Linux-Advocacy Digest #595, Volume #32 Fri, 2 Mar 01 08:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: So, here's something to chew on... (Karel Jansens)
Re: So, here's something to chew on... (Karel Jansens)
Re: [OT] .sig (Karel Jansens)
Re: [OT] .sig (Richard Heathfield)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (Nick Condon)
Re: If I delete using rm? (Nick Condon)
Re: Forbes.com: Microsoft's security secret ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Hijacking the IP stack ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (pip)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Bloody Viking)
Re: AARON R. KULKIS HAS NO LIFE AND ASSUMES NOBODY ELSE DOES EITHER (Bloody Viking)
Re: AARON R. KULKIS HAS NO LIFE AND ASSUMES NOBODY ELSE DOES EITHER (Bloody Viking)
Re: (Humour) Jackson Denies Bias Against Microsoft ("Weevil")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Mathew Hendry)
Re: [OT] .sig ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("InBiz")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Giuliano Colla)
Re: The Windows guy. (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So, here's something to chew on...
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:36:56 +0100
Joel Barnett wrote:
>
> If you actually need help with a W2k problem you might try
> alt.os.windows2000. Of course, if all you are saying is "I know how to do
> something in *nix, I don't know how to do it in W2k, therefore W2k sucks",
> I guess you came to the right place.
>
Yes, he did come to the right place: A post about the shortcomings of
Windows, compared to linux, posted to c.o.l.a. (no crosspostings detected
AFAIK) and no cry for help.
That's a nice piece of (negative) advocacy, if I may say so.
Now, if he had posted this to one of the Windows fora, it would have been a
different story alltogether.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
]]] "Go go gadget linux!" Zzzooommm!! [[[
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So, here's something to chew on...
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:38:50 +0100
Reefer wrote:
> [SNIP]
>
> blablablabla....
>
> [/SNIP]
>
> Trolling...and a bad one to...
>
>
Please look up the definition of "trolling".
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
]]] "Go go gadget linux!" Zzzooommm!! [[[
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 12:04:56 +0100
Gergo Barany wrote:
> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Gergo Barany wrote:
> > > There were no treaties that caused Germany to overrun Belgium and
> > > Luxembourg, which were both neutral; they did it because they were
> >
> > Germany overran Belgium and Luxembourg were unprepared to keep
> > the Germans from doing just that....
>
> Yes, and because that was the quickest way to get to France. The
> keyword here is "neutral"; this part of the war was not due to
> treaty obligations.
>
Belgiums and Luxemburgs neutrality was guaranteed by several bi-lateral
treaties. IIRC, according to those treaties, Belgium couldn't even do
anything else but call for help to its allies.
The treaties themselves were remnants from the Napoleonic wars. Originally
the Waterloo victors had "set up" the "Verenigd Koninkrijk der
Nederlanden", composed of what would later become Holland and Belgium. The
reason for this construct was to assure the neutrality of the estuaries of
the great rivers (Rhine, Meuse and Scheldt). After the independance of
Belgium in 1830, bilateral treaties were constructed between the new
countries and the European superpowers to assure the continuity of this
policy.
This shows you that the paper treaties are written on is worth slightly
more than the contents...
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
]]] "Go go gadget linux!" Zzzooommm!! [[[
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 10:16:29 +0000
From: Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >
> > Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mr Kulkis
> > > > happens to be an American idiot, but there are also plenty of
> > > > non-American idiots to go round.
> > >
> > > You are mistaken
> >
> > You are claiming that Americans have a monopoly on idiocy?
>
> False premise. I was talking about the other half of your
> erroneous statement.
You can't be. You have already made it quite clear that you are an
American, and everyone reading this thread has already deduced that
you're an idiot. There is no room for error in that half of the
statement.
> > > Understanding one's rights is not idiocy.
> >
> > I didn't say it was. Read for comprehension.
>
> Your failure to understand is not my problem.
What have I failed to understand? The only incomprehension I have seen
in this thread has been yours.
> > > > > > would like to point out a couple things. First, we have no true
> > > > > > knowledge that Mr. Kulkis ever served in the Armed Forces of the
> > > > >
> > > > > Check the records.
> > > >
> > > > I just checked the only record that counts in comp.lang.c - the ISO C
> > > > Standard - and Mr Kulkis doesn't seem to be mentioned there, so I can
> > > > only conclude that he's mistaken about his name appearing in the
> > > > records.
> > >
> > > comp.lang.c keeps military service and mobilization records?
> >
> > Users are so cute.
>
> Try systems engineer.
The only way we're likely to believe that is if you provide some clueful
responses to technical questions. So far, there is no evidence of this
within comp.lang.c. No, I'm afraid I've definitely got you down as a
user.
> > No, of course comp.lang.c doesn't keep military service records. That
> > was precisely the point I was making.
>
> You failed to make any point, other than the irrelevance of your statements.
Translation: you didn't understand my point. Allow me to clarify, then.
Military records are not topical in this newsgroup. Therefore, no
argument based solely on military records can succeed. Furthermore, your
being in, or not in, the US Army is not topical here either.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R Answers: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton/kandr2/index.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: 2 Mar 2001 10:29:37 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donn Miller) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>al <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> It bugs you to see the almighty Linux being pushed away by Windows,
>> doesn't ti ?
>> And don't forget 2000 was the worst MS's year and the best Linux's
>> year and they still didn't make
>> any inroads.
>> So what will happen when MS releases .NET, Visual Studio.NET, Windows
>> XP, Office XP,
>> XBOX, ... this year ? Their market share will be even higher.
>
>Who cares? I won't be using it. BTW, nice formatting by your
>"superior" Microsoft newsreader. Just because MS is the most numerous
>doesn't automatically make it better.
That's right. After all do McDonalds make the best food, and Britney Spears
the best music?
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Subject: Re: If I delete using rm?
Date: 2 Mar 2001 10:31:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>Interconnect wrote:
>>
>> If I accidentally delete a subdirectory and files is there any way of
>> recovering these in Linux. That is without resorting to the tape
>> backups?
>>
>> Thanks for any hints or tips.
>
>Only if you've replaced the standard rm with an idiot-proof one.
>
>Although...I must say that in 18 years of using Unix, I've only
>removed the wrong files once...and, well, that's why we have
>backup tapes.
Ahh. Did that occasion involve a '*' and a mistyped space?
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Forbes.com: Microsoft's security secret
Date: 2 Mar 2001 10:58:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Aaron Kulkis wrote:
:>
:> http://www.forbes.com/1999/06/18/mu5.html
:> --
:> Aaron R. Kulkis
:> Unix Systems Engineer
:>
:> --------------------------------------------------------------
:> Name: mu5.html
:> mu5.html Type: Hypertext Markup Language (text/html)
:> Encoding: 7bit
: Works perfectly under Netscape.
Unfortunately, this still isn't a valid Usenet post. Only text is
allowed in the body of the post. Properly encoded binary attachments
are allowed in binary newsgroups, but nowhere else, and this isn't one
of them.
Since I use a text-based newsreader, I don't bother reading
nonconforming Usenet posts.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Hijacking the IP stack
Date: 2 Mar 2001 11:07:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I have seen it here that Microsoft used a lot of BSD code in its
: networking. Specifically, someone here said that much of the IP stack
: in NT and Windows 2000 is really "borrowed" BSD code. There is a writer
: who is interested but is asking me for some concrete evidence of BSD
: code specifically in Microsoft networking code, particularly in their
: implementation of TCP/IP.
: Can anyone point me to an authoritative reference?
Microsoft admits to having borrowed some TCP/IP code from BSD. The
BSD license allows this.
Its TCP/IP implementation has diverged quite considerably from the BSD
and Linux implementations since then. They no longer share identical
problems and vulnerabilities, and portscanning programs like nmap can
quite readily distinguish between them.
Joe
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 11:08:55 +0000
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> I basically dislike Microsoft, and think their Windows operating
> systems range from shit (Win 98) to passable (Win 2000 on heavy
> hardware).
Even windows 98 has it's place my friend. I would heartily recommend it
for games playing and web browsing. Not of course for any _real_ work.
[snip]> Linux remains a bit player on the desktop with less than 2
percent market share,
> although that is a 25 percent jump from 1999, IDC's research shows.
How do they know? Have the tea leafs told them so? Have they done a
street poll? Have they asked the people in the IT depts who won't admit
that they are running Linux in secret? Hmmmmmmmmmm.
>Linux also
> continues to garner backing from IT industry leaders, including IBM,
> Hewlett-Packard, and Dell Computer, all of which are shipping workstations and
> low-end servers with the Linux operating environment.
We all now love IBM! They are doing some good again.
> I'm not so worried about Linux "market share", since it says that it's
> PAID percentage is small.
Quite so.
>I'm more worried why Win 98, a piece of crap
> if there ever was one, has gone up in shipments.
Listen to this carefully: PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE OS. They don't
know what it is or what it does and why they should have different
types. Maybe only Apple has succeeded in getting a different message
across to 20% of these people, but on the whole they just buy a pc. pc's
have win98 (at least for the home market).
Would you really advocate that these people try Linux for the first
time? Well, that is an interesting question and I have mixed feelings
about the pro's and con's, but on the whole until Linux gets a better
win32 compatibility layer - aka WINE then it comes down to software
available (and yes there _is_ more software than you can throw a large
stick at for Linux - but it is not exactly the type of things that
newbies will go for in terms of purchase and installation and software
type). OK, now what are we doing about this? Gnome and KDE to the
rescue. WINE to help. It is now the time for the apps to take shape as
the hot opensource kid on the block. Then it's time for the big battle
ahead: oem's - the key to the kingdom.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: 2 Mar 2001 11:18:12 GMT
J Sloan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: > use 95 briefly or mess with hardware. Linux NEVER crashes unless you really
: > fuck up.
: Hey, I like that last sentence, can I use it in my .sig?
Sure! It falls under the GNU copyright licence.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: AARON R. KULKIS HAS NO LIFE AND ASSUMES NOBODY ELSE DOES EITHER
Date: 2 Mar 2001 11:25:52 GMT
Charlie Ebert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Maybe Chad is smarter than you are Erik....
Damn. Chad is stupider than a Florida voter that doesn't know how to operate a
stylus. Reik as stupider than the resulting chad.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: AARON R. KULKIS HAS NO LIFE AND ASSUMES NOBODY ELSE DOES EITHER
Date: 2 Mar 2001 11:28:28 GMT
T. Max Devlin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Erik is definitely smarter than Chad.
The contest is awful close, within .000001 of an I.Q. point. I demand a
recount!
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: (Humour) Jackson Denies Bias Against Microsoft
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 11:36:24 GMT
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.satirewire.com/news/0102/jackson.shtml
>
> Does anyone think that a new legal tactic as a defendant could be to
behave
> as irresponsibly as possible in Court in the hope that the Judge gets so
> thoroughly disgusted with the defendant that the Judge later expresses
that
> distain?
>
> I am still incredulous that Microsoft manipulated some of their video
> evidence:
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-338153.html?tag=rltdnws
>
> (And even more incredulous that they managed to get caught).
>
> That incident is also recorded here:
> http://www.thestandard.com/article/article_print/0,1153,3419,00.html
>
> "On Tuesday, Boies stunned the courtroom by pointing out to Allchin a
> discrepancy in Microsoft's original video demonstration that called into
> question whether delays shown on a personal computer were caused by the
> Felten removal program or by Win98 itself. The damage to Allchin's
> credibility got worse on Wednesday when Boies proved to the court that
> several different computers were used during the filming of the
> demonstration, showing, for example, how an icon for the Microsoft Outlook
> e-mail program appeared in one frame and was gone in another."
>
> Regards,
> Adam
>
A brief exchange from Allchin's testimony:
======
"You came in here and swore this was accurate?" Boies said.
"To the best of my ability," Allchin said.
"You know it does matter what you say here is right or wrong?" Boies said.
"You know that matters don't you?"
"What's on the screen is the truth," Allchin said.
=======
Boies was wrong. As long as there are judges like the ones hearing the
appeal, Microsoft can lie about anything they want to, as often as they want
to, under oath. It does not "matter what you say here is right or wrong."
The only thing that puzzles me is why Microsoft even bothers showing up in
court.
--
- Weevil
================================================================
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough [for breaking encryption schemes]
would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers."
-- Bill Gates, The Road Ahead (pg 265), 1995
------------------------------
From: Mathew Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 11:53:50 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pop) wrote:
: In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mathew Hendry
:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: >On 27 Feb 2001 17:35:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pop) wrote:
: >
: >>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mathew Hendry
:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >>
: >>>On 27 Feb 2001 14:11:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pop) wrote:
: >>>
: >>>>However, none of your quotes proves that <math.h> cannot define PI.
: >>>
: >>>Nor did yours, but I don't think a rigorous proof was requested. :)
: >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >>Please elaborate.
: >
: >They would also rule out _PI, so they are incomplete.
:
: Read the post again. The question was *explicitly* about PI.
Yes, but your quotes from the standard didn't explicitly rule PI out.
Your quote
| Each header declares and defines only those identifiers listed in its
| associated section
is misleading, because it seems to rule out all identifiers, when in
fact it only rules out identifiers that are not reserved elsewhere. My
quote from one of the (C99 draft) footnotes is more explicit
| This implies that a conforming implementation reserves no identifiers other
| than those explicitly reserved in this International Standard.
but for brevity we both omitted the relevant list of reserved
identifiers.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 12:09:49 GMT
[snips]
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >
> > Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> > >
> > > Michael Powe wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > While it's deeply shaming to have such as Mr. Kulkis performing his
> > > > routine as the "ugly American" before an international audience, I
> >
> > There is no need (writes this Englishman) for clueful Americans to feel
> > such shame. Idiocy is a truly international phenomenon. Mr Kulkis
> > happens to be an American idiot, but there are also plenty of
> > non-American idiots to go round.
>
> You are mistaken
>
> Understanding one's rights is not idiocy.
It is one thing to have a right to free speech. It's another to use it to
behave like an ass. Simply having the right to do so doesn't mean one
*should* do so.
------------------------------
From: "InBiz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 07:17:43 -0500
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JS PL <js@plcom> wrote:
> >
> >Then why all the whining about a supposed microsoft tax. No one who has
> >ever bought a computer in the history of man has been forced to pay extra
> >for an OS they didn't want. I can't think of a time when hardware hasn't
> >been available seperate from software. If you own a copy of Windows it's
> That ignores the years when DOS and Windows were licensed
> per-processor of course.
>
> The OEM paid for a license on every computer they shipped whether it
> was actually loaded or not.
That was one package available. But even at it's hieght, 60% chose that
route. And the OEM's were the ones asking for per processor agreements. Get
with it. MS ultimately has the right to set terms of sale. When the higher
court laughs this whole "monopoly" joke out of court you'll see that MS has
never enjoyed even the remotest hint of being a monopoly, fool.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 12:22:55 GMT
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> >> >> Well, not everything is perfect on Linux. For instance yesterday,
> >> >> while I was testing the NIC of a new laptop, it continuously
> >> >> complaining about network being unreachable, instead of telling me
> >> >> plainly that the network cable I was using was unplugged at the
> >> >> other side. :-)
> >>
> >> > That's only because the your NIC manufacturer didn't include the Time
> >> > Domain Reflectometer option . :-)
> >>
> >> They did but It(tm) is Only(tm) Avaliable(tm) under Micros~1(R) Windows
> >> (tm).
> >>
> >> -Ed
> >
> > Well, I've not yet wiped clean the Win(tm) 98(tm) the laptop came with.
> > Tomorrow I'll test in the same conditions with Micros~2(R) Windows(tm)
> > 98(tm), and I'll let you know. After all, I had to pay for it, so I can
> > use it.
>
> If you read the docs very carefully, you'll find that they haven't
> implemented this new feature yet :-)
>
Carefully reading the docs isn't enough. Maybe it's an
undocumented feature. :-)
> As an aside, I don't know why NIC card manufacturers haven't put a
> machanism on the crads to detect an unplugged cable. It shouldn't be too
> hard since when plugged in, the cable is plugged in to a matched load, so
> no reflections occur. When it is unplugged, the signals should get
> reflected, which should not be too hard to detect.
>
> -Ed
>
In principle you're right. In practice I'm afraid that many
manufacturers are more on the dancing paper clip attitude
than on the time domain reflectometry (or impedance
measurement) one . Who's to blame is left as an exercise to
diligent readers.
--
Giuliano Colla
Before activating the tongue, make sure that the brain is
connected (anonymous)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 2 Mar 2001 12:56:44 GMT
On 1 Mar 2001 22:38:01 GMT, Steve Mading wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Try reading the post again. It fails on machines that can't save
>: their state to disk. (but doesn't necessarily fail on all multitasking
>: machines)
>
>Okay, so just how many systems can actually do that? It strikes me
Not many. Someone claimed that Solaris could do something like
this.
However, whether it can be done or not isn't even relevant to my criticism
of the argument in question.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
