Linux-Advocacy Digest #393, Volume #33 Thu, 5 Apr 01 13:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Chad Everett)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised ("JS PL")
I/O MMUs (was Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant) (Kevin Strietzel)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Chad Everett)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Chris Croughton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 12:19:19 -0400
fmc wrote:
>
> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > ******************************************************
> > By Chuck Mead on Monday April 02 2001 @ 11:55PM EDT
> > http://www.moongroup.com/stories.php?story=01/04/02/0156291
> >
> > Microsoft should be feared and despised!
> > ----------------------------------------
> >
> > After taking the time to read the Microsoft Passport Web Site Terms of Use
> > and Notices I have had a belly full of them. The potential damage they can
> > do with this license is staggering. I encourage everyone to take the time
> to read it,
> > particularly the section entitled "LICENSE TO MICROSOFT". If you've ever
> > had any doubts about the nature of that company reading that section
> should
> > put them to rest for good and all!
> >
> > I don't know how many times I've heard Microsoft described as "evil" by
> > Linux zealots and open source supporters (which I am both) and thought,
> > "They're losing it... Microsoft is just a company!" but now I'm forced
> > to agree with them. This license is heinous, and more, it's frightening
> > because I know that some people won't read it and will lose the rights
> > to their own data/content without knowing. Add that to the fact that
> > the license is clearly attempting to gain the rights to *ALL CONTENT
> > WHICH PASSES OVER ANY SERVICE THEY PROVIDE*. For example... this
> > article could be copied by someone and sent to someone else who uses
> > the hotmail email service. According to the license Microsoft would then
> > own the rights to this article! Unbelieveable you say? Go read it and see
> > for yourself.
>
> If what you're talking about is the Hotmail/Passport license, I've read it,
> and all you grant them is limited "publication" rights they need to fulfill
> your request. By sending an email you're giving MS/Hotmail a piece of
> unsolicited intellectual property, with the expectation that they'll act as
> an intermediary and forward it to its destination. Well, they really can't
> do anything with it without your permission, because it's still your
> intellectual property. That's what those publication rights are for -
> you're granting them a license for a specific purpose.
>
> To assume anything beyond that leads to improbable scenarios; for instance,
> does Microsoft own the book, movie, and television rights to a novel that an
> author Hotmails to his publisher? I don't think so.
According the the Microsoft Passport user agreement/license they
originally posted, yes, it is.
>
> fm
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 5 Apr 2001 16:23:30 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 12:11:06 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 10:24:34 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 17:43:46 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 4 Apr 2001 20:20:51 GMT, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >: Roger Perkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >:>Roberto, all soldiers are willing to kill at their governments command.
>> >> >> >:>It's what we do - not aaron, of course, but real soldiers. I realize you
>> >> >> >:>are jerking him around but thought I'd put this in.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >: And indeed I consider all soldiers fighting a war their country starts
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> |
>> Aaron: read that-------------------------------------+
^---------------------------------------+
|
Aaron read this, then follow the arrows----+
[snip]
>> >So, if your country is being invaded, and you volounteer to defend
>> >your country, then you are an assasin. But if you are drafted to
>> >defend your country, you are "innocent"
>>
>> You are apparently unable to read. Perhaps with the ASCII art above
>> you will.
>>
>> >Interesting Roberto, interesting.
>>
>> Nah, only a strawman.
>>
>> >You're...what...25 years old?
>>
>> I was 25 years old once.
>
>Alas, your mind isn't keeping up.
Third law of humour: if you gonna ape, you have to improve.
I made that very joke in a nicer, subtler way, in the very post
you are replying to. To wit:
>> You will be [25] someday. At least physically.
Now, if you want to pass as a funny guy, you have to either
be original, or you have to actually work the material.
What you did is a lamer version of "I know you are, but what am I?".
That is passé after second grade.
Hope that helps!
>You should, like, do something about that.
Well, at least I can read. Apparently you can't not even when presented
with ASCII drawings pointing to the words where you should be careful.
If you are over 25 and actually went to college, that's pretty sad.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:23:53 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > Yet I achieved a higher enlisted rank than you, and you've had twelve
years
> > Makes you less than nothing..
>
> I'm the rank that I *WANT* to be at.
LOL!!! This, of course, surprises no one. A SPC that admits he wants no
leadership responsibility yet thinks he's indispensable to his unit. You're
a riot and an idiot.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 5 Apr 2001 11:16:48 -0500
On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:14:22 GMT, Rob Barris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 15:48:37 GMT, fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> ******************************************************
>> >> By Chuck Mead on Monday April 02 2001 @ 11:55PM EDT
>> >> http://www.moongroup.com/stories.php?story=01/04/02/0156291
>> >>
>> >> Microsoft should be feared and despised!
>> >> ----------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> After taking the time to read the Microsoft Passport Web Site Terms of
>> >> Use
>> >> and Notices I have had a belly full of them. The potential damage they
>> >> can
>> >> do with this license is staggering. I encourage everyone to take the
>> >> time
>> >to read it,
>> >> particularly the section entitled "LICENSE TO MICROSOFT". If you've
>> >> ever
>> >> had any doubts about the nature of that company reading that section
>> >should
>> >> put them to rest for good and all!
>> >>
>> >> I don't know how many times I've heard Microsoft described as "evil"
>> >> by
>> >> Linux zealots and open source supporters (which I am both) and
>> >> thought,
>> >> "They're losing it... Microsoft is just a company!" but now I'm forced
>> >> to agree with them. This license is heinous, and more, it's
>> >> frightening
>> >> because I know that some people won't read it and will lose the rights
>> >> to their own data/content without knowing. Add that to the fact that
>> >> the license is clearly attempting to gain the rights to *ALL CONTENT
>> >> WHICH PASSES OVER ANY SERVICE THEY PROVIDE*. For example... this
>> >> article could be copied by someone and sent to someone else who uses
>> >> the hotmail email service. According to the license Microsoft would
>> >> then
>> >> own the rights to this article! Unbelieveable you say? Go read it and
>> >> see
>> >> for yourself.
>> >
>> >If what you're talking about is the Hotmail/Passport license, I've read
>> >it,
>> >and all you grant them is limited "publication" rights they need to
>> >fulfill
>> >your request. By sending an email you're giving MS/Hotmail a piece of
>> >unsolicited intellectual property, with the expectation that they'll act
>> >as
>> >an intermediary and forward it to its destination. Well, they really
>> >can't
>> >do anything with it without your permission, because it's still your
>> >intellectual property. That's what those publication rights are for -
>> >you're granting them a license for a specific purpose.
>> >
>> >To assume anything beyond that leads to improbable scenarios; for
>> >instance,
>> >does Microsoft own the book, movie, and television rights to a novel
>> >that an
>> >author Hotmails to his publisher? I don't think so.
>> >
>> > fm
>> >
>>
>> I think you are either confused or stupid. Possibly both. I don't know
>> what
>> you read, but it wasn't this:
>>
>
>The terms were changed.
>
>http://slashdot.org/articles/01/04/05/051221.shtml
>
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-5508903.html?tag=mn_hd
>
>http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,42811,00.html
>
>
>Rob
There are no new terms yet. The original license still applies.
He could not have read any of the new terms because they haven't
been changed yet.
>From your third URL reference:
2:00 a.m. Apr. 5, 2001 PDT
===========================
...
"The simple explanation for all this confusion is that the Passport terms
of use are simply out of date," said Microsoft spokesman Tom Pilla. "We're
in the process of updating them to reflect the Passport's privacy policy.
We should have something up in the next day or two."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
...
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:26:59 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> Depositing a somebody else's check to me, which later bounced,
> causing MY bank balance to be off is a character flaw.
>
> Interesting.
Blaming others for you own shortcoming yet again. Not at all surprised.
BTW, childish wannabe, check your own posts carefully since you enjoy the
puerility of spelling, grammar, and typo flames so much.
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[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: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:26:21 -0500
"Austin Ziegler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> > Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 04 Apr 2001 05:28:09
> >> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 04:24:44
> >>>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>>>>> Err, no. Software doesn't 'run' or perform anything. It is a
> >>>>>> set of instructions that a CPU follows just like a cook may
> >>>>>> follow a cookbook.
> >>>>> Well, see, the problem is you have a CPU, an inanimate object,
> >>>>> *doing* things, but then you say that software cannot. CPU's
> >>>>> don't "follow" instructions "just like a cook may follow a
> >>>>> cookbook". That's a ridiculous idea, and I know you know way more
> >>>>> about software than to think it holds up. Care to try again?
> >>>> No, that was pretty close.
> >>> Are you trying to tell me you accept this ridiculous idea? A CPU is a
> >>> cook, and software a recipe? Where on earth did you come up with that?
> >> Analogies are always flawed, but CPUs just read instructions and execute
> >> them, and the software is that set of instructions.
> > Analogies are for explaining technical concepts. There are no analogies
> > in legal concepts. Perhaps this is why you are more confused than you
> > realize concerning copyright on software.
>
> Like nearly everything else Maxie says, this is utter horseshit.
> Analogies are used to explain relationship between two things in a way
> that the listener might understand.
>
Analogies often happen when someone forgets that they are most often
fraught with enormous flaws. When dealing with incredibly stupid people
like Tmax, and the oft-indoctorinated, just say 'NO' to analogies.
John
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:33:09 -0400
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 4 Apr 2001
>> thinkDB 2 for the Palm. Adobe PhotoShop. The GIMP. Oh, gee. Just about
>> anything that supports a plug-in interface. (Hint: plug-ins are
>> libraries.)
> No, they are not libraries.
Keep pretending, Maxie. Repeating something false never turns it to
truth. Plug-ins are libraries that are written to a particular
specification; if the specification is open enough, the libraries can
be given an application front-end, or can become service providers to
other applications.
> They are plug-ins. You keep forgetting: what you call library or
> program or plug-in is not the issue; it is their *consumer*
> relationship, even more than their *technical* relationship, that
> matters, because copyright is about getting paid, and we live in a
> free market capitalist country.
This is incorrect on all counts. Copyright isn't about getting paid;
that's how the works are most often covered, but copyright is about
*protection* of IP works. Libraries -- especially dynamic load
libraries -- don't necessarily involve redistribution of copyrighted
code for the program to work. Plug-ins take dynamic load capabilities
to an extreme (by providing a set list of functions required by the
API), but because there's no copying or distribution involved, there's
no copyright issue. (Oops. Did someone catch Max lying again?)
> Copyright doesn't give a
> shit which is library and which is program, nor does the GPL, nor the
> FSF, nor me. You do, because you're, well, not very smart, I guess.
Smarter than you, obviously. The difference between the two is
recognised by different types of licences being available. (Indeed, why
does the LGPL exist if there's no difference between the two?)
> application is to platform as program is to library
> program is to library as plug-in is to program
> plug-in is to program as application is to platform
> plug-in is to program as program is to library
Incorrect in that it's incomplete. The cases also include:
program:program :: plug-in:program
library:library :: plug-in:program
plug-in:library :: program:library
There's more, too. See, it's actually the program that obtains
functionality from the plug-in, and multiple programs can do so, just
like with libraries. The only difference between a plug-in and a "pure"
library is that the plug-in has a known set of registration functions
and a known set of interface functions.
> If any "real programmers" care to discuss this civilly and respectfully,
> I'd like to hear comments. Any of the other putz' that hang out here
> who want to chide me for not being a programmer and daring to believe to
> understand such things can stick it in their ear.
If you actually understood this, you might actually be treated with more
respect than you are. Until then, you're just a blathering fool who knows
less than most people who have never touched computers.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <jspl@jsplom>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:39:49 -0400
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:39:49 -0400, JS PL <jspl@jsplom> wrote:
> >
> >"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:9ah4hb$7id$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> hmm, sounds pretty funny that Microsoft is giving away a streaming
media
> >> server,
> >
> >They are? Last time I checked, they weren't giving away any server
software.
> >
> >
>
> You're kind of stupid, aren't you?
>
>
> In order to use it's monopoly power to destroy the long standing
> leader in streaming media technology. Microsoft began to essentially
> give away its streaming media services as a way to undercut the
> competition. Just like they did with Internet Explorer.
>
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/02/21/cheap.stream.idg/
>
> Microsoft touts low-cost streaming media in Windows 2000
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> February 21, 2000
> Web posted at: 8:24 a.m. EST (1324 GMT)
>
> by Jason Meserve
>
> (IDG) -- With this week's long-awaited launch of Windows 2000,
> Microsoft is touting its low cost Windows Media Services for streaming
audio
> and video to intranets and the Internet.
>
> Like it did with Internet Explorer, giving it away for free to
> gain a foothold in the market, Microsoft is giving away its streaming
> media server as part of the standard Windows 2000 server package.
> This means that companies that install Windows 2000 servers do not have to
> purchase separate licenses for a streaming media server. "Because
> Media Services is] a core feature of Windows 2000 server, it is deployed
> when the server is deployed," says Mike Aldridge, product manager of
> Microsoft's digital media division..........
You ought to see what all they throw in when you buy BackOffice 2k @
$3900.00! You think it's bad that you get a little extra by buying Server @
$1000+
If streaming media server is truly "free" where might I download it to run
on Win98? Oh...? What's that? NOWHERE!! So if I want the "free" server how
much do I need to fork over? Oh.... a thousand bucks?! That don't sound too
free to me!
I guess it's back to the old drawing board, for you.
------------------------------
From: Kevin Strietzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: I/O MMUs (was Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant)
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 09:40:09 -0700
Andi Kleen wrote:
...
> For that you better either have IO devices that can address all your memory
> though or have an IO-MMU in the chipset, which can be quite complicated,
> e.g. the Sun ones are very fancy and can manage thousands of mappings at a
> time.
>
> To get back on topic for comp.arch: does anybody have any thoughts on the
> design of IO-MMUs ? Should they contain few parallel mappings or many
> (which implies a cache and a memory backed table) ?
There have been systems where all or some of the I/O DMA hardware only
had access to some of the memory; e.g., the bottom 16MB. This can be
tolerated, if you can convince the operating system to preferentially
allocate that bottom 16MB (or whatever) to I/O buffers.
You can also use an I/O MMU to protect the system against I/O adapters
that go bonkers and use wild memory addresses. I don't know whether
such adapters are a big problem, but there's enough complex hardware and
software in some adapters for this to be a real risk.
There should be, of course, as few mappings as possible, but no fewer!
Some I/O adapters seem to want to have live access to multiple buffers;
presumably they have a command list and a response list, as well as data
buffers. Systems with many in-fly I/O operations may want many live
mapping. It's like a TLB: too few entries, and you have delays (or lots
of interrupts) to handle frequent misses; too many entries, and you
could have used the real-estate more effectively for something else or
lowered the price.
For example, a network adapter may want a large buffer into which to put
received frames, or you may want to be able to queue up many outgoing
frames for it. Maybe you have multiple sync comm lines at 56Kbit/s (or
less) and they take seemingly forever to drain or fill a buffer.
For example, you're using file systems with 16KB blocks, and your MMU
maps 4KB pages, so you want four mappings for each transfer.
Stratus (my employer) discovered that it was inconvenient (but possible)
to use 1024 mappings to support eight PCI cards; I'm not certain, but I
believe they're 4KB pages. We went up to 4096 mappings in the next
model, and that's conveniently roomy. 1024 was plenty for the default
configuration of three SCSI HBAs (one card), an Ethernet adapter, and a
flash RAM card. But things got tight when adding an extra SCSI card or
two (3 ports each) and maybe a couple dual-port Ethernet adapters!
--Kevin Strietzel
At Stratus Technologies, for whom I do not speak.
PS - On second thought, I don't know the actual hardware
implementation. I know all the mappings are handled in the hardware,
but I *don't* know whether they're all simultaneously live (lots of
comparators!) or whether it's a TLB + page-table-in-memory setup.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 5 Apr 2001 11:48:15 -0500
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 12:39:49 -0400, JS PL <jspl@jsplom> wrote:
>
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:39:49 -0400, JS PL <jspl@jsplom> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:9ah4hb$7id$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> hmm, sounds pretty funny that Microsoft is giving away a streaming
>media
>> >> server,
>> >
>> >They are? Last time I checked, they weren't giving away any server
>software.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> You're kind of stupid, aren't you?
>>
>>
>> In order to use it's monopoly power to destroy the long standing
>> leader in streaming media technology. Microsoft began to essentially
>> give away its streaming media services as a way to undercut the
>> competition. Just like they did with Internet Explorer.
>>
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/02/21/cheap.stream.idg/
>>
>> Microsoft touts low-cost streaming media in Windows 2000
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> February 21, 2000
>> Web posted at: 8:24 a.m. EST (1324 GMT)
>>
>> by Jason Meserve
>>
>> (IDG) -- With this week's long-awaited launch of Windows 2000,
>> Microsoft is touting its low cost Windows Media Services for streaming
>audio
>> and video to intranets and the Internet.
>>
>> Like it did with Internet Explorer, giving it away for free to
>> gain a foothold in the market, Microsoft is giving away its streaming
>> media server as part of the standard Windows 2000 server package.
>> This means that companies that install Windows 2000 servers do not have to
>> purchase separate licenses for a streaming media server. "Because
>> Media Services is] a core feature of Windows 2000 server, it is deployed
>> when the server is deployed," says Mike Aldridge, product manager of
>> Microsoft's digital media division..........
>
>You ought to see what all they throw in when you buy BackOffice 2k @
>$3900.00! You think it's bad that you get a little extra by buying Server @
>$1000+
>
>If streaming media server is truly "free" where might I download it to run
>on Win98? Oh...? What's that? NOWHERE!! So if I want the "free" server how
>much do I need to fork over? Oh.... a thousand bucks?! That don't sound too
>free to me!
>
>I guess it's back to the old drawing board, for you.
>
So I guess the answer is: Yes, you ARE stupid. If you want to download
Windows Media Services server for FREE. Go to:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/en/download/default.asp
It can be downloaded for FREE by selecting 'Windows Media Services 4.1"
from the "Windows Media Tools and Services" menu. Hit the download
button to download it for FREE. Did I mention that it's FREE?
Do you need any more handholding are is that enough for now?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Croughton)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 5 Apr 2001 17:00:21 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 16:42:27 +0200, Per Espen Hagen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I would like to know then, what format would *you* use if you need to
>send a mail where plain ASCII is just inadequate? For instance, if you
>need tables (which look like crap in ASCII if the recipient uses a
>variable-width font), more advanced highlighting than the *bold*
>_underline_ /italic/ plain-text toys, etc?
Anyone who reads plain text mail using a variable width font, and
doesn't realise that the table looking weird needs them to use a fixed
font (even after being told), isn't worth the trouble.
HTML is no better, half the tables are unreadable with sensible terminal
widths anyway (if there are more than 8 columns there won't be room in
each one) and embedded fonts make it unreadable.
>IMHO, HTML is very well suited for this. These days, almost anyone who
>can read mail, on almost any platform, will also have the means for
>displaying HTML documents. For the 0.01% or whatever who don't, HTML
>source code is quite legible.
Really. If you can read hex, strings of &159; and other garbage, mixed
with <FONT> tags every other word, JavaStuff and other mess inserted by
most HTML generators. I'd rather read raw PostScript...
>Myself, if I need to send a document of more than say a few hundred
>lines, or where structure (chapter headings, formatting, etc) matters,
>I usually create it as an HTML document and send it as an HTML
>attachment. Please tell me about a better solution; I certainly can't
>think of any.
PDF, if you must preserve the format (although getting raw data out of
it is a pain and it's massive). Or Word and StarOffice will produce and
import RTF. Or even nroff/troff format. Or if it's to someone who
uses the same application, native format compressed and encoded (Word,
StarOffice, whatever).
However, the main point is that this should be rare. If someone asks me
"Can I send you a Word (or whatever) file?" then I'll be expecting it,
but if I just get an HTML file with no explanation I'll likely delete it
not only unread but as garbage. If it also has a text part and it's
from someone I know (one of my friends isn't allowed to turn HTML off in
his work mailer) then I'll make allowances.
As an example, an agency I worked through sent, unsolicited, a
questionaire to all their contractors. As far as I could make out
(using strings) it was about a 20 line questionaire, but they sent it as
a 250kB Word document (with a note that promised they'd give an amount
to charity for each one returned). The first time, I complained and
said that if they sent in ASCII I would complete it. When they re-sent
the same thing a month later (and their mailer got stuck and sent 6
copies!) I returned it, in decuplicate, with a note saying that further
UCE would be sent to their postmaster. This was an agency for
programming contractors...
Chris C
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
