Linux-Advocacy Digest #478, Volume #31 Mon, 15 Jan 01 06:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0 ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("JSPL")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Edward Rosten)
Re: More Linux woes (Edward Rosten)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Kevin Marshall")
Re: More Linux woes (Edward Rosten)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Karel Jansens)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:09:38 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:qvx86.160$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:4Hw86.153$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:6Uo86.96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >Yes, there was a long history of such in the
> > scientific and perhaps even
> > > > >banking industry, but not the *PC* industry.
> > > >
> > > > So? Are you trying to tell us that BillyBob was so
> > incompetent
> > > > and disinterested in his 'beefier' potential rivals
> > that he
> > > > was completely unaware of any of that?
> > >
> > > It's not like Bill Gates was personally writing the
> > software.
> >
> > I was under the impression that, early on, he was very
> > "hands-on" with the development end of things.
>
> Yes, he was. But in an interview he gave a while back when he stepped
down
> as CEO, he stated that the last software he personally worked on was
writing
> the BIOS for the Tandy 100, which if I recall was around 1983.
I guess amassing a sizeable fortune tends to put things like grunt work
into a totally new perspective.
Would that I have that opportunity to find out...:)
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:32:35 GMT
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > One more thing I forgot to add...
> >
> > Bottom Line:
> >
> > Linux isn't enterprise ready. It may do static web serving well (not
> > the best, but well and cheap) but it doesn't cut it for doing big-boy
> > tasks.
> >
>
> First example coming to my mind. Just check this:
>
> http://www.akamai.com/
>
> And then this:
>
>
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=AKAMAIINT-11-15,212.133.25.128,212.
133.25.159
>
> Maybe they know how to set up Linux!
We've already gone over how the netcraft uptime numbers range from untrustable
to
completely wrong, so that doesn't mean anything.
How come Linux doesn't lead in anything? Security infrastructure, performance,
stability, scalability, transaction processing, etc? On every major list
of each of these (www.tpc.org comes to mind, TPSEC for security comes to mind,
etc) Linux is never even on the list?
Because it can't compete with the big boys.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Delphi Forums Downgrading from Windows 2000 to NT 4.0
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:28:15 GMT
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93t9b7$35j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi Chad,
>
> > > Anybody know of any high-end network cards that are flaky under the 2.4
> > > Linux kernel but are stable under the 2.2 kernel?
> >
> > Sounds like a driver issue, wouldn't you say.
> >
> > Do you want to get into how bad drivers are on Linux?
> >
> > I don't think you do.
>
> Didn't I just ask: "Anybody know of any high-end network cards that are
> flaky under the 2.4 Linux kernel but are stable under the 2.2 kernel?"
>
> Here's your opportunity to provide an example.
The point is, there are good drivers and there are bad drivers on
both Windows and Linux. I can show you several BAD video drivers on Linux,
likewise, I can show you several BAD video drivers on Windows.
The cards they happened to be using must not have been that good because
the company they bought them from couldn't write drivers properly.
Most people use the Intel server cards and have never had problems with them.
Those cards are used by Dell, Compaq, Gateway/ALR, Apple, Sun, and several
other vendors because they're solid, come with well-written drivers, and
seem to never fail.
I could probably find some chincy NIC manufacturer that writes equally
crappy drivers for Windows and Linux if I had the time and money, but
I have neither, so I won't. But you get my point.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:29:54 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:93t84a$269$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad, I found interesting bits of information at the Spec Web99 site:
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99 . For example your question about Tux is
> probably answered by this URL:
> http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/api-src/Dell-20001128.zip , Dell's Tux
> SpecWeb99 source code. This is the 'dynamic API' part of the test. It is
> standard Unix user-space source code, not kernel code, so the dynamic part
> was very likely running in userspace. So a faulty dynamic API cannot crash
> the kernel. I hope this helps.
>
> Thomas
Ok, here you go. If Thomas is correct, than this debate is over. I must
have been mistaken to think that Tux was operating in kernel mode. I got
this information from a previous debate on the same subject several weeks ago.
The Linux supporters never questioned the claim that Tux was a kernel-mode web
server, so I assumed it to be a fact.
-Chad
>
> > > > I'm operating under facts I heard in a debate not unlike this one
several
> > weeks
> > > > back. I was under the impression (from what individuals in your
situation
> > were
> > > > telling me) that Tux has a kernel component, or can operate in kernel
mode.
> > > > It was this mode that was used in the SpecWeb results to obtain the high
> > numbers
> > > > they achieved.
> > > >
> > >
> > > In other words, you did no research of your own before blasting Tux.
Your
> > > confusing Tux and khttpd makes this quite clear.
> >
> > Well, people who know more about this than I, including the defenders of
Linux
> > were agreeing that the Tux used in SpecWeb99 was running in kernel mode.
This
> > is what spawned the debate as to whether the numbers really mean anything
since
> > no intelligent person would run a production web site in the kernel.
> >
> > Now, if you're saying they were all wrong, then that's different.
> >
> > Was the Tux use in that benchmark running kernel mode or not? In the
previous
> > debate, they said it was. If you're now saying it wasn't, then please
provide
> > a URL. So far, no one has debated that Tux was running kernel mode.
> >
> > > khttpd is a kernel mode web server.
> >
> > But we're not talking about that, we're talking about Tux.
> >
> > > Tux has a kernel component, but also has a user mode component. It was
> > > designed to be stable and secure while at the same time providing high
speed.
> > Two
> > > very different animals.
> >
> > I don't care, if you think it's "stable", if it runs in the kernel, then
> > the risk of compromise is even higher than user-mode http servers.
> >
> > -Chad
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:35:30 +0200
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a6267fe$0$21319$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> (we're talking about the specweb results, of course)
>
> Big deal, in the kernel or not - people - focus and remember this little
> (and it is little) number: 2.7
>
> That's how many percent faster Tux was over IIS5.
>
> That's it - and that's what linvocates are so excited about?
>
> Portions of Tux 2 appear to have run in kernel space and some in user
space.
> OK, whatever.
>
> IIS 5 is known to run in userspace, this is undeniable. There is rumor
that
> IIS6 may have a kernel mode option too. Hey, why not? Of course, until
Linux
> had to run something in kernel space to win a benchmark, it was evil and
> silly that NT should have anything in the Kernel. Oh, the jabs linvocates
> took at nt advocates over "GUI in the kernel" - but of course, this is not
a
> problem when linux does it themselves...
>
> I think people are missing the point - While Linux was running the
tightest
> possible benchmark busting configuration using a specialized, uncommon
(rare
> even) feature-poor web server and that's it - W2K was, by default, running
a
> host of other background services and carried with it the "baggage" of any
> normal windows server - and yet still came to within 2.7% of that
> unencombered linux box. Tell you what, fire up a GUI on that Linux box,
> start up some more services - things unrelated to serving up pages. I'll
bet
> that tiny skinny margin disappears.
>
> Oh, and remember mincraft? "4 NICs - who'd ever build a machine like that?
> That's an unreal configuration!" the linvocates cried - and here we have a
> cute 8 processor 8 NIC machine and due to a victory thinner than the skin
on
> a hen's front tooth, suddenly not a peep. Guess 8 NIC machines are just
fine
> when you're a nose ahead eh?
>
> The hypocracy is thick...
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2001q1/web99-20001225-00091.asc
Similar system, running RH7 & TUX 1, 6407 only.
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q3/web99-20000710-00057.asc
Similar system, running RH6.2 & TUX 1, 6387.
Both are almost 1000 below IIS.
BTW, please notice that the IIS result:
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001127-00075.asc
Is the only result with 8 CPU of IIS.
TWC 3.0 is listed as the API, search at MS' site result in Time Warner Cable
as the only thing that is listed as matching.
http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/iis/swc2.asp
No mention of swc 3.0 anywhere on the net aside from SPEC's site. (using
google & hotbot)
I'm not sure how linadvocates reached to the conclustion that it run in the
kernel.
BTW, anyone can explain me what is the difference between SPECWeb96 &
SPECWeb99?
I'll also like to know what OS MS is going to release in two months.
I know that SP2 is likely to be due in Feb, but I thought that there is
still time until Whistler will pop out.
Or is it something secret OS that no one knows about?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.linux.sucks,alt.linux.slakware
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:40:36 +0200
"Matthew Frost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Steve Mading wrote:
>
> > Hint: I wasn't being completely serious. I even *labelled* myself as
> > being sarcastic, for crying out loud.
> >
> > If you want pendantic seriousness, then fine, here it is:
> > There are many basics that I consider "better" than Visual Basic.
> > There do exist some basics that are worse, but they aren't modern.
> > Part of the reason for this is that I don't like embedded GUI
> > toolkits and auto code generators, becuase they are a pain in the
> > ass to maintain when you want to change what the tool generated,
> > and yet still keep using the tool to edit it too. So, all the
> > GUI bells and whistles are irrelevant to me. Once that's taken
> > away, there isn't much left in Visual Basic that makes it good.
> > In other words, the good stuff isn't technically part of the
> > language at all. It's part of the programming environment. IMO,
> > the programming tool should be independant of evaluating the
> > language itself. They should be seperated very clearly into two
> > layers such than the GUI programming tool is a pluggably replacable
> > by a third party. This ensures that language and compiler design
> > issues don't leak into the interface tool, and interface design issues
> > don't leak into the compiler itself.
>
> Excellent explanation of the problem. This is one of the major ways
> that MS breaks a programming language, after ubiquitous and
> compatibility-negating API-specific extensions. They tie a language
> into its compiler and interface program in such a way as language
> development becomes development of the GUI, GUI development becomes
> language development, and nothing black and white can be done in
> anything like the method one would use for the standards-compliant
> version. It's the whole MS philosophy of "What the user can't see, is
> irrelevant," which in normal, sane hacks results in WYSIWYG and
> literal-responsive command structure. However, it hasn't taken long for
> it to turn into GUI, GUI, uber allus. Find me a command line interface
> in NT or W2K, or one in W9x from which you can navigate and use the
> entire system unhampered. I don't think it exists! When you build
> everything around the GUI, you increase the complexity, and consequently
> the cruft, geometrically. This is fine if God is building the system,
> but a team of corporate programmers can't avoid stepping on their own
> heels and tripping over a corpus that takes so much change to fix any
> one thing and assure the continued function of anything else. A
> language is a language. You *should* be able to code it on paper, as
> someone so sarcastically presented up above. Wild and crazy idea, isn't
> it? <grin>
You can.
I wouldn't try it, though.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:47:25 GMT
In <93u3bg$l4b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Brock) writes:
>
>Actually this whole thread has gotten pretty silly, At this point
>I'm mainly just interested in seeing if it's possible to win a
>syntax war when I'm clearly right. :-)
You won before you started - earlier this month Mr Metz claimed that
IBM running Linux on a mainframe was a hoax. So much for credibility ...
--
härad ængravvåd
------------------------------
From: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 04:47:40 -0500
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:nGq86.3697$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > One more thing I forgot to add...
> > >
> > > Bottom Line:
> > >
> > > Linux isn't enterprise ready. It may do static web serving well (not
> > > the best, but well and cheap) but it doesn't cut it for doing big-boy
> > > tasks.
> > >
> >
> > First example coming to my mind. Just check this:
> >
> > http://www.akamai.com/
> >
> > And then this:
> >
> >
>
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=AKAMAIINT-11-15,212.133.25.128,
212.
> 133.25.159
> >
> > Maybe they know how to set up Linux!
>
> We've already gone over how the netcraft uptime numbers range from
untrustable
> to
> completely wrong, so that doesn't mean anything.
>
> How come Linux doesn't lead in anything? Security infrastructure,
performance,
> stability, scalability, transaction processing, etc? On every major list
> of each of these (www.tpc.org comes to mind, TPSEC for security comes to
mind,
> etc) Linux is never even on the list?
>
> Because it can't compete with the big boys.
>
> -Chad
And it shows in non-netcraft numbers
http://www.biznix.org/surveys/
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:58:03 +0000
>> It would be easier making X run on top of Quartz than on top of nothing,
>> since X would not need drivers (it uses the drivers through Quartz),
>> much like, say eXceed on NT.
>
>
> X already has drivers for Apple hardware coming out of its ears. It works
> just fine. The only sticking point would be the port, which to my knowledge
> has already happened.
But if you're running X on top of Quartz, you would go through the
quartz API, and not access the hardware directly.
> Though I cant think of one good reason to run X on top of quartz.
I can think of plenty.
It would mean that you could port other UNIX GUI programs easily
it would mean that you could put things on your display from other machines.
Personally I'd rather Quartz ran on top of X. That way, all Quartz apps
would have remote display capabilities, which for me would be preferable.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:13:14 +0000
>> I must admit that I'm confused, too.
>>
>> I'm currently playing a CD, and I just disconnected the audio connector,
>> and...silence.
>>
>> Hmmm...maybe I'm not running Linux?...
>
> Exactly David!!!!!!!
>
> That is my point!!!
>
> When I disconnect the the digital audio connector the audio keeps on
> playing with nothing more than the IDE cable connected.
>
> In fact what is happening is Linux is causing the CD/Soundcard/system
No. You are wrong. Linux is NOT causing this behaviour. The application
is causing the behaviour.
Try typing cdplay at the command line and see if you still have the same
problem.
> to do digital audio extraction over the IDE bus by default and I have
by default by the APPLICATION.
> yet to figure out a way to turn it off.
DA extraction is needed for the sprctrum analyzer.
>
> What you have is the way it is supposed to work.
>
> I have not found a way to turn this off under Linux, and as you can
That's because its an APPLICATION problem, not a Linux problem.
> imagine this puts a tremendous load on the system.
Why do you keep making these claims, whilst refusing to try what people
have suggested.
Try cdplay from the command line
It does no visualisation and has no need to transfer data across the IDE
bus. It willl use your $2.99 cable.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Kevin Marshall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:09:56 -0800
I think that some of these counter-arguments I'm reading about the GUI not
mattering all that much are a bit on the weak side. Let's face it, much of
the reason we buy and use things relies upon the way they make us feel,
that's what it's about! We wish to buy cars that look nice, clothes that
make us look attractive, houses that are clean and well designed, etc. Along
with this, we also care about how all these things run and how long they
last, and how good of quality they are. The same is true for computers,
especially an OS. These days, the GUI interface is so common in our daily
lives, it's like a separate room that we go into for hours on end and spend
quite a bit of our days inside. Who wants to work (or play) in an ugly
environment?? Not too many I should say. Yes, there are those who really
don't care, and I respect that opinion and feeling. Nevertheless, those who
don't care about how their environment looks, cannot necessarily expect the
rest of the world to take after them. People do care about how things look,
especially if they are going to spend a significant part of their lives
there.
As far as Linux goes, it is improving in terms of interface, and the more it
improves, the more fun it will become to use. After all, if GUI is
insignificant, why does themes.org do so well?? Unfortunately Linux is no
where near as user friendly as any Windows or Mac OS. Unless you are a
programmer and understand compiling, code, libraries, and the rest, you have
a pretty steep learning curve- one that is questionably worth it for your
typical user. That includes myself, as I am now content and gratefully
writing this on a Win2k machine that I am pleased to know I can use!
kevin
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > I don't care if it's developed on a sheet of paper.
> >
> > I just want it to work, look good, and be simple to operate.
> >
> > Linux programs seem to be developed on UNIX, maintain their UNIX looks,
and
> > never go past "it works, but it looks terrible" phase.
>
> Aesthetically, the M-16A2 is an ugly-looking rifle...
>
> Yet, it's arguably the best in the world.....and FAR more effective
> than the handsome-looking bolt-action 1903 Springfield.
>
> Clue for the clueless: Judging worth SOLELY on appearances, and NONE
> on effectiveness is for LOSERS.
>
>
> >
> > A failed concpet in open source: USER INTERFACE.
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Jure Sah wrote:
> > > >
> > > > J Sloan wrote:
> > > > > Star office, netscape, gimp, napster, xmms, quake 3 arena,
> > > > > unreal tounament, heavy gear 2, tribes 2 etc - all the apps
> > > > > one needs...
> > > >
> > > > Dear Mr. Sheep-Brain,
> > > >
> > > > Pherhaps you should devolop some personality of your own? Like you
are;
> > > > thinking that Quake 3 arena, Netscape and other you mention are all
you
> > > > need on a computer; you are complete average, no contrubution to the
> > > > planet you live in. You live so and you will die so, not leaving a
trace
> > > > of yourself behind yourself...
> > >
> > > Clue for the clue-less. Most business software these days is
> > > developed FIRST on Unix.
> > >
> > > Hope that helps, dork.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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.
>
>
> --
> 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: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:18:26 +0000
> There are no instructions. I've never seen Linux get caught in DAE mode.
> He could waste HOURS in the howto's learning some idyllic little factoid
> about how Linux worked two years ago, but that would be pointless (like the
> entire Linux endeavor).
>
> So, the question remains, how DOES he get DAE mode disabled, and revert back
> to "regular" mode?
You really are as stupid as he is. Its an application problem. The
application is ripping so it can do cute visual effects.
Use a different app or disable ripping the app.
Try
cdplay
it doesn't do ripping.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.linux.sucks,alt.linux.slakware
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: 15 Jan 2001 10:28:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: You need to check VBScript, then.
: VB is the language and the GUI, VBScript is the language alone.
: Well, there are some modifications, but it's almost the same.
VBScript and VB are not similar, as you would know if you had to
maintain code that must run in both environments.
(Case in point: all variables in VBScript are variants; VB no longer
even has variants as of VB.NET.)
The language behind legacy versions of VB is VBA, not VBScript.
Joe
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:36:13 -0100
Bones wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> >> Chad Myers wrote: (apparent by the quoting)
> >> What about the people who now have the closed source version, and haven't
> >> upgraded to the open source version who's exploit has now been made public
> >> knowledge.
>
> > If they are stupid enough to continue using something that has a proven
> > and documented security risk, they deserve anything that's coming to
> > them.
>
> I believe the Borland engineers argue that the backdoor was not in the code
> until there was a split in development and after the code became open
> source. I guess its their contention that the problem *was not* present in
> previous versions of the closed-source product, (they do have access to all
> the code for comparison.) Go on community.borland.com and poke around for
> some of their comments.
>
To use the words of the immortal Simpson B.: "I didn't do it!"
In any case, I don't think it changes the point I made.
Regards,
Karel Jansens
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
