Linux-Advocacy Digest #4, Volume #32 Tue, 6 Feb 01 05:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Would linux hackers like an OpenS windows? (gswork)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: The Wintrolls (Peter Hayes)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (J Sloan)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (J Sloan)
Re: Linux performance results (J Sloan)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: NTFS Limitations ("Tom Wilson")
Re: NTFS Limitations ("Tom Wilson")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Tom Wilson")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Tom Wilson")
Re: You're not just Whistler, XP! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: how come you have to reboot when you change DNS servers in Windows? ("Tom
Wilson")
Re: You're not just Whistler, XP! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Microsoft opening Windows source code ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Suggestions (SERIOUS ones please) requested (Glitch)
Re: Suggestions (SERIOUS ones please) requested (Glitch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:49:01 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], J Sloan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on
2/6/01 12:05 AM:
> I dunno, I prefer my Helix gnome desktop to anything
> I've seen from microsoft - and I see windows nt and
> win 2k every day.
Why do all you unix saps compare yourselves to one of the shittiest GUI's on
earth?
I use Mac OS, and the OS X beta. Both have interfaces that crush anything
available on X Windows, or anything that ever came out of redmond. The
final version of OS X is expected to have NO requirement of editing text
configs they'll all have control panels. Thus the mac will remain the best
interface and without sacrificing its ALL GUI design.
>
>> Not really. I already have Photoshop, and Word, and Explorer (my key apps)
>> on both Mac OS and Windows. UNIX is a useless paperweight for me.
>
> Sorry to hear that, Unix makes a lot of sense to me - in
> fact, apple finally got it and that's why MacOS X is Unix too.
Yeah "kinda" the consumer release will sport CLI as an OPTIONAL INSTALL, it
runs on a unix microkernal but the top layer is far from UNIX. It consist
of NeXTStep (Cocoa), Mac OS "Classic", and JAVA.
>> I'll keep my mac and telnet to unix-based servers on an as needed basis
>> thanks.
>
> Yes, I used to do that - I was seeing the power of
> Unix through a tiny peephole - then I found I could
> have the whole enchilada right on my desktop.
I can't fathom any reason you'd ever want unix on your desktop the whole
point is the network stuff the rest is after thought crap (after thought
internet browsers, after thought GUIs, after thought everything except
networking)
>> Not only does it have better apps then either Linux or Winblows, Its at
>> least as Stable as NT, and I don't have to worry about going through arcane
>> text based config files if something goes wrong.
>
> I like having the text files - you can use the GUI tools
> if you want, but you can also manipulate the text files
> directly if you know what you're doing. That's why I
> like Unix, there is a lot of flexibility in how you choose
> to get something done. I guess that's why I like perl
> too, it's the essense of Unix distilled into a language.
Yeah but the X Windows GUI tools SUCK. Perl is definitely handy, but it's
nowhere near as handy as AppleScript when it comes to objects. Perl neat
for text processing and bath file processing which I only do once in a blue
moon. Still perl is probably the best thing I could say about UNIX.
-g3
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:53:46 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], J Sloan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on
2/6/01 12:07 AM:
>> iLOL you do realize Avie Tevanian, the guy who wrote Mach (as in the
>> microkernal) is the head of the OS division yes?
>
> Yes, well mach is an interesting topic, but it's never
> proven to be very speedy in real world measurements.
>
> jjs
>
Well that could also be because everytime Jobs and Avie have gotten a really
cool Mach based product out the door its supported features 10 years ahead
of its time but required hardware that was about 5 years away.
OS X will be the first time I've heard of it running in a situation I'd
expect it to perform optimally (its been re-written for PowerPC, its running
on a really fast architecture, all the bells and whistles are still rather
low cost resource wise compare with what the current Mac OS takes up, and
with some pretty minimal optimizing it SHOULD perform really well.)
NeXTStep was cripled by slow hardware, and OpenStep was cripled in that it
was sort of an after thought port to Intel hardware at the last minute.
Having had what's it been now 4 or 5 years? To port it to PowerPC I think it
should be pretty speedy. (OS X and Mach)
-G3
------------------------------
From: gswork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would linux hackers like an OpenS windows?
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:50:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It would be fascinating would it not? Some of it is probably pretty
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You misspelled "laughable"
>
> [Ever see Microsoft source code??? Most of it, even college sophomores
> would be ashamed to sign their name to. No wonder Gates doesn't want
> anybody to see it.]
I haven't really. If it's that bad I'd like to see it!
Any [verified] snippets hanging around on the net?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:58:16 GMT
in article 3a7f89df$0$26819$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Seebach at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/6/01 12:21 AM:
> Then you're forgetting one of the most common PC Unix problems; most
> Unix-like systems politely ignore incorrectly jumpered drives - say, a
> slave device on a channel with no master device.
Actually now that you point that out I am very unhappy I hadn't thought of
that. 0_0 I think, as I did switch the drives around in frustration, that I
may have ended up accomplishing fixing that but I am positive thatıs how the
cdrom was setup because I had just recently removed the second hard drive
that was originally a slave to the one I was then installing linux on, I'd
never moved the cdrom over.
>> How exactly did you get the install-CD going if the CD-ROM wasn't recognized?
>
> Uhm. The BIOS finds the CD, boots from the El Torito floppy image, and then
> that image loads a kernel which doesn't probe the CD? This can't happen
> to various users of various OS's more than a few thousand times a week.
> Linux may not be as bad as that guy thought it was, but you sure aren't
> impressing anyone by "debunking" a story which is fairly common and
> well-understood.
The install was treacherous, and for little benefit. Work already has
serveral linux servers I can telnet to, I have yet to find a good reason to
waste on e of my own machines on it. I do mostly graphic intensive stuff,
90% mac based with Windows mostly around for compatibility testing.
Still these linux idiots presume that just because all they do is write perl
scripts all day to processes text files that no one else does anything
requiring REAL graphics capabilities, like multiple monitors, color
correction, video editing, image editing. Etc.
-G3
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:59:18 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 21:10:56 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux and
> > seem to have is crashing the whole time and can't run software they want,
> > yet they keep on using it. Why? No sane person would carry on using
> > something if they had so many problems with it (usless it was forced on
> > them).
>
> But I don't hate Linux!
>
> And it isn't crashing all the time!
>
> What software is it I can't run?
>
> As for why do I keep using it - KNode is worth the effort!
Can you use KNode as an offline reader without having to run leafnode or
the like?
Peter
--
In the 19th century surveyors measured the height of Everest
from 500 miles away in India.
This cannot be done today because increased atmospheric pollution
means Everest is no longer visible from the survey location.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 09:03:37 GMT
G3 wrote:
> in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], J Sloan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on
> 2/6/01 12:05 AM:
>
> > I dunno, I prefer my Helix gnome desktop to anything
> > I've seen from microsoft - and I see windows nt and
> > win 2k every day.
>
> Why do all you unix saps compare yourselves to one of the shittiest GUI's on
> earth?
Heh - I agree, but there is so much hype about windows
that's what the average joe 6 pack thinks of as a GUI.
> I use Mac OS, and the OS X beta. Both have interfaces that crush anything
> available on X Windows, or anything that ever came out of redmond. The
> final version of OS X is expected to have NO requirement of editing text
> configs they'll all have control panels. Thus the mac will remain the best
> interface and without sacrificing its ALL GUI design.
Well cool, I hope it is all it is hoped for, if so maybe
I'll be picking up a new mac...
> > Sorry to hear that, Unix makes a lot of sense to me - in
> > fact, apple finally got it and that's why MacOS X is Unix too.
>
> Yeah "kinda" the consumer release will sport CLI as an OPTIONAL INSTALL, it
> runs on a unix microkernal but the top layer is far from UNIX. It consist
> of NeXTStep (Cocoa), Mac OS "Classic", and JAVA.
>
> >> I'll keep my mac and telnet to unix-based servers on an as needed basis
> >> thanks.
> >
> > Yes, I used to do that - I was seeing the power of
> > Unix through a tiny peephole - then I found I could
> > have the whole enchilada right on my desktop.
>
> I can't fathom any reason you'd ever want unix on your desktop the whole
> point is the network stuff the rest is after thought crap (after thought
> internet browsers, after thought GUIs, after thought everything except
> networking)
I guess we can agree to disagree on that -
but I agree that MacOS X looks very cool!
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 09:00:50 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95lj67$5ck$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > I hope it wont. I use Win98 at home because I like to play games.
> > > > However, each successive release of Windows appears to be trying to
> take
> > > > more and more control out of my hands, which I will not permit on
my
> > > > computer.
> > >
> > > You want to talk about 9x and control? LOL.
> >
> > Yep. I'm not talking about the control you need in a work environment,
> > control over security - I knew MS was pretty short on that when I first
> > installed Win98.
> >
> > I'm talking about freedom and control over my own personal machine. I
> > can do almost anything I damn well please under 98, including useful
> > tasks like creating a bootdisk (fuck you, WinME). Win98 almost never
> > pops up and says "You cannot do this", and if it does, I can bloody
well
> > get to DOS and do it anyway.
>
> Well, I suggest that you would wait and get Whistler when it's out.
> Really cool OS, and none of the you-are-too-stupid-to-use-this nonesense
> from ME.
> And, anyway, rumor says that Whistler personal will be only 50$ - 90$
> (For comparison, ME (and 2K upgrade) is $169.99 )
Thanks but no thanks...Windows 2000 Professional is the end of the line for
me. Whistler is totally unnecessary and .NET will NEVER pollute one of my
machines. It's about as transparent a money vacuum as DIVX was. We will
neither utilize it nor develop for it - period. It is something to be
viewed with disdain, not anticipation. Only the severely short-sighted
would actually welcome such a system.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 09:04:55 GMT
G3 wrote:
> Wow thatıs the same amount of time it took me to get win 2k to upgrade my 98
> drive, convert my programs (and weed out ones suspected to not work) and to
> reformat the drive to NTFS. No problems since either.
So, you're a windows fan then?
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux performance results
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 09:06:42 GMT
Donn Miller wrote:
> A point I might add here. I compared the performance of Windows 98 on
> an AMD 450 against a machine running FreeBSD 4.0 on a P166 MMX, both
> with 64 Megs of RAM. You'd be surprised, there really isn't much of a
> difference in performance. In fact, the FreeBSD machine actually seemed
> slightly more responsive. But then again, that probably doesn't
> surprise too many people. Well, maybe EF. 8-)
EF will begin to troubleshoot with you, and to help you
figure out why freebsd is so fast - with any luck he can
help you get it running a bit more slowly...
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:25:14 +0200
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95lq9j$sbt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote in message <95lj67$5ck$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >
> >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > I hope it wont. I use Win98 at home because I like to play games.
> >> > > However, each successive release of Windows appears to be trying to
> >take
> >> > > more and more control out of my hands, which I will not permit on
my
> >> > > computer.
> >> >
> >> > You want to talk about 9x and control? LOL.
> >>
> >> Yep. I'm not talking about the control you need in a work environment,
> >> control over security - I knew MS was pretty short on that when I first
> >> installed Win98.
> >>
> >> I'm talking about freedom and control over my own personal machine. I
> >> can do almost anything I damn well please under 98, including useful
> >> tasks like creating a bootdisk (fuck you, WinME). Win98 almost never
> >> pops up and says "You cannot do this", and if it does, I can bloody
well
> >> get to DOS and do it anyway.
> >
> >Well, I suggest that you would wait and get Whistler when it's out.
> >Really cool OS, and none of the you-are-too-stupid-to-use-this nonesense
> >from ME.
> >And, anyway, rumor says that Whistler personal will be only 50$ - 90$
> >(For comparison, ME (and 2K upgrade) is $169.99 )
> >
>
> And you believe these rumors? Even if they turn out to be true, upgrading
> seldom works well
I said it's a rumor, because I can't confirm it.
AFAIK, it should be the price for the whole product, not just the upgrade.
Regardless, you can do an upgrade on a clean system, you just need a prior
version of windows' cd to show the installation program.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 09:12:59 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:5gZe6.6833$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:s1gh59.s8b.ln@gd2zzx...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > >
> > > So, with that, I ask you guys:
> > > 1. Why is Linux the most vulnerable web server platform?
> >
> > In 2000 Microsoft hit the ton with security bugs. A record. The worst
single
> > application was IIS. You were saying...
>
> "hit the ton"?
>
> View attrition.org. Linux frequently beats NT+2K (combined) in number of
> defacements per month.
It also beats them combined in over-all utilization, too.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 09:21:03 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 03 Feb 2001 02:13:33
> >"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:95fmge$dju$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>
> >> : So, with that, I ask you guys:
> >> : 1. Why is Linux the most vulnerable web server platform?
> >>
> >> I don't know. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
> >
> >*PL0NK*
> >
> >Now I KNOW that even YOU don't know what the hell you're talking about.
>
> Guffaw.
Seconded Guffaw
That whoosh sound we just heard was the meaning of that comment sailing
right over the recipient's head...
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 09:28:30 GMT
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert:) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >The main reason why just about all the software and high-technology
> >items originate from the U.S. is we are free.
>
> Yeah, those chains they slap on our wrists make it damn hard to use a
> keyboard.
Ask for slack.<g>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 09:34:16 GMT
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Harlan Grove) wrote in <94si7f$7nq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Absolutely true. It's how we define 'freedom'. For those in the US of
> >Libertarian bent, Microsoft can do what it wants to within certain
> >legal bounds (which it's overstepped, IMO).
>
> Microsoft has a centrally planned, state granted, exclusive monopoly.
> That's not very libertarian.
>
> Americans are so busy watching and being suspicious of their government,
> they've missed the big corporations sneaking up behind them, until it's
too
> late and there's nothing left to do but bite the pillow.
No, we're quite aware of big business. Watching the government means
watching big business as well since big business interests dictate what the
government does and does not do.
>
> Europeans have the opposite problem.
I think, if you look closely enough, the problem is just the same over
there. Your governments are just a bit better at hiding it. High dollar
call girls to our street-corner whores as it were...
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: You're not just Whistler, XP!
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:07:28 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Peter Hayes wrote:
> >
> > "Get Whistler, it'll fix all the problems of Win95/98/ME/NT4/Win2k.
Really
> > cool OS".
> >
> > > And, anyway, rumor says that Whistler personal will be only 50$ - 90$
> > > (For comparison, ME (and 2K upgrade) is $169.99 )
>
> Man, Microsoft must be running out of creativity. They have given the
> name "Windows XP" to Whistler, and "Office XP" to Office. Read here
> what XP means:
>
>
http://computerworld.com/cwi/story/0%2C1199%2CNAV47_STO57388_NLTam%2C00.html
>
> Sounds like the name of Speed Racer's new vehicle.
I agree, what was wrong with Whistler & Office 10 ?
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: how come you have to reboot when you change DNS servers in Windows?
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 09:42:43 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, jtnews wrote:
> >I was trying to experiment with
> >various networking options in windows
> >98se and for each little different
> >configuration like changing a DNS server
> >I had to reboot windows. Why is that?
> >Does Win2K require you to do the same thing?
> >
>
> Their networking is straight in the kernel.
> They don't have a modular kernel.
>
> >How come in Linux you can turn the networking
> >interfaces on and off and configure whatever you
> >want without doing any reboot?
> >
>
> Modular Kernel
>
> >Can't Microsoft make Windows more like Linux
> >in this regard?
>
> They've been trying to create UNIX since day 1.
...Missed it by Thaaaat much! <g>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: You're not just Whistler, XP!
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 09:57:51 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95ogos$94g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Peter Hayes wrote:
> > >
> > > "Get Whistler, it'll fix all the problems of Win95/98/ME/NT4/Win2k.
> Really
> > > cool OS".
> > >
> > > > And, anyway, rumor says that Whistler personal will be only 50$ -
90$
> > > > (For comparison, ME (and 2K upgrade) is $169.99 )
> >
> > Man, Microsoft must be running out of creativity. They have given the
> > name "Windows XP" to Whistler, and "Office XP" to Office. Read here
> > what XP means:
> >
> >
>
http://computerworld.com/cwi/story/0%2C1199%2CNAV47_STO57388_NLTam%2C00.htm
l
> >
> > Sounds like the name of Speed Racer's new vehicle.
>
> I agree, what was wrong with Whistler & Office 10 ?
What's wrong with this picture is that more work will probably go into it's
marketing than its' conception and design.
Come to think of it Whistler leaves this mental image of an old lady in a
rocking chair...Not exactly high tech imagery.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft opening Windows source code
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 10:00:00 GMT
"Black Dragon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 22:33:35 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `The Ghost In The Machine' said:
>
> : >http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-201-4678406-0.html?tag=3Dmn_hd
> :
> : quote:
> :
> : "Our goal is to CNET's Linux Center make this (source code)
available
> : to many hundreds of customers," Miller said during an interview at
the
> : LinuxWorld Conference and Expo trade show in New York this week.
> :
> : end quote.
> :
> : The only problem is that these are Microsoft's larger customers.
> : While it's clear that this is a step in the right direction,
> : it's only a step -- and may easily be a step in the wrong direction
> : as well, if Microsoft releases its source code to select
> : customers (i.e., those who can pay, or allocate engineers
> : for fixes), but not to the man on the street.
>
>
> Is it the source code, OR, is it documentation for previously
> un-documented API's. Due to the fact that the customers have
> signed NDA's, we'll probably never know the truth. (not that
> Microsoft knows what it is either, lying fscking criminals!)
Most of the NDA covered documentation doesn't tell you much more than the
existing public documentation. (I've seen a little bits and pieces)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 03:32:49 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Suggestions (SERIOUS ones please) requested
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 23:47:41 -0500, Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> You seem to think it's a bad thing to read documentation and learn
>> about what you're using, I just hope you never take up any safety
>> critical occupations or hobbies. If you were a pilot I don't think I'd
>> want to fly with you.
>
>
> If I was flying a plane no, but in using a pc I prefer to concentrate
> on applications instead of spending weeks trying to figure out what
> should be easy.
>
> Windows makes things easy and Linsux does not.
>
You must have been born with the knowledge to use Windows w/o needing
any books or experience. gee, I wish we were all like that. It would
make tech support jobs easier.
The other 6 billion people in this world aren't born with the knowledge
you seem to have been born with and therefore need to take the time to
get used to and learn about their computer, the application software
they run, and the OS itself. THe OS includes the Mac OS , linux, or
Windows. I wasn't born with the knowledge of knowing how to configure
Windows95/98 and I won't say i was. I had to learn it. I had to learn it
with Linux.
Don't act like someone needing to learn something new means they are
wasting their time. Of course you were born with all that knowledge so
I guess someone like you would say anyone who had to read to gain
knowledge was wasting their time.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 03:35:27 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Suggestions (SERIOUS ones please) requested
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 04:00:22 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>> For a good book on the subject, I recommend Rich Sharp's "Special
>> Edition: Using Samba". Published by MacMillan, available online thru
>> B&N or Amazon. This one's quite current, and a good companion to the
>> other publications in MacMillan-Que's "Special Edition" series.
>
>
> Oh dear me, and I was told setting up Samba via SWAT was so easy.
> Can't be that an entire library of books has to be written to use it.
>
> Sya it's not so?
>
>
you must not have a bookstore in your part of the Solar System that
carries a score of Windows books even though Windows is 'supposed' to be
the easiest OS this side of Andromeda.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
