Linux-Advocacy Digest #956, Volume #31 Sun, 4 Feb 01 05:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Tom Wilson")
Re: GODDAMNED STINKING PIECE OF SHIT THOLEN ("Tom Wilson")
Re: The 130MByte text file (Pete Goodwin)
Re: GODDAMNED STINKING PIECE OF SHIT THOLEN ("Tom Wilson")
Re: The 130MByte text file (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The 130MByte text file (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Goodby MS... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: The 130MByte text file (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The 130MByte text file (Pete Goodwin)
Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo (Pete Goodwin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 09:07:28 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 03 Feb 2001 19:48:59
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > > I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts they had a lot of results
>> > > that they didn't want to submit, before finally getting one
>> > > close to the Linux results.
>> >
>> > So is this what your argument has become?
>> >
>> > "I know it's the truth because... I know it! It's a conspiracy!
>>
>> Sir, do not put words in my mouth, you are only making
>> yourself look silly.
>
>More silly than you making things up? I think not.
No, more silly than you snipping things out. To wit:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>
>> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts they had a lot of results
>> > that they didn't want to submit, before finally getting one
>> > close to the Linux results.
>>
>> So is this what your argument has become?
>>
>> "I know it's the truth because... I know it! It's a conspiracy!
>
>Sir, do not put words in my mouth, you are only making
>yourself look silly.
>
>> They're not showing us everything! Linux really is better! I
>> know it! WAAAAAAHHHHHH"
>
>You missed one important point: Linux already has
>the top 8 way results.
You are too pathetic to even be considered a joke, Chad.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 09:07:30 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 03 Feb 2001 06:40:08
GMT;
>
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>
>> > Unix cost *much* more, and gives *much* less.
>>
>> This is of course completely false.
>
>View the TPC. The numbers speak for themselves.
>
><SNIP: a bunch of factless arguments with false premises>
Sure, they speak loud and clear. In a comparison between Windows and
Windows, Windows won out, hands down. Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 09:07:31 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:22:39
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:mxje6.676$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> MS has quota management code in NT4, but they don't have a quota manager.
>> You have to buy a third party product to emable it (one of those features
>> that NT provides natively but the Win32 subsystem doesn't expose).
>
>One of the many features, you should've said.
>Streams, hard links, rephrase points, etc, etc.
>
>It's so frustrating at times, the feature exists, there is just no easy way
>to access it.
Well, here's a 100% reliable way to get access to those features:
1) Build a successful business providing access
2) Threaten Microsoft's illegal monopoly
3) Wait until MS gives everyone access (possibly after destroying your
company, but nobody said it was easy, just reliable) in order to prevent
your profit-seeking behavior from undermining their scam.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 09:07:33 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 02 Feb 2001 02:12:49
GMT;
>
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:95bv3o$3ga$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Chad Myers wrote in message <0Wde6.602$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >
>>
>> >No, quotas have been around for NT for years.
>> >Save the lies.
>>
>> I am curious about the disk quotas on NT - we have NT 4.0 Server at the
>> office, and I can find no mention of disk quotas anywhere in the help files,
>> or in any of the administrative tools. In fact, the only mention I find of
>> the word "quota" is that in order to use the SU program (a utility to let
>> you change to another user in a command box - it is very limited, but
>> nonetheless essential for administrating NT - why you have to buy it as part
>> of the NT Resource kit is beyond me), a user has to have the "Increase
>> Quotas" account priviledge.
>
>There are very good 3rd party implementations of Quotas. He never said that
>they had to be built into the OS, he just said NT 4.0 doesn't have quotas,
>which is a lie. Win2K has them built in, that's the only difference.
He said:
>
>Nope, not until windows 2000 did microsoft take their
>first baby steps into this basic capability.
Then you snipped it, so that you could post this fabrication impugning
his honesty, because you, Chad, are a pathetic dishonest sack of shit.
The fact that you wished to misread his statement, and still do,
notwithstanding, he was perfectly correct in pointing out that Microsoft
did not provide this basic capability until W2K.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 04:07:41 -0500
"Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.misc Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > John Hasler wrote:
> >>
> >> Walt writes:
> >> > The dictionary definition of "atheist" is, "one who denies the existence
> >> > of God."
> >>
> >> Make that "_a_ dictionary definition": at best an approximation. I (an
> >> atheist) prefer this definition: "one who denies the existence of your
> >> imaginary friend while not claiming to have one of his own".
> >>
> >> > That is definitely an active belief.
> >>
> >> "Does not believe" is not "believes not".
>
> > Geeze, you're as dogmatic as the people you deride.
>
> Uh, fella, this is as basic a piece of modal logic as one can get.
>
> You seem to be unaware of the logic of modalities like belief, proof,
> necessity, obligation, and so on. Id normally direct you to the
> library, but let's try ...
>
> Basically the logical operators "belief" and "not" do not commute, OK?
> I gave you a clearer example of how that can happen using Goedels proof
> operator ("prove not" != "not prove"), but the same goes for modal
> operators like belief, obligation, and so on.
>
> Now you know what the subject area is called - it's an important and
> large one - you can look it up.
>
> Peter
There are only 3 positions to take on a proposition
1) Belief that the proposition is true.
2) "I don't know"
3) Belief that the proposition is not true.
One cannot claim that one is neither (1) nor (2), and still TOTALLY
without a belief.
Game
Set
Match.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 09:07:35 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:39:51
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >> I am disappointed - I may have used quotas if they were available on NT4
>> >> (hidden functionality is not available - saying NT doesn't have quotas is
>> >> factually wrong but effectively true).
It isn't factually wrong at all to say that NT4 does not have quotes.
NT4 *could* have quotas; that is more factually accurate.
>> You forgot disk defragmentation APIs - MS has managed to ship a defragmenter
>> with their DOS+Win line for years, and they have done all the hard work in
>> the defragmentation API, yet they still failed to produce a defragmenter for
>> NT 4. Even for w2k, they had to buy in a third-party defragmenter.
[...]
>For a start, NT4 didn't ship with a degragmantor(sp?) because it was
>believed that NTFS doesn't fragement (it does, but it handle the situation
>nicely).
>As for 2K, you've to consider several things:
><A> How much it would cost them to develop their own defragmentor.
><B> How efficent it would be?
><C> Can they buy or license already working product that would be as
>efficent (or reasonably efficent, at least) at a lower price?
>
>If <C>, then there is no need to spend more money than you've to.
The only way it could possibly not be a no-brainer for MS to develop
their own such code for their OS is if they are incompetent. Had they
not engaged in more than a decade of clear-cutting of competition, it
would be feasible to presume that someone else might simply be more
competent, I guess. But I can't see anyone else being able to develop
such a thing for Windows other than Microsoft, for a variety of reasons.
My suspicion is that MS does not include such functionality simply
because it is, as Ayende noted, expense they can avoid. It really is
much easier when you can screw your customer with impunity. A
competitive business can never afford to avoid expenses which their
customers expect them to incur, unless they're willing to decrease their
revenues. A profit-seeking business generally has no interest in
decreasing revenues, as they have no monopoly which they can exploit.
Yet another example of how a monopoly is never 'efficient' in terms of
production. MS will develop these features when they need to in order
to maintain their illegal monopoly, and not a day sooner. Whether they
would benefit the customers is a non-existent concern, from their
perspective.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 09:07:37 GMT
Said Kenn Guilstorf in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:45:51
-0500;
>
><<More of Aaron's MS bashing and Chad's Linux bashing respectfully deleted>>
>
>The reason that more security holes, viruses and etc. are found is because
>most true hackers are going to target themselves at the largest audience.
>The largest audience, in this case, is Microsoft Software. Take, for
>example, the Macintosh platform. In a recently published article, it was
>claimed that about 40 viruses were made for the Mac platform compared to the
>thousands of viruses and variants that exist for the Windows platform.
>Based on this fact, [...]
I'm afraid I'm going to have to interrupt you there, as this is
certainly not a fact. The Mac has tens of thousands of viruses and
variants. I don't know where this '40' number came from nor where it
was published but it is definitely in error in this regard.
>you would inherently come to the incorrect conclusion
>that the Macintosh is a much more stable, secure platform than the Windows
>environment. The fact is, the Macintosh -- as of yet -- has not come into
>heavy prominence and is not as wide-spread as the Windows platform.
The Mac, in many ways, developed the market which Microsoft now
monopolizes. And it is the access to development tools which can
(inherently) be maliciously used which provides a spawning ground for
viruses.
>Therefore, most hackers aren't going to target the Macintosh because there
>'claim to fame' won't be as large. The same can be said of the Linux
>platform (and other Unix platforms). Until they gain the same wide
>acceptance as the Windows platform, there just won't be as many viruses,
>hacks, security holes, etc. found/created for them.
The "Windows has more viruses because it is the most common system"
logic is not inherently wrong, certainly. But that's not to say that
one can ignore the rather copious evidence that Windows is unstable and
insecure by simply arm-waving furiously by blaming its flaws on its
ubiquity.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 09:07:39 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 02 Feb 2001 13:37:48
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>>
>> > Chad Myers wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > Chad Myers wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Can you translate "DAC" from microsoft speak into english
>> > > > for those of us who don't know microsoft speak?
>> > >
>> > > Ah, so you expose your ignorance.
>>
>> Yes, thank you for the gracious response -
>> It figures that a dolt like you would jump at the
>> opportunity for a cheap shot.
>
>You attack and argue and attack and argue, but when it really comes down to
>it, you don't know what you're talking about. It's very frustrating for
>me to have to deal with all your posts when they're just baseless.
>In the future, please attempt to know a little more about what you're
>debating.
You are a pathetically dishonest sack of shit, Chad.
>> > DAC is not Microsoft speak. In fact,
>> > > many trusted Unixes had it before MS even had Windows.
>>
>> Not too much use for "trusted unix" in internet services.
>
>So? That's a non sequitur.
>
>The point is that NT can be an ultra-secure trusted system
>when configured to be so. Linux, OTOH, cannot. In fact,
>Linux doesn't even have the most basic underpinnings to
>even be considered for trusted status. Namely, DAC and
>pervasive auditing.
>
>>
>> > NetWare had it in 4.x.
>>
>> I don't do netware.
>
>Another non sequitur. I don't care what you do or don't do,
>I was merely illustrating your ignorance when you say
>that DAC, which is a widely accepted and respected way of
>doing security properly, is "Microsoft speak".
>
>People who know security use DAC.
>
>> Sorry if I wasn't up on all your TLAs, but that's life.
>
>Yeah, keep your head in the sand.
>
>It's not just a TLA, it's THE way of doing security in
>the grown-up world. Your arguments that Linux is somehow
>secure are nothing more than ignorant banterings.
>Perhaps you should pull your head from the sand and take
>a look at what's going on around you.
>
>No, Linux really isn't that great, and in fact doesn't
>really have any of the necessary features to make it a
>great OS.
>
>-Chad
>
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 09:07:41 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 01 Feb 2001
[...]
>What the fuck is "DAC" ???
>
>NT file system has built-in Digital - Analog Conversion?
I heard it was Data Analysis Configuration.*
>Or is this yet another example of non-standard M$ terminology...
Apparently.
*Now called "service profiles"; see Concord Communication's Network
Health performance reporting package.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 09:19:55 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 20:31:15 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Microsoft is damned good at abuse. :-)
>
> This is arguments, abuse is three doors down.
No, that's being hit on the head lessons...
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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,soc.singles
Subject: Re: GODDAMNED STINKING PIECE OF SHIT THOLEN
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 09:26:32 GMT
"Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > Edward Rosten wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Marty"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "[Bad-Knees]" wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Can't we just all get along:)
> > > > >
> > > > > Unnecessary.
> > > >
> > > > Illogical.
> > >
> > > On what basis do you make this ridiculous claim?
> >
> > Tholen bought himself some pointy-green "Spock Ears" from some loser
> > at a Star Dreck convention.
>
> From where did he buy the "personality"?
Scratch and dent sale, obviously...
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:29:49 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> The only problems you've mentioned so far are those stemming from
> your persistance in sabotaging your own system.
Loading a 130MByte text file into a GUI editor you consider sabotaging my
own system?
> Why don't you just Beat your fucking forehead against a brick wall
> until it's a mushy pulp of shattered bone and swelling brain matter...
Sure. I'll make you a deal. You bash your brains out first, then I'll do
mine.
> [That's making the rather risky assumption that your head even
> *contains* brain matter...so far, I'm not sure...asshole]
Oh sorry, you don't have any brains to speak of do you? You've demonstrated
that enough times already. Been bashing them out over the years, have you?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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,soc.singles
Subject: Re: GODDAMNED STINKING PIECE OF SHIT THOLEN
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 09:27:18 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Marty wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Edward Rosten wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Marty"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "[Bad-Knees]" wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Can't we just all get along:)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unnecessary.
> > > > >
> > > > > Illogical.
> > > >
> > > > On what basis do you make this ridiculous claim?
> > >
> > > Tholen bought himself some pointy-green "Spock Ears" from some loser
> > > at a Star Dreck convention.
> >
> > From where did he buy the "personality"?
>
> Same place Ted Kennedy got his driver's license?
That boy could sure swim, though!
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:31:59 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> If it weren't for the fact that breathing is part of the autonomous
> response system...Pete, in fact, would be dead.
Dead people don't respond to posts.
Maybe I'm a vampire. Better watch out then. I'm might snag a lunch or too
on your neck. There again, I might not want to. You wouldn't be a
particularly good meal.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:33:15 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> So is LoseDOS.
>
> The difference is, Linux kernals in the Alpha-test stage have more
> stability
> than COMMERCIALLY RELEASED LoseDOS kernels...even after M$ has issues
> SEVERAL service packs....
Ah yes, but of course! That's it! That's why a 130MByte text file loads on
Windows and hangs on Linux. Yes! That's it!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Goodby MS...
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 09:30:43 GMT
"Kool Breeze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> I managed to learn just enough MFC/Win32 to get the app going and
> never learned the details, ie, 23 parameters/functions to paint a
> bitmap to the screen.
If you're ever in the unfortunate position, again, of having to write
Windows solutions, ignore MFC and go with ATL/WTL. Considerably better and
less bloated.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:36:20 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> You are a well-known LIAR.
>
> That sums up my concern for your "problem"
>
> (Got Manchausen syndrome?)
I'm not lying. I've seen other people lying about me and my posts, but I
have never lied.
You're in denial. You don't want your sacred cow to be threatened.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:37:03 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Considering how much you're deliberately sabotaging your test system,
> who really gives a fuck?
Considering how much crap you post, do you think anyone cares what you say?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:39:41 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> you misspelled "Delusional"
I wouldn't know, I never used that word.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 11:30:57 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:22:39
> >"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:mxje6.676$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> >> MS has quota management code in NT4, but they don't have a quota
manager.
> >> You have to buy a third party product to emable it (one of those
features
> >> that NT provides natively but the Win32 subsystem doesn't expose).
> >
> >One of the many features, you should've said.
> >Streams, hard links, rephrase points, etc, etc.
> >
> >It's so frustrating at times, the feature exists, there is just no easy
way
> >to access it.
>
> Well, here's a 100% reliable way to get access to those features:
>
> 1) Build a successful business providing access
> 2) Threaten Microsoft's illegal monopoly
> 3) Wait until MS gives everyone access (possibly after destroying your
> company, but nobody said it was easy, just reliable) in order to prevent
> your profit-seeking behavior from undermining their scam.
LOL.
In the four cases I mentioned, (hard links, rephrase points, streams, IE
zones), 1 is not required. 2 is impossible, 3 is unlikely.
IE zones, there is already a program that does it quite successfully.
Hard links, took five minutes to build a nice UI for the APIs.
Rephrase points aren't really useful for the user, but a minor change in the
Hard Link application can give you this.
Streams enumeration is *much* harder, you can either reley on an
undocumented API, or write your own, which may or may not get you into legal
trouble (check NTFS driver for linux vs MS).
Beside, I don't know how to write shell extentions, but if you can point me
to a site where it's explained (VB or C/C++, no delphi, please) I might take
a shot at it.
BTW, may I suggest that you would replace news servers? It's quite annoying
to get a bunch of your messages several days after they were sent.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 11:34:35 +0200
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > APPS will simply create their own OS, it'll be called .NET
> > Windows OS will just happen to have the most efficent .NET implentation
(by
> > a factor of 10 or so)
> > Nothing much will change.
>
> Strange how Lexmark doesn't give a fuck about supporting IBM's EBCDIC.
> Same thing will happen to APPS.
How does this has to do with anything?
Beside, if you think that APPS can't hold its own ground, then you are
*severly* mistaken.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
