Linux-Advocacy Digest #307, Volume #33 Tue, 3 Apr 01 05:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure ("nuxx")
Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language? (GreyCloud)
Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal (GreyCloud)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (GreyCloud)
Re: Linus for a 386???? ("Hemant R. Mohapatra")
Re: What is user friendly? (GreyCloud)
Re: Windows "speed" (GreyCloud)
Re: Windows "speed" (GreyCloud)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows "speed" (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Windows "speed" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows "speed" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "nuxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:32:59 +0800
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> The iPaq has two things over Palm, really. One is that it can play
> MP3's, the other is that it can speak wireless ethernet (by virtue of a
> PC Card slot). Color is a minor thing I think compared to those, and I
> don't think that Palm will let them keep the advantage forever.
>
The third is that it has a Citrix ICA client available, rather important for
some people, also very nice when combined with wireless ethernet. Why
wouldn't Citrix produce a client for the Palm OS if it's technically
feasible (screen resolution)? Makes no sense given their support for other
platforms (Win32, CE, Unix, Linux, Epoc, OS/2 etc) and also Palms strong
market position ... I'm a Palm user myself & this is the only thing it
lacks.
nuxx.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language?
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 01:29:13 -0700
cjt & trefoil wrote:
>
> 2 + 2 wrote:
> >
> > GreyCloud wrote in message ...
> >
> <snip>
> > >I highly doubt Sun will disappear from the market place, but
> > >will instead keep growing. It'll be awhile before MS comes out with
> > >their 64-bit O/S, which isn't available now. Also the itantium
> > >processor from intel is still having problems. It was supposed to be
> > >out last August, but its still in very limited quantities. Linux has
> > >IA-64 version ready for it, and HP has reportedly developed a UNIX
> > >version for it. The bad part of the Pentium IV right now is its heat
> > >dissipation... 54 watts. Yet the sparc chip doesn't dissipate that much
> > >power. With the rolling black outs and the political push to conserve
> > >power, intels going to have a temporary image problem.
> >
> > Intel has countless billions in profits to invest in making it work. No one
> > in the computer industry has the profit margins and profits of Intel. In an
> > historic downturn like this, the name of the game is available resources.
> >
> > Once it does work, then Intel has the resources to create fabrication plants
> > to build in economical quatities.
> >
> > As far as the CA power situation, Intel was the only one to drop out of
> > those who advocated the power deregulation fiasco.
> >
> > 2 + 2
> >
> > >
> > >--
> > >V
>
> Itel's strength is simultaneously its weakness. All that legacy code.
> They have to keep it working. But its existence drives their market.
>
> IMHO.
Very true. The only way Intel will break away from their current
designs is if MS writes Windows for other processors. But I haven't
heard of that yet.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 01:47:35 -0700
Chad Everett wrote:
>
> On 2 Apr 2001 18:43:06 -0500, Jon Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> >> > Really now. I would also ask how in the hell
> >> > you've determined that Microsoft has merely
> >> > implemented some 4.4BSD code in order to
> >> > get Windows2000. Do you have access to the
> >> > WindowsNT v4.0 and v5.0 source trees?
> >>
> >> the "strings" command finds embedded strings in ANY file, including
> >> compiled executables and dll files.
> >>
> >> "Copyright (C), Regents of the University of California" strings have
> >> been found in Mafia$oft's DLL files.
> >>
> >> Hope that helps.
> >
> >I don't believe you. How about showing us one?
> >
>
> Hey Everybody! It's Jon! Hi Jon!
>
> You asked, so here ya go:
>
> Here are some files from a Windows 2000 Professional system along with
> the copyright strings that are contained in them:
>
> C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\finger.exe
> @(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
> C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\nslookup.exe
> @(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.
> C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\rcp.exe
> @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
> C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\rsh.exe
> @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
> C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\FTP.EXE
> @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
I wonder if MS pays royalty for this.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 02:01:04 -0700
Logan Shaw wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Mullins <pmullin@> wrote:
> >Since everyone uses Word, this can usually be taken for granted.
>
> No, it can't. Some people who can't be assumed to use Word:
>
> * people who have no need for a word processor, didn't get Word
> bundled with the computer, and aren't going to go spend hundreds of
> dollars to buy it just to read someone's e-mail attachment.
>
> * people who prefer some other word processor.
>
> * people who use platforms for which Word isn't available (such as
> HP-UX, Tru64, AIX, Solaris, Linux, NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, BeOS,
> or PalmOS).
>
> * people who are blind.
>
> Personally, when I receive a Word attachment, I first wonder why the
> sender wants to make software purchasing decisions for me. Then, if
> it's really important, I might try to convert it. Otherwise, I just
> delete it.
>
> - Logan
> --
> whose? my your his her our their _its_
> who's? I'm you're he's she's we're they're _it's_
Hi Logan! How are things over at the alt.solaris.x86 site??
Say.. what do you know about any personal experiences with the new Sun
Blade 100??
--
V
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,linux.redhat.misc,alt.linux,alt.os.linux
From: "Hemant R. Mohapatra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linus for a 386????
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 13:26:34 GMT
> An even better "floppy" Linux is "Tom's Root Boot Disc" - "The most Linux
> you can get on a single floppy!"
>
> http://www.toms.net/~toehser/rb/
> http://tv.deadbeatclub.com/
Havent tried out this kit but I personally would go for "pocket-linux"
anyday. Has support for all the linux based basic applications like
telnet/ftp/ssh/ppp etc. Give it a shot.
-h
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 02:09:13 -0700
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, GreyCloud
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sun, 01 Apr 2001 01:56:48 -0800
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >>
> >> soc.singles removed from followups. (Um....insert your own joke regarding
> >> weird crossposts here, folks. :-) )
> >>
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jan Johanson
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote
> >> on 24 Mar 2001 16:13:02 -0600
> >> <3abd1b3f$0$28213$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >
> >> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> >> Which gets back to my main point:
> >> >>
> >> >> Mafia$oft sticks you with code compiled for an 80486, and nothing
> >> >> better....even if you're running a Pentium III.
> >> >
> >> >Wrong. There is Pentium specific code in NT as well as Windows 2000. There
> >> >are also processor specific speed ups for the PII and PIII OP sets, as well
> >> >as specific speedups for MMS, SSE and SSEII.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Linux installs an 80386 kernal and apps BUT, it lets you re-make the
> >> >kernal
> >> >> and apps, so that you are using executable code that was optimized for
> >> >> your CPU.
> >> >
> >> >So, can't run linux on a 286 without a recompile eh?
> >>
> >> Can't run Linux on a 286 at all; it requires a flat address space.
> >> At least, last time I checked. :-) Someone might have snuck in some
> >> detection code deep in the kernel, but it would definitely require
> >> a recompile with an intelligent compiler that can translate the
> >> flat address space into segment:paragraph form. (And that's assuming
> >> no code mucks with the translation tables and/or card registers in an
> >> incompatible fashion within the drivers or modules during something
> >> like DMA setup. Oy vey....)
> >>
> >> No, g++ isn't quite that intelligent, at least as far as I've
> >> looked at it. :-)
> >>
> >
> >More intelligent than VC++6.0. I have the MSDN CD-rom set. VC has
> >trouble with multiple inheritance and the MSDN admits it by showing
> >possible work-arounds. g++ seems to handle multiple inheritance quite
> >well. As time goes on g++ will improve.
>
> Which is funny because ATL uses multiple inheritance (and templates)
> pretty heavily. Take a look at VC++ wizard-generated code sometime. :-)
>
> >
> >> Not sure if this is a bug or a feature or merely a reflection of the
> >> sad legacy of backward compatibility we've been saddled with
> >> because of the monopolistic tendencies of the software market -- said
> >> tendencies being created either by ourselves (because we like it that
> >> way?), or by a certain gigantic software vender that even now is still
> >> trying to dominate the market, explaining that it's doing so
> >> "for the sake of the naive user".
> >>
> >> Also, because Intel was first, Motorola second. The 68000 series
> >> was superior in terms of register usage and addressing capability.
> >>
> >
> >Using the "register" specification in a C program is far more useful on
> >processors with orthogonal register usage than on Intel processors.
> >Wish I could afford better, but all I can do now is get used VAXens.
>
> Now there was a nice machine language. None of this weird r/m stuff
> or oddball bitmasking for different ops; one just has a byte opcode
> and a series of operands, which could be immediate, memory, PIC,
> register, offset(register), indexed (which even took into account
> the size of the operand)...compilers would be almost trivial.
>
> There was complete orthogonality of 12 of its 16 registers (R0 was
> dedicated to returns, but it could also be used), R12 = FP, R13 = AP,
> R14 = SP, R15 = PC, if memory serves; in a pinch, one could probably
> use AP as a scratch register, too). If one wanted to, one could
> also use the very powerful macro assembler. I forget the specifics
> of floating point (I think there was a separate set of registers for that),
> but it was also well supported, with the usual instructions for
> converting ints to floats/doubles, etc.
>
> Of course, the VAX does disallow certain instruction types; moving
> to an immediate operand or jumping to a register will most likely
> result in an illegal instruction exception of some sort
> (I forget the details, now). :-)
>
> It also had a well-engineered argument/stack frame, which everyone was
> expected to follow (and which was supported by CALLS, CALLG,
> and various PUSHes and POPs).
>
> VMS wasn't too bad, athough it tried to do too much; the one thing
> I miss was the asynchronous service trap, which basically got called
> when I/O completed. It also had some funny notions regarding
> redirect ("ASSIGN SYS$INPUT filename" [*], as opposed to the simple "<").
> But it was robust and well-documented, complete with built-in HELP
> with a tree of topics. It felt like a very very heavy OS at the time,
> but the VAXes I used at my employment had all of 5 and 8 megabytes
> which means that compared to Win2k, it was a virtual featherweight!
>
> Unfortunately, as usual, we got the schlock x86 architecture which
> has got to have the weirdest set of registers I've seen in a micro,
> barring such oddballities as the 6502 (anyone else remember (22,X)
> and (22),Y indirect addressing modes? :-) ).
>
> At least the 386+ is usable now. :-)
>
> [rest snipped]
>
> [*] I might have the arguments reversed. There was also an option on
> the DCL ASSIGN command that could indicate whether the assignment
> was for the duration of the process, or merely for the next image
> (VMS differentiated between the two). However, I forget the
> specific flag.
>
In DCL to make a variable local it was $ var1 := whatever...
Global it was $ var2 :== whatever...
I'm still waiting on the new License purchase (Hobbyist) for VMS 7.2
The CDs include Vax Fortran, Vax Basic, Cobol, C, Pascal for $40.
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> EAC code #191 56d:08h:46m actually running Linux.
> Microsoft. When it absolutely, positively has to act weird.
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 02:18:41 -0700
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, David Rheaume
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Mon, 02 Apr 2001 00:11:50 GMT
> <atPx6.658$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >I'm sorry, but where do you purchase your crack? NT4 absolutely *flies* on
> >a P3/600. It flies on a P/200 with 32 MB RAM.
>
> It might depend on the services running. My NT4 box has a memory
> footprint of about 75-80 megabytes sitting idle. However, there are
> a lot of services running, and a few things installed (RealPlay
> uses 4M of memory, for instance; there's also a virus shielder).
>
> As of right now, it's using up 95M -- and that's after I've closed all
> other windows. If I log out, and log back in, it is still using 89M.
> If I bounce it (shutdown/reboot cycle), it comes back with 82M,
> which seems to be the best I can do with this particular system.
>
> (This is a P3/550, BTW, with 192M.)
>
> >
> >And if you install Win2000 on a P3/600, not only will it outperform Win98 &
> >Solaris, it'll also boot IP throughput by about 30% over any competing OS.
>
> Well, almost anything can beat Solaris on an x86 :-). Unless Sun is
> still supporting Solaris x86 through Solaris 2.8 -- and in that case,
> I don't know.
>
I'm using Solaris 8 x86.. 5.8
Linux is a little faster than Solaris, but for now I've chosen Solaris
for a few reasons. The fonts are larger than I have been able to get on
Linux. The documentation is now called AnswerBook2 (1 CD installed on
the hard drive in html) and is quite complete. In the Docs are nice
programming examples as well as some hints.
But that may change in the future. Thats why I'm advocating linux.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 02:21:04 -0700
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, David Rheaume
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote
> > on Mon, 02 Apr 2001 00:11:50 GMT
> > <atPx6.658$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >I'm sorry, but where do you purchase your crack? NT4 absolutely *flies*
> on
> > >a P3/600. It flies on a P/200 with 32 MB RAM.
> >
> > It might depend on the services running. My NT4 box has a memory
> > footprint of about 75-80 megabytes sitting idle. However, there are
> > a lot of services running, and a few things installed (RealPlay
> > uses 4M of memory, for instance; there's also a virus shielder).
> >
> > As of right now, it's using up 95M -- and that's after I've closed all
> > other windows. If I log out, and log back in, it is still using 89M.
> > If I bounce it (shutdown/reboot cycle), it comes back with 82M,
> > which seems to be the best I can do with this particular system.
>
> I suggest that you would take a look on those services and see what you can
> close.
> If you've not done so before, that is.
>
> > >Don't let your ignorance or the ignorance of other convince you that
> Windows
> > >(the NT kernel) is unreliable.
> >
> > It's not, actually; the NT kernel is very reliable. Some of the
> > software surrounding it, however, has demonstrable bugs. :-)
> > Outlook, in particular.
>
> *cough* ActiveX delete NT's kernel via unprivilege's user's account *cough*.
> http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/1999/35/ns-9701.html
>
> NT haters are doing *really* bad job, no research, no work, no *effort*.
> I mean, considerring the time that they spend here, you might at least think
> that some other people except for TGITM might have a clue about what they
> are posting.
I have no interest in NT as its too expensive. I don't think it'd work
on my machine anyway. And I also claim no experience or knowledge of
NT.
--
V
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 08:35:44 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 02 Apr 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 02 Apr 2001
>> 13:25:50 -0400;
>> >Roger Perkins wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Also his demonstrated instability and hostility towards the US government.
>> >> Officers must be loyal. aaron isn't.
>> >
>> >I'm loyal to the US Constitution. We are a nation of LAWS, not men.
>> >Anyone officer who demands that you swear your loyalty to HIM instead
>> >of the Constitution is a dangerous individual who should be put out of
>> >the military IMMEDIATELY.
>> >
>> >
>> >Are you saying that an officer should accept orders from a modern
>> >day Benedict Arnold, just because said officer is his superior?
>> >
>> >Loyalty without brains => police state, moron.
>>
>> Are you saying an E5 has the power to disobey a lawful order because he
>> believes it conflicts with his private interpretation of the
>> Constitution?
>
>Nice Try, Max, but that's a false premise.
>
>If an order conflicts with the Constitution, then it's not a legal order.
>PERIOD.
Who's interpretation of the Constitution, your's or the officer's?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 08:37:47 GMT
Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 03:27:56 GMT;
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis"
>
>> I bounced *A* check, because a check that was written to me bounced.
>
>Dishorable act no less. Big enough to land you in court.
>
Please, Bill. You're starting to sound as unreasonable as Aaron. Just
go back to the soldier group and let Aaron get back to playing front
guard for Wintrolls.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 08:59:17 +0200
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> Just out of curiosity: how much RAM? If you've got 32meg, it's
> going to be a chihuahua dragging a 16-ton weight. :-)
> If you've got 64meg, it will probably be a basset hound.
> 128meg and up, it runs -- although I'm not sure if it will
> ever catch up to a greyhound. :-)
>
It was / is a machine with 2 Pentium 200 / 128 MByte RAM.
Runs now (since 2 years) linux.
But I testet (very briefly) also on a Dual 500 / 256MByte machine
(the one I´m working on now).
The result was: WinNT4 still slow. Even Warp4 running with just 1
processor was *lots* faster. Now it runs (since 1 year now) also linux.
That one will never be switched back, especially since I have VmWare
installed and can that way just call up any Win-Version I legally can
install. *Very* good for testing the WinCrap-Software I´m still required
to write from time to time
Peter
--
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 08:42:52 GMT
Said MH in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 2 Apr 2001 17:54:34 -0400;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >You obviously have no grasp of the OS's capabilities (or antitrust law,for
>> >that matter). Do me a favor - install the OS. Read a book. Check it out
>> >for yourself, and don't spout generic anti-MS crap. It showcases your
>> >ignorance.
>>
>> Bwah-ha-ha-ha! "No grasp of anti-trust law." "Generic anti-MS crap."
>> Ha!
>>
>> I especially liked the second one. It seems to me that when complaints
>> about a product can be described as "generic", they can't then also
>> qualify as "crap". This isn't the theories of computer science we're
>> criticizing, just Microsoft's monopoly crapware.
>
>I won't argue that some of it is indeed 'crapware', and I'm not a MS
>apologist by any means. But I.E. 6 that's in Whistler Beta 2 is an Internet
>experience that makes anything under Linux pale in comparison. I know. I'm
>running it. --security issues aside (-:
Perhaps you're an inadvertent apologist. Perhaps you're just naive.
Saying "security issues aside" is like saying "other than being monopoly
crapware,..."
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 08:42:58 GMT
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 03 Apr 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 2 Apr 2001 07:54:09 -0400;
[...]
>> How on earth can replacing the video card because IE5 screwed up your
>> system *possibly* be anything but IE5 being crappy, and you being
>> clueless?
>
>The effect I noticed after IE5 installation on my laptop, was that the
>cards of the solitary game I used to play, had become transparent during
>their movement, letting see through the backgroud. Subsequent disinstall
>of IE5 didn't remove the visual change.
I wasn't going to mention that uninstalling IE5 probably wouldn't "fix"
the problem, owing to the fact that most of IE5 was just slip-streaming
Windows DLLs onto your system, and these aren't removed when you
"uninstall". That's going WAY farther than JS/PL can handle without
breaking down and babbling about how we're all just jealous of Gates'
billions.
>I couldn't believe that there was a relation, so I cross checked with a
>desktop at work. I verified that solitaire cards were opaque, I
>installed and uninstalled IE5, and cards were now transparent. The
>effect was pleasant, so I didn't complain too much, but I had some
>feeling of a situation very far from "clean".
The fact that it is a preposterous problem for a web browser package to
have is another thing that JS/PL, and now Roger, have so far failed to
follow up on. Or possibly they're afraid to, because they do in fact
understand just how preposterous, yet factual, that is.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 08:45:31 GMT
Said . in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:45:00 +1200;
>> *cough* ActiveX delete NT's kernel via unprivilege's user's account
>> *cough*.
>> http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/1999/35/ns-9701.html
Ayende was right in casting shame on us for getting lazy. MS makes it
so easy to tell their stuff is crap that some of these REAL SHINERS
haven't even been tapped, yet! Thanks for the tip, Ayende.
>Oh dear oh dear. A bug in IE allows deletion of the KERNEL from a WEB PAGE.
>
>I'm going to repeat that, because I think it may not have the necessary
>impact the first time around.
>
>A BUG in IE (a browser, an application) allows deletion of the KERNEL (the
>most essential part of the operating system) from a WEB PAGE (a document).
>
>If there's anyone out there who can look me straight in the eye and say
>"Microsoft know what they are doing" without doubling over in fits of
>laughter, I feel I can safely recommend that person for the nutfarm.
>Unless of course MS *DO* know what they are doing, but what they are doing
>is not what they say they're doing. Please write your own conspiracy theory
>in the space provided:
>
>[monopoly]
>
>People, when MS integrated the browser and the shell, they fucked things up.
>They have made a goddamn mess, and I don't think you'll ever see the end of
>the problems that come from the bad initial design. The browser is now
>running the OS, and you've all seen the stability history of both of those
>products. Now they're arbitrarily combined in ways that I suspect MS isn't
>even aware of.
>
>If that's not a reason to switch to another platform (and pronto), I don't
>know what is.
Application barrier to entry?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Baseball
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 08:51:41 GMT
Said Matthew Gardiner in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 03 Apr 2001
>Cricket is not gay, NOW Gridiron, that is really gay, wtf is it with pads and shit?
>and
>a 15'er after each tackle for christs. I've seen more action from a Microsoft
>programmer than what happens on the field in a game of Gridiron.
They like to think its a game of strategy.
Do you think there's more strategy in cricket then in baseball? I've
watched both, but I know the rules and strategy to baseball, having
grown up American. They're both pretty boring. I'm interested in
learning a bit of some of the strategy. It seems a really wacked game
from the brief descriptions I've heard.
But "gridiron" ('American football') is about *mass*, not *flexibility*,
that's wtf with the pads and shit. Rugby (isn't that what you guys call
your version of gridiron?) is for pansies, in comparison. You might as
well play soccer.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 01:58:02 -0700
Isaac wrote:
> I also think EULA's are somewhat independent of copyright law so
> I'm not sure that a EULA restriction can be argued to prove
> anything concerning copyright law.
There is a relationship to copyright law, in that copies made while
using the program are copies which must be authorized by the copyright
holder, unless the end user already "owns" a copy.
Your comments about game consoles are interesting. I wonder how
extensively copyright law issues have been tested in that arena.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
