Linux-Advocacy Digest #916, Volume #33 Wed, 25 Apr 01 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Bruce Hoult)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Why can't the Browser be the GUI for Linux PC? (At150bogomips)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Anne & Lynn Wheeler)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Anne & Lynn Wheeler)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Bye all. Wow the Linux scene has changed. (the Mudshark)
Re: Bye all. Wow the Linux scene has changed. ("David Coto")
Re: Intel versus Sparc ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000 is Cool ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: More Lies from a Linux "advocate" (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh! (Nigel Feltham)
Re: DMCA as applied to MS Office documents? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product (Nigel Feltham)
Re: MIcrosoft: Words, denial and WTF! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A real programming language for Linux: Smalltalk ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males (Chad Everett)
Re: Windows 98 and denial (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Exploit devastates WinNT/2K security ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Bye all. Wow the Linux scene has changed. (Donn Miller)
Re: MIcrosoft: Words, denial and WTF! (Chad Everett)
Re: DMCA as applied to MS Office documents? (Chad Everett)
Two articles from the register (David Dorward)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce Hoult <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 09:09:15 +1200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Kilgallen) wrote:
> > 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.
Wasn't that a mid 80's development?
I've never used an IBM mainframe, but a flatmate in 1985 or 1986 was an
IBM networking guy.
-- Bruce
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:10:39 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > JS PL wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Actually, IBM offered three OSes originally: MS-DOS, CP/M,
> > > and one other- I think it was Xenix or something like that.
> > >
> >
> > MS_DOS was low cost and the others were artificially high.
>
> Presumably their makers throught they were worth it.
>
No, the costs of other OS's were artificially high. They M$ started up
the per preocessor licesnses. Vendos would have had to pay for -2- OS
licenses per machine if they bundled anything but M$ OS's
> Can't think why.
>
> [snip]
> > > It was also so trivial that it bought Microsoft
> > > very little. It was Windows that put MS where
> > > they are now- but that is another story.
> >
> > It was having DOS chosen by IBM and the later per processor licenses
> > that did it.
>
> As I said, IBM offered three choices and MS-DOS was
> the one consumers favored early on. But that didn't
> matter much- had (say) CP/M won out, Microsoft
> could still have persued their Windows strategy
> by running Windows on CP/M.
>
Yeah. Right.
> Microsoft's volume discounts were no doubt helpful
> in a general way later on, but hardly a primary factor.
>
Volume licenses... oh, you mean the ones that state dyou had to pay for
an M$ OS wether you shipped one or not.. those licenses?
> OEMs, after all, had to be shipped volume before volume
> discounts made any sense for them.
I think you should re-examine your history.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (At150bogomips)
Date: 25 Apr 2001 21:01:44 GMT
Subject: Re: Why can't the Browser be the GUI for Linux PC?
Bo Nordahl Pedersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
I don't know. VCs (virtual consoles not venture capitalists) are kind of nice
too and they don't require the same level of hardware that a GUI requires.
(For ASCII, VGA displays usually provide a fair number of buffer pages (quick
console display change), the hardware rendering of the simplistic fonts also
helps.) One can actually multitask on a 386 Linux box!
(Perhaps when GTK+ for the frame buffer matures, one could drop the overhead of
X and the window managers for machines between Terminal and Workstation. But
evil Moore's Law makes such relatively pointless :)
------------------------------
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 21:37:11 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Kilgallen) writes:
> 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.
both HASP and CP/67 had extremely strong user community of people
putting source back into the product and being redistributed.
for instance ... one of the things I did as undergraduate on CP/67 was
implement all the TTY/ASCII terminal support which was incomporated
back into the source and distributed. Tom Van Vleck ... somewhere on
the multics "site" has a story about modifying the ASCII support on
one of the MIT machines running production service (national urban
planning something or other, i believe) and have it crash and
re-ipl/boot 26 times in a single day. some comment about one of the
drivers behind doing the (new) multics filesystem was to get it so a
crash & re-ipl didn't take much of 1st shift.
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
------------------------------
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 21:40:30 GMT
> 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
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 strong conjecture that (at least original) structure of SNA,
VTAM (the software monitor that ran in the mainframe, and NCP (not the
arpanet NCP, but ibm's NCP; ran in the terminal/line mainframe control
unit) was largely precipitated by a project that I worked on as an
undergraduate that originated the 360 PCM (plug compatible manufactor)
mainframe control unit.
random ref:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#360pcm
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 21:44:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Les Mikesell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 23 Apr 2001 02:39:22 GMT
<uBME6.6146$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8cDE6.143327$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Far, far too expensive for LESS performance even! There's no reason to go
>> Unix any more these days. It just doesn't make sense no matter what
>perspective
>> you're looking from. Price? Nope. Performance? Heck no. Security? Yeah,
>right.
>>
>> Win2K is better all around.
>
>Then why do my IIS 5.0 servers crash regularly?
*fumbles in pockets*
*gets out Microsoft-Approved Training Tool, which looks suspiciously
like an old-fashioned gold-plated pocket watch, complete with chain*
*starts swinging the watch*
"You don't need to worry about IIS crashes."
"These aren't the problems you're looking for."
"Microsoft can go about its business."
"Move along..."
(with apologies to whoever wrote Alec Guiness' lines in _Star Wars_ (IV)).
:-)
*puts watch away*
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random very mixed-up metaphors here
EAC code #191 9d:12h:15m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. When it absolutely, positively has to act weird.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 21:50:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Paul Repacholi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Can they robuset enough to continue operating during a nuclear war,
>> like TCP/IP?
>
>Huh, IP can seldom cope on a GOOD day. The idea of an IP based network
>staying up under severe stress is just too funny to be funny.
Actually, this is an implementation problem. The amateur
radio guys have been running TCP/IP under conditions that make
nuclear holocaust seem (to a wired network) like a walk in the
park.
The trouble is that nobody except Phil Karn actually
implemented the stupid thing with reference to the spec.
Well, plus, IP routing on large networks is ridiculous.
------------------------------
From: the Mudshark
Subject: Re: Bye all. Wow the Linux scene has changed.
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 21:54:32 GMT
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 19:12:57 +0100, "Hullo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I originally posted to try and get material for an anti W2K perspective for
>a report to a particularly trite director who MS marketing have got to and
>save my time(and no I do not use my company facilities to post to Usenet).
>You've convinced me (to my surprise) to dump the debian Linux boxes I have
>deployed and switch to W2K(which has stayed up and under burnin in my lab
>for 221 days today). They have been a pain since I was first convinced to
>deploy them(DEBIAN boxes) and the "guru" who set them up has had to
>repeatedly get me to fix them (he is now an ex-employee, fired during
>probation after he turned out to have faked credentials and claimed
>postscript was a proprietary Microsoft thing he did not care about). At
>least if I hire an ex Dell, Compaq or Microsoft employee they can make
>themselves useful. Maybe in a few years there will be ex redhat employees I
>can hire and rely on. Ex Sun engineers just want too much money for what
>they can do, plain and simple, they believe their own companies marketing
>too much ( a marketing department which is just as vile as Microsoft's and
>uses many of the same tactics).
Blah blah blah. Have fun giving Microsoft all your money as they
convince you that you need their costly products badly, very badly.
Shit with SUSE 7.1 and Redhat 7.1 hitting the shelves, I defy anyone
to tell me that setting up networked and secure Linux machines for
their offices for their secretaries to type memos and such is a wasted
effort. These distros knock the socks of any Windows Product for the
kinds of things that most people do with computers - surf the web, do
email, write letters - amd they are free from the tyrannical licensing
schemata that Microsoft hoists upon IT departments worldwide.
I don't get it. Base the viability of Linux in the corporate sphere by
reading posts in a Usenet group? And yes this post was written from a
win98 box. So what? I use Win98 for a few games and digital audio
recording. I use linux for fun and enjoyment and programming and web
development and listening to mp3s. Choose what you want, but spare us
your antilinux pablum. it's for the birds, dude. IF you say you're a
coder, than you shouldn't have had so many problems with the linux
boxes.
------------------------------
From: "David Coto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bye all. Wow the Linux scene has changed.
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:01:29 +0200
> You all begin your code with void main (void) don't you? (can you even
> figure out what's wrong with that) And remember - no ones going to hire
you
> for your ability to download and play with virus toolkits.
Why should you declare int main(int argc,char **argv) if you are not
going
to parse parameters ? I personally don't understand people that do hate
void main(void), since is just a declaration ... let the OS place them, but
just
forget about them if you do not need.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Intel versus Sparc
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:06:35 +0100
> Yeah, no crap.
>
> *** NEWS FLASH ***
>
> Writing code that works only on 64-bit platforms may crash on 32-bit
> platforms!
>
> *** NEWS FLASH ***
>
> -c
Do you try to spout the most pointless crap possible, or is it just
natural?
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:13:07 +0100
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> Karel Jansens wrote:
> >
> > Previously the winvocate mantra was: "Windows is soooo good, why would I
> > not pay for it?"
> >
> > ... which made kinda sense; after all, they already _had_ paid for it,
> > so why not rationalise your faux pas.
> >
> > In the past two or three days I've come at least twice across posts
> > which essentially say: "OK, so Windows is too expensive, let's pirate
> > the crap out of it. It's okay, because the corporate sharks pay for us
> > pirates anyway".
> >
> > ... which is weird. Has Windows suddenly become less than worth its
> > price? Has Microsoft decided to take out some precious features so that
> > suddenly Windows has become less valuable?
> >
> > Or is this how winvocates perceive free software?
> >
> > It's kinda like certain people (with initials CM) who go around the
> > newsgroups for _years_, touting Windows 9x as God's Gift To the
> > Community, and then suddenly changing their tune to: "Well, Windows 95
> > was crap, obviously; and NT wasn't too good either. But Win2k... now
> > that's the best operating system ever".
> >
> > You gotta laugh, eh?
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Karel Jansens
> > ==============================================================
> > "You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
> > ==============================================================
>
> And of course, as soon as Windows XP is released you will have all the
> winadvocates claim that Win2k, win 9x and win ME are crap, and XP is the
> way of the future. Solaris, from day one, it has just been getting
> better after each release. Linux, same situation. Windows, stuck in the
> same rut for, well, at least 15 years. I see no progress what so ever,
> the only people who are ammused are the end luser, who, like most
> simpletons are ammused by the simplist of items, a bit like how flies
> are attracked to light.
Not really fair. Windoze has been getting better with each release
(except ME) but it hasn't been getting better as fast as Unix/Linux and
started from being so totally PISS POOR!
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is Cool
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:19:17 +0100
Hullo wrote:
>
> It really is great, try it out.
So you've said. I would however, rather cut off my own balls. Now shut
up and piss off
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Lies from a Linux "advocate"
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:32:16 +0100
> The "upgrade treadmill" is not an invention of the PC, it is an american
> business strategy. If 1950's car is great, there is no need to buy 1954's.
>
> The trick is to make a product last long enough to make the customer think
> they got their money's worth, but not so long that they don't keep buying.
This idea is good for hardware which inevitably wears out so has a set
lifespan but how can this apply to software which will still be in original
condition after 100 years of use if suitable hardware (or emulation of
original hardware) is available to run it on.
MS is the only company who produce software of such poor quality that it
degrades with use, becoming useless and needing a reinstall or upgrade
between a month and a couple of years from install date depending on how
often it's used.
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:35:58 +0100
> True. Still, Microsoft has only started to realize the value of
> the UNIX style, and their software still is amazingly buggy for
> a company that supposedly devotes a lot of resources to testing.
>
Yes - but MS's definition of testing is selling a product and seeing how
many users have problems - then fixing those problems and selling the users
aother untested 'upgrade' and repeating the process.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DMCA as applied to MS Office documents?
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:28:11 +0100
Richard Thrippleton wrote:
>
> I had this idea/nightmare the other day, and was wondering how
> feasible it was. I'm sure this isn't strictly the best group, but there's a
> lot of MS bashing going on, so why not? Now, if MS were to entirely close
> the standards for MS Office document files in the next version, would they
> be able to take action against Apple and Sun for AppleWorks and StarOffice
> respectively under the terms of the DMCA? After all, if MS don't give them
> permission to read their new document format but they go ahead and do it
> anyway, they're breaking down proprietary 'encryption' (document format). If
> they say they close the standard to prevent unauthorised copying of
> documents, even better? Sorry to those of you who lose sleep over this
> malign vision :)
> So, how feasible is this all?
>
> Richard
I think this would have too much potential for legal repercussions.
Anti-trust et al.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:43:36 +0100
> [ usual moaning of blue screens due to an improperly configured system
> snipped ]
>
If win2k is left in an improperly configured state after installation of
the OS then why should anyone trust this system - if they can't even write
a decent installer why should I expect the quality of the rest of the OS to
be any good.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MIcrosoft: Words, denial and WTF!
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:34:34 +0100
<snip>
> Office XP, yet another over hyped, under performing suite. <snip>
I'm told Office XP has a SIGNIFICANT enhancement - no fucking paperclip!
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A real programming language for Linux: Smalltalk
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:36:55 +0100
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> Mark Watson wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
> $500 a year, a rip-off. Now, a one off $500, now that would be worth
> it. Maybe you should email them and inform them that people aren't made
> of money, and if they want a loyal Linux following, charge at a
> reasonable, ONE OFF price.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
> --
> Disclaimer:
>
> I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
>
> If you don't like it, you can go [# rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
>
> Running SuSE Linux 7.1
>
> The best of German engineering, now in software form
Yeah but Smalltalk! One of the best OO languages in history!
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:49:17 +0100
> Longer probably. I have a 700Mhz Pentitum III T20 Thinkpad with 256MB
> of memory and W2K takes a few minutes to boot. Earlier today I booted
> up W2K and after a few minutes I thought is was done - I got the start
> button and task bar but nothing on the desktop. I figured something had
> gotten zapped. 3 or 4 minutes later, the desktop finally got populated
> with icons. Linux takes less than a minute to boot on the same system.
>
My mandrake system boots a lot quicker (including time to login to KDE2) on
my P133 32mb ram Dell XPi laptop than win2k does on your high-end thinkpad
system - my K6-2 300mhz 64mb ram desktop machine boots linux almost as
quick as your system (I guess most of the linux boot time is down to disk
speed rather than processor once you get above a certain cpu speed).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
soc.men,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 25 Apr 2001 17:11:53 -0500
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 20:28:52 GMT, Scott Erb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>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"?
>
>Did you read beyond that point? I explained a bit about it.
>
>
Yes I did. What I gathered is that "feminist theory" is very much like
"bigotry theory".
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 98 and denial
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:51:28 +0100
I bet the average win9x user is so stupid they think denial is a river in
egypt.
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Exploit devastates WinNT/2K security
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 00:43:26 +0200
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bob Hauck"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:38:16 +1200, Matthew Gardiner
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Microsoft love re-inventing the wheel over and over again. There was a
>> perfectly adequate file sharing protocol, called NFS which all UNIX's
>
> NFS is not really suitable for the kind of peer-to-peer file sharing
> that MS wanted to do. If you have root on your own machine, you can
> easily read all the other files off the NFS server.
>
> The NFS security model works ok for an environment where users are on
> terminals (X or plain) hanging off one of a group of mainframes that are
> all under central administration. It is lousy for a PC-style computing
> environment.
>
Uhh, Bob,
I hate to be the newbie to correct you (yuo're obviously more experienced
with UNIX than me), but isn't that what the 'rootsquash' option is for?
To disallow root acces from clients?
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/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:47:20 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bye all. Wow the Linux scene has changed.
David Coto wrote:
> Why should you declare int main(int argc,char **argv) if you are not
> going
> to parse parameters ? I personally don't understand people that do hate
> void main(void), since is just a declaration ... let the OS place them, but
> just
> forget about them if you do not need.
If you're not going to declare parameters, the correct way is
int main() {}
or
int main(void)
I think return type "void" is deprecated by the standard.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: MIcrosoft: Words, denial and WTF!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 25 Apr 2001 17:24:39 -0500
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:34:34 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><snip>
>> Office XP, yet another over hyped, under performing suite. <snip>
>
>I'm told Office XP has a SIGNIFICANT enhancement - no fucking paperclip!
>
Yes, this is true. In Windows XP, Clippy has been replaced with a nipple
clamp sporting a whip and leather chaps. Every question posed receives
5 cracks of the whip.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: DMCA as applied to MS Office documents?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 25 Apr 2001 17:25:59 -0500
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:28:11 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Richard Thrippleton wrote:
>>
>> I had this idea/nightmare the other day, and was wondering how
>> feasible it was. I'm sure this isn't strictly the best group, but there's a
>> lot of MS bashing going on, so why not? Now, if MS were to entirely close
>> the standards for MS Office document files in the next version, would they
>> be able to take action against Apple and Sun for AppleWorks and StarOffice
>> respectively under the terms of the DMCA? After all, if MS don't give them
>> permission to read their new document format but they go ahead and do it
>> anyway, they're breaking down proprietary 'encryption' (document format). If
>> they say they close the standard to prevent unauthorised copying of
>> documents, even better? Sorry to those of you who lose sleep over this
>> malign vision :)
>> So, how feasible is this all?
>>
>> Richard
>
>I think this would have too much potential for legal repercussions.
>Anti-trust et al.
>--
Microsoft is doing this today with its Windows Media Player format.
------------------------------
From: David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Two articles from the register
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 00:01:14 +0100
Microsoft security fixes infected with FunLove virus
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/18516.html
WIN2K is even easier to deface than NT
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/18515.html
Two more reasons to use linux.
--
David Dorward http://www.dorward.co.uk/
The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don't want, drink
what you don't like, and do what you'd rather not. -- Mark Twain
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
