Linux-Advocacy Digest #606, Volume #32 Sat, 3 Mar 01 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? (J Sloan)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Jim Richardson)
Re: [OT] .sig (Jim Richardson)
Re: If I delete using rm? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I am Bobert the Great! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Virus Alert : "A Virtual Card for You" + "An Internet Flower For
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: KDE or GNOME? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("JS PL")
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("JS PL")
Re: [OT] .sig (Brent R)
Re: [OT] .sig (Brent R)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Craig Kelley)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Amphetamine Bob)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Chronos Tachyon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 03:55:31 GMT
Donn Miller wrote:
> Christian Brandt wrote:
> >
> > Well, I used up nearly all my bullets now... anyone lend me some?
> >
> > I just need some ugly and evil little arguments to antagonize our
> > BSD-fellows at work (hey, they always do SUCH evil things to us
> > Linux-Buddies and I really could need some information about dead bodies
> > hidden in their basement or other things which
> > h-u-r-t---h-a-r-d---a-n-d---l-o-n-g :-)
>
> I don't think you're going to find many BSD-hateers in this NG. Oh, I'm
> sure there are a few, but most of them, I think, run both BSD AND
> Linux. Probably around 3% of the Linux advocates truly hate BSD, as
> opposed to the 96% that hate Microsoft, Bill G., and/or Windows. ;)
I have a lot of respect for BSD, having used it, but the main
problem with bsd is the bigots -
If you really want to frost a bsd bigot, point them to the
specweb 99 benchmarks -
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 11:45:02 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:55:07 +0000,
Peter Hayes, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:23:38 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Peter Hayes wrote:
>
>
>> > Imagine an incident witnessed by a citizen somewhat
>> > the worse for drink, or perhaps been smoking something he shouldn't have.
>> > Said citizen's judgement is just as impaired as it would be if he were
>> > behind the wheelof a car, with the same fatal consequences.
>>
>>
>> By that logic, Florida and Texas would be bloodbaths right now, because
>> the laws are VERY relaxed and let just about every non-felon to carry
>> concealed firearms legally.
>>
>> Facts, in other words, disprove your theory.
>
>Some British tourists turned right instead of left (or the other way round)
>out of Miami airport in their hire car, into some ghetto community. 10
>minutes later they were dead, shot by a mugger.
>
>Sounds to me like Florida is a very dangerous place.
>
one incident does not make a trend. Unless you wish to count IRA bombings
in London making england a dangerous place to be?
Just look at the numbers, after passing the shall issue CCW law, Florida's
homicide rate plummeted. Despite the claims by the victim disarmament lobby,
there was no bloodbath, and people were not getting into gunfights over
parking spaces. In fact, the people in florida with CCWs have a lower crime
rate than the police officers. That is, there are more criminals with badges,
than with CCW...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:03:54 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:16:58 +0100,
Robert Stankowic, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Aaron Kulkis schrieb:
>>
>> Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> >
>> > Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>
>[....]
>
>>
>> I am acting within my rights as spelled out in the US Constitution
>> for ANY person on American soil. *THAT* is American culture.
>>
>> Conversely *WHEN* I am overseas, I abide by local laws.
>>
>> As I am, right now, sitting quite serenely well within the
>> borders of the United States, I will damn well behave accordingly.
>>
>> If you don't like it, you can go fuck yourself.
>
>Man,
>obviously you are too stupid to understand that usenet is an
>_international_ medium. Your stupid posts arrive at _my_ computer in
>_my_ country and I feel offended.
>Please broadcast whatever sh*t you like in any medium local to the
>US, but not international
>
>*plonk*
>
"I find the word plonk offensive, since your post arrived at my computer, I
hold you reseponsible, stop using the work plonk..."
see how rediculous this sounds?
Kulkis' sig is an eyesore, so is spandex on really fat people, deal with it.
no-one is going to change simply because it ticks you off. If you want to do
something, you can write a short perl script that eats the sig before your
newsreader gets it. Assuming you have a newsreader that can trigger based on
such things. If you are using windows, you might be humped, but that's not my
problem really.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: If I delete using rm?
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 01:26:25 +0000
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> 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.
>
<snip>
As long as the blocks have not been overwritten, the data remains in
situ as far as I know. However, I've a feeling it would be the devil's
own job to get it back.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I am Bobert the Great!
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 01:28:45 +0000
Bobert Big Bollocks wrote:
>
> I am Bobert the Great from the planet Bobertron
> Bow before me!
The word 'tosspot' springs to mind
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Virus Alert : "A Virtual Card for You" + "An Internet Flower For
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 01:30:09 +0000
gryb wrote:
>
> Virus Alert : "A Virtual Card for You" + "An Internet Flower For You"
> ________________________________________________________
>
> A new virus has just been discovered that has been classified
> by Microsoft and by McAfee as the most destructive ever !
>
> This virus was discovered yesterday afternoon by McAfee
> and no vaccine has yet been developed.
>
> This virus simply destroys Sector Zero from the hard disk,
> where vital information for its functioning are stored.
>
> This virus acts in the following manner :
>
> It sends itself automatically to all contacts on your list
> with the title "A Virtual Card for You".
>
> As soon as the supposed virtual card is opened,
> the computer freezes so that the user has to reboot.
>
> When the ctrl+alt+del keys or the reset button are pressed,
> the virus destroys Sector Zero, thus permanently destroying
> the hard disk.
>
> Yesterday in just a few hours this virus caused panic in New York,
> according to news broadcast by CNN. http://www.cnn.com
>
> This alert was received by an employee of Microsoft itself.
>
> So don't open any mails with subject "A Virtual Card for You".
>
> As soon as you get the mail, delete it.
>
> Please pass on this mail to all your friends.
>
> Forward this to everyone in your address book.
>
> I would rather receive this 25 times than not at all.
>
> Also :
>
> Intel announced that a new and very destructive virus was
> discovered recently.
>
> If you receive an email called "An Internet Flower For You",
> do not open it.
>
> Delete it right way !
>
> This virus removes all dynamic link libraries from your computer.
>
> These are your .dll files.
>
> Your computer will not be able to boot up.
>
> Send this message to everyone on your contact list.
>
> _______________________________________________________
Does it harm Linux? And if not WHY TELL US!
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 01:32:41 +0000
Martigan wrote:
>
> I have used both, but for me Gnome seems better, Well haven't tried KDE
> 2.1 yet but what does every one else think? Why is one better than the
> other? I'm not looking for Windows similarity!
It is not a case of better, but which you like.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <js@plcom>
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 23:13:08 -0500
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> JS PL wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Yes, they have.
> >
> > How so? At what time in history has it been impossible to buy the
hardware
> > to build your own computer? Seems to me that individual hardware
channels
> > were there long before people were building and selling packages that
> > included MS Windows. Your about as dumb as they come.
>
> The average consumer has no more interest in building his own
> computer from scratch as he does in building a kit car.
>
> now fuck off and die, idiot.
That's not the point. It doesn't matter if NO ONE want's to build their own
computer. The fact is, all the components are available and have always been
available to buy a computer with any or no operating system you choose.
Therefore, no possibility of a monopoly. Anyone who utters the sentence
"Microsoft has a monopoly" is clearly advertising their own ignorance. Wait
and see what the appeals court says.
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <js@plcom>
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 23:17:13 -0500
I'll sell you the bits
All you want! Give me a list, I'll give you a price.
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97pf9t$a96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS PL" <js@plcom> wrote:
>
> > "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> Yes, they have.
> >
> > How so? At what time in history has it been impossible to buy the
> > hardware to build your own computer? Seems to me that individual
> > hardware channels were there long before people were building and
> > selling packages that included MS Windows. Your about as dumb as they
> > come.
>
> Tell me where I gan get the bits to build a laptop so that I can put one
> together with no software on.
>
> -ed
>
>
>
>
> --
> | u98ejr
> | @
> This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
> | .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 04:30:37 GMT
Jim Richardson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:16:58 +0100,
> Robert Stankowic, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >Aaron Kulkis schrieb:
> >>
> >> Ben Pfaff wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >
> >
> >[....]
> >
> >>
> >> I am acting within my rights as spelled out in the US Constitution
> >> for ANY person on American soil. *THAT* is American culture.
> >>
> >> Conversely *WHEN* I am overseas, I abide by local laws.
> >>
> >> As I am, right now, sitting quite serenely well within the
> >> borders of the United States, I will damn well behave accordingly.
> >>
> >> If you don't like it, you can go fuck yourself.
> >
> >Man,
> >obviously you are too stupid to understand that usenet is an
> >_international_ medium. Your stupid posts arrive at _my_ computer in
> >_my_ country and I feel offended.
> >Please broadcast whatever sh*t you like in any medium local to the
> >US, but not international
> >
> >*plonk*
> >
>
> "I find the word plonk offensive, since your post arrived at my computer, I
> hold you reseponsible, stop using the work plonk..."
>
> see how rediculous this sounds?
> Kulkis' sig is an eyesore, so is spandex on really fat people, deal with it.
> no-one is going to change simply because it ticks you off. If you want to do
> something, you can write a short perl script that eats the sig before your
> newsreader gets it. Assuming you have a newsreader that can trigger based on
> such things. If you are using windows, you might be humped, but that's not my
> problem really.
Yeah but it's even easier just to plonk him. He isn't worth the 5
minutes or so it would take to write the script.
--
Happy Trails!
-Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 04:40:35 GMT
Michael Powe wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Aaron> Joona I Palaste wrote:
> >> Richard Heathfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> scribbled the
> >> following on comp.lang.c:
> >> > Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> >> >> Peter Pichler wrote:
>
> >> >> > >> and as such has a God-given Right to do whatever the >>
> >> > >> hell he likes (e.g. appending 1708 bytes of yahoo rant to
> >> all >> > >> his Usenet postings), however annoying and
> >> inconvenient it may >> > >> be for the rest of us.
>
> >> >> > >And not only that, but I serve in the military to defend
> >> >> > >that right.
>
> >> >> > You must be /realy/ proud.
>
> >> >> Are you trying to imply that defending your country is
> >> somehow >> an ignoble thing to do?
>
> >> > No, he's trying to imply that being a complete bozo is an
> >> ignoble thing > to do. Learn to read for comprehension.
>
> >> And by the way, Aaron - "defending your country" does not
> >> qualify as a reason.
>
> Aaron> What part of United States Army do you not understand?
>
> Aaron> The US Army defends the US Constitution, which secures my
> Aaron> right, by virtue of being in the US, to say anything I damn
> Aaron> well please on USENET or any other place.
>
> While it's deeply shaming to have such as Mr. Kulkis performing his
> routine as the "ugly American" before an international audience, I
> 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
> United States.
I was thinking the same thing. He waves it around like it actually
matters in here, and not only that he uses it as a justification for his
infantile behavior. He's more of a troll than any of the wintrolls I've
seen.
> Considering his demonstrated lack of honor, I for one
> see no reason to take him at his word about anything -- whether that
> anything be his claim to be a member of the US Army or his claim to be
> a "Unix Systems Engineer."
Hey, he says he has "more than 22 years experience" in Unix. So he
therefor must right?
If you read the headers in his messages you'll see that he posts to this
group from Windows 98 exclusively.
> Even had he served, wouldn't it seem more
> than likely that he got "section 8" (discharged as mentally unfit for
> duty)? Please do not take him as indicative of the membership of the
> Armed Forces. I've worked with many veterans, including combat
> veterans, and I've never had the misfortune to work with somebody as
> ridiculous as this person. One of my current coworkers is an
> ex-Ranger (US Army Airborne), and he is one of the most friendly and
> helpful people you could have on the job with you.
Please extend that to Americans. We Americans are just as embarrassed
about Kulkis as the rest of the world feels we should be.
> Second, as my grandpa used to say, "them what talks about it ain't
> doin' it." The more Mr. Kulkis talks about "defending" his country,
> the more convinced I am he has never done any such thing. In fact, a
> little contemplation of current events will recall to everyone that
> our country has not been threatened militarily in many decades.
> Unless Mr. Kulkis is in his dotage, he has never served in combat to
> "defend" the United States. Although, perhaps he took part in the
> "turkey shoot" in Iraq 10 years ago, shooting fleeing civilians in the
> back; or subsequently bulldozing the wounded into trenches and burying
> them alive. That does not qualify as "defending" the United States in
> any way.
In a reply to me, he claims that he "earned himself" in this world,
which I supposed to mean that he has earned the right to behave anyway
he feels.
I'm not even sure Kulkis is a real person. Personally, I think that
someone programmed an "angry American right-winger" bot and slapped the
name Kulkis on it just to test out the Turing machine theory.
> You can lead a fool to an idea, but you can't make him think. Give
> the guy a wide berth and at least some of the pity he deserves. He's
> probably as big a loser in the real world as he is in the virtual
> one.
Just don't get too close to him when he's angry. He already claimed it
would justified to shoot Microsoft employees. I think he's unstable (if
he's a real person).
> mp
>
> --
> Man has sold his soul for time, language, tools, weapons, and
> dominance. And to make sure he doesn't get out of line, these
> invaders keep an occupying garrison in his nondominant brain
> hemisphere. -- William Burroughs
--
Happy Trails!
-Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 02 Mar 2001 21:49:18 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Actually, Photoshop is substantially cheaper now than back then. In
> > > > the past you needed very expensive computers to run it, but now the
> > > > bargain machines from the department store can easily do it. It
> > > > followed the classic market of scale model: more people buy it, the
> > > > price goes down.
> > >
> > > Nice dodge. You know that's not the point, so stop trying to twist it.
> > >
> > > The price of the software is roughly the same.
> >
> > I think this debate is silly anyway; it's pretty obvious that
> > Microsoft charges more than they need to, look at their enormous
> > profits. They have every right to do so, but denying that Windows
> > costs more than it should is silly.
>
> This is a nasty proposition. If they charged a price that was in
> line with "typical profits" of a company, they would be accused of
> dumping and preventing competition by making it impossible for
> another company to make a profit selling at the same prices.
That's why it's undesirable to be a monopoly.
> MS's profits are because of their large volume. If they had 20-40%
> of the market, they would probably lose money in their current
> spending level. That means that no company could spend what MS
> spends on R&D without having at least a 50% share of the market, and
> as such would not be able to develop the technology to compete.
Now you're getting it! Microsoft can outspend everyone else, which
allows them to maintain their position of being able to outspend
everyone else.
> > > Windows 2000 is a workstation class OS, not a consumer OS. Windows XP
> will
> > > be available in a consumer version that is the same price as Windows
> 9x/ME
> > > today.
> >
> > Windows XP is the same thing as Windows 2000; they use the same NT
> > core that NT4 and NT3 did.
> >
> > Windows ME isn't much cheaper than Windows 2000.
>
> Windows XP will ship in three major versions. Personal, Pro, and Server.
> Pro is equivelant to Windows 2000 today and will cost about the same.
> Personal has fewer features and will cost what ME costs today.
Just like NT shipped with 3 major versions which were all exactly the
same at the core?
> > > I think that's a far stretch. Electronic Publishing has gone through
> the
> > > roof. The markets for these software packages are orders of magnitude
> more
> > > than they were 10 years ago.
> >
> > Yes, but most people use Microsoft Word and not professional tools.
>
> Most professionals do not, and the market for professionals has increased
> greatly.
Not that I've seen. Adobe hasn't shipped a new version of PageMaker
in well on 4 years now. I only know one person who owns PageMaker,
but I know dozens who bought Photoshop. One is a niche product, the
other is more mass-market.
> > > > For a better comparison, look at WordPerfect's price over time.
> > >
> > > That's not a better comparison. WordPerfect became a failure in the
> market,
> > > and was sold from company to company. They sell it for a fraction of
> the
> > > cost because nobody will buy it at it's full cost.
> >
> > Because it's not *worth* that much for a word processor. Microsoft
> > gets away with it because they have enforced compatibility (IMHO).
> > This is the reason why the monopoly is a bad thing for consumers, and
> > is the core of the argument.
>
> Wordperfect can read and write word documents just fine.
Then why don't people buy it? If there is a free market, and
Wordperfect is just fine at reading *all* Word documents (including
OLE spreadsheets and DAO snippets), then how come it isn't wildly
successful? It does cost about 1/4th as much. Boggles the mind.
> > WordPerfect, in short, *can't* compete because the market isn't fair.
>
> How is that MS's fault? What could they do to prevent that?
How about
1) Stop pre-loading at ridiculous rates with Windows bundles (ie,
using one monopoly to foster the other)
2) Stop integrating their desktop products with their operating
system (ala IE/Netscape debacle -- see DOJ for more info)
3) Compete on *merits* instead of *marketing* -- that's what really
irks me; Microsoft makes some REALLY GOOD software. If they
weren't so *afraid* of losing (Bill Gate's paranoia at work, I
suppose) all the time, they could actually work with other
companies and people instead of against them all the time.
> > I know you're going to disagree, but that's the heart of the argument
> > as described by Orin Hatch (R-Utah), 18 states' attrouney's general,
> > the US Department of Justice and the very conservative judge Jackson
> > (appointed by Ronald Reagan).
>
> Uhh.. I didn't see Wordperfect mentioned in the trial.
It wasn't, but it's the same issue.
> > > That doesn't change the fact that they're PC operating systems.
> WordPerfect
> > > is also a niche market today, yet it's price has gone down by your own
> > > assertion.
> >
> > A word processor is not a niche market.
>
> I should have said a niche product. Mainly the legal profession, which is a
> niche market.
Ahh, understood. It shouldn't be tho'.
WordPerfect isn't the angel I've presented it to be by any means; they
were slow to come to the Windows world -- but that is only *part* of
the problem.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Amphetamine Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 21:01:10 -0800
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> > Nor should they? What is the price of Adobe Photoshop in 1992 versus today?
> > What is the price of PageMaker? Illustrator? Quark Express? FreeHand?
> > Novell Netware? OS/2?
The price of OS/2 was supposedly about $3,000 when it first came out
in 1987!!!!!! I am not sure if that figure is correct but that is
what an IBM salesman friend told me. I do not know what the price was
in 92 but in '94 or so a friend of mine was thinking about buying it
and he told me it was about $500-600. Again, not sure about the
figure; just going on his word.
> >
> > I think you'll find all these are roughly the same prices they were in 1992,
> > if not more expensive today.
I cannot speak of the others but OS/2 is now $279, so it has steadily
come down in price. And even at that price, IBM has been accused of
deliberately overpricing it to fulfill an illegal contract with MS
that remains in effect to this day. Incidentally, you get a lot more
for your $279 now then you did back then at the much higher price.
> > >
> > Then how does that explain OS/2 hasn't dropped in price?
As you can see above, Erik, in the case of OS/2 you are completely
wrong, as usual. :(
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Other (describe)
[ ] None of the above
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 05:06:06 GMT
Just one quick comment before I re-lurk...
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 21:14:39 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
[Snip]
>
> And PWS works just fine. It's not feature laden, but it's a personal web
> server... claiming the quality of the app disqualifies it is rather shaky
> ground for a Linux advocate to take, since the vast majority of the apps
> that come with Linux are of questionable quality (90% of the window
> managers are very buggy for instance).
>
[Snip]
There's a huge difference between a buggy app and a buggy app that
compromises system security. Running PWS on a computer connected to the
'net is a giant, blinking neon "Hack Me!" sign. Running a buggy window
manager (and I disagree, most window managers are pretty stable -- it's the
desktop environments on top of them that are flaky) doesn't generally
compromise your system's security.
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
