Linux-Advocacy Digest #913, Volume #33 Wed, 25 Apr 01 15:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males (Ted Clayton)
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Anne & Lynn Wheeler)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Importance, or lack, of Marketshare? ("MH")
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Larry Kilgallen)
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males (Chad Everett)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Larry Kilgallen)
Re: Why can't the Browser be the GUI for Linux PC? (Bo Nordahl Pedersen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:31:45 GMT
On Wed 25 Apr 2001 09:41, "JS PL" <hi everybody!> wrote:
>
> "Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message
>
>> >> This terrifies me. Users should not have the ability to directly send
>> >> low-level commands to the hardware (ANY hardware) by default.
>> >
>> > They don't. Users do not have the ability to install the burning
> software.
>
>> Ahh, so the system is "secure" because it's impossible for people to
>> write their own self-contained programs. Yeah, that really restores my
>> confidence.
>
> So I am assuming that your no longer "terrified". Hopefully your terror
> has now been downgraded to "disturbed" by the knowlege that a user would
> have to sit down and hand code his own software in his determination to
> burn a CD on a system with no burning software installed? Art least with
> some sedatives you may finally be able to sleep at night now. I see that
> happen all the time BTW. It's becoming the scourge of the industry! Those
> damn users who have taken to writing their own software because their
> admin has set them up with a burner and there is no software installed. We
> should all call the DOJ and see what they are going to do about it!
>
It's called sarcasm. And I wasn't directly referring to the user who is
circumventing local security. S/he could just as easily download or load
from floppy an arbitrary .EXE written by someone else that sends random
commands to all SCSI/ATAPI devices until the computer locks up. Duh, if
the installed software can do it without special privileges, then the user
can do it too.
>> Hint: Win2K does *not* let normal users burn CDs with its default
>> settings. Like Eric said, the administrator has to give users permission
>> to load the ASPI driver. Thank goodness people like you don't actually
>> write software... *glances at IE5 and LookOut* oh, wait...
>
> Hint: I already tried it and I *can* burn CD's as a "user" with default
> user settings. I didn't do anything except install the CDRWin software,
> create a new user, log in as that user and burn a CD.
>
Then your setup is insecure. Do you have Win2K installed on a FAT32
partition, by chance?
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: 25 Apr 2001 18:37:57 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 02:51:10 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:39:02 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:45:12 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >Wrong. I enjoy the company of American women very much.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >However, forming a legal association with one is hazardous
>> >> >> >to a man's wealth.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well, forming an association with you can be dangerous for a womans
>> >> >> health.
>> >> >
>> >> >Are you asserting that I have a venereal disease?
>> >>
>> >> Do you? No, I did not assert that.
>> >
>> >Then your assertion is false.
I will now snip the small path needed to throw Aaron off his track.
>Death to her AND THE JUDGE.
So, Aaron, you were lying. I was right. Gee, I wonder why I am not
surprised.
>Hope that helps.
It does help exposing you for the obvious nutcase you are. Not to
mention you are also an incompetent liar.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:48:19 -0400
From: Ted Clayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
soc.men,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Chad Everett wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:22:58 -0400, Scott D. Erb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Lynette Warren wrote:
> >
> >>what a scam American feminism truly is
> >
> >How do you define feminism? In feminist theory they are many kinds. A
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> What the heck is "feminist theory"?
If you're really interested, there are lots of books on the subject.
Try Rosemarie Tong's book _Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive
Introduction_ (Westview Press, 1998) for a start. There's also the
_Routledge Encyclopedia of Feminist Theories_, edited by Lorraine Code,
which I have yet to read myself but have heard good things about and
which might interest you.
Ted
--
Any opinions expressed in this message are my own and not necessarily
those of CMU.
Altogether, I think we ought to read only books that bite and sting us.
If the book does not shake us awake like a blow to the skull, why bother
reading it in the first place? -- Franz Kafka, letter to Oskar Pollak,
January 27, 1904
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: 25 Apr 2001 18:42:14 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:34:44 GMT, chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina) wrote:
>
>>>It can be dangrous for women to walk alone.
>
>>So, women should be forbidden from doing anything that's dangerous?
>
>What a jerk. Are you just a troll now? We know you're not that
>stupid...
In the part you snipped, I introduced the stuff about women and walking
alone by saying "Aaron believes women are better off when they are NOT
ALLOWED to walk alone".
>No reasonable person can leap from "women should have the CHOICE of
>carrying a gun for personal protection" to "women should be forbidden
>from doing anything that's dangerous".
Actually, it goes exactly the other way around. Aaron is pro forbidding
women the right to walk alone, because they would be in danger.
I am pro giving them that right. You just misunderstood the whole thing.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:43:03 GMT
Michael Lyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wow. I would never claim that SNA was superior to TCP/IP, or even NCP.
> If I recall correctly, SNA was a strict tree topology, with no peer to
> peer communication possible. A graph (as used by TCP/IP and its
> ancestors) seems much more robust, scalable and manageable than a tree
> for communications. I never read much about the specifics of DECnet,
> so I can't comment, but I certainly felt that it was proprietary and
> far too complex.
There is a line somewhere about SNA is not a System, not a Network,
and not an Architecture .... it basically was to describe a framework
for terminal/telecommunications monitor (i.e. how the mainframe
software managed all the connected terminals).
SNA didn't have a "network" layer .... i.e. either in the sense of an
OSI model or the TCP/IP model. The first case of something like a
network model was with APPN ... and the "owners" of SNA were so upset
about APPN they non-concurred with the announcement and held it up for
a couple months. Finally, the APPN announcement was crafted in such a
way that there was no implication that APPN and SNA were even remotely
related (other than being products of the same overall corporate
entity).
random refs:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/94.html#33a
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#3
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#51
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#53
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000.html#90
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#78
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#79
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000b.html#89
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#45
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2000c.html#54
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 25 Apr 2001 18:45:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 02:24:23 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Roberto Alsina"
>> >
>> >> After immigrating I could become a citizen. Yet you said I "will
>> >> never become a juror". That is not something you can possibly know,
>> >
>> >Tell us all when you do become a juror within any jurisdiction in the USA.
>>
>> Let me guess... I immigrate, I naturalize, then I get called, eventually,
>> and not disqualify myself, then I am not disqualified during jury selection.
>>
>
>how much did you bribe the INS people to naturalizes you, you ignorant twit.
Who told you I naturalized? In fact, I have had several offers to
immigrate the US, with job offers in the IT sector. I have consistently
discarded them, since I don't find the idea of living there appealing.
Wanna worry Aaron? I don't even need a visa to get into the US, either.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 25 Apr 2001 18:46:34 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> >Nevertheless, the question remains unanswered.
>>
>> Good, you are learning. Study adverbs for next class.
>
>Yet the question remains unanswered.
Yup.
> Just what is this "global society" you say exists?
Why should I answer that?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Importance, or lack, of Marketshare?
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:57:15 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> The Microsoft zealots always quote marketshare at some point, have you
noticed?
> I started thinking about that, why is it important? Is it important?
In a mixed economy it's vitally important.
Unless something happened while I napped, I believe this is still a
capitlist system.
Marketshare == more captial, which in turn means more investment, more
investment == more R&D. Which == more products & promotion which == ...
circular development and growth, which == more return on investment, which
== ...
> I think "why" marketshare is somewhat important, is because you need a
> community of users and developers to create the various software. The days
> where one could write all that they need are long gone.
Market 'share' is an odd term when you ponder it.
The market 'slice' that a company has at any given time is a better term for
me when talking about a 'market'. If we're talking about some
pie-in-the-sky, romantic, Eric Raymond-like-LSD-induced mirage --where life
is a bowl of strawberries as long as you divulge the 'source', count me out.
Viewing source _is_ cool. Making it a business model is absurdity. Free and
open intellectual exchange, as beneficial as it is, doesn't pay the bills.
Torvalds is out at Transmeta gobbling 6 figures enabling Bill Gate's
visions, such as the new Tablet coming from MS in 2002 which will run on
Transmetta's processor. Is Transmeta's internal source or intellectual
property open? I think not.
I prefer reality with my breakfast.
> The real issue is how big does that market need to be? How many active
> users/developers does it take before a system is self sustaining? Also,
does
> open source make this number larger or smaller than the equivalent closed
> source?
The market, under ideal conditions, should be its own determinate.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Kilgallen)
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: 25 Apr 2001 15:05:40 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Lyle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <7vzF6.438$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeffrey Boulier
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Jan Vorbrueggen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >- at least two of them still exist today,
>>
>> Which two? I'm guessing that SNA is one, but what would be the other
>> popular proprietary network protocol?
>
> Wow. I would never claim that SNA was superior to TCP/IP, or even NCP.
> If I recall correctly, SNA was a strict tree topology, with no peer to
> peer communication possible.
Then you are failing to recall LU6.2 handling within SNA.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 25 Apr 2001 13:41:06 -0500
On 25 Apr 2001 18:37:57 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>It does help exposing you for the obvious nutcase you are. Not to
>mention you are also an incompetent liar.
>
>--
>Roberto Alsina
Boy Roberto, you fit all of those to a tee. You're the ultimate nutcase
and an extremely incompetent liar.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Kilgallen)
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: 25 Apr 2001 15:08:18 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
>>
>> Mr Stallman did not invent the concept, he just advocates something
>> patterned after the operating procedures used with the PDP-1 at
>> MIT about 1962 or so. Quite a bit before anything called "XMODEM"
>> I would say.
>
> while not '62 ... I worked with both HASP (starting mid '67) and CP/67
> (starting 1/68) which had distributed source.
When I entered into this discussion thread, it was not merely about the
availability of source but about the "hacker" ethic of each person putting
their changes back into a common source pool, all the time. At the MIT
PDP-1 this was accomplished with physical access to the paper tape tray
that held popular programs. That closely-knit community was what I was
relating, not the mere availability of source.
------------------------------
From: Bo Nordahl Pedersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why can't the Browser be the GUI for Linux PC?
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 21:10:33 +0200
Bob wrote:
I think it's a really good question!
First off I must admit that I am not a computer professional, nor am I
particularly computer savvy. But I think that the reason the Linux X
system is designed the way it is, has something to do with tree
fundamentally different types, or perhaps more appropriately classes of
computer systems, which one (such as I) could name: Server, Workstation
and Terminal for the purpose of classifying which OS interface design
would be the most productive to use.
A server is inherently intended to be used by more than one person, and
run more than one program at once and most importantly do several
different things at once (like ray tracing and word processing). But a
user doesn't have to interface directly with it, rather he or she
interfaces through either a workstation or a terminal. It therefore
follows, that a server doesn't really need an interface of it's own,
rather one is given it following either one of the two models below.
A workstation is pretty much intended to do the same as a server but
only serves one person. The person interfaces directly with the
computer, (for instance a programmer who tests his word processing
software, while monitoring how it runs, while monitoring which files it
generates).
The "browser OS"/"browser interface" is simply not a good way to create
an interface between man and machine when you need to do several
different things at once. A window (no not from Redmond) type interface
is the best for these tasks.
A terminal is characterized by being used by one person for one thing at
a time, i.e. either word processing or file browsing or creating a
picture (or even a computer program). Here the browser model could be
useful as an OS interface design model: SUN's Star Office is a good
example, and perhaps the only one at that, of this way of creating a
computer interface. But then again in Star Office the file browsing
window on the side turns out to be really nifty when it comes to getting
the job done, and one tries to see what happens both in Star Write and
Star Draw at the same time, in other words one finds that one would
rather have/be more productive with a window/workstation type interface
there too.
However there is a case to be made for the terminal way of designing an
OS interface: Novices and people who only need to get one job done at a
time would probably benefit from this way of designing an interface (all
video game consoles are designed to be terminals as are webtv set top
boxes).
The bottom line is this: Most OS'es such as Linux, Windows (the Redmond
kind) and Macs are at the same time intended to be both servers,
workstations and terminals, and for the greatest versatility they come
with a workstation type of user interface. Though I suspect most average
users would be perfectly happy with a terminal type interface, because
it naturally limits the number of things they need to focus on, thus
making the computer less intimidating. Compare the way one uses a video
game with the way one uses ones computer.
>
> Here is the $64M question: Why on one is making the Browser the unifying
> desktop GUI for the Linux PCs?
>
> Ask youself this question: Is there any thing KDE/GNOME can do that the
> Browser can not do?
> Remember, the old Mac's desktop GUI is called the Finder (get it?).
> Windows/Mac desktop GUI is not much more than a high level "disk browser"!
> For graphics, have the Browser support W3C's SVG/X3D. What else do you need?
> The Browser can interact with everything on the net and it can interact with
> anything on your local disks.
>
> --CW (thank me if Linux PC takes off with the Browser as its desktop GUI)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
