Linux-Advocacy Digest #199, Volume #34 Fri, 4 May 01 23:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET? ("Osugi Sakae")
Re: De we need (or is there) a GPL Legal Defense Fund ? ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Chad Myers")
Re: Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Chad
Myers")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Chad Myers")
Re: women who pick criminals for mates are undesirable mates ("Society")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Society")
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Anne & Lynn Wheeler)
Re: Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET? (Donn Miller)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (3FE)
Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET? ("mmnnoo")
Re: To Aaron (Roy Culley)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Roy Culley)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linus responds... ("mmnnoo")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (3FE)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Adam Warner")
Apple is doing a good thing (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET?
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 11:20:20 +0900
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <FdJI6.254$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tom Wilson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think I could muster support for AOL even under those
> circumstances. <g>
>
> With any luck at all, this is just another "Register Exclusive". The
> National Enquirer for the Nerd Set.
>
Think positive man! Maybe they will destroy each other!
--
Osugi Sakae - currently running in "insanely optimistic" mode
uptime: 6 days, 1:15 on Mandrake Linux 7.2
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: De we need (or is there) a GPL Legal Defense Fund ?
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 19:27:21 -0700
In article <IFhI6.5176$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> what can a lightweight GPL author do if a corp decides to use his GPL'd
> code contrary to the terms of the GPL?
>
> Is there a legal fund established anywhere that covers this
> (inevitable?) eventuality?
>
> Are there legal analyses of GPL available anywhere?
If you have strong evidence that you've been victimized in violation of
the GPL, you should contact Eben Moglen. Mr. Moglen is a professor of law
and legal history at Columbia University Law School, and serves as general
counsel for the Free Software Foundation. You can get in contact with him
through the F.S.F. at (617) 542-5942.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 02:14:18 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:1yHI6.22397$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 4-19-2001
> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-052.html
>
> "A vulnerability in iptables "RELATED" connection tracking has been
> discovered. When using iptables to allow FTP "RELATED" connections
> through the firewall, carefully constructed PORT commands can open
> arbitrary holes in the firewall."
>
> 4-25-2001
> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-059.html
>
> "kdesu created a world-readable temporary file to exchange authentication
> information and delete it shortly after. This can be abused by a local
> user to gain access to the X server and can result in a compromise of the
> account kdesu accesses."
>
> 4-25-2001
> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-058.html
>
> "If any swap files were created during installation of Red Hat Linux 7.1
> (they were created during updates if the user requested it), they were
> world-readable, meaning every user could read data in the swap file(s),
> possibly including passwords."
After reading Adam Warner's diatribe in "What about customer security?"
and how he said that Microsoft's code was crap, then reading this little
tid-bit, the Linux code must look like a 3rd grader wrote it!
Geez... even "M$" is smart enough not to allow anyone to read the page file.
-c
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET?
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 02:30:40 GMT
"Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3af36242$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <FdJI6.254$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tom Wilson"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't think I could muster support for AOL even under those
> > circumstances. <g>
> >
> > With any luck at all, this is just another "Register Exclusive". The
> > National Enquirer for the Nerd Set.
> >
>
> Think positive man! Maybe they will destroy each other!
OK... I'll try "Glass is half full" thinking for a while <g>
>
> --
> Osugi Sakae - currently running in "insanely optimistic" mode
__
Tom Wilson - Cynical and somewhat jaded but prone to outbursts of
unwarranted enthusiasm from time to time.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 02:15:36 GMT
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cu0ku$3hi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Stephen Edwards wrote in message ...
> >"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >Could you please expand on this? Exactly what is it that NT
> >cannot do from the VDM that it can do from the GUI? If the
> >VDM doesn't suit you, then what about CygWin32?
> >
>
> CygWin is an interesting system - in order to make NT command line work like
> a real shell, you need to use ported utilites from Unix. One great example
> is "ln" - NTFS has had support for hard links for years, yet the only way to
> use them is either to pay for expensive third-party systems, or download a
> free port of a standard unix utility.
Or find one of the man examples of the few lines of source to write a small
utility that makes hard links from any number of dozens of sites which had
it posted. In fact, I just did this the other day.
-c
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 02:18:42 GMT
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9ctn5h$vgk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Jon Johansan wrote in message <3af18b76$0$37328$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >
> >"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:zySH6.6169$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Just from the commercial side of things, I don't see XP taking off for
> >quite
> >> a while. So many of these shops have just now upgraded to W2K. I think MS
> >> would have been better served to have given W2K a miss and just waited
> >until
> >> XP was done. The whole thing is more than a little strange when you
> >consider
> >> their past marketing efforts. It just doesn't make sense.
> >
> >Imagine this:
> >XP is the achievement of a single code base. One set of drivers, you do not
> >need to maintaine different drivers for W9x and ME and W2K. There is only
> >one set of updates. Only one GUI to learn. One way to do things. It's the
> >termination of a KNOWN ugly line of code. It's the end of ANYTHING remotely
> >to do with DOS (other than emulation for backwards compatibility).
> >
>
> It is amazing how you can view "doing it right for once" as such a big deal.
> Dropping DOS and moving to a single code base is without doubt a big step
> forward for MS, but you make it sound like they have just invented sliced
> bread
It's not so much of a technical achievement (MS had NT back in 1993 which
included some features that Linux has still yet to match) as a customer
support and marketing one.
No other company has as much market share as MS and taking a product
which was MS' bread and butter and migrating all their users to a much more
superior product is a big deal.
You guys claim Linux is superior to Windows, yet no one has managed to move
even 1% of the users over to Linux yet, so I really wouldn't be talking
about this if I were you.
-c
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Society" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Society" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: women who pick criminals for mates are undesirable mates
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 19:29:43 -0700
"nunnayabidniz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> [...] The study I saw 2 years back said the majority
> of women marrying ex-felons are female bank execs
> and financiers...in other words, women seem to be
> choosing these.
>
> I have a better idea. Rather than putting up with it,
> or watching shows like Chasing Amy and believing
> them, why not reject and ridicule these women
> in public? [...] Once they get less attention
> that's positive, they will stop. Women are sheep.
Women who chase after cons are already shunned,
biz. That, btw, explains why this study you recollect
claims women bank execs and financiers are con
chasers -- those women often have no life outside
the office so they are effectively immune to social
sanctions.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Society" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Society" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 19:34:14 -0700
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cpfr1$j8d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Brent R wrote:
> >
> > Can someone please tell me how a post titled
> > "Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination
> > of the desktop" turned into a debate about
> > homosexuality????
> >
> > This is what I mean about the sheer entertainment
> > value of this NG!
>
> Well, a few posts back some one commented
> on the issue at hand then Jackie replied saying
> that that person wrote like a homosexual, and
> the debate went from there.
OK, that explains why Linux is no threat to Windows'
domination of the desktop. The Linux community is
susceptible to trolls and is outnumbered, troll wise.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 02:41:56 GMT
"Glenn C. Everhart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> DECnet has some interesting features: needs no ARP, has link
> level access passwords. The file copy has an end to end CRC
> (which saved the company I worked for a few times; memory problems
> in routers were shown up by it). It supports a distributed file
> system and has done so since the late 70s at least. The major
> problem with Phase IV was that its addresses were too short;
> you had only 16 bits for node address (broken into 64 areas
> of 1024 addresses each). The USG insistence that it would deep-six
> TCP/IP and force a move to OSI caused DECnet phase IV to be
> started maybe 1985 (or even earlier) as an OSI implementation
> but it wasn't finished for something like 10 years as it became
> clear to everyone that tcp/ip was not going away anytime soon.
there has been some OSI & gosip discussion in the "Pre ARPAnet email"
thread in alt.folklore.computers
misc random refs:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#17
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#18
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#23
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#24
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001e.html#25
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#xtphsp
and blast from the past
Subject: "DEC details 18-month Phase V plan"
Source: Network World, 9/17/90, pg 1, Tom Smith
Bud Haber, Hughes Aircraft manager of advanced network integration
o "extreme disappointment" with the 18-month rollout of DECnet Phase V
o 'I don't know how many more delays we have to go through'
'The vendor community really <needs to> get serious about doing what
needs to be done in opening up their systems'
'I have formally requested of DEC over the past 6 to 8 months a
rollout schedule, and they have stonewalled my request'
Hal Folts, Omnicom president
o 'All this stuff takes time'
'DEC has a comprehensive plan that I'm quite impressed with'
Audrey Augun, DEC open networks systems manager
o DEC X.25 Access for Ultrix V2.0
- 'a significant step toward Phase V' Augun
o most Phase V products will be available in the 1st 9 months
- X.500 Directory and Virtual Terminal support will be later
o Phase V will be done in logical segments
'We feel it behooves us to make absolutely certain that the transition
for those people is smooth before we announce the products'
Howard Niden, Price Waterhouse senior manager
o DECs failed to deliver key components this month as promised
o 'As late as last October...Digital was saying Phase V was on target
for September'
Steve Wendler, Gartner Group VP
o Phase V was a victim of internal problems
'I think the project has been mismanaged'
David Judson, Wright Patterson AFB, integration technology div. director
o the government has already mandated the Gov't OSI Profile
o 'The GOSIP train left in August, and that was last month'
'I'm trying to be compliant'
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET?
Date: 4 May 2001 21:37:15 -0500
Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Think positive man! Maybe they will destroy each other!
Steve Jobs, Steve Case, Bill Gates -- 3 of the coolest people in the world.
NOT!
====== 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] (3FE)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 02:45:22 GMT
On 5 Apr 2001 17:46:42 GMT, Bill Gunshannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> insisted:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Croughton) writes:
> |>
> |> The second, which asserts an absolute, can't be known absolutely unless
> |> it's a tautology ("I define "junk mail" to include anything in HTML,
> |> therefore all HTML mail is junk"). The trouble with absolutes is that
>
> This is a judegment call and not an absolute. I also delete any HTML
> mail immediately, without even trying to read it. And being as I don't
> use a web browser as a mail client, there really isn't much else I can
> do with it.
I receive a lot of html mail from recruiters. Just dump it through
lynx. I use mutt which pretty well automagically handles this with no
help from me.
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
TopQuark Software & Serv. Contract programmer, server bum.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Give up Spammers; I use procmail.
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 19:51:22 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donal K. Fellows"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pretty easy to do, you know. Just run a few million iterations of the
> code being performance-tested and the per-run cost of a grotty timestamp
> should effectively vanish.
But you must have some idea in advance just how many iterations of a test
it will take to negate a "grotty timestamp". Arbitrarily deciding that a
few million runs is adequate is a flawed assumption if the measurement
overhead differs significantly between the test subject environments.
The measurement overhead must be accounted for in any benchmark in order
for the benchmark to have any value, even if it is only on the order of a
few microseconds. Companies will fight and die for those microseconds....
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET?
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 02:51:25 GMT
LOL thanks for that one. Microsoft knows it can't grow very fast without
spreading into new markets, and the competition (AOL, Sony) see
crosshairs on their chests. They aren't simply going to wait hoping to go
unnoticed or that death comes quickly as software companies have done for
the past 10 years. Excluding competition is no longer enough to feed the
big MS machine, but taking new turf is going to be harder than just
plugging holes has been. Frankly though I don't think there's a company
alive that wouldn't fear a MS assault with all the money they've got, and
more on the way with each pointless release of Office XXX.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dave Martel"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/18746.html>
>
> AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET? By: John Lettice
> Posted: 04/05/2001 at 12:13 GMT
>
> "AOL is considering what amounts to all out war on Microsoft and
> Windows XP, according to a document obtained by Betanews, which has been
> getting its hands on some corkers of late. If genuine the document is an
> AOL internal strategy memo listing "response scenarios" to XP.
> Practically all of them are seriously hardball, and at their most
> extreme they'd add up to recruiting an OEM coalition to topple Microsoft
> from the desktop while destabilising the XP rollout."
>
> I hope it's true. This could be a lot of fun!
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Subject: Re: To Aaron
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 03:54:17 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <9cpmp9$nj4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> this year, the US government has allocated $19billion in farming subsidies,
> would you regard this as free trade in action?
>
> Matthew Gardiner
Seems kind of low to me. A few years ago the Swiss government
subsidised their farmers to the tune of SFr7B (~SFr1.5 to the $ at the
time I think). This was for direct subsidies and import tariffs on
imported food. When you consider there are ~6M people in Switzerland
that was over SFr1000 per person. Farming is one area that most
governments will spend a fortune to protect. The EU CAP is even worse
mainly due to the French with their very inefficient farming.
I can understand why farming is given such support by governments for
in time of war you will have to be as self reliant as possible. However
this is abused by farming lobbies to ensure that their farmers have a
guaranteed high income.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 03:32:23 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <Ny7I6.22197$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> I guess it depends on what you mean by "secure". If someone doesn't know
> the decode algorithm, 4-bit encryption could be quite secure
What crap. If you don't understand something don't make pathetic
attempts to show that you do. ANY 4-bit encryption algorithm could be
cracked by brute force in less time than it took you to write such
rubbish. The best known encryption algorithms are known and open to
peer review. If you invent a new encryption algorithm but won't make
it open to peer review then it just will not be accepted. Security
through obscurity just doesn't cut it at any time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 02:59:31 GMT
On Thu, 03 May 2001 22:10:23 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 02 May 2001 21:30:34 -0500, WJP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 02 May 2001 19:28:48 -0400, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >//snipped for brevity//
>> >
>> >>
>> >>I checked using xdpyinfo, and Xvideo was running, and it still wanted to
>> >>use the Xshm extension. I probably need something else, though, such as
>> >>dri/drm. My video card is a Sis 5597/5598 (which probably explains
>> >>it). I'm using the Xfree 4.x development version from the cvs
>> >>repository. All my other graphics animations seem to be pretty decent
>> >>WRT speed in X, though, although that probably doesn't mean xine is
>> >>going to give me decent animations.
>> >>
>> >
>> >This is an perfect example of why Linux is such a challenge to users
>> >unfamiliar with the "lingo" of Linux. "xdpyinfo"? "Xshm extension"?
>> >"dri/drm"? "cvs repository"? "xine"? Gosh, I wonder how many hours it
>> >will take me to search through the "howto's" and "whereis's" and
>> >"linuxdoc.org" to just understand this one paragraph. Whew!!
>> >
>> >Definitly a challenge, to say the least!
>> >
>> >YMMV
>> >
>> >Regards,
>> >Bill Powell
>> >USAF/USA (Ret) Management Systems Analyst
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> And how valuable is your time?
>>
>> Flatfish
>
>Hey! When you're retired you are retired! Retirees can spend their
>time anyway they want to! Especially when you're waiting for summer to
>be.
I won't argue that point!!!
Flatfish
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:01:20 GMT
So did I get your shared library question somewhat correct?
And as for my real name, you are correct. IMHO only an idiot would
use her real name in a advocacy group.
flatfish
On Thu, 03 May 2001 23:50:01 +0000, "Gary Hallock"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> I was tempted to give him a list of albums and projects that my keyboard
>> playing appears as a credit, but I decided to ignore him instead.
>>
>
>But then you would have to tell us your real name. You are so full of it.
>
>Gary
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linus responds...
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:02:10 GMT
I think you're missing the point. It's not just about the feature set or
even reliability of whatever the current apps are.
If enough people get (and stay) on the
free software bandwagon, the Internet of the future will be a killer
platform for everything, including all sorts of businesses. If MS manages
to reign it in, well, it will still be good - for them.
It's impossible to know what software would be like, and for that matter
what would be available today, if everybody had access to the playing
field - the OS. Since they don't, only MS has a decent shot at producing
the best office suite, the best browser, and so on. We're trapped in a
'local maximum,' if you will.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Unknown"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think both Linus and the MS dude, are both missing the real point.
>
> This is not about IPR or freedom of thought or free source code or the
> discovery of the electron, or any of that.
>
> The final test is this: Which OS/platform is the one that the masses
> find better and easier and help the people do their work?
>
> If you consider the computer a tool, which tool people find better for
> them?
>
> The answers to the above questions which should be debated, not if the
> code should be free or not. If free code means I'll get a better OS,
> then free code is better. If closed code will mean I'll get a better OS,
> then closed code is better.
>
> As a user, I only care about which system is better for me, and which
> will help me do my job better.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:02:42 GMT
On 04 May 2001 00:57:53 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
wrote:
>For fear of discovery no doubt.
Hmmm 15 msessages and not one segment of useful material.
Stick to coding because the Linux users are doing better without you.
Flatfish
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (3FE)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:03:06 GMT
On Tue, 01 May 2001 14:18:43 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> insisted:
> pookoopookoo wrote:
> >
> > > You've obviously not used vi (note it's lower case, not VI). Agreed, vi
> > is
> > > a bitch no learn, but once grokked, it is a truely powerful editor. No
> > doubt
> > > the same could be said for emacs - but as I don't use it, I can't comment.
> >
> > No matter how powerful it is, all it does is edit text. That's not what the
> > average user wants. They want nice printed output, with reasonable color
> > correction and WYSIWYG formatting. Maybe a few nice templates. Most
> > important is a nice GUI and WYSIWIG.
> >
>
> Nobody claimed that vi was appropriate for such uses.
>
> Alternatively, Star Office is not suitable for writing code.
Nor is vi. vi is appropriate for tweaking config files. Not
programming.
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
TopQuark Software & Serv. Contract programmer, server bum.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Give up Spammers; I use procmail.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:03:34 GMT
On 04 May 2001 01:11:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
wrote:
>> Terry, you really should go to a comedy show sometime so you can learn
>> to be funny.
>But I'm a Linux Advocate Flatty, I'm not attempting to humour Wintrolls
>like you.
Good thing you haven't quit your day job.
Flatfish
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 14:58:56 +1200
Hi Chad,
> After reading Adam Warner's diatribe in "What about customer security?"
> and how he said that Microsoft's code was crap, then reading this little
> tid-bit, the Linux code must look like a 3rd grader wrote it!
Good one Chad. I didn't notice I said Microsoft's code was crap at all!
This is that crux of what you should attempt to deny:
1. Microsoft's code has not had extensive community peer review because an
aspect of their development policy is keeping their source code secret (i.e.
security through obscurity).
2. By sharing the code with an increasing number of "select" customers there
in an increased risk that the code will get into undesirable hands (also
increasing the probability that more vulnerabilities will be found/exploited
in the future).
3. If the code does get into undesirable hands, customers (or their
agents/contractors/etc.) will not have the power to fix those
vulnerabilities themselves.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Apple is doing a good thing
Date: 4 May 2001 21:58:38 -0500
With their new OS X operating system. If you want an open source operating
system from Apple free of charge, you can download and install Darwin, free
of charge, and you can run X if you so choose. If you want the desktop
version, and don't mind paying for it, you can purchase the closed-source
version as Mac OS-X. Plus, I believe you can still compile and install X if
you so chose even on OS-X, the proprietary version, because you have access
to a better command line that Windows 98 or ME has.
Plus, get this: you can actually run services on OS-X if you want to, and
it's actually secure! I believe you can do this with Windows 98 or ME, but
you have to pay for an add-on package to allow for the same type of secure
multi-user functionality that FreeBSD, Linux, or Darwin give you for free.
Winvocates are always pointing towards the fact that, well, Mac OS-X is so
expensive. It's as expensive as Windows, so ... Yeah, so? At least you get
some developer tools free of charge, and you also get secure multi-user
functionality included withing that charge.
====== 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]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:07:46 GMT
On Thu, 03 May 2001 22:19:30 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hell, you're still wet behind the ears!
Depends on with whom the comparison is being made. They did still
teach vacuum tubes in college when I attended but I never saw a 701 or
anything. I do go back to the IBM 360 though although the IBM 370/168
was the first unit I was taught on.
Point is I'm not a member of the "gui" generation but in fact was
there when a Selectric was the console.
Flatfish
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
