Linux-Advocacy Digest #89, Volume #32 Sat, 10 Feb 01 00:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Perfectly ME (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Perfectly ME (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (sfcybear)
Re: Please explain this to me. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Ray Chason)
Re: Please explain this to me. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (sfcybear)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: The Wintrolls (J Sloan)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (sfcybear)
Re: Another Pete Goodwin "Oopsie"! (J Sloan)
Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push. (J Sloan)
Re: Security bug in mozilla on multi user system [linux] (Ray Chason)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Perfectly ME
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:08:49 GMT
In article <9600c1$6qo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>http://www.btinternet.com/~cerrig/opinions.htm
>
>The site mentioned above is a "pro" WinME site. What is very
>interesting is that all the messages have the same tone: they start of
>with how great ME is, and then they start to chat about the
>difficulties/problems/crashes etc.
>
>I also had a look at alt.windows-me (where I found the link) an it
>further became interesting to me that while the Linux users battle with
>mostly techie stuff, the Windows users battle with just getting the
>basics to work. I figure the system must be so unstable, they can't
>even get to the point of using any servers or other nice apps.
>
>BTW - About crashes - My WM crashed last night (the session was about
>one month old). It took less then 5 seconds to carry on with work
>again, after ctrl+alt+backspace. I think it was Netscape that did
>something funny, as it was just after trying to access a site. After
>the recovery I tried the site again, but only Netscape would bomb out
>then. Any way, the point is that IF something goes wrong in Linux, at
>least recovery is not at all that difficult or time consuming, taking
>into account Windows would have to restart the PC, do a scandisk etc.
>and if you are lucky you might have a system back in about 2 or 3
>minutes.
>
>Have a nice day.
>
>Cheers.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
I think it's a pretty well known fact by most Windows developers
there *IS* a set of Windows API's for Microsoft and another
set they publish for non-Microsoft developers.
Not that ME nor 2000 is that incredibly stable with all Microsoft
applications.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Perfectly ME
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:13:35 GMT
In article <96029m$tha$03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ralph Miguel Hansen wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>snip
>>
>> I figure the system must be so unstable, they can't
>> even get to the point of using any servers or other nice apps.
>>
>snip
>>
>
>It is. My wife has ME installed on her PC (she likes M$-OSes because they
>look so shiny) and I can't get her to work with Linux because I hate
>graphical logins and she is afraid of the bash. Now she has two crashes a
>day, about 500 MB for the OS only which causes a frustrated lady in front
>of the monitor - Thank you Bill !
>
>Cheers
>
>Ralph Miguel Hansen
>Using S.u.S.E. 5.3 and SuSE 7.0
>
>
My wife used to run Windows. She used it to keep up with
office tasks. She decided one day to use my Debian system
for some reason and the following day she asked me install
Debian. The Performance in Linux is undenyable for the desktop.
She was also appearently awakened to the lack of lockups
and the cool appearance of Gnome.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:10:39 GMT
Twirp, The statement that *you* used as the title "Linux fails to
deliver on the hype" is NO WHERE in the article the word Hype is NOT in
the article. The statement "Linux fails to deliver on the hype" is yours
alone.
In article <961ctu$cdk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <960m36$n3q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ??? SuSE is not Linux, but you made the statement that Linux did not
> > live up to the hype because of trouble at SuSE. This is very bad
logic.
> > You made a global statement about Linux based on a subset of the
Linux
> > 'Universe'. According to true logic, you can NOT make a global
statement
> > based on a subset. IBM is having great succes with Linux, but you
ignore
> > that in order to try to make a point using totaly invalid logic.
>
> I did not make that statement - the article did.
Twirp, The statement that *you* used as the title of your post is "Linux
fails to deliver on the hype" is NO WHERE in the article. In fact even
the word Hype is NOT in the article. The statement "Linux fails to
deliver on the hype" is yours alone. Why can't you stand behind your own
statements? Are you so pathetic? So stupid that you could not check the
article before you make claims about what an article said.
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Please explain this to me.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:21:00 GMT
In article <rLWg6.26616$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Martigan wrote:
>
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Martigan wrote:
>> >
>> > Well as I see when RH and others did their IPO's the prices sky
>> > rocketed, like the .COM's. But these flaky ass investors are wanting
>> > immediate returns. I know the stock market is a money game, that's all
>it
>> > is. People want money NOW! This is why it is hard for me to understand
>why
>> > people worry so much about it. So what is RH and some others go DOWN.
>>
>> I have a real problem with what passes for "capitalism" these days. It is
>more
>> like greedism.
>>
>> The great capitalists of history built things, accomplished great feats.
>Huge
>> building, newspapers, etc. Many of these things were a life worth of work.
>I'm
>> not saying there was no greed, surely there was, be the society publicly
>valued
>> the accomplishments, and privately envied the wealth.
>>
>> Today, we ignore any accomplishment, and only focus on wealth. A company
>that
>> employed people was, in and of itself, a valuable entity to be protected.
>These
>> days social responsibility is out. Greed is in.
>>
>> Welcome to the global economy. People don't matter. Governments don't
>matter.
>> We are back to the golden rule. "The one with the gold, makes the rules."
>>
>> --
>> http://www.mohawksoft.com
>>
>
>
>Exactly, that's why if Linux wants to exist it needs to always be free, as
>soon as money is involved it will go to hell.
>
>
I have to laugh at Turbo Linux, Suse and RedHat.
They have all had CUTBACKS and re-organizations.
Linux will be around after all of them are gone.
You will not promote Linux by releasing untested
software.
Debian doesn't rely so much on PROFIT.
So they test the distribution to the point of sillyness
and that's why people who USE Linux generally use
Debian.
Debian won't blow away in the winds of Marketing sillyness
and it won't ever be released full of bugs.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:23:15 -0000
Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From what I've read
>
>http://wired.com/news/business/0,1367,41622,00.html
>
>Microsoft isn't waiting for antitrust legislation to destroy them.
>They're doing it themselves. If I understand correctly, with Whistler,
>people will have to phone in registration numbers to get systems to
>run. And that the copy protection supposedly includes a scheme by which
>the reg. number gets tied to the machine's configuration - hard drive,
>net card, modem, etc. This is insane. If true, people will have to
>re-phone in their regs when they upgrade peripherals!
>From the second page of the article:
Microsoft has made no secret of its desire to make packaged
applications go away, while replacing them with a subscription
or a service.
[...]
"Office 2000 works great, just not that much greater than Office 97,"
he [Le Tocq] said. "For a lot of organizations, Microsoft has been
trying to suggest they should upgrade with every version and they
have said they don't see a lot of benefit in it from a user
standpoint."
Because of that, Le Tocq said Microsoft is not getting the upgrade
revenue on Office, which is almost half of the company's total
revenue. "Microsoft is hurting big time because Office is not
getting renewed and they are pulling out all the stops so the cash
their company depends on keeps coming in."
THIS is why Linux is my primary OS. THIS is why I put up with Linux's
various user-interface and hardware-compatibility bogosities. THIS is
why I use Linux, even more so than actually being able to fix my computer
when it breaks, even more so than having fewer crashes than Win9x. Linux
to me is about being able to use my computer--my property ferchrissakes--
without having to get Microsoft's permission first.
Call me a Linonut, if you must. But we'll see who's the nut this time
next year when I'm still using my computer, and flatfoot can't because
she didn't pay her Bill bill.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Please explain this to me.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:26:25 GMT
In article <961s9m$906$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Mading wrote:
>mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Martigan wrote:
>:>
>:> Well as I see when RH and others did their IPO's the prices sky
>:> rocketed, like the .COM's. But these flaky ass investors are wanting
>:> immediate returns. I know the stock market is a money game, that's all it
>:> is. People want money NOW! This is why it is hard for me to understand why
>:> people worry so much about it. So what is RH and some others go DOWN.
>
>: I have a real problem with what passes for "capitalism" these days. It is more
>: like greedism.
>
>The problem isn't that investors want to make money. The problem
>is that they want to make money NOW, and they don't give a flying
>fsck if the enterprise they invested in will keep making money
>next year or next decade. If it starts failing, they'll just
>pull out and invest in something else. They don't care - they made
>their money and now they're done. This attitude is very short-sighted,
>and brings the quality of everything down. When you can't see past
>the next quarter's earnings record, you never try anything large and
>grandiose. The wright brother's airplane building business was
>very slow to get started, because there was little demand for the
>novelty of flying. So they went around putting on airshows,
>like a travelling circus, trying to drum up interest. It took a
>long time, but eventually an actual aircraft industry had begun,
>and Curtiss-Wright was one of the more successful companies in it.
>In today's dot-com myopic investor world, they'd have given up
>long before they saw the fruits of their labor.
>
I agree. RedHat 7.0 had/has some problems because they pushed
the distribution too hard and released code which wasn't working, patched
that, then left the public with an alpha compiler.
Because they have Suse and Mandrake copying them, they feel the NEED
to release more advanced software as they are in competion.
Debian isn't in competition so they have NO DEADLINES.
They just have a user base which REFUSED to release
junk code.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:21:23 GMT
In article <961d38$ch9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <960meu$n8p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Funny, this does not jib with what SuSE says:
> >
> > http://www.suse.com/us/suse/news/PressReleases/suse_inc.html
> >
> > But facts seem to mean nothing to you.
>
> Funny, I thought I was pointing out an interesting article. Somehow
you
> make an invalid leap and seem to think I wrote the article.
Ha, you are riot. It was you and not the article that made the statement
"Linux fails to deliver on the hype". It is the title of your post. You
did NOT say "SuSE claims Linux does not live up to the hype" YOU said
"Linux fails to deliver on the hype" YOU made that claim. You did not
say that this article claims "Linux fails to deliver on the hype" YOU
made that statement. The statement "Linux fails to deliver on the hype"
is no place in the article. Then you're such a weasle that you won't
stand behind your own statement.
When *you* title a post "Linux fails to deliver on the hype" YOU are
making a claim. The body of the post is your "proof" of your statement.
*your* leap from what the article said to *your* statement "Linux fails
to deliver on the hype" is what is invalid.
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:30:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Martinet wrote:
>From what I've read
>
>http://wired.com/news/business/0,1367,41622,00.html
>
>Microsoft isn't waiting for antitrust legislation to destroy them.
>They're doing it themselves. If I understand correctly, with Whistler,
>people will have to phone in registration numbers to get systems to
>run. And that the copy protection supposedly includes a scheme by which
>the reg. number gets tied to the machine's configuration - hard drive,
>net card, modem, etc. This is insane. If true, people will have to
>re-phone in their regs when they upgrade peripherals!
>
>But it gets better.
>
>Future versions of MS software (upgrades, service packs*, add-ons) will
>only be available online through .NET. This looks like an attempt by MS
>to force people to pay for software on a monthly basis - like cable TV.
>
>So, you change your NIC card and in order to make use of your monthly
>software subscription to get the new driver you have to wait on hold
>with your computer's configuration list for someone to re-enable your
>machine so you can download the software you're already being billed
>for. This sounds neat.
>
>In my experience, copy protection just doesn't work - either at home or
>work. People blithely trade registration numbers and disks and software
>with dongles gets replaced with applications that don't require keeping
>track of a serial-port plug. I can't imagine home users being happy
>about MS using their machines against them.
>
>I think in about 2 years there's going to be a hell of a lot of business
>for people who know how to set up Linux.
>
>*Service pack. What a great marketing spin on the old 'patch', eh? "We
>don't need no stinkin' patches!"
>
>MjM
I think a great many of them will be using NET applicances made
with Linux. There are a dozen of them now for under $300 which work
with your T.V. and an IR keyboard.
This means lot's of JAVA development going on.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:48:52 GMT
Peter Hayes wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 06:19:57 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Linux has the following methods of configuring the kernel:
> >
> > 1. a script, invoked by "make config", which asks yes/no/module
> > questions for each option, of which there are several hundred.
> > Hitting the return key selects the default.
>
> And make one mistake and you have to start again, even the backspace key
> isn't of any use correcting mistakes.
Just so.
If one is prone to mistakes, he would want to use one of
the menu driven configuration tools.
jjs
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:38:06 GMT
Funny, both articles that you have posted are articles that are quoting
from another souce: linuxgram. It seems that LinuxGram has removed this
obviously flawed article:
http://www.linuxgram.com/newsitem.phtml?sid=109&aid=11712
Follow the link YOU posted below. Other articles have been writen that
show that the layoffs nothing about business and all about the SuSE
business.
In article <960kst$m7q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <95un7e$40a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Even better:
>
> http://www.it.fairfax.com.au/breaking/20010208/A20552-2001Feb8.html
>
> "Linux doesn't work, SuSE chief admits"
>
> ?Customers have effectively been duped into believing that they would
be
> getting something for nothing when, in fact, they would just be paying
> for it differently,? the report says.
>
> According to Wiegand, the business community's expectations of Linux
> were ?greater than the deliverables and were ?now below zero?.
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Pete Goodwin "Oopsie"!
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:57:26 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > It does. You dump out postscript, and let the printer/filter deal with
> > it. Any app can print to any printer.
>
> You can have any colour you like, so long as it's black.
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
> And what happens if you don't like black, or don't have a postscript
> printer?
I've been using color printers from Linux since about 1996.
The printtool adds and sets up a printer in about 2 minutes.
How did you manage to screw up even this simple task?
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push.
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 05:02:11 GMT
chrisv wrote:
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The majority simply need email and web browsing,
> >maybe a quick editor to bang out a recipe or a letter
> >to grandma.
> >
> >Paying the windows tax for this makes little sense.
>
> Nonsense. Even my 6 year old daughter has dozens of apps she runs on
> her machine. Are ANY of these available on Linux? Not.
My little girl uses a ton of apps too - all Linux of course, e.g.
netscape, gimp, gaim, xscanimage, gnapster, xmms, abiword,
tetris, etc, etc - Interestingly enough, she doesn't seem to be
missing anything, since she has a mac of her own, and has
access to her mother's windows pc, but she uses Linux as
much, if not more, than either of the other OSes -
jjs
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Security bug in mozilla on multi user system [linux]
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 05:03:37 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thorsten Moellers) wrote:
>######################################################
>The properties of the /home/tmoeller/.mozilla:
>
>
>-rw-r--r-- 1 tmoeller tmoeller 933 Jan 14 10:34 .mozilla/appreg
>-rw-r--r-- 1 tmoeller tmoeller 534 Jan 29 23:19 .mozilla/mozver.dat
>-rw-r--r-- 1 tmoeller 230 692 Aug 18 21:42 .mozilla/registry
[snip]
>########################################################
>The properties of the /home/peek/.mozilla:
>
>
>-rw-r--r-- 1 peek 502 929 Jan 17 16:31 .mozilla/appreg
>-rw-r--r-- 1 peek 230 687 Jul 29 2000 .mozilla/registry
[snip]
A first stab: I see group- and world-readable files in both .mozilla
directories. Mozilla shouldn't be trying to read the tmoeller directory
when su'd to peek; but if you have a problem with it doing that, try this
from the tmoeller account:
find ~/.mozilla -exec chmod go-rwx "{}" ";"
Mozilla may still try to read this directory, but will complain instead
of actually reading it.
Perhaps there's an environment variable that points Mozilla to its
configuration directory?
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
