Linux-Advocacy Digest #876, Volume #33 Tue, 24 Apr 01 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: t. max devlin: kook (T. Max Devlin)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :) (T. Max Devlin)
A real programming language for Linux: Smalltalk (Mark Watson)
Re: Tired of XEMACS, moving to VIM (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product (Chad Everett)
Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product (Chad Everett)
Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product (Chad Everett)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 24 Apr 2001 16:14:50 GMT
Said Chad Everett in alt.destroy.microsoft on 13 Apr 2001 15:13:54
>On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:52:48 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 12 Apr 2001 23:13:23 GMT;
>>>"T. Max Devlin"
>>>
>>>> >The truer translation is "You shall not murder". We've been through
>>>this.
>>>>
>>>> I thought it was "you shall not slay." How do you know which it is?
>>>
>>>Take your pick. Killing in war is neither illegal, unethical, nor immoral.
>>
>>Killing another human being is illegal outside of war, so you've merely
>>changed the word, not the concept; I have never claimed that killing in
>>war is "illegal". Merely that there is nothing about it being called
>>"war" that magically makes it either ethical or moral.
>>
>>>What's more, you introduce the Bible as supporting your point when it has
>>>been shown that it doesn't. Unless, of course you actually believe what you
>>>posted earlier, "...because God gets to decide who is human, and anybody the
>>>Isrealites want to kill were simply excluded from the definition." Have you
>>>found a source for this claim of yours?
>
>Nowhere in the Bible is the claim made that the people the Israelites
>killed where considered "non-human". They were human and nowhere was
>it claimed they weren't.
Well, DUH! But they killed them, though, didn't they? Some
commandment, huh?
I'm sorry, Chad. I didn't realize you were a man of Faith. They would
hardly right down they were non-human; they just claimed they were evil,
which amounts to the same thing: a license to kill, as in "thou shalt
not..."
>>No, I did not introduce the Bible in any way. I refuted your claim that
>>the change in wording from "Thou shalt not kill" to "Thou shalt no
>>murder" is simply some metaphoric trick you use to ignore your ethical
>>and moral responsibility for killing in war.
>
>It's not "a change in wording". It's a more accurate translation of the
>original text. The original Hebrew accurately translates to "murder".
Also, I'm told, "slaying".
>Are you suggesting the less accurate translation you're sticking with:
>"Thou shalt not kill" is a ban on killing animals and plants? Those
>are instances of killing, but not of murder. Just because you don't want
>to believe it's the most accurate translation doesn't mean it ain't.
You missed my point; OBVIOUSLY it didn't mean 'thou shalt not kill', as
plants and animals can be killed. So when you say "it means 'murder'"
you're pretending like there were judges and juries and rules of
evidence, so as to exclude involuntary manslaughter. My point is that
it means 'murder' or 'slay', AND 'kill', and therefore any reasonable
person must conclude it means 'to kill another human being'.
Thou shalt not. It doesn't say "thou shalt not... unless they are Evil
or enemies of Israel."
--
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, 24 Apr 2001 16:14:51 GMT
Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 13 Apr 2001 22:33:37 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin"
>
>> Killing another human being is illegal outside of war,
>
>Again, you are quite wrong. Killing in self-defense is quite legal in many
>places, as are State executions as punishment for commission of a capital
>crime. Killing outside of war is quite legal in many places.
If the prosecution proves you were in no mortal danger, or would not
have reasonably believed you were in mortal danger, then self-defense
becomes wrongful death. If you want to play games, that is. But I
think the fact that you pulled my comment out of context is enough to
show your lack of argument.
--
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, 24 Apr 2001 16:14:52 GMT
Said Chad Everett in alt.destroy.microsoft on 14 Apr 2001 10:08:51
>On Sat, 14 Apr 2001 10:58:52 GMT, billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>"T. Max Devlin"
>>
>>> Obviously, everyone whom the Israelites killed. If they killed nobody,
>>> I am not sure why you claimed that they had. Nevertheless, your claim
>>> that Thou Shalt Not Kill is provided in the Bible or in the faith with
>>> some special "out" which absolves killing in war seems entirely
>>> unsupported.
>>
>>Seems?
>
>Thou shalt not kill is not provided with a special "out". Thou shalt
>not kill is not a correct translation as has been pointed out repeatedly
>here but you obviously, for the sake of your argument, refuse to believe
>it. The accurate translation, of course, is "You shall not murder".
>The original Hebrew accurately translates to "murder". Are you suggesting
>the less accurate translation you're sticking with: "Thou shalt not kill"
>is a ban on killing animals and plants? Those are instances of killing,
>but not of murder. Just because you don't want to believe it's the most
>accurate translation doesn't mean it ain't.
And, likewise....
>You'll have people pipe in about how "murder" is not the accurate translation
>cause we don't know the original Hebrew or because the translation is
>debatable, but these are both not true, and are red herrings:
>There are Hebrew manuscripts from which the accuracy of the translations
>of the Septuagint can be determined. The "Nash Papyrus" (c. 150 BCE)
>from Egypt contains Deuteronomy and the Qumran Scroll (250-200 BCE) also
>does. Not only do these texts verify the Hebrew directly, but they supply
>overwhelming support for the accuracy of the Septuagint.
So where on the web can I find the laws which distinguished this
"murder" from "voluntary homicide" or "engaging in war"?
--
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,soc.singles
Subject: Re: t. max devlin: kook
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:14:54 GMT
Said Peter Hayes in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 14 Apr 2001 21:37:57
>On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 10:30:53 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>> Ever see a true newbie in front of a Windows machine?
>
>I first came across the GUI in the form of an early Apple computer in an
>electrical store in Glasgow, Scotland in the early 80s.
>
>I remember fiddling with the mouse, occasionally getting some response, but
>the double-click process isn't intuitive, and I gave up largely
>unimpressed.
>
>The GUI isn't intuitive at all, without instruction or training, and double
>clicking doesn't help. KDE's single click is less unintuitive for the
>newbie, what's more natural than one click on an icon to run the app?
One click on the icon to select the icon, one double-click to run the
app, that's what. The desktop is a metaphor, not just a cute-looking
menu.
--
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,soc.singles
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:14:54 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on 14 Apr 2001 00:15:00
>"Hi! I am Aaron, I am a WinLose 98 user." Hiiiiiii... Aaron!
Whoever you are, you're just making him look good, at this point.
--
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,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Baseball
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:14:55 GMT
Said Nomen Nescio in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 13 Apr 2001 23:20:12
>t. max dumbass:
>> Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:55:12
>> -0600;
>> >t. max dumbass:
>> >> Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 8 Apr 2001 07:19:39
>> >> -0600;
>> >> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 23:39:05
>> >> >> -0600;
>> >> >> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> Said Anonymous in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 11:44:45
>> >> >> >> >aaron wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> Anonymous wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > > Maybe Microsoft will go the full monty and deliver a stable OS for
>once?
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > why don't you do something to make unix as easy to use as windows
>while
>> >> >> >> >> > retaining the former's stability and put microsoft out of business?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> It's been so for well over a DECADE, jackie.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >so you're saying that in 1991 there was a unix system as easy to use as
>> >> >> >> >windows is today?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> To someone who knows how to use it, Unix is easy to use. To someone who
>> >> >> >> does not know how to use it, Windows is hard to use.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >which one is easier to learn to use?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Unix, without a doubt. I've taught ignorant people both, and there is
>> >> >> no comparison. Unix is more powerful than many people feel comfortable
>> >> >> with, of course, as they're insecure and unimaginative, as they've been
>> >> >> taught to be. But Unix is undisputably easier.
>> >> >
>> >> >the emperor's new OS
>> >>
>> >> Quite trolling me, you little worm. You are not EVEN entertaining
>> >> enough to be worth my time flaming.
>> >
>> >SCORE!!!!
>> > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>> >
>> >tee hee!
>>
>> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. What a putz.
>
>you sound bitter
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
--
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.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:14:56 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:03:22
>I agree, Netscape *had* the marketshare, and then they turn on themselves
>and destroyed it.
[...]
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>Frankly, it didn't take that long to discover which was the better product,
>IE or NS.
Guffaw.
--
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:
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: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:14:57 GMT
Said Scott R. Godin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 13 Apr 2001 12:32:15
>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 :)
And it doesn't bother you at all that you are exhibiting fascist
behavior, does it?
>Welfare, Social Security, Minimum Wage... the list goes on and on..
Yes, it sure does. Welcome to the real world, Mr. "Self-aware thinking
rational monkey with a brain".
--
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:
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: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:14:58 GMT
Said tony roth in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:12:41
> Please re read the agreement it does not say anything about owning the
>content of everything you do over any of its services only "comments or
>suggestions" about the service are!
I'm afraid you've been duped.
> Simply put any of my email or data
>which uses there equipment is mine and only mine unless I submit it as a
>comment or suggestion to microsoft directly!
Oh? I presume that means you're posting from the United States and are
studiously ignoring their proclamation of ownership, now that they
decided not to announce when they're ripping you off. It's real, deal
with it. MS is claiming unlimited perpetual rights to any intellectual
property which happens to reside on their servers. Their lawyers are
quite well aware that intellectual property is strictly a civil manner;
the most that anyone could do is sue them. It would take a pea-brain to
consider this a deterrent to Microsoft, though I'll admit it takes quite
a bit of stiff thinking before you might realize on your own that MS
might well simply be stealing all the information, and relying on
someone not only figuring it out, but being able to prove it in a court
of law, to be their "license to steal".
--
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]>
Subject: Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:14:59 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 05 Apr 2001 19:09:52
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 05 Apr 2001 03:40:29
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 04 Apr 2001 03:00:58
>> >> [...]
>> >> >Any computer that has a multi-tasking O/S can run over 255 programs...
>> >>
>> >> In theory or in reliable practice? Any OS but Windows, maybe. Monopoly
>> >> crapware, I'm not so sure about.
>> >>
>> >
>> >In reliable practice... Back around 1965 a navy facility had a large
>> >computer system. [...]
>>
>> 'In this here example one did,' is hardly what I call "in reliable
>> practice", regardless of how unlikely the one that did seems to be. I
>> mean can you guarantee that any and every computer (functioning
>> hardware) running Windows will reliably run over 255 programs ever time
>> you attempt it without fail? Then you're talking "in theory".
>>
>> --
>> T. Max Devlin
>> *** The best way to convince another is
>> to state your case moderately and
>> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
>How would you know... you weren't there.
Its called "reasoning". It doesn't matter if I was there, it is still
merely an illustration of your point, not prove of it. I doubt that
most Windows PCs could run 255 programs without fail at all, let alone
every time or all the time. Split it up how you want, quibble about
threads and processes, but it comes down to the Real World, not the
theoretical world of computer programming. Windows actually does suck
that much.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Mark Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A real programming language for Linux: Smalltalk
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:23:05 GMT
As an older programmer (I started in 1966), I feel that
the current state of programming tools sometimes
compares badly with what we had 10 or 15 years ago.
Sure, the hardware is way better, but even my favorite development
environments (e.g., JBuilder for Java, Emacs + Lisp/Prolog/Python)
seem poor substitutes for the old Lisp Machines and dedicated
Smalltalk environments.
I have enjoyed using the Open Source Squeak Smalltalk
system (www.squeak.org), but I just re-discovered an
industrial strength development system VisualWorks Smalltalk
that runs great on Linux (and just about every other platform)
that is now free for non-commercial use (and $500 a year
for a commercial use license).
Anyway, I will probably get FLAMED for recommending
a proprietary system, but I still recommend that Linux
programmers try out a "hyper productivity programming
environment" (I am quoting myself <grin>) like
VisualWorks (www.cincom.com). If you do try VisualWorks,
just work through the built in tutorials, and in a few evenings
you will be surprised at how much programming you can do
in a short period of time.
-Mark
-- Mark Watson
-- Java and C++ consulting www.markwatson.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To:
gnu.emacs.help,alt.religions.vim,alt.religion.emacs,fj.editor.vi,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Tired of XEMACS, moving to VIM
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 01:35:30 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:56:30 -0400...
...and Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> magnetic disks are for weenies.
>
> real men use punch cards.
Real men use signatures no longer than four lines. You obviously not
being a real man I could now proceed to adressing you with "Miss
Kulkis" in the future, but that would be an insult to the female sex.
mawa
--
Around the corner lives a hacker with a terminal
And on his Web page is a PNG of RMS
He likes to keep his Sun workstation clean
It's a clean machine...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 24 Apr 2001 11:07:13 -0500
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:29:49 +0100, Hullo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>As far as I know you get a couple of free calls with each product. Like most
>of you I don't find I need to resort to support lines for help, but this
>person does. I am just curious to know what they said about the original
>technical problems described. I don't have great hopes of the poster
>actually being serious enough to
>
>a)Call them
>b)Report honestly
>
>
You don't seem to get how crappy Windows 2000 Professional is, do you?:
"The built-in Windows 2000 drivers for CD-R, CD-RW, and DVD-R devices
treat them as read-only devices".
NOTE: "No version of Microsoft Windows to date (Windows 2000, Microsoft
Windows NT, Microsoft Windows 98, Microsoft Windows 95, or Microsoft Windows
3.x) natively supports the ability to write to CD-R, CD-RW, or DVD-R devices.
Writing to (or "burning") these devices requires third-party drivers and
software in Windows 2000."
Third-Party Software - The following third-party software is known to support
Windows 2000, but you should check with the manufacturer for proper version
and updated software.
Adaptec CD-R Software
Easy CD Creator version 3.5c
Easy CD Creator versions 4.0, 4.02 (4.02 is officially supported on Windows 2000)
Adaptec DirectCD 3.01
Adaptec Easy CD Creator version 3.5b or earlier, and Adaptec DirectCD versions 3.0
or earlier, are not supported on Windows 2000-based
computers and may encounter problems if you install them.
See Q237468. Visit http://www.adaptec.com/tools/compatibility/win2k_cdr.html.
All those third party products cost $MONEY$, and the two I've tried reguire
you to be administrator to write to CDs.
>"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Hullo wrote:
>> >
>> > Try ringing the support people at Microsoft and asking. You never know
>you
>> > may learn something. Let us know what they say.
>> >
>>
>> Depends on how much the support will cost. The last time I rang up for
>> support they asked me how I was going to pay, HELLO? I just spent $350
>> on a piece of software, and it would be nice to know how to import
>> Access 2000 Databases into a VB project? considering it was Microsoft
>> that changed the format. I later gave up and went back to using Paradox
>> and Borland C++, consistancy all the way.
>>
>> Matthew Gardiner
>>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 24 Apr 2001 11:12:28 -0500
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 04:43:04 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <GK4F6.9497$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > And how is that any different from opening up Linux to allow normal
>> > users to do priviledged activities?
>>
>> The only priviledged activity that normal users will be allowed to do is
>> write to the CD. Normal users would still not have the ability to load
>> and unload drivers. If you have to give out this kind of authority on
>> W2K to allow normal users to write CDs, why not just give everyone the
>> password of administrator and be done with it?
>
>"Loading" drivers means starting and stopping them, not installing them.
>The users can only start and stop the drivers that the administrator has
>installed, and the admin can deny them access to specific drivers by
>disallowing them access in the ACL.
>
But this doesn't work witht the CD/RW inability to allow non-administrators
write access to CD/RW devices on W2K. You shouldn't suggest things that
don't work.
"The built-in Windows 2000 drivers for CD-R, CD-RW, and DVD-R devices
treat them as read-only devices".
NOTE: "No version of Microsoft Windows to date (Windows 2000, Microsoft
Windows NT, Microsoft Windows 98, Microsoft Windows 95, or
Microsoft Windows 3.x) natively supports the ability to write to CD-R,
CD-RW, or DVD-R devices. Writing to (or "burning") these devices requires
third-party drivers and software in Windows 2000."
Third-Party Software - The following third-party software is known to
support Windows 2000, but you should check with the manufacturer
for proper version and updated software.
Adaptec CD-R Software
Easy CD Creator version 3.5c
Easy CD Creator versions 4.0, 4.02 (4.02 is officially supported on Windows 2000)
Adaptec DirectCD 3.01
Adaptec Easy CD Creator version 3.5b or earlier, and Adaptec DirectCD versions
3.0 or earlier, are not supported on Windows 2000-based
computers and may encounter problems if you install them.
See Q237468. Visit http://www.adaptec.com/tools/compatibility/win2k_cdr.html.
These third party products all cost additional $MONEY$ and they STILL require
you to be administrator on Windows Pro 2K in order to write to CD/RW drives.
Linux can do this no problem. Windows 2K Pro cannot do it at all.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 24 Apr 2001 11:15:28 -0500
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 04:47:25 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message
>> >> Ouch, instant security compromise if you run a trojan that knows what
>to
>> >> look for. So much for the benefits of running as a mere mortal instead
>> >> of Administrator.
>> >
>> > And how is that any different from opening up Linux to allow normal
>users
>> > to do priviledged activities?
>>
>> Very. In Linux, you have at *least* 3 options that are more secure than
>> what you described for Win2K:
>>
>> 1) Make your CD writing program setuid. If I'm not mistaken, cdrecord
>(the
>> most commonly used CD writing program under Linux) is designed to be
>> relatively secure when made setuid, although I wouldn't really trust it
>> without a full source audit.
>
>You can do the same with Win2k. You can run any program as another user,
>including administrator when you are not logged in as that account.
>
>> 2) Do a "chgrp cdrom /dev/{sr,sg}0; chmod 0660 /dev/{sr,sg}0", then make
>> your CD writing program setgid. This way, the program does not gain root
>> permissions at any time during its execution.
>
>You can do the same in Win2k setting the execute permissions to the device
>drivers to only administrators and then giving permission to only one user
>or groups of users, then giving them the ability to start and stop devices.
>They can only then start the devices they have permissions to.
>
But none of these things allow a non-administrator on Windows 2K Pro to
write to CD/RW drives. What a crock. I installed a CD/RW drive for users
to create CDs on a Windows 2K Pro system, and they can't. I am not about
to make them administrators.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 16:39:17 GMT
"Roberto Alsina"
> >Such as stating a soldier killing in war equates to murder.
>
> Which I never did, in those terms. Go check the archives and see.
See the three examples below. You, Roberto, are not a truthful man.
____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________
_________________________________________________________
This is from 4 April 01 in the "communism" thread
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And indeed I consider all soldiers fighting a war their country starts
> to be assassins, in many ways.
> --
> Roberto Alsina
______________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
This is from a post of your dated 21 Apr 01 in this thread.
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I personally believe any killing not in self defense, including
> killing at war, should be considered murder.
____________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
And here is a 22 Apr 01 post of yours from this thread
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Interesting. So you belive that a soldier that initiates a contact with
> >the enemy in a war and kills said enemy in the process is a murderer.
> >Does that mean he also has to be tried for war crimes?
>
> No, I think he should be tried for murder.
> Of course if he is defending himself from an agression it
> may count as self defense.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
_____________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
