Linux-Advocacy Digest #503, Volume #33 Wed, 11 Apr 01 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor (Roberto Selbach
Teixeira)
Re: So much for modules in Linux! (Terry Porter)
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a luser... (was Re:
Chinese airforce adopted Win2k infrastructure) (Terry Porter)
Re: So much for modules in Linux! (.)
Re: So much for modules in Linux! (.)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (mlw)
Re: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis (Chad Everett)
Re: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis (Chad Everett)
Re: Too expensive, too invasive (was: Re: uh oh, redhat is gonna do it) (Anonymous)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Phlip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Selbach Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.shareware.programmer,comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
Date: 11 Apr 2001 09:04:05 -0300
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 16:22:26 GMT, Randall Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>> Sure, Emacs is configurable, but only with a lot of work. And even
>>> then it might not be the right editor for you, so it's not the
>>> right answer for everyone.
>
>>The reason I've never tried Emacs is that some of the people who
>>have claim that it is hard to configure. Then you find people who
>>say it is easy to configure but one has no way of knowing how long
>>they've used it and how long it took them to get to the point where
>>they'd call it easy.
>
> It _is_ hard to configure, unless you happen to be so insane as to
> like the emacs defaults. I don't. I don't dismiss emacs as being
> useless, but the emacs defaults are so far off from anything I would
> consider useful that it just takes too much work to get it to work
> _with_ me, instead of _against_ me. Emacs out of the box is just as
> annoying to me as the Microsoft Office paper clip. It just tries to
> do too much. The difference is that the Office assistant is
> intelligent enough to understand when it's not wanted, while emacs
> isn't.
Maybe you just don't know "Customize". Try using it to configure Emacs
and you will see how "difficult" it is. Customize offers a interface
for customization that don't require a single line of code or to edit
a file. The user doesn't even have to know in which file the
customization goes.
As for Emacs defaults, I agree with you that they are not the best for
everyone. But all you have to do is using the menu Options->Customize
Emacs to change the whole thing.
>>I want to install an editor, go to a menu pop-down that is labelled
>>something like "Key Mappings" and then get a dialog box that has
>>radio buttons or a combo box that lets me select from a half dozen
>>popular key mappings (vi, Brief, CUA, etc). If it requires
>>downloading separate Lisp scripts and trying to understand the guts
>>of hacked up Lisp macros to get it to work right then I'm really not
>>interested.
>
That's Customize for you.
> vim is _very_ easy to configure. You have good help files that are
> easy to maneuver, and the customization screens in emacs don't hold
> a candle to the ease of use and maneuverability of the corresponding
> screens in vim.
Vim requires the user to edit configuration files which use a very
obscure syntax. As for documentation, try Help->Read the Emacs Manual
to see a real good documentation.
--
Roberto Selbach Teixeira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Conectiva, S.A. http://www.conectiva.com
You may think that there is nothing you need to know about Vi.
Don't fool yourself, there is at least one thing you positively
*have* to know about Vi:
Pressing lots of ESC's followed by ":q!" will quit the damn thing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: So much for modules in Linux!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 11 Apr 2001 12:19:00 GMT
On 11 Apr 2001 02:02:03 -0700,
pete_answers@x <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <WUSA6.6598$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete says...
>
>>
>>What happens if I install Windows? I have to install device drivers for
>>these network cards. Then I set up one as DHCP, one as a fixed address.
>>Then it just works. Funny that, isn't it. If I want something that just
>>works, use Windows. If I want something that almost works (but requires
>>more investigation) then use Linux.
>>
>
> hehe. You just found that out now??
>
> The other day I spend 2 hours fighting with netscape on linux and
> solaris machine trying to get it to play TV news video on ABC or Yahoo,
> it kept telling my it needs a plugin, I download the dam thing, install
> everything, follow instructions, even reboot, yet, nothing play. No movies
> show up. I reboot windows, and click and here it is, the movie just plays.
Hi there Wintroll,
"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
Simon777,Flatfish+++"
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a luser... (was
Re: Chinese airforce adopted Win2k infrastructure)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 11 Apr 2001 12:26:27 GMT
On 6 Apr 2001 00:43:39 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip of Edwards usual Winluser rantings>
I see you've changed your user ID again Troll boy, guess it's the only way
for you to get read ?
(Edwards Score file entry number 12)
Cya UberLuser
<plonk>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: So much for modules in Linux!
Date: 11 Apr 2001 13:15:20 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm using SuSE 7.1 Personal after all my struggles with Mandrake 7.2.
> That is not to say there aren't any problems. There are.
> In order to get my network working I'm currently starting up DHCP manually.
> I descovered that SuSE telephone support doesn't cover anything except
> basic installation. Apparently, getting your network up is not considered
> basic. Oh well.
> I was told to put "dhcpcd eth1" in my boot.local file. I tried this. It
> doesn't work.
> Why doesn't it work? I have two network cards. Both are supported, both are
> modules. If I let the system boot they work fine. If I switch on DHCP, oh
> dear, the system gets very confused and tries to assign the wrong driver to
> the wrong network card.
Heres a clue, you ignorant bastard:
The same exact route on two interfaces doesnt work. This has nothing to
do with modules.
=====.
--
"Great babylon has fallen, fallen, fallen;
Jerusalem has fallen, fallen, fallen!
The great, Great Beast is DEAD! DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: So much for modules in Linux!
Date: 11 Apr 2001 13:16:14 GMT
pete_answers@x <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <WUSA6.6598$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete says...
>
>>
>>What happens if I install Windows? I have to install device drivers for
>>these network cards. Then I set up one as DHCP, one as a fixed address.
>>Then it just works. Funny that, isn't it. If I want something that just
>>works, use Windows. If I want something that almost works (but requires
>>more investigation) then use Linux.
>>
>
> hehe. You just found that out now??
> The other day I spend 2 hours fighting with netscape on linux and
> solaris machine trying to get it to play TV news video on ABC or Yahoo,
> it kept telling my it needs a plugin, I download the dam thing, install
> everything, follow instructions, even reboot, yet, nothing play. No movies
> show up. I reboot windows, and click and here it is, the movie just plays.
> I really have no idea what people see in all these Unix variations
> of operating systems. They are good for servers, in the back room
> for geek to use. The rest of the world uses windows becuase it juts
> works!
FLATFISH!!!
I knew youd be back.
--
"Great babylon has fallen, fallen, fallen;
Jerusalem has fallen, fallen, fallen!
The great, Great Beast is DEAD! DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!"
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 09:23:46 -0400
unicat wrote:
[snipped]
While I wouldn't be so poetic, I think that there are some hard numbers about
Windows that will be hard to overcome:
When you have growing user base, it is easy to change and upgrade, i.e. there
are new users all the time, and it does not take long for the users of the new
product to outnumber the users of the old product. Thus, improvements work
their way into the environment quickly because software developers can design
with the new features and have a growing market. When the users of the older
versions wish to get the newer product, they are forced to upgrade.
When you have a static market, which Microsoft is approaching, the situation
reverses. It becomes very hard to add new features because software developers
will code to the older standards to capture the larger market. There is no need
for end users to upgrade.
I think Microsoft sees this and are trying to squeeze as much revenue out of
the desktop as they can, this is also why they are working on ".NET' and X Box.
They know their days of control are numbered, and are trying to exert control
over other areas.
Once the user space of Windows becomes more or less static, projects like Wine
become able to hit the more slowly moving target.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 11 Apr 2001 08:08:28 -0500
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:29:25 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Donn Miller wrote:
>>
>> Like I said, if he is running Netscape, I don't think you can change the ID
>> string in the headers. I think Netscape has some OS-identification code
>> hard-coded in the executable.
>
>Given access to the source code, which is a given, you need only change
>a few lines of code and recompile. I don't understand why even the
>UNIX guys are having trouble with this concept.
>
>Chris
>
Me neither. I even responded to Donn a day or so ago with explicit examples
of how everything she is describing could be done....including all the
headers she is pointing out. I posted a message with every one of those
headers faked. In another post, I described the exact changes (with source
code snips from mozilla) on how to modify mozilla to do the exact same
thing. Sometimes people just either can't read or they don't want to
know.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Basement Boy: Aka Aaron Koookis
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 11 Apr 2001 08:10:51 -0500
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 11:31:28 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>>
>> What I will tell you is that I'm *NOT* running Windows, and I'm *NOT*
>> running Netscape.
>>
>> hope that helps.
>
>Ah, he's modifying a different set of source code.
>
Yeah. It's easier to do using slrn, for example, but perfectly doable with
mozilla too.
Nevertheless, it makes absolutely no sense to modify these particular
header lines for "security".
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 07:27:13 -0600
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Too expensive, too invasive (was: Re: uh oh, redhat is gonna do it)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,soc.singles,alt.os.linux.redhat,comp.os.linux.redhat
aaron wrote:
> Bloody Viking wrote:
> >
> > Aaron R. Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> > : Netscape singlehandedly made the Web a household term.
> >
> > And Microshit made computering a household activity. We would agree that
> > Microshit is evil, but every company that makes proprietary software resorts
> > to the Proprietary File Format. Netscrape failed only becuse Microshit pulled
> > out the Product Dumping tactic with Internet Exploiter. Now, there's so many
> > Netscrape/Exploder-only web sites that you can barely use any other browser.
> > It's all becuse of originally Netscrape-only .HTML extensions. Try any other
> > browser and see how the web has a lot of useless sites.
>
> Write to the web-master and tell them that his site is full of
> proprietary bullshit, and therefore, you reference other sites.
that'll show em
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: Phlip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: 11 Apr 2001 13:28:35 GMT
[Follow-up set to comp.object]
Proclaimed unicat from the mountaintops:
> It was good to see the DOW go back above 10000 yesterday, but there
> are lingering doubts about whether the bear market is over.
That's "10 000". Mr. Manners reminds the Gentle Poster to distinguish
powers of 3 when writing numbers.
> Which has many people asking, what happened to the optimism of the 90's?
You identified someone, somewhere, feeling optimistic in the 90's???
> Where is that spirit of unbridled optimism that fueled so many years of
> steady growth.
Big hint. Every 7 years markets correct. You can trace this pattern,
unbroken, back into Medieval records of grain sales. It has nothing to do
with optimism, warfare or diplomacy.
> The author would like to advance a pet theory. It's all Microsoft's
> fault.
I'm listening.
> For the past decade, there has been a bubble of investment spending,
> which
> has produced high profits and further investment, all based upon a
> single phenomenon:
> Moore's Law. The principle that says that computers will go twice as
> fast every 18 months.
That's why MS writes every next version to go twice as slow, assuming the
hardware will have caught up by the time they need to push it. Go on...
> So businesses have scrambled to find ways to use this computing power to
> improve every
> aspect of their enterprise. Which meant lots of capital spending. Which
> fueled the
> growth of tech sector companies, resulting in lots of high wage jobs,
> which fueled
> consumer spending, which benefitted mainstream business, and so forth in
> a virtuous
> cycle.
Uh, sounds like a (righteous) indictment of SAP.
However, you are believing MS's own marketing pitch. They claimed that the
"productivity gains" of the 90's were due to 'puters enabling work units to
do more.
I would like to point out that the 90's saw the entry into the job markets
of millions of kids raised on video games. Think about it...
> And every year or so a new type of microprocessor would be released with
> even more
> power. And not coincidentally, a new version of the Windows OS would be
> released,
> which added features at the expense of using more CPU resources. So
> everyone had
> to spend a bunch of new capital on upgrades, which started the virtuous
> cycle all over again.
Uh, nobody usually climbs over each other to install and use these.
Hardware and OS vendors try to match each others' cycles, of course, but
the public is still not buying Win2000, as you point out below.
> But now the cycle seems to be breaking, and the blame, for this author,
> rests squarely on
> Microsoft. They seem to have hit the wall, to have run out of ideas.
They had ideas to run out of?
> It has been three years since Windows 98 now, and Microsoft is working
> on their fourth attempt
> at a replacement OS (Windows SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000, and now Win
> XP), but
> most desktops are still running good old Win 98. Why? Because there are
> no features in the new
> OS's that are interesting enough to be worth the pain and expense of an
> upgrade.
But there's all that jiggling baloney!!!
> When the internet began to take off there was an opportunity for
> Microsoft to become
> its champion. However instead MS appears to have seen the internet as a
> threat to its desktop
> based computing empire, and it attempted to smother the baby. First (as
> this author
> recalls) by promoting the MSN as a rival to the internet itself, and
> when that didn't work,
> by (according to Sun)poisoning standards like Java that could have been
> used to
> build robust e-commerce systems, leaving the world of internet commerce
> in disarray,
> and turning dot-coms into dot-bombs as cunsumers shied away from the
> resulting mess.
> In an attempt to close the barn door after the horse was out, MS has put
> forward their
> new dot-net initiative. It has been called mind-numbingly complex, and
> due to customer
> suspicion over Microsofts motives, it is seeing adoption rates about
> equal to the Ford Edsel.
Uh, AOL tried to smother the baby. MS just went predatory with their Web
browser.
I hope you are not going to blame the current down-turn (which is a couple
weeks short of being called a "recession" so far) on Internet Explorer.
If you believe MS's marketing pitch ("we stimulated the economy"), then
when the economy goes down you continue to believe it.
Further, Dot Net appears (from my distant viewpoint in a Linux-only world
[jealous?]) to be MS's tired Embrace Extend Extinguish strategy applied
>again<, this time to their own crummy enterprise tools. I hope they spent
a >lot< of money on that!
> In the view of the author, Microsoft overall seems to be transitioning
> in behavior, from an
> innovator that liberated users with cheap easy-to-use software, to a
> mainframe-style company,
> obsessed with controlling users and maximizing its revenue from each
> trivial product upgrade.
> As users balk at painful and expensive upgrades, MS is squeezing for
> more license fees from
> products already in use. One recent article seemed to indicate that MS
> had asked one firm to pay
> a license for every CLIENT system that accessed a web site built using
> windows NT.
Again, you are believing MS's own marketing pitch at both ends of this
argument!
> Students of history will see that this sort of behavior will inevitably
> to the demise of Microsoft.
> But for the US economy, this will be a good thing.
A real big company going under will lead to a better economy?
I'd settle for "Gates and Ballmer growing a real conscience would improve
the economy".
> The Barbarians have already gathered at the gates. The Linux OS, which
> some claim is more
> powerful and robust than Windows, giving the scalability of large UNIX
> servers to cheap intel iron,
> is already growing faster than Windows 2000, and is reported by the Wall
> Street Journal to have claimed
> over a 30% market share in servers. Although Linux use on the desktop
> has been limited to under 10%
> by the inertia of users accustomed to MS Office,
That's funny. I thought the problem was the Delete key never did the same
thing twice.
> there has now been an
> end-around-run. The Openoffice
> organization ( http://www.openoffice.org ) has released an office suite
> with nearly the same look-and-feel
> as MS Office. It will process MS office document formats, and runs
> equally well under Windows and Linux,
> and is being given away for FREE in perpetuity.
And this will cure the economy. Before the 7 year cycle runs out. Okay.
> Not only that, but old-time arch-rivals of MS, like IBM, are beginning
> to lose their fear of defying
> Microsoft. It seems that it has suddenly dawned on them that Microsoft
> isn't all that talented, or
> tough, and given their relative sizes, it might just be time for IBM to
> give pipsqueak Microsoft a
> thrashing they have long deserved. The first blow is for IBM to spend
> over $1billion on Linux
> development this year.
Uh, some of us old-timers remember when MS and IBM were in bed with each
other. MS publically announcing they were big enough to no longer take
orders from IBM made the consumer-level news shows.
And the idea of IBM thrashing anyone (especially by investing in
ClosedSource code to run on a Free Software platform) blows my mind.
> As Microsoft does a long slow fade into irrelevance, there will be a
> liitle pain for the current
> users of Windows,
No it won't. A real market traction will produce fine desktops on Linux;
none of them funded by IBM. All the tools are in place now!
> but it will be quickly replaced by enthusiasm.
> As the
> constipating plug of Windows
> is removed from corporate IS departments, a flush of new creativity will
> ensue as technical personnel
> suddenly feel free to explore more creative and innovative ways to build
> servers, networks and protocols.
Uh, I thought their job was to add value, not goof off. Who needs a >new<
protocol?
> Which will result in another rush of capital spending, and we will begin
> anew the virtuous cycle
> of economic growth.
Can we set this to the tune of the song from the South Park movie, "Blame
Canada"?
--
Phlip [EMAIL PROTECTED]
============== http://phlip.webjump.com ==============
-- Now collecting votes for a new group:
news:alt.flame.moderated --
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
