
I
> hadn't really noticed before, but Red Hat 6.2 and Mandrake 7.2
comparitively
> speaking are a nightmare, especially with all the tons of links and run
> levels and other BS.
See, that's one possible advantage of BSD-based unices over SysV-based ones:
there aren't any runlevels, so you don't have to worry about all those
config files which correspond to each runlevel. With FreeBSD, it's just
rc.conf. Nice! Plus, you gotta love the FreeBSD ports tree. The ports
mechanism automatically fetches/compiles/installs each dependecy it
encounters. So, I very rarely have a problem with missing libs or packages.
Also, the kernel and userland source code is all together in one src tree
where you can find it.
====== 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: "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 05:12:32 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> KDE, KDE, KDE. Its all I hear about any more. Why do I hear so much
> about KDE?
I prefer WindowMaker, myself. It seems like KDE has everything in it but
the kitchen sink, and it IS a pretty nice desktop environment. Yet, it
lacks the simple features I use most, such as the ability to switch virtual
desktops with the keyboard. Last time I used KDE, you had to click on the
panel at the bottom to switch desktops. Also, I miss the dock-apps a lot
too. WindowMaker has both of these.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 20:41:24 -0500
In <93anlp$dik$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/07/2001
at 04:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Brock) said:
>Eh??? I sometimes use Kedit under OS/2, and it appears to me to be a
>rather good Xedit clone. Are we thinking about the same product? Or
>has Xedit advanced significantly since I last used it (maybe 8 years
>ago), leaving Kedit in the dust?
No, KEDIT was missing key XEDIT functionality from day one. I never
could convince Mansfiled to add the missing pieces, so I will probably
wind up with THE one of these days.
Keep in mind that since KEDIT runs on a PC, it can do keyboard
remapping, which XEDIT cannot, so "leaving Kedit in the dust" may be a
bit strong. Also, with KEDIT you can use OREXX.
--
===========================================================
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me. Do not reply to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux
From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 20:33:17 -0500
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/07/2001
at 03:27 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The
Machine) said:
>[*] Content Address Register (car), Content Decrement Register (cdr).
> The original design of Lisp apparently was on a 30+-bit
> machine with 15-bit address space; every word therefore
> could hold two addresses. Instructions on this machine
> apparently could have two operands, as well; one of them
> probably had to do with incrementing (adding), one
> decrementing (subtracting).
IBM 704. 36-bit word. Most instructions had only one address, but
there were index register instructions with two. The 704 was
superseded by the 709, the 7090 and the 7094; also by the later 7040
and 7044. Ah, the joys of subtractive indexing :-(
--
===========================================================
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me. Do not reply to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 10:52:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Look at Australia...they banned guns, and the murder rate TRIPLED.
You can repeat this mantra as many times as you like, but it still isn't true.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 22:00:20 +1100
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Todd
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
[ snip ]
> >Linux shouldn't be trying to compete with NT. Linux needs to be able to
> >compete with 2000 - which I don't believe it can do yet, if ever.
>
> It will be interesting to see if SAMBA can work as effectively
> with Win2k, which apparently changed the SMB protocol slightly,
> as with Win9x/NT.
>
Both the SMB and RDP protocols were changed in W2K. The more recent
versions of Samba (as of late December) will work with W2K.
I think even the older Samba versions will handle file sharing with
W2K, but the protocol changes certainly caused problems with Samba
as a Domain Controller in a W2K domain.
The RDP protocol changes broke the only unix RDP client I know of,
rdesktop (IIRC, Erik F pointed out the existence of rdesktop, which was
good of him). Citrix's ICA clients are more polished, so this may
actually work to get more mixed sites using Metaframe rather than
straight W2K server. Good for Citrix, not so good for MS.
> (Hell, it will be interesting to see if *NT* can work as
> effectively as Win2k in reading Win2k shares.)
>
It doesn't seem too bad, actually
[ snip ]
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Microsoft. When all you really want to do is upgrade.
> up 96 days, 12:45, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 11:01:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 7 Jan 2001 21:14:42 -0600;
>>Why would they provide such a filter if they wanted people to upgrade?
>
>Because they had been caught, and there was, after all, no technical
>reason, nor any pro-competitive one, for them to leave it out in the
>first place. So they waited a few months, and once their forced
>bundling practices had ensured that all OEMs had been shipping the new
>Office long enough to provide sufficient penetration to 'infect' the
>majority of the large-scale installed base, it didn't matter anymore.
>
I have to disagree here. They provided the filter to encourage 95
users to give documents to 97 users which would be assured to be
in 97 format when they came back.
The 95 user could not read the returned documents unless they
upgraded to 97 and began propagating the infection to their frequent
recipients.
A typical scenario has an executive getting a new PC with the 97
bundle or being given a "free" evaluation copy by the sales rep so
that his documents would soon be readable only by 97 and be unable
to switch back when the "evaluation period" was over.
Pretty soon his secretary and the project members are in need of
upgrades too.
After a few months delay releasing the filter no longer matters
because everybody incapable or uncaring enough to avoid infection
is immune already but they can silence the complaints and forestall
lawsuits by releasing the filter they have been using internally
since the beginning of the beta program.
How do we know they had the filter all along ? Because the beta
program did not cause a wave of infections among their internal
executives. We know that did not happen because journalists
interact with those executives every day and they were unaware of
the infectious nature of 97.
So we can deduce that the exclusion of that filter was a deliberate
act.
--
"Bank of America Chief Executive David Coulter recently suggested that
if he had one silver bullet, he would use it for Microsoft."
- LESLIE HELM, LA Times
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 11:01:01 GMT
In article <ZXX56.6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:939ehr$cdm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> The "secret API's" have been admitted to in court. Who are you to
>> accuse Microsoft executives of perjury ?
>
>No, they have not been admitted in court. All the evidence is online,
>please post a link to this supposed evidence.
>
Since this is far down in the link I have included a part here
for you. I think that keeping information hidden qualifies
even though they did not use the actual word "secret".
The link is:
http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html
==================================================
Exhibit 97 (emphasis added)
202. By December 2, 1990, the question had escalated to David Cole and
Phil Barrett:
Cole:
Uhmm . . denying DRI the VxD smells of an anti-trust lawsuit. You are
not supposed to use your control of one market, in this
case Windows, to influence another market, in this case DOS. err
something like that.
I think this will blow up if we don't give them the VxD.
Barrett:
lets just let legal tell us what our options are. If there is potential
for antitrust or what ever, they will tell us.
Exhibit 99 (emphasis added)
203. Rich Abel ultimately sent DRI the revised VxD. Exhibit 217 (Ewald
memo on acquisition). When Silverberg learned of this,
he instructed that DRI receive no further cooperation. Thus, DRI is
conspicuously absent from the beta distribution lists for
Windows 3.1 dated May 31, 1991. Exhibit 131.
204. Even so, DRI later requested, and received, a portion of code
identified as the "task switching api." This provoked quite an
outburst by Silverberg on June 10, 1991:
Jain:
As I was telling you that Digital Research is on our list as a recipient
of Task switching API but the surprising thing is that the
address we have is in UK. I wonder if they have a branch in UK or there
is some other company with the same name.
Silverberg:
I want to know how the got sent the task switch api. I have a hard time
believing this, and a harder time accepting it. dri
development is in the uk.
after I learned that we sent dr the win vxd I went on a rampage and
everyone assured me dr was off of all our mailing lists.
how could this happen?
Exhibit 135
205. A mere four days before Novell and DRI announced their merger,
Microsoft had formalized its beta policy into something
called the "WINDOWS/DOS BETA BLACKLIST." DRI (but not Novell) is listed
on this first "beta blacklist" from July 13, 1991.
Exhibit 146.(24)
206. On July 17, 1991, the day the DRI/Novell merger was announced, the
beta blacklist became a prominent issue. David Cole
ranted:
We cannot let DR DOS get beta versions of Windows. Surely something in
the agreement must cover a "redefinition" of what
the heck the "company" is.
We should have a telegram issued first thing in the morning from MS
legal which forbids Novell to hand beta Windows over to
DR.
Bradsi, is this too drastic?
Exhibit 147 (emphasis added)
207. Conversations among Microsoft executives over the following days
made clear that the concern was not that DRI or Novell
might be working on a "clone" of Windows. The concern was simply to
ensure that DRI had plenty of trouble getting DR DOS to
work with Windows. On July 28, 1991, the question was resolved at the
highest levels of Microsoft:
Arnej:
Valid comments. We can't expect our engineers to know how to handle
"black-list" issues unless we clearly communicate how to
handle. From an FTC standpoint situations like this could be very
dangerous, and should probably be handled by higher
management.
In addition what happens if DRI actually buys a Support Advantage
contract? Does the sales team know not to sell it to them. If
they sell DRI a contract, I cannot see how we can refuse support.
Ballmer:
brad pls make sure we are not supporting DRI anywhere in the company
with this stuff thx
Silverberg:
We are not going to change our products to work with them and we're not
going to help DRI determine what they need to do to
change their products to support ours.
Exhibit 155 at X584923 (emphasis added)
208. The next day, Silverberg made sure that Microsoft product support
services had directly received his instruction:
We should not be providing Digital Research any assistance getting their
os to work with our software. Our software supports ms
dos, not dr dos. It's completely up to them to figure out and resolve
any problems that may occur.
==================================================
--
"Bank of America Chief Executive David Coulter recently suggested that
if he had one silver bullet, he would use it for Microsoft."
- LESLIE HELM, LA Times
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 01:43:50 +0200
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93akhg$305$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <93abnu$qrn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >
> > ------=_NextPart_000_006A_01C078DC.DDDD73F0
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="iso-8859-1"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > What is X and what is a parition? I just put in the CD and walked
> away.=20
>
> But what if I *WANT* to set up partitions and set my screan resolution
> at the time I install? Both of wich I want to do on a regular basis. How
> easy is that to do with windows?
Very easy.
What is your point?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 01:49:54 +0200
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 10:09:42 +0200,
> Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:xPT56.56281$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:938o2v$q9j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > > Can you show me the virus for NT that can damage other people's
file
> >> on
> >> > > > NTFS?
> >> > >
> >> > > Sure, just use one of the many applications that require Everyone
> >> > > (Full Access) to a directory, save your file there, and you're
done.
> >> > > You could make this even easier by using Omnipage Pro, which
requires
> >> > > Administrator access to even run.
> >> >
> >> > This goes to every permission FS in the world, you know.
> >> > If you give Everyone full access to a directory, Everyone will be
able
> >to
> >> do
> >> > whatever they want with the files in that directory.
> >>
> >> It doesn't happen with the typical unix FS configuration that you
> >> see in /tmp or the mail spool. If you set the 'sticky' bit on the
> >> directory, you can allow anyone to create files (with file permissions
> >> being independent of the directory) but only the owner of the file is
> >> allowed to delete it.
> >
> >Let me see, how hard would it be on NT?
> >
> >On NTFS partition, create a directory, remove inheritable permissions,
clean
> >the permissions list and do the following steps.
> >
> >Give Everyone the following permissions:
> >-Create Files / Write Data
> >-Create Folders / Append Data
> >-List Folder / Read Data
> >Apply this to:
> >This folder only
> >
> >Give CREATOR OWNER:
> >-Full Control.
> >Apply this to:
> >Subdirectores and files only.
> >
>
> Gee, that is so much more intuitive and user friendly than
> a single command from a shell...
>
Yep
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 01:53:46 +0200
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93acab$sku$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <935j2c$69c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Complexity doesn't usually vanish in the air, and I see no signs of
> > > this particular instance doing that.
> >
> > Userwise, it does.
>
> Sadly, itīs not the users who produce free software.
Nor is free software produced for users.
> > The user can configure all his programs from one tool, and I don't
> > mean pico, and he can see all the options that are opened to him.
>
> I still donīt believe that to be true. At least not in a way where
> the user would be able to have his config not explode.
I believe otherwise, but it doesn't matter anyway, the chances of a unified
config format are slim to non.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 11:07:33 GMT
In article <933rtf$eol$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> They're guilty as sin, and they know it.
>
>Not unless they are *proven* guilty - and the appeals court will have their
>say.
They were proven guilty, or did you completely miss the trial that occurred a
while back? The fact they're appealing doesn't suddenly make them "not
guilty".
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
