Linux-Advocacy Digest #567, Volume #32 Wed, 28 Feb 01 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: KDE or DOJ ? ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Dan Pop)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Dan Pop)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("B.B.")
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: KDE or DOJ ? ("Reefer")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (John Hasler)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Keldon Warlord 2000")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or DOJ ?
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:08:57 +1300
using AOL!!!!!!!! fuck, from what I have heard, they are the worst ISP!!!
Started by a loser, for losers. Use an ISP that doesn't have all the
randy-dandy web-interface bull shit, and you won't face those problems, like
IHUG, Xtra, Bigpond, to name a few.
Matthew Gardiner
"CyberCFO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Y_gn6.7162$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> > In article <Gngn6.660$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Have you used KDE extensively? It's not bad, but it's not the Explorer
> >> killer that you seem to think it is. It's still way to complicated to
> >> configure (have you actually tried looking through the configuration
> >> settings?)
> >
> > Have you? Have you even tried KDE 2.1? Not KDE 1.1.2 or KDE 2.0, but
> > KDE 2.1. I just installed KDE 2.1 last night and I can't see anything
> > complicated about configuration. What confuses you?
> >
> > Gary
> >
> The confusion is generated by people like my mother who represents 50% of
> the Windows user base, and who will never switch to something that doesn't
> do it for them and that an aol client is not available for.
> --
> /g
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pop)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 1 Mar 2001 00:51:45 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lawrence Kirby) writes:
>In article <97ja1k$667$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Dan Pop" writes:
>
>...
>
>>It doesn't! The following prototype is OK, although it doesn't match
>>the <stdio.h> one byte-for-byte:
>>
>> int printf(const char format[], ...);
>>
>>Furthermore, I believe even this prototype is OK:
>>
>> int printf(char *format, ...);
>
>The type of this 2nd form is incompatible with printf()'s standard type
>so calling printf() with this declaration in scope results in undefined
>behaviour.
Not so. The type compatibility in this context ignores any qualifiers.
N869 (6.7.5.3 #11):
(In the determination of
type compatibility and of a composite type, each parameter
declared with function or array type is taken as having the
adjusted type and each parameter declared with qualified
type is taken as having the unqualified version of its
declared type.)
Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, IT Division
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail: CERN - IT, Bat. 31 1-014, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pop)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 1 Mar 2001 01:02:46 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mark McIntyre
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On 28 Feb 2001 21:20:53 GMT, Steve Mading
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>: Dan Pop wrote:
>>:>
>>:> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Richard Heathfield
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>:>
>>:> Furthermore, I believe even this prototype is OK:
>>:>
>>:> int printf(char *format, ...);
>>
>>If you never used any % formatters, you might even be able
>>to get away with:
>>
>> int printf( char *str ); /*with no '...'*/
>
>possibly.
Well, undefined behaviour makes *everything* possible :-)
>>Of course, ALL functions could have parameters prototyped as follows:
>> int foo( ... );
>
>Variadic functions must have at least one parameter, I believe.
The syntax of a function declarator requires at least one parameter before
the ", ..." thing.
Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, IT Division
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail: CERN - IT, Bat. 31 1-014, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 01:12:30 +0000
> Oh, one question: What happens in Windows if I write a program to dump
> random gibberish to the parallel port the printer is attached to, and
> totally ignore the print spool and printer driver? Does it work? If
> so, then Windows has the same "problem". I'm sure 95/98 let you do it,
> because you need to allow it for DOS backward compatability. I don't
> know for sure about NT. The only NT machines I have access to have no
> directly connected printers (instead we use HP jetdirect LAN printers).
NT lets you do it. Under windows, the print drivers are up a few levels
compared to UNIX (they are not in the spooler, they are in the GDI). So
under Windows, only GUI apps can print something using the windows print
drivers.
So if you do
print gibberish.raw /D:lpt1
it will soppl the file and print it but it won't make any attempt to
filter it because windows does not have filters.
-ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "B.B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:16:03 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
@> Hitting "next article" doesn't save the already-wasted bandwith
@> the sig is taking up.
@
@You miss the point entirely.
@
@The purpose of the .sig is to communicate a message.
@
@That message is not very well communicated if it's never presented.
I thought the body of the article was supposed to communicate a
message. The .sig was to remind the reader who wrote it.
Either way, that really has nothing to do with wether or not you're
wasting huge quantities of bandwidth. To address that: You're not--it's
only text. Just one of the millions of binaries posted a day takes up
more than all the .sigs from all your articles for the last few weeks.
However, your .sig is extremely annoying.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! [EMAIL PROTECTED] @airmail.net
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:16:58 +1300
Personally, I prefer Solaris because it has co-herancy and consistancy
between applications, the example would be the copy and paste example
(posted a while back), I can copy, cut, paste etc with out a problem, vs.
Linux un-consistant short cut keys which changes in each application, and
yes I know I am posting using Windows 2000 using LookOut! Express 5 (can't
be forked installing and alernative one) because I am waiting for my SUN
Machine to arrive (hopefully by next week).
Matthew Gardiner
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:JDgn6.663$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> FreeBSD and OpenBSD are quite a bit more secure than Linux due to many
> process they adoped quite a while ago. Buffer overruns are a rarity, and
> almost always in a port rather than the core OS.
>
> FreeBSD also has what is considered to be the most robust and efficient
> TCP/IP stack implementation as well.
>
> FreeBSD has a bit poorer SMP support than Linux, especially with 2.4, but
> they're concentrating on that for FreeBSD 5. They'll also have kernel
> threads as well then.
>
> If they're using a 4MB kernel, then they're doing something wrong. Even
> FreeBSD's generic kernel is only 3MB. If you take out the unrelevant
> drivers for hardware you're not using, you can get it down to about 1.4MB
> easily.
>
> make world may take a great deal of time, but it's one command to issue,
and
> everything is then optimized for your system. apt-get isn't bad either,
but
> these tend to retrieve generic files optimized for 386's, which isn't
always
> what you want.
>
> FreeBSD is consistent, and easy to use. Linux is splintered into several
> types of distributsions: those derived from Debian, those derived from
Red
> Hat, those derived from other sources... etc.. and each has different ways
> of maintaining them, even between distros derived from the same sources.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 01:19:04 +0000
>> > Peter writes:
>> >> OTOH, even in the cave, man was searching for a reason for his
>> >> existence. That, and art, is what separates us from the beasts in
>> >> the field.
>> >
>> > Show that "the beasts in the field" do not practice art
>>
>> They do practice art. See my other post.
>
> The Bower birds. Fascinating. But isn't it just a very exaggerated
> mating ritual carried on by instinct rather than conscious artistic
> input?
Creating the bowers and filling them seems to be an inherited ritual. What
they fill them with and how they arrange the fillings (they are very, very
picky about this)[*] seems to be entirely up to artistic judgement on the
part of the bird. The females then seem to choose them on artistic merit
as well. Of course, a female bower bird's idea of artistic merit is
different to other female bower birds idea of merit.
Several young male birds will group together and practice building bowers,
which implies that this is a skill which needs to be aquired rather than
purely an instinct.
I saw a program where David Attenborough tried moving objects slightly or
adding in objects. When the birds returned, they threw out the new
objects and put the others back.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 01:19:34 GMT
In article <IY1n6.13991$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike wrote:
>
>The phone company was granted a monopoly, Charlie, much like your gas
>company and your water company are today. The fact that you could call your
>grandmother for a nickel isn't the same the price of housing or gas. It
>would be the same if you could put 1000 houses in the place that 1 house
>occupied 20 years ago, or get 10,000 miles per gallon of gas in your car
>today, but you can't, and it isn't.
>
Sir,
The BELL comapanies became companies BECAUSE they had no regulatory
agency to govern them. You are totally wrong.
They were NEVER granted a MONOPOLY.
No company has ever been GRANTED a MONOPOLY.
The term MONOPOLY is a legal term assigned companies who've violated
the publics trust.
>I know your capacity is limited, Charlie, but maybe you should think about
>that for a while. The costs of communication and computing power are not
>driven by real estate or resources, and are fundamentally different than the
>costs of housing and energy.
>
>-- Mike --
>
Please read the legal definition for the term MONOPOLY I've posted
a half dozen times on this thread.
MONOPOLY power is assigned to those companies who have violated public
trust in the marketplace.
MONOPOLY power is the term assigned to Microsoft and is pending
the appeal.
If the test of the term sticks, Microsoft will be guilty of MONOPOLY POWERS
and will be fractionated.
If it doesn't, then Microsoft will end up having to follow other court
ordered guidelines such as the one's they were ordered to follow in
the past and broken!
And because of this cycle of stupidity, Microsoft will eventually
achieve it's ultimate goal of attaining MONOPOLY POWER status whether
they suceed on this go around or not.
Truely the leadership of Microsoft has modeled their business plan
on the famous Monty Python skit, "NITWIT OLYMPICS".
In the end they will all shoot themselves in the head.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: 1 Mar 2001 01:23:30 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[snipped some refs]
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> My big complaint against you is that you start whining without doing any
>> RTFM. Guess what, you start up your browser to the Gimp Manual (HTML
>> version), you pick the Index, scroll down to "P" and select "Print".
>> Here's a little snippet of what you see then:
>
>I'm not "whining" about doing any RTFM. I'm complaining about the fact
>that I configured my Lunux Mandrake system to use one Epson printer
>driver, then The Gimp ignored that and dumped postscript to the printer.
Did you or did you not RTFM? If you did, how come you missed the snippet
I pasted? If you did not, /me thinks my conclusion was right.
Either way, the answer to your question is right there in the GUM. It is
the first thing you should refer to if you encounter a "problem" with
The Gimp. Everyone should RTFM first, even Joe Sixpack lusers.
I only agree with you that the default as set by *Mandrake* was
incorrect. This is not a Linux oopsie, nor a Gimp oopsie. It is a
Mandrake oopsie for setting the wrong default and a Pete Goodwin goofup
for not R-ing TFM.
>I'm also rather surprised that any modern OS would still have multiple
>drivers for a printer -
Go back to my previous post, reread it carefully and discover why this
is a *feature* (I handpicked my .sig this time). Re-iterating your
goofup isn't going to make it right.
>this is something the OS should be doing, not each application.
No, it's not. The OS is for the hardware handling. Even with "-o raw"
there is no way to bring down the Data Stobe line without passin through
the kernel. *That* is what the OS should be doing. What *you* call the
"Epson drivers" are just a couple of GhostScript filters that run in
userspace and which you can trivially bypass.
>Now I'm hearing The Gimp doesn't do this - yet it overrides the system
>selected printer instead! DOH!
Only when *you* tell it to (with -o raw). 2^(DOH)!
HTH,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
Heuer's Law: Any feature is a bug unless it can be turned off.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:41:09 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The BELL comapanies became companies BECAUSE they had no regulatory
> agency to govern them. You are totally wrong.
Actually, they did have regulatory bodies governing them. Most states have
Public Utility Commissions that govern public utilities.
> They were NEVER granted a MONOPOLY.
Indeed they were.
> No company has ever been GRANTED a MONOPOLY.
Not true.
> The term MONOPOLY is a legal term assigned companies who've violated
> the publics trust.
Hmm.. Black's law dictionary (pretty much the final word in definitions in
the law world) states:
legal monopoly
The exclusive right granted by government to business to provide utility
services that are, in turn, regulated by the government
http://www.lawoffice.com/portal/index.jsp?pageID=consumer1&nav=Home&subnav=n
ull&dcp=blacks_definition.jsp&load=false&path=\www\Dictionary\Dictionary10\B
LD19703_I332C7504C9EF4C9D83E9BA7F83D09B4E.xml
> Please read the legal definition for the term MONOPOLY I've posted
> a half dozen times on this thread.
And posted wrongly.
> MONOPOLY power is assigned to those companies who have violated public
> trust in the marketplace.
Yes. But that is not the only way the term is used.
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:32:00 +1300
Yes, Linux has come a long way, however, I think its about time the dropped
xfree86 and started to develop the Berlin project that has anti-aliasing and
other advance features lacking in xfree86. Personally, I prefer Mozilla, I
have found that the latest version (0.8) is very stable compared to the
latest carving of NS (NS 6.01). Also, there is too much division inside
the Linux community esp. in the area of desktop development, there are 100s
of desktops, mostly pathetic try-hard rip-offs of MacOS and Windows, instead
of wasting time developing these shitty little apps, maybe they (the
developers) concertrated on one of the main projects such as KDE and GNOME
instead of wasting time developing even more desktops, and, as a result of
this concertrating on what IS IMPORTANT, the combined effort of developers
will result in the creation of co-herant, consistant applications with the
stability that matches the kernel (which is bloody stable).
Matthew Gardiner
"Robert MacGregor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:MPG.150667b84aefd07c9896c6@news...
> I love Linux, I really do, and have used it for years as my li'l home
> web/mail/dhcp/firewall server and have always enjoyed my opportunities
> to administer it (which I always love is practically never).
>
> And I've been going back and forth on switching my desktop to it for
> just as long. Each release of Redhat that I've seen (7.1 is the latest)
> and the strides being made with KDE and all... It gets more and more
> appealing.
>
> My biggest reservations are that I have such an attachment to my windows
> apps.. I've seen some nice apps on Linux, but with all the various
> opensource things out there, a lot of what I have seen has been less
> than impressive to me, a GUI-spoiled brat (hey, I admit it.. and I grew
> up with Macs... but the GUI thing is just as important to me as the
> engineering under the hood.)
>
> I have a list of my most dear apps and I humbly beseech anyone to
> comment on best-match equivalents, if any, on Linux:
>
> * MS Outlook
> * Internet Explorer (i sooo hate Netscape these days.. it just sucks,
> compared to IE!!!!! <not trying to troll!!! please don't hit me!!>
> * Dreamweaver Ultradev
> * ERWin (a top notch database modeling tool.. i'm a web app developer)
> * TOAD (a tool for oracle application developers)
> * Rational Rose
>
> But then there's ones like Flash and QuarkXpress which I know aren't
> available for Linux and I need them both desperately!
>
> Thanks for any suggestions..
>
> BTW.. I know Quake III is available for linux.. will it take full
> advantage of the 3D processing of my GeForce 256?
>
> Thanks,
> -Robert
------------------------------
From: "Reefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or DOJ ?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 01:41:03 GMT
>
> you DON'T HAVE TO LOOK THROUGH THE SETTINGS. It works without that
> effort, if you accept the default look. It (along with Gnome) *will*
> kill winblows.
No no, u got i wrong there, called Windows ...as in "superior" to u...
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 00:17:04 GMT
Peter Hayes writes:
> The Bower birds. Fascinating. But isn't it just a very exaggerated mating
> ritual carried on by instinct rather than conscious artistic input?
Using the same techniques as are used to observe and analyze the behavior
of the bower birds, demonstrate the existence of "conscious artistic
input".
> I thought cave art showed spirituality in the only language they could
> express themselves in, but maybe I'm wrong.
Define spirituality in the same terms and context as you use to define
"mating ritual carried on by instinct". Demonstrate that it exists.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: "Keldon Warlord 2000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:56:56 -0800
"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:16:31 -0800, "Keldon Warlord 2000"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > if WindowsXP can handle *my* games, then Emperor Gates can count me in
> > again!
>
> You swap your Voodoo 5500 for the next version (6000?).
>
Voodoo went out of bussiness...what rock did you crawl out from under???
> You reboot. Instead of "New Hardware Detected" you are greeted with "New
> Configuration Detected. Please Re-register Windows® XP(tm)."
>
ha! as if that non-sensecal bullshit would ever pop up on my screen!
> You click on "Yes, I would like to re-register now".
>
hmpf... as if I hardrly ever register to begin with...
> You are greeted with "Sorry, this is not the registered configuration, to
> continue using Windows® XP(tm) please purchase a new licence, $500 please.
> Thank you. Have a nice day."
>
> Peter
....nooot a problem for an IT "professional" such as me... *wink, wink,
nudge, nudge* ;-)
--
"One by one the Penguins steal my sanity." (found printed on a T-shirt)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
