Linux-Advocacy Digest #574, Volume #33 Fri, 13 Apr 01 10:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: So much for modules in Linux! (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: MS and ISP's ("JS PL")
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft ("Felger Carbon")
Re: So much for modules in Linux! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: So much for modules in Linux! (Grant Fischer)
Re: So much for modules in Linux! ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Linux on Compaq...coming this Summer. ("WGAF")
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised ("Scott R. Godin")
Re: t. max devlin: kook (John Fereira)
Does OSS evolve? (Wilbert Kruithof)
Re: IE ("Michael Pye")
Re: Battlecruiser Millenium - Lowest rated demo on AVault. ("the Callus Patch Kid")
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Neil Cerutti)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (jim dutton)
Re: So much for modules in Linux! (Chad Everett)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So much for modules in Linux!
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 21:35:17 +1200
Just out of curiosity, when is Borland going to release C++ for Linux? I
saw that it was part of their "grand plan", however, there was never
really a definate release date.
regarding the quality, cut the guys a bit of slack. Considering they
were writing a Delphi from scratch for Linux, I would say they did a
pretty good job. Just as a side note (to any Borland employees
reading), if it is as bad as you make it out to be, maybe Borland should
give v2 of Kylix away for free to all those who bought v1, thus, really
boosting the Linux developer base.
Matthew Gardiner
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <38F7495CFA97B7D5.E6C523D46B380326.3E22C1ED3D654786
> @lp.airnews.net>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > How is the Kylix working out as compared to MS office software?
>
> It's got bugs, it accvio's a bit. It is a V1.0 product, but I was
> expecting better.
>
> --
> ---
> Pete Goodwin
> All your no fly zone are belong to us
> My opinions are my own
--
I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operater from Hell)
If you donot like it go [#rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS and ISP's
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 06:40:20 -0400
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:22:17 -0400, JS PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:42:54 -0400;
> >> [...]
> >> >MS holds no "right" to be on all computers, but my power company holds
> >the
> >> >"right" to be my sole supplier of electricity. That is a true
monopoly.
> >[...]
> >>
> >> Sounds more like a true public utility. Tell me, is this "right" that
> >> they have something they always have by their nature, or something
which
> >> is imbued unto them from outside?
> >
> >It doesn't matter. They are the lawfully granted the right to be the sole
> >supplier of electricity. No one else may sell electricity in their area.
A
> >person who puts up a windmill, or any type of generator may not sell the
> >electricity they produce, except back to the monopoly holder in my area.
And
> >I like the term "sell back" as if it was once and is always theirs. That
is
> >a true monopoly.
> >
>
> You're forgetting a crucial detail there pal. If they are granted this
right
> in the manner you describe, then there also exists a government entity
called
> a public utilities commission (or something similar) that acts as an
oversite
> over the company. The government agency has the power to dictate what the
> company may and may not do, what they can charge for their product or
service,
> it can fine the company for violations or actions that it deems is bad for
> the consumer, etc., etc.
>
> Are you suggesting that a similar government oversite be done for
Microsoft?
> Sounds like you are.
Why would I suggest that, dumb ass. Microsoft isn't a monopoly.
Here's the part you snipped:
Microsoft has neither exclusive control over operating systems or a right
granted by a government.
No one has or ever had the exclusive control over operating systems.
At least thats what I would assume considering that this page exists:
http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Software/Operating_Systems/
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Felger Carbon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Felger Carbon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 01:15:45 -0700
Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> My personal belief is that the entire thing was done for a fairly
> simple reason: until this came along, computer companies, software
> companies in particular, were quite well known for remaining totally
> Apolitical, and not contributing to lobbying efforts and such. Even
> though our "representatives" in Washington can officially only
> receive gifts of "nominal value" from lobbyists and such, the reality
> is that they really receive a LOT of those gifts, and they bloody
> well expect to receive their tribute from everybody who has enough
> money to notice. Clinton and his henchmen decided they weren't
> getting their unfair share, so they did any good protection racket,
> and sicked their strongarm boys onto them to squeeze them for more
> money.
As a U.S. citizen, I wish I could be sure that the above is wrong, but...
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So much for modules in Linux!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 10:51:17 GMT
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, when is Borland going to release C++ for Linux? I
> saw that it was part of their "grand plan", however, there was never
> really a definate release date.
Sometime in the next, guessing a bit.
> regarding the quality, cut the guys a bit of slack. Considering they
> were writing a Delphi from scratch for Linux, I would say they did a
> pretty good job. Just as a side note (to any Borland employees
> reading), if it is as bad as you make it out to be, maybe Borland should
> give v2 of Kylix away for free to all those who bought v1, thus, really
> boosting the Linux developer base.
Oh it's a pretty good job they've done. Seeing Delphi (I mean Kylix)
running on Linux is something of an amazing sight when you realise just
what is happening!
It's just that it's about as flakey as a beta test product when it comes to
stability. I am informing them about problems as I go so hopefully they can
be patched.
If you want to see how far I've gotten with Kylix, take a look at
http://mse.sourceforge.net/
--
Pete
Running on SuSE 7.1, Linux 2.4, KDE 2.1
Kylix: the way to go!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Fischer)
Subject: Re: So much for modules in Linux!
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:26:26 +0000 (UTC)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 07:00:44 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grant Fischer wrote:
>
>> What exactly did you do? Your initial messages don't mention this
>> article at all, and your latest message confuses it with boot.local.
>> I don't have a lot of confidence that you "did what the article
>> suggested." I have less confidence that you bothered to figure
>> out how to make the tip work for 7.1.
>
> (i) I tried what the article suggested, it did not work - why don't you
> believe me?
I believe you tried; whether you got it right or not is at issue.
If it works by starting it manually after the end of the boot process,
it is trivial to get it to happen correctly during the boot.
> (ii) SuSE tech support suggest boot.local, it did not work.
They were wrong. It happens. The article I pointed you to
has the right advice, albeit for an earlier version.
--
Grant Fischer (gfischer at the domain hub.org)
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So much for modules in Linux!
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:37:11 +0200
In article <vPqB6.13542$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete Goodwin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chad Everett wrote:
>
>> From many of the subsequent posts in this thread it has become obvious
>> that you refuse to actually READ the boot.local and other files that
>> you are editing. Stop, take a deep breath, and THINK for a moment.
>> boot.local is for post boot and pre run level 1 stuff. You need to
>> customize your network startup/config in run level 3 scripts.
>
> OK, so I missed that one. Is there a script that runs _after_ everything
> else just before the system displays a login prompt?
>
>
Ok,
I am not familiar with SuSE, but is boot.local the same script as
rc.local? I seem to remember that according to the SysV init sequence,
rc.local is executed *after* all the other init scripts (according to
'Running Linux' 3d ed. page 144).
This might be something to check out Pete.
Mart
--
Write in C, write in C,
Write in C, yeah, write in C.
Only wimps use BASIC, Write in C.
http://www.orca.bc.ca/spamalbum/
------------------------------
From: "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Linux on Compaq...coming this Summer.
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:56:32 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > i defend a company's right to sell products on whatever terms they can
> > negotiate with vendors and consumers.
>
> Signing deals in which you siphon money from the sale of one
> company's product into the coffers of their competitor is ILLEGAL.
>
No it's not. AMD is still paying royalties to Intel for every AMD CPU sold.
------------------------------
From: "Scott R. Godin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: 13 Apr 2001 12:32:15 GMT
In article <9b5akf$eq7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| not to demand that
| the government steal from me at gunpoint to fund programs whose actual
| purpose is not to help, but to create dependency on those programs.
Hear hear. Pleasure to meet another reasonably self-aware thinking
rational Human being :)
Welfare, Social Security, Minimum Wage... the list goes on and on..
--
send mail to webmaster (at) webdragon (dot) net instead of the above address.
this is to prevent spamming. e-mail reply-to's have been altered
to prevent scan software from extracting my address for the purpose
of spamming me, which I hate with a passion bordering on obsession.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Fereira)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: t. max devlin: kook
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 12:58:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Anonymous
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>t. max dumbass:
>> Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 8 Apr 2001 06:30:34
>> -0600;
>> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Anything with a command line is easier to learn, of course, because it
>> >> is simpler
>> >
>> >i just wanted to see that again
>>
>> And I bet the last thing in the world you wanted was for me to explain
>> it. You're such a putz, pretending like typing is somehow impossible.
>
>now that you mention it i wonder how many people can type with sufficient
>accuracy to effectively make use of the command line...
>but what i originally had in mind was the difference between memorizing
>a whole series of cryptic commands
It isn't any more difficult then, for example, memorizing the numbers on the
"sniggler battle language" list.
> and just pulling down the menus and
>seeing what they say.
Which is easy, if you can remember which menu to look in.
John Fereira
Ithaca, NY
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Wilbert Kruithof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Does OSS evolve?
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 15:05:34 +0200
Hello!
Because Sam Heads has convinced me to change my question, I do it
hereby.
I have read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", and after that I thought
that it would be better that I changed my question to: "Does OSS
evolve?" The word "evolve" and "evolutionary" are used in that *very*
nice article, but that does not says it's well chosen.
After reading the nearly 70 replies on my initial question again I think
it's better that we start with a less radical point of discussion. If
you think it isn't necessary, just say it.
So, if you are able to answer my question, please reply. Oh, thanks for
all replies on the initial question!!
With kind regards,
Wilbert Kruithof
--
Linux Prometheus 2.4.2 #1 Tue Mar 20 20:42:22 CET 2001 i686
Homepage: http://home.hccnet.nl/wilbert.kruithof/
------------------------------
From: "Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 14:22:21 +0100
> the degradation and eventual downfall of Netscape as the dominant
> platform (it might come back, but I'm not hopeful; at least it's
> open source now) because IE was given away for free and
> candied up until it was speedy and everyone drooled over it), the
But lets just stop and think for a minute here. Have you ever tried to
develop for Netscape? NS4 does just happen to be the biggest pile of
steaming, stinking shit that ever landed on a machine. It is the fucking
pits. It offers little or no support for ANYTHING. It wasn't updated in over
a year. Single handed that application has almost totally destroyed the
creative possibilities of the web for designers because even thought it was
shit, too many fucking people used it.
Yes, now Netscape 6 is out things are a little better, but as an
organisation Netscape are not working hard enough to clear up the excrement
they have spread all over the web. If they are to ever be forgiven for
releasing such a god awful piece of software they are better work harder to
distribute NS6.
As it is, us web designers have to write our pages, then take a big fuck off
axe and remove absolutely anything which might make them interesting, easy
to read or different from the others. Then we have a choice of publishing
the crap pages or publishing the good ones and saying browse with a piece of
shit if you feel like it. Or of course we can devise some code which wastes
the time of our servers deciding which page to send to the browser. But that
shouldn't be necessary.
I hate Microsoft on principal. The recent statement that "Linux is against
the american way" I find both very american and very, very offensive. As if
the american way was even the correct one. And after that you have the fact
that the american way as idealised underneath all the flab that are
americans is supposed to be good and true, you are suggesting that anything
that is not paid for or cannot be so easily exploited is evil.
Love is evil
Happiness is evil
for they cannot be bought or sold by Mr Gates.
However, I also hate Netscape for what they have done to the web of today.
For every time I find that not only does NS not support even the most basic
of style sheet properties, that I can find not HTML work around because
developer.netscape.com seems to include EVERYTHING except the barest glimpse
of a relevant piece of information.
Unfortunately, I have to concede that msdn.microsoft.com/workshop is close
to a masterpiece and includes almost ever piece of information I could ever
need to know when designing for the web.
Netscape might snipe at MS for not sticking to the industry standards, but
at least IE made actual progress in the 18 months that NS4 proliferated like
a like sucking virus through our web.
And don't say I don't know about it.
I was only one of those people who used NS4, it was logical for it to come
after NS3 (which was better than IE3, but around at the same time as IE4, so
wasn't really useful). But as I have said, it sucked so much arse that it
drove me to collaborating with MS whether I liked it or not. There was no
alternative.
And so we reach the mess we are in today.
One browser on one will use on principal
One browser that is total shit beyond reasonable belief (it was practically
a step back from the version before) that could be replaced but it's maker
isn't willing to put in the effort.
Where do we go from here?
Well, that's up to the browsing public, I just wish they were better
informed.
MP
PS. Erm. I only meant to post a little note on the subject of Netscape. It
has grown, but I feel better for getting it off my chest ;)
Intelligent discussion welcome, anyone with no clue or only your head up
Gate's arse, please do not reply, you will only be ignored...
------------------------------
Reply-To: "the Callus Patch Kid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "the Callus Patch Kid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.space-sim
Subject: Re: Battlecruiser Millenium - Lowest rated demo on AVault.
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 02:14:00 -0700
"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:voxB6.92655$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "I have been pestered time and time again by some Linux
> advocates but I have little experience with the platform
> and therefore, will prove to be a learning curve for me.
> If I do a Linux version, it will only be because someone
> paid me to do it and in which case I'd probably sub-contract
> it but maintain design and creative control."
This is just me, but I think it's funny how he is extremely eager to port
BCM to Mac and decidedly NOT eager to port it to Linux, but is "undecided"
about porting it to PSX2.
Now, I've heard that not only is a license to develop for PSX2 extremely
expensive, but there is a much steeper learning curve for it than for Linux.
And the way it looks right now, there are infinitely more Linux users than
PSX2 users.
Luckily, I'm switching to Linux before I get in too deep with Win32, so I'll
get to be pestered by Winblows advocates when I release my game, "A Day in
the Sex Life of the Callus Patch Kid"! Four seconds of pure action (look for
it this Fall)!
--
the Callus Patch Kid
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: 13 Apr 2001 13:41:30 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GreyCloud posted:
>> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>I was giving you a simple example of using the primer. If
>VC++6.0 can't handle it thats MSs' problem.
>
>If I can't get a good example... I'll apologize.
Here's a page by Andrew Koenig devoted to pointing out
non-standards compliance and other issues with MSVC++. I'm only
a beginner in C++, but MSVC++ looks like it has some real issues.
http://www.acceleratedcpp.com/details/msbugs.html
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*** Your mule won the colony tap-dancing contest. You collect
$200. ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jim dutton)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 13 Apr 2001 14:02:58 GMT
In article <9b5cau$fi3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy jim dutton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: In article <9b3td9$mhj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Russianbear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>
>:>: Bah - If there is a God he is no better than a common dictator and there is
>:>: NO reason at all to worship him. Anyone who says live by my rules or be
>:>: punished with death or eternal damnation is an asshole.
>:>
>:>
>:>First of all, God has only two main rules, according to Jesus. First
>:>is to love Him. Second is to love your neighbor.
>:>
>:>I don't think those are unreasonable requests.
>:>Joe
>
>: Are you gay and or monosexual?
>
>
>No, and (if I understand the term "monosexual" to mean "monogamous"),
>no, because I'm celibate, and plan to remain so until/unless I
>remarry.
>
>Why?
>Joe
You write like a poofter.
-Jeem, HTH
==========================================================================
http://www.ejeem.com Autococker2000/Dye SS
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no more
"I'm running for the U.S. Senate, and my staff told me I couldn't say this.
But we did shoot a vegetarian the other day in Dodge City. Nothing personal.
But he was way inside the city limits, and he had broccoli right on him."
- Rep. Pat Roberts(R-Kan)
========================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: So much for modules in Linux!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 13 Apr 2001 08:56:14 -0500
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 13:37:11 +0200, Mart van de Wege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <vPqB6.13542$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete Goodwin"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Chad Everett wrote:
>>
>>> From many of the subsequent posts in this thread it has become obvious
>>> that you refuse to actually READ the boot.local and other files that
>>> you are editing. Stop, take a deep breath, and THINK for a moment.
>>> boot.local is for post boot and pre run level 1 stuff. You need to
>>> customize your network startup/config in run level 3 scripts.
>>
>> OK, so I missed that one. Is there a script that runs _after_ everything
>> else just before the system displays a login prompt?
>>
>>
>Ok,
>
>I am not familiar with SuSE, but is boot.local the same script as
>rc.local? I seem to remember that according to the SysV init sequence,
>rc.local is executed *after* all the other init scripts (according to
>'Running Linux' 3d ed. page 144).
>This might be something to check out Pete.
>
No. boot.local is NOT the same thing as rc.local on other systems.
Don't lead him down that path again.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
