Linux-Advocacy Digest #35, Volume #34 Sun, 29 Apr 01 09:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft hit new security 'level' :-) (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: IE ("Michael Pye")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: IE ("Michael Pye")
Re: IE ("Michael Pye")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: IE ("Michael Pye")
Re: IE (Roy Culley)
Re: IE ("Michael Pye")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ("MH")
Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product ("MH")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft hit new security 'level' :-)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:12:57 +1200
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9cbcsl$adm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> Now it says 'security fix files' have been infected with a virus. How
> > >> does this not substantiate my subject? What's an admin supposed to do?
> As
> > >> soon as they hear about a patch for a security bug they should download
> > >> and install. Next thing they know their systems are infected. It is
> hard
> > >> enough keeping up with Microsoft security patches (over 2 security bugs
> > >> per week in 2000 for Microsoft software - a record) without having to
> > >> check if they are infected as well.
> > >
> > > How is 2 bugs a week a record? I see dozens of patches a week to Linux.
> > >
> > > If you find keeping up with MS patches difficult, you must be literally
> > > livid about keeping up with Linux patches.
> >
> > Have you ever used UNIX before, because most people will know is that as
> > soon as a fix becomes available, the company/distro posts it, compared to
> > Microsoft where you have to wait 3 months for a service pack that is not
> > guaranteed to fix the problems you are facing. I would rather more
> > patches, than waiting in limbo for two months hoping that my server
> doesn't
> > crash because I was waiting for the next service pack to be released.
>
> What does that have to do with "keeping up" with the number of fixes?
>
> In any event, MS releases "hot fixes". There are quite a few of them, and
> they come out between service packs.
>
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
Ho fixes are for major issues, however, what about minor issues that may
only effect a small amount of users? SUN releases regular bug fixes,
whether these bug fixes are important or not.
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
------------------------------
From: "Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:11:43 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Okay, I'll give. It was a knee jerk reaction, and I may have
> misinterpreted your statements about Netscape4. Still, it only causes
> problems for developers, and to be honest I don't mind that, not being
> one. I'd prefer if you guys didn't waste time "building" things, and
> just made information available in basic text form as much as possible.
He he. Yeah, I'm careful to keep it neat, but we gotta be allowed to pull
out all the stops every now and again or there is no creativity! ;)
MP
------------------------------
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: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 08:33:34 -0400
JS PL wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS PL wrote:
> > >
> > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 27 Apr 2001
> > > > [...]
> > > > >No, but they would have had to pay more had they
> > > > >split their lineups. The fewer copies of Windows they
> > > > >put out they more they had to pay per copy.
> > > > >
> > > > >They could still *do* it.
> > > > >
> > > > >But given that their customers wanted Windows,
> > > > >it would have made no sense to pay more.
> > > >
> > > > Their customers couldn't care less, or Microsoft would have no reason
> to
> > > > engage in cliff's edge per-processor licensing.
> > >
> > > Cliff edge pricing? What, pray tell was the price difference? I don't
> expect
> > > an answer because you don't know it.
> > > There no evidence that Microsoft "coerced" any OEM into entering into a
> per
> > > processor license agreement. Additionally, Microsoft's per processor
> > > licenses were not exclusive dealing arrangements under the antitrust
> laws
> > > because they did not exclude DRI or anyone else from competing for any
> OEM's
> > > business.
> >
> > You are wrong
> >
> > >
> > > There was merely a slight price advantage to ppl, mainly realized by
> less
> > > paperwork at the OEM side. That's why only half of all OEM's ever even
> opted
> > > for per-processor license agreements.
> >
> > Read The Microsoft File.
>
> Disgruntled employees looking to cash in and gain revenge aren't the best
> sources of information. The Microsoft File book is nothing (absolutely
> nothing) more than an assemblage of unsubstantiated gossip backed up by no
> source credit at all. Kind of like the National Enquirer, or worse yet
> "World News" where Clinton is seen shaking hands with aliens from outer
> space, and the fattest baby on earth. I would believe those stories first as
> they actually name sources, albeit...false sources, but at least the effort
> was there.
You demonstate that you either not read the book, or that you have not
understood it. The information comes more than just "Disgruntled
employees and unsubstantiated gossip". BTW, why is a disguntled
employees suddenly a dishonest person?
Read the book.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:29:40 +0100
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> At the same time you don't want to alienate them with "you must upgrade
> your browser or go away".
No, you don't. That's why I do spend hours trying to find workarounds for
older browsers, but it is true that no one uses a v3 browser anymore, I have
stats on the subject. The problem is that one v4 browser if a long way
behind all it's competitors but is still popular...
> Sites do not have to look amateurish or poor to work with multiple
> browsers. They may not be up with the latest in trendy graphic design,
> but then 80% of Internet users still use dialup lines and would prefer
> to get on with their lives rather than wait for the page to load.
But I use a dial up 56k connection. It's not fantastic and I do get pissed
off with flash pages because my P200 can't render the buggers fast enough
even if I could download them!
I don't do BIG pages. OK, I have two sites on the go t the moment. The
first, a fan site for miniature wargaming (www.ultimate40k.net) has index
page download as follows:
index.shtml - 2.97KB
main.css - 1.41KB
logo.gif - 3.60KB
bars.gif - 808bytes
barspecial.gif - 1.56KB
barthin.gif - 979bytes
Grand total: 11.32KB (about 2.7 seconds @ 4.1KB/s which is standard for a
56kbs modem)
It's hardly the world wide wait. Add to that the fact that everythng except
the HTML page is cached and used with all the other pages and after you have
arrived at the index, browsing only takes exactly the amound of time needed
to download the solid text plus minimal formatting (because of the external
stylesheet).
Go and have a look at it. It's not ugly is it? It's not difficult to read or
follow. And the JScript sidebar (available to NS6, IE4/5) has been the
source of many compliments for it's simplicity and effectiveness. A little
bit of server side coding means that NS4 users don't even get errors, they
just get the main headings on the sidebar which that can navigate manually.
> Yes, I advocate simplicity. I like Shaker furniture and Python rather
> than Victorian and C++. But as far as the modern web goes, I have
> practical reasons for that. Where I live, we don't have broadband yet,
> and the phone lines are very poor. Cool looking pages are more often
> than not slow pages.
Unless the designer was a good one. Elegant minimalism is very fashionable
at the moment so it isn't hard to put together and impressive yet small
page. I dislike very graphics intensive pages mainly for their oppressive
feeling or garish colours than their download time.
It depends what type of site you are looking at. Some are purely functional
and are simple for a very good reason. An example might be the GNU site.
They aren't looking to sell anything or to say that they are "cool". But
other people are, and they need good design.
The Bellsouth site wasn't well designed, it was written by a big web design
company with a WYSIWYG editor and minimal knowledge of actual HTML. Good
designers do it all by hand.
MP
------------------------------
From: "Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:30:53 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I gotta admit, Michael, you do seem to be a very level headed fellow.
> You make good points.
Cheers.
I do so enjoy finding people who I can have a good serious discussion with.
MP
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 12:46:23 GMT
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 05:52:41 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Take a P166 with 32 meg and load Linux Mandrake 8.0 on it and Win98SE. At
>the start of Installation, Mandrake 8.0 complains the system is "low on
>resources" and may fail the installation (it did the same with Mandrake
>7.2). Mandrake 8.0 recommended installation uses KDE, which performs like a
>dog on this system. Much smaller window managers (and less functional)
>perform much better. Windows 98 SE offers the full system and runs without
>any problems.
Mine was on a P166 with 64 meg of RAM. The installation didn't
complain about low resources but it ran like crap with kde. I ended up
using BlackBox which was better.
Windows 98SE runs just fine on the same box.
Much faster.
>> How about multimedia?
>
>I've noticed on my faster machine (400MHz PII) Linux + XFree86 doesn't play
>MPG files very well. On Windows 98 SE they work just fine. Overall graphics
>on thius system performs poorly compared to Windows 98 SE.
Same observations as I have on my 450mhzPII with 256 meg.
------------------------------
From: "Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:38:16 +0100
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cgi2k$1o1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Maybe you don't, but many people do. You need to present a professional
> > image to win across customers. I feel very uneasy giving my credit card
> > details to company who's site looks ameturish or poor because it
> > reflects badly on the company. Impressions are always important.
> However, consider the situation where a company has a beautifully and
> very well designed website that works prefectly and looks fantastic in
> IE, but breaks horribly in NN (as is often the case). A broken and
> unusuable attempt at a beautiful page is much worse than a slightly toned
> down page.
Then it wasn't well designed. There is a difference between good design and
an orgy of graphics. Good design takes place behind the scenes and aside
from everybody getting a good looking page to end up with, normal people
don't even know it has gone on.
I think people are mixing up good web design (which may involve new or fancy
techniques) with gimmicks and an over produced finished product.
> Secondly, HTML was designed to degrade gracefully, so any page that
> doesn't have a specified feature will not look as pretty, but will at
> least be usable. Admittedly, it takes quite a bit of work to ensure a
> website will gracefully degrade, but if the company is bent on having a
> prefessional image on the web, they can probably afford a competant
> enough web designer to make it work.
Unfortunately, HTML was designed with several things in mind, including
graceful degrading. It was also designed to be a simple way of presenting
information which the user could decide how they wanted to look by their
browser and settings.
But when the net outgrew it's academic beginnings, people wanted more
control and the browser companies made HMTL continually more complicated.
CSS arrived too late to save HTML from becoming what it wasn't supposed to
be. Graceful degradation doesn't apply so much any more as the myriad of
HMTL properties which should be usden CSS are often misinterpreted by older
browsers and cause an effect which is anything but graceful...
> Another problem with fancy professional looking sites is that they often
> take ages to download. If you want to see a prefect example of a very
> fancy looking site that takes a horrible amount of time on a 33.6 modem
> (the one I have at home), then visit:
> www.abbeynational.co.uk
> When every I do telephone banking with them, they keep trying to get me
> to use the website. I keep telling them its far too horrible.
The HSBC site isn't so bad, that's my internet banking service...
Really though, for an argument on that subject, see my post above.
MP
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:33:15 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
William Shakespeare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Said Michael Pye in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 28 Apr 2001 17:01:33
>
>> >Also, anyone who still says flying fuck doesn't deserve an opinion ;) It's a
>> >phrase that grated on my nerves since it was coined so many years back ;).
>> >Personally, if I don't gove a fuck, I don't give a fuck. Flying at the same
>> >time sounds like childishness or some sort of fetish... :)
>> >
> The general picture is one of: Say you have a woman lying on your bed,
> naked, open and waiting. You are so excited you fling your naked body
> down on top of her, soaring through the air like a hawk until you land
> smack down on top of her. Now, assuming you have not killed her or
> damaged any major organs, you can begin with the fucking part. At
> least that is what I always thought it meant.
Rodeo sex is more fun. :-)
------------------------------
From: "Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:45:16 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >User? You can't comment until you have tried to develop for it.
>
> You said it was an appalling bad browser; you didn't say it was a pain
> in the ass for developers. It may be your presumption, as a "web
> meister" that the latter equates to the former, but that's being
> ego-centric.
Perhaps it is... In the sense of doing what it is supposed to though, it is
appallingly bad. It is also very large, clumsy and badly coded.
What I actually equated was a lack of fitness for its purpose and its being
a bad browser...
> I like that; it is part of what makes Netscape a useful browser, despite
> its rather questionable design. I don't care how a site is "supposed to
> look"; I want the striped down version, because I want it fast, minimal,
> and text-based, if I can get it. Whether that makes things easy for the
> server or the developer is definitely something I don't directly care
> about.
There are text based browsers for such things and they work much better at
it than netscape ;)
Your stripped down version will not necessarily be fast though, as the
server has had to prepare it for you. Also, it may not be entirely legible
and navigation will probably take you though a larger number of pages.
We aren't on about badly designed but pretty sites here, we're on about the
well designed ones which are both fast and visually appealing.
MP
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 12:57:44 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Linux on the desktop?
> A joke at best, some poor fools job at worst.
> Take a P166 with 64 meg and load Linux Mandrake 7.x on it and Win98SE
> and see which one is more responsive. Linux is slow as shit...
> So much for Linux on legacy hardware, unless of course you like
> looking at a CLI then Linux screams....Of course any newbie forced to
> use the cli will be screaming as well. Try loading kde or Gnome and
> see the system crawl.
I've been saying this for years. People claiming there is no difference in
GUI speed, whether real or percieved, must have a space ship double parked
somewhere as ~everyone~ who has used both operating systems knows. I
remember running RH on a P90 with 32mb's in an NT dual boot.(state of the
art pc desktop back in 95) NT's gui was in another universe compared to the
windowmaker gui on the linux box. What did the advocates say then? "use
another window manager, WM's too memory hungry". What do we have today?
Gnome and KDE are the two most popular desktops and when you mention that
they seem so much slower than the windows gui on the same machine you now
get "try window maker, those others are hogs". HE-larious!!! Two steps
foward, three steps back.
> How about multimedia?
It's getting better, but it's still no where near windows. But hey, it's a
windows world.
Try going to college and ONLY using linux. Sure, you'll get your mail, but
all those word documents, powerpoint slides, Flash enabled demos (yeah you
can get flash - but NN under linux sucks), on and on.
Have a new digital camera? You may be able to get it work (more likely not),
but you don't have the software that comes with the camera that makes image
capture, processing, and cataloging so damn easy! What are you paying for?
Setting up a home lan to share a broadband connection? Windows, couple of
hours. Linux, good luck getting the NIC drivers to compile. How many
'newbies' have any idea what the hell /usr/src/linux/ is, let alone the
compile parameters you need to pass to gcc to compile a kernel module.
Then you've got depmod and the other commands needed to accomplish this.
Windows? RE-boot, pop in the card, pop in the driver disk, reboot, done. I
don't mind the linux way because I'm a computer junkie, you think someone
who is not has time for that sh*t? Get real LinZealots.
> USB MIDI interfaces?
Not many.
> High end Sound cards?
Nope.
> Hell, even run of the mill sound cards utilizing ALL THE FEATURES?
>
> Nope.....Linux dies a quick death.....
Yep.
> Star office is free....
So are cankers.
> So why isn't it taking over MSOffice by the boatload?
The office maket is taken.
> Hell StarOffice is even available for Windows but yet it is being
> almost completely ignored?
Because nobody cares?
> Seems like the fortune 500 could save millions in licensing fees by
> switching to Star office, even under Windows.
Except who's going to support it?
> So why aren't they?
Dead end, that's why.
>
> I have a RIM Blackberry that I use for my day job. Supported under
> Linux?
> Nope!
Good luck with that one.
> State of the art and chances are it will NEVER be supported under
> Linux.
> Why?
>
> Because there is virtually NOBODY USING LINUX!!!!!!!
I disagree. Plenty of people use it. Students, mainly CS. Hobbyists,
aspiring programmers.
Computer enthusiasts. I use it, I like it. But you HAVE to have a windows
box, you simply have to.
> Sure it is used in back room server operations, so are ball bearings
> in my wheel bearings on my car.
> Point is nobody cares.
Most don't, you're quite correct.
> And most certainly, nobody cares about Linux....
I care about it. I just don't expect it to replace windows.
--and don't want or care about the 'world domination' thing.
I think it's completely stupid now, and just as stupid when Torvalds
muttered it at one of those 'trekkie' like linux conventions years ago.
> Linux is dead before it has even started and XP will put yet another
> 100 nails in it's coffin.
I beta test Whistler. Beta 2 has been very nice so far. I think it's going
to be a decent product.
> Linux is a time waster and is meant for bit tinkerers and losers.
> Spend all your time compiling kernels to run shit applications, that's
> what Linux is about.
Like the saying goes. ... linux is free if your time is worth nothing.
> The masses have spoken and Linux does not even have an honorable
> mention....
For most users? No. Hell, even experienced computer users who have taken a
look at it usually say 'no thanks, I really don't have the time to learn
something new. I've work to do'
> GoodBye Linux....
I'll hang around. I still like and use it.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:05:23 GMT
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> MH wrote:
>
> > This is SO true! I just setup a windows mini home LAN to a broadband
modem -
> > ISP using a linksys router. One windows whistler box, one win98 box, one
> > winME box, and one RedHat Linux box. Guess which one will not work?
That's
> > right. The 3 windows boxes were so simple to setup for shared broadband
> > access through the router it was amazing. Took all of one hour to
connect
> > all the pc's, set up sharing and DHCP. The linux box couldn't get past
the
> > NIC setup.
>
> Correction: MH couldn't get past the NIC setup. Also, it's probably
> just because you're so used to setting up Windows boxes, and know
> absolutely nothing about Linux, except how to bitch about how its "ease
> of use" sucks compared to Windows. Maybe you should just try another
> Linux distro instead of just generalizing the entirety of Linux based on
> your ineptness or failings with one particular distro.
Typical LinZealot response. Your ilk is so predictable. You are also an
idiot.
The box is RedHat 6.2. The drivers for the card were 'certified' to run
under this very distro.
Do yourself a favor and try something radical. Go to google and search on
"linux netgear" and "linux linksys" and look at all the problem reports with
these cards. The drivers, and or makefiles, and or instructions ARE
incompatible with the cards.Hell, netgear has updated drivers on their site
that don't work with the directions that come with them!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
