Linux-Advocacy Digest #869, Volume #32 Sun, 18 Mar 01 15:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: What is user friendly? (Anonymous)
Re: What is user friendly? (Anonymous)
Re: the truth about linux (GreyCloud)
Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie! (Eugenio Mastroviti)
Re: What is user friendly? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: What is user friendly? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: GPL not being free doesn't mean that the license is invalid. (GreyCloud)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (GreyCloud)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 12:13:49 -0700
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
> [snipped]
>
> So really, what "IS" user friendly?
can usually be set up by a normal person. i say usually because things are
fucked up enough compatibilitywise that given sufficiently odd combinations
of hardware ANY system can be busted.
but barring that your normal person can buy a pc and install windows and
get work (or play) done on that pc without consulting any experts.
> Just about everyone on these forums will have probably had a whack at
> installing whatever OS they choose at one time or another.
>
> Is the installation process something which we should count as user friendly?
>
> I don't think so, because most computer users will NEVER install an OS. When
> something goes wrong, they call someone else, who knows this stuff.
it should count towards it.
> Installation "ease" also has a lot to do with the configuration of your
> machine. Just about every OS these days will install very easily if you have
> top of the shelf supported peripherals.
true.
> In my experience, Linux installs much easier than any OS out there, provided
> you have well supported hardware.
>
> Windows is a slow laborious process requiring many reboots, even when you have
> supported hardware.
as i recall i rebooted twice.
what's with the 'many reboots'
> The real issue of installation is when you have unsupported hardware. With
> Linux you can get around it, as with the *BSDs, NT/2K, and DOSWindows one
> sometimes has to remove peripheral cards in order to let the enumerator to
> finish finding the cards in the system.
a major issue of user friendliness is which system has more supported hardware.
the anecdotal evidence indicates that a lot of linux users have to hack thier
own solutions to get products that are windows compatible out of the box to
work on thier oh-so-friendly systems.
something that those of us who do not program consider to be an extinction level
defect.
> How about this: Try switching the places of your network card and sound cards
> on the PCI bus. There is no way to tell Windows to use the same network card in
> a different slot, you'll have to reinstall all your networking stuff, and
> remove it for the previous slot.
and i'd want to do this... why exactly?
> Even though I hate Windows installation (NT/2K/DOS), we shouldn't consider the
> installation process as a usability issue because most people never see it, and
> that is a fact.
at some point they may want to upgrade.
> For a real usability argument, we should set up two machines, one Windows (2k
> or DOS) and one Linux.
>
> Linux:
> KDE
> Star Office
> Netscape (With all the normal plugins)
> gimp
>
> Windows:
> MS-Office
> IE (With all normal plugings)
> PaintShopPro
>
> You are an office user. You are not a web developer nor are you a software
> developer. You are a secretary, account executive, or even HR.
what is a secretary using paintshop for?
> Lets start the discussion with: Why would the Windows box be any more capable
> than the Linux box, and how would it be any easier than the Linux box?
windows has a larger user base, a standardized interface, and better online help.
the larger user base means you can hire windows savvy people for less money than
linux people.
it's economics baby.
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 12:17:05 -0700
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > unix: user hostile
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > Microsoft propaganda.
> >
> > no, personal experience.
> > a generally impassable learning curve = user hostile.
>
> UNIX learning curve isn't impassable. I passed it easily.
i said generally.
the exceptions do not make the rules.
> > i was using windows to get work done ten minutes after installation.
> > u can't touch this
>
> So you are saying that you were doing useful work on windows after never
> having used it before and having had no training? LOL!
no formal training whatsoever.
i'd fucked around with it a bit tho. a friend of mine showed me the basic
stuff and i think i took one page of notes - various basic control panels,
stupid right mouse button tricks, the standard menu layout in office.
and most important of all - where to find help. (it's usually cleverly
hidden in the 'help' menu)
> > > Unix has had fully functional GUI's since the mid 1980's.
> >
> > xwindows?
> > nerdo please...
>
> What is wrong with X. WTS is begining to emulate some of the
> functionality, over 15 years late.
as i recall it consisted of a bunch of barebones windows where you
could punch in command line stuff and occasionally show a peecture.
real user friendly.
not.
> > > Not only that, but Unix is very very very consistant; in contrast, DOS and
>Windows
> > > both have lots of arbitrary rules with even more exceptions.
> >
> > why, if that is the case, are they so much easier to use?
> > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
> I find DOS and Windows much harder to use than UNIX. Where possible I
> use UNIX because it is easier to get useful work done.
define 'useful work'
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the truth about linux
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 11:15:53 -0800
Paul Colquhoun wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 01:43:32 -0500, Masha Ku' Inanna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> |
> |> > Here are some humorous snippets from a site located at
> |http://members.aol.com/erichuf/Linux.html
> |> >
> |> > Finally! somebody willing to tell the truth!
> |>
> |> Nah, just another silly troll....
> |>
> |> jjs
> |>
> |
> |Remarkably, this ridiculous article sounds like any of the scores of
> |irritatingly patronizing religious tract-booklets out there, that tell you
> |the "truth" of any thing else OTHER than their point of view.
> |
> |But I've been thinking, since I read it..
> |
> |One thing that I have always wondered about the pro Linux vs the pro MS
> |people is that one of the main arguements is that "in order for Linux to
> |improve, it should be given X functionality, just like Windows has.."
> |
> |Or that "Linux needs to be more Windows-like" to ever succeed.
> |
> |Why?
> |
> |Isn't the main strength of Linux precisely that it is NOT Windows?
>
> I agree wholeheartedly.
>
> I also note that most of the "it has to be more like Windows to succeed"
> claims come from the Windows side of the fence.
>
> "Come over to the Dark Side." "Become like us, and you will succeed."
>
> I hope Linux resists the call and succedds on it own terms.
>
> --
> Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
> -=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
> xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
> a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
I agree also. Even the MSCEs at microsoft newsgroups answer peoples
questions concerning increasing sluggishness over time and increasing
frequency of lock-ups and BSODs and are told to re-install the o/s. Or
they are told to boot into dos and type in "scanreg /fix" and then
"scanreg /opt" to fix the screwed up registry. How the registry messes
itself up I don't know, but it doesn't sound like a good design to me.
The MSCEs also recommend defragging the hard drive once a week and fix
the registry as well.
I've never had to defrag under Solaris and I don't have a registry to
fix.
------------------------------
From: Eugenio Mastroviti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie!
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 19:18:27 +0000
mlw wrote:
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >
> > mlw wrote:
> >
> > >> I could, but it immediately crashed again. In fact, anything with a
> > >> KDE style edit control would crash: Konqueror, KMail etc.
> > >
> > > That cuts it, you installed KDE 2.1 incorrectly. I am running 2.1 and
> > > have zero problems with the edit controls.
> >
> > I installed KDE 2.1 incorrectly. Am I hearing you correctly. I get a
> > crash, and it's _my_ fault!
>
> If you don't install the pieces right, yes. There is plenty of
> documentation.
>
> >
> > > Unless you really, really know what you are doing, you should use the
> > > KDE that comes with your distro.
> >
> > This was the version of KDE that was for SuSE.
>
> SuSE is shipping a distro with KDE 2.1 on it? I thought 7.1 only had KDE
> 2.0.
It does - that's what I'm using right now. I have to say, I had no end of
problems with KDE 2.1 myself - had to bounce back to 2.0, and I'm pretty
confident I didn't do anything pathologically wrong during the install.
This leads me to suspect that the RPMs for SuSE on the KDE site must have
something wrong...
Anybody else with the same problems?
Eugenio Mastroviti
>
> >
> > Incidentally, the crashing has mysteriously gone away. I do not beleive
> > that it was my fault this occured - this is an indicator of an
> > underlying problem with KDE 2.1
> >
> > And guess what just happened? I used drag and drop to copy an entire
> > directory from one place to another.
> >
> > *BANG*
> >
> > I ended up with just a background. All icons, toolbars etc. all gone.
> >
> > This is the system that is going to be a Windows Killer? I think not!
> >
> > I recovered by pressing CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE, and I was back at a terminal
> > prompt. I then used CLI to copy the directory structure - as I can't
> > trust KDE 2.1 to do it (and this was a bug in KDE 2.0 as well!).
>
> Funny how no one sees the bugs you claim.
>
> BTW: I am still waiting for some examples from you in another thread.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 14:24:13 -0500
Anonymous wrote:
>
> LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >aaron wrote:
> > >> Anonymous wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > aaron wrote:
> > >> > > Anonymous wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > aaron wrote:
> > >> > > > > If you were to follow around one IQ-100 person all day, you would
> > >> > > > > be appalled by the vast number of incredibly stupid things they do
> > >> > > > > in the course of a day, and how many completely fucking obvious
> > >> > > > > connections they miss, how many winning opportunities they pass
> > >> > > > > up (because they either don't understand them, or they fail to
> > >> > > > > even recognize that the opportunity exists in the first place).
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > now you know why i usually don't read your messages
> > >> > > > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > p.s. windows is a pretty cool operating system
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Only in comparison to DOS.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Compared to anything else, Windows is comparable to a Formula-1 body
> > >> > > slapped on top of a Ford Pinto with a sand-injection oil system
> > >> > > and water-contaminated brake-lines.
> > >> >
> > >> > amiga: dead
> > >> > beos: fringe
> > >> > mac: fringe
> > >> > os2: dead
> > >> > next: dead
> > >> > unix: user hostile
> > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >> Microsoft propaganda.
> > >
> > >no, personal experience.
> > >a generally impassable learning curve = user hostile.
> > >i was using windows to get work done ten minutes after installation.
> > >u can't touch this
> >
> > Configuring Windows is my forte. I have been installing/reinstalling
> > Windows Millennium for the last three days. I expect to have a well
> > done installation within a week. I guess my idea of "installation" is
> > different than most folks. Mine has to look good and be as efficient
> > as possible (making Windows more nearly efficient is a Herculean
> > task).
>
> define efficient. i define efficient as plug and play. if it ain't fast
> enough for what i want to do i just buy a faster machine.
>
Clue for the Clueless: Linux had Plug and Play a full SIXTEEN MONTHS
before Mafia$oft got their's to work.
Hope that helps.
> > Being done in ten minutes is unbelievable.
>
> installers are cool.
Only if your OS is so applications-deficient that you *need* to
install more apps.
> i think it took another ten minutes to get office up and running.
With Linux, you can have THREE different office applications installed
WITH THE OPERATING SYSTEM.
That means another ZERO MINUTES.
Which is easier:
a) spending ZERO SECONDS installing three office suites
b) spending TEN MINUTES installing one office suite (which has many
many many security holes which are routinely exploited by
viruses like Melissa, ILoveYou, and AnnaKournikova_Nude)
> connecting to the internet was trickier. that took about a half an hour
With Linux, that's all taken care of during the initial installation.
It takes nor more time than however fast you can type in your IP
address, hostname, your DNS server's IP, your domain name, and router's
IP.
For most people, this takes under one minute.
And yet, under the "user-friendly" Windows system it took you close
to 30 minutes.
That's a very *interesting* definition of User Friendly you have there, Jackie.
> between typing the configuration stuff (news server, mail server, etc) and
> making the obligatory phone call to my perverted isp to resolve a few
> issues on thier end.
> adding new peripherals is pretty simple too. what with windows being
> damn near universally supported and all.
No operating system supports *all* peripherals...Microsoft is particularly
sloppy in dropping support in new versions for peripherals you own
which are working well with your current OS. Remember, when you pay
Bill Gates for an upgrade of your LoseDOS system...that more than
likely, your current hardware deal well with it....forcing you to
buy a whole new set up all over again....oh...and guess what...now
you've paid for the same version of the Bill's OS...TWICE
I have a top-of-the-line high-speed, photo-qualiy Epson printer
(1440x720 DPI) which is fully supported AT ALL RESOLUTIONS in Linux.
Contrast that with LoseDOS 2000, which supports only a handful of
peripherals.
> i really don't see what your beef is.
Open your eyes, Jackie.
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
> men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> more even than death
> - bertrand russell
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 14:26:37 -0500
Anonymous wrote:
>
> LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >aaron wrote:
> > >> Anonymous wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > aaron wrote:
> > >> > > Anonymous wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > aaron wrote:
> > >> > > > > If you were to follow around one IQ-100 person all day, you would
> > >> > > > > be appalled by the vast number of incredibly stupid things they do
> > >> > > > > in the course of a day, and how many completely fucking obvious
> > >> > > > > connections they miss, how many winning opportunities they pass
> > >> > > > > up (because they either don't understand them, or they fail to
> > >> > > > > even recognize that the opportunity exists in the first place).
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > now you know why i usually don't read your messages
> > >> > > > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > p.s. windows is a pretty cool operating system
> > >> > > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Only in comparison to DOS.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Compared to anything else, Windows is comparable to a Formula-1 body
> > >> > > slapped on top of a Ford Pinto with a sand-injection oil system
> > >> > > and water-contaminated brake-lines.
> > >> >
> > >> > amiga: dead
> > >> > beos: fringe
> > >> > mac: fringe
> > >> > os2: dead
> > >> > next: dead
> > >> > unix: user hostile
> > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >> Microsoft propaganda.
> > >
> > >no, personal experience.
> > >a generally impassable learning curve = user hostile.
> > >i was using windows to get work done ten minutes after installation.
> > >u can't touch this
> >
> > Configuring Windows is my forte. I have been installing/reinstalling
> > Windows Millennium for the last three days. I expect to have a well
> > done installation within a week. I guess my idea of "installation" is
> > different than most folks. Mine has to look good and be as efficient
> > as possible (making Windows more nearly efficient is a Herculean
> > task).
>
> define efficient. i define efficient as plug and play. if it ain't fast
> enough for what i want to do i just buy a faster machine.
>
> > Being done in ten minutes is unbelievable.
>
> installers are cool.
> i think it took another ten minutes to get office up and running.
> connecting to the internet was trickier. that took about a half an hour
> between typing the configuration stuff (news server, mail server, etc) and
> making the obligatory phone call to my perverted isp to resolve a few
> issues on thier end.
> adding new peripherals is pretty simple too. what with windows being
> damn near universally supported and all.
> i really don't see what your beef is.
You write like somebody who's afraid of leaving something bad behind.
Why do you persist in sticking with a system that is so user-hostile
that it crashes on you--losing whatever you were working on...and
corrupts itself...so badly that you have to format the disk drive
and re-install....losing EVERYTHING YOU HAVE EVER WORKED ON....
If you call that user-friendly, Jackie, then you truly have a
very, very narrow mind.
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
> men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> more even than death
> - bertrand russell
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: GPL not being free doesn't mean that the license is invalid.
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 11:25:37 -0800
"Rob S. Wolfram" wrote:
>
> JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Are you not free because you cannot consider someone else's property
> >> your own?
> >>
> >Further nonsense straw claims (not made by me, but sound like GPL
> >arguments) elided.
> >
> >I haven't been making the silly claims that compare my freedom with
> >software being free.
> >
> >Every author has the right to control the disposition of their work
> >(within the constraints of the law.) It doesn't make any sense that
> >when constraints beyond the minimum are imposed, to call software
> >'free.' It is quite silly, in fact to call something 'free', and then
> >impose restraints beyond the minimum.
>
> As people have told you in length in another thread, there is already a
> name for software that has no constraints beyond the minimum: public
> domain software.
>
> >GPL constraints are NOT minimal. Claims that GPLed code is free are
> >false, but that doesn't mean that the authors shouldn't be able to
> >license their code with whatever free or non-free license that they
> >choose. It is especially deceptive to recognize that there is software
> >that is MUCH freer than GPLed code, yet the nonsense and misleading
> ^^^^^^^^^^
> >claims are made specifically by the GPL-being-free crowd.
>
> You clearly acknowledge here clearly that there are various quantities
> to freedom. You also acknowledge that GPLed software *is* free up to a
> certain quantity. What exactly is your argument against it being called
> "free software"?
>
> >However, if the software isn't free (like GPL software isnt' free),
> >then there are restrictions on use and redistribution. GPL has such
> >restrictions. You might be trying to justify the license, but it is
> >impossible to prove that the GPL is a license of free software.
>
> The GPL does *not* restrict use. If in your opinion it does, I challenge
> you to point me to the exact wordings of the GPL where this happens.
> The GPL does restrict redistribution and the argument for these
> restrictions are widely known.
> The bottomline is that the GPL prevents that any version of the code is
> or will be restricted in its *use*. The BSDL does not do that, because
> you are not allowed to install Microsofts ftp.exe on more than one
> machine, even though it contains BSDLed code.
>
> >For the claims that someone being free and software being free somehow
> >comparable, look towards the GPL crowd.
> >
> >The CONFUSION in the definitions of important words are solely in the
> >GPL-being-free camp. It is either due to being unaware, incompetent,
> >or deceptive.
>
> I am free to use the GPLed software in any way I see fit, without any
> restriction. How is that not "free software"? Is there any "free
> software" in your book that is not practically equal to public domain
> software?
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
> --
> Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
> Data, n.:
> Computerspeak for "information". Properly pronounced
> the way Bostonians pronounce the word for a female child.
Out of curiosity, in regards to the GPL, does anyone know of anyone
being taken to court for violating the GPL?
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 11:34:30 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > > This also means they won't use any Sun or Oracle product, or any of a
> > > thousand others. I guess they did a good job martyring themselves,
> > > but it's a pretty stupid move in general. Microsoft, Sun, and Oracle
> > > all make very good and useful products.
> > >
> > > I suppose if they had conclusive proof of it, it would make sense,
> > > but they don't, so it doesn't.
> > >
> > I think there is a confusion of who needs proof of what.
> >
> > It is perfectly reasonable, and correct, to require proof that something is
> > secure. It is stupid to assume something is secure unless you have "conclusive
> > proof" it is not.
> >
> > Microsoft provides no proof that its products are secure.
> >
> > Should a military organization use software which it has no proof is secure?
> >
> > I bet Microsoft shows the source to the US military, I would also bet the same
> > is not said for the german military.
>
> I would also bet that, if that is the case, that M$ is required to give
> the source to the Department of Defense in electronic form, AND give the
> military the right to modify the source code for their own internal use.
Yep, we do! When we purchased some VAXes we got source code,
schematics, the whole works. Same for microsoft stuff. Of course
agreements of non-disclosure and security protecting their proprietary
software were in place. After reviewing their source code all I can say
is that the mil. now calls it messy-dos!
> If they don't, then there should be some demotions in the Pentagon.
>
> >
> > --
> > I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
> > ------------------------
> > http://www.mohawksoft.com
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> K: Truth in advertising:
> Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
> Special Interest Sierra Club,
> Anarchist Members of the ACLU
> Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
> The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
> Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
