Linux-Advocacy Digest #365, Volume #34 Wed, 9 May 01 14:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested... (Greg Copeland)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested... (Greg Copeland)
Re: The Microsoft PATH. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Macman)
Re: Linux still not ready for home use. ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Bob
Hauck)
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("JS PL")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Eric Leblanc)
Re: Pesky lack of support (Bob Hauck)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Neil
Cerutti)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Chad Everett)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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, 09 May 2001 16:26:10 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9db00s$rbt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Windows does support network printers, actually. What you seem to want
> > to do with ftp is a little awkward in Windows.
>
> I know that, but in the real world, the computer you're on may have no
> access to the printer yo want to use.
In the real world, the computer you are on may not have
GhostScript installed, either.
Life is full of these little problems.
> > But I don't see why you have asked to be told how Windows console apps
> > print *without GDI*. Why is this interesting to you?
>
> Because you can't extract a device independent file format through the use
> of GDI calls, which is unfortunate since there is a suitable one in
> existewnce (Windows metafile).
I think Windows is really geared to a slightly more
sophisticated sort of installation. If you can't get
up to Lan Manager levels of service,Windows may
not be the best choice for you.
I don't think any of this affects the point I was
trying to make, though. Windows, Microsoft's
fervent hopes aside, isn't the best tool for
every possible role. It dominates the business
desktop because it's the best tool to build apps
for that desktop.
The GDI solves the problems that *those* apps
need to solve. But those apps don't need to do
what you are describing. A large part of the
user base would have difficulty *understanding*
what you are trying to accomplish.
They would do it by passing the Word document
to the user who would print it, and not understand
why that isn't the same thing.
[snip]
> > Then I don't quite see why we must eschew the GDI. :/
>
> Pain in the neck for things that don't need to use it.
I could say that of PostScript, couldn't I?
Is it your view that GDI is worse? That GDI
is too hard to program for?
You may be right- I don't know enough PostScript
to say. But if that is what you mean to say you
are obscuring it by your approach to it.
[snip]
> >> It is as portable as you can get with graphics.
> >
> > Which is to say, not very.
>
> As good as it gets, though
One might prefer .GIF, actually. :D
It may not be very good, but it's surely
more portable.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested...
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 09 May 2001 11:26:55 -0500
While I'm not a windows fan, simply because I've used it so
much, I must say that this is total BS. The intent of these
numbers is to provide for transmission reliability with
security being a far second. According to the article, most
people still couldn't even figure out the sequence, so it's
not that big of a deal. Let's look at it this way. Hmmm...
someone can hack their way into a network using a none secure
protocol (IP4 is known to have lots of problems, this being
one of them, after all, this [security] is one of the main
reasons for IP6) be means which most people don't understand
and by using tools which don't readily exist. I know I'm not
loosing sleep over this one....
Greg
jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested,
> then why do problems like this still exist
> in Windows?
>
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-5815298.html?tag=lh
--
Greg Copeland, Principal Consultant
Copeland Computer Consulting
==================================================
PGP/GPG Key at http://www.keyserver.net
DE5E 6F1D 0B51 6758 A5D7 7DFE D785 A386 BD11 4FCD
==================================================
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 16:31:15 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9db8ge$klc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > The question is where to position the tradeoff between a stable
> > system's need to control access to the hardware and DOS programs'
> > need to access hardware directly. Win9x doesn't bother trying.
> > DOSEMU tries but lets you override it with configuration settings.
>
> I think that they didn't want to let it happen, if you can open up
hardware
> access one way, you can open it in other ways too.
> How does linux handle it, btw?
It provides bios emulation for normal system functions, but also allows
you to specify memory and port ranges that it can access directly so
dos device drivers or programs that talk directly to hardware can work.
That gives them the same opportunity to crash the system that they would
have under dos or win9x. I'm not sure if it provides any locking for
multiple instances or not - I doubt if it does.
> > > Can I run DOS games on Linux? (MK3 is a good example)
> >
> > Probably, if you give it direct access to at least the video memory.
>
> Ouch!
Video memory can be emulated if you are willing to take the hit in speed.
Otherwise you wouldn't be able to run dos in a window. However
for games it may not work very well.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested...
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 09 May 2001 11:33:13 -0500
Ahhhhhhhh....that sig.... :O
You're not going to be close to any bell towers or book repositories
anytime soon are you?!?!? ;)
Seriously though...if this really needed. Please stop it. It's
considered very rude and you are wasting lots of extra resources
and in some cases, lots of money for everyone to see that sig which
is, frankly, pretty meaningless and dumb.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
> can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> K: Truth in advertising:
> Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
> Special Interest Sierra Club,
> Anarchist Members of the ACLU
> Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
> The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
> Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
>
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
--
Greg Copeland, Principal Consultant
Copeland Computer Consulting
==================================================
PGP/GPG Key at http://www.keyserver.net
DE5E 6F1D 0B51 6758 A5D7 7DFE D785 A386 BD11 4FCD
==================================================
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Microsoft PATH.
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 11:46:11 -0500
"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 10 May 2001 01:29:15 +1200, Matthew Gardiner
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Back in the Amiga world, releasing
> >a buggy app would be unheard of, shocking, terrible, ruin the name of a
> >software company, and now we have Microsoft who are more than willing to
> >flaunt the problems with their OS, and yet no one says anything?
>
> Microsoft Windows is a smear on the reputation of American technology.
> Europeans especially seem aghast at the lack of quality and the
> disdain with which MS treats consumers.
That's funny. The #1 computer in most of europe in the late 80's and early
90's was the Amiga. Never has a company treated their customers worse than
Commodore did, not even Microsoft.
If you're going to suggest that Europeans are used to better treatment from
computer OS vendors, I think you are sadly mistaken.
------------------------------
From: Macman <[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, 09 May 2001 16:51:17 GMT
In article <BceK6.12212$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001
> > >You may be right, but in all honesty Apple has had
> > >the *worst* trouble trying to deal with their software's
> > >backwards compatibility baggage.
> > >
> > >I hope they overcome it too, but history does not
> > >encourage me in this.
> >
> > Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. Honestly, Apple has NEVER had the kind of trouble
> > with 'backwards compatibility' [sic] that Microsoft does! Guffaw.
>
> Until now, they've never got far enough to deal with
> the problems Microsoft has had.
>
> They have been unable to product the 'next
> generation' product, or unwilling to commit
> to it, or unable to get developers on board.
>
I guess I imagined the switch from 68xxx to PPC 7 years ago. Seems to me
that that's a far greater backward compatibility issue than a service
pack like Win98 or WinXP should ever have.
------------------------------
From: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux still not ready for home use.
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 18:53:07 +0200
I has a *very* disappointing Linux experience today. I had downloaded and
created a 2 CD Redhat 7.1 set, and had set the afternoon aside to what I
believed would be some lenghty tinkering and f***** around, not to mention
the all-to-likely eventuality where my (sort of) well-functioning NT
partition would vanish into thin air (as happened the last time I tried
Mandrake). It is therefore very sad that I have to report that Redhat
miserably failed to live up to my expectations.
The installation was done in little over an hour, and I did not have any
problems at all. Nothing to complain about. Utterly disappointing!
In all fairness, the installation took place on my (fairly well-behaved)
office PC, and I did not have any of the accessories people typically
compain about (scanner, digital camera, Winmodems, Windows-specific
printers). And this was not my first Linux installation experience (actually
the third), and I am not exactly a typical non-techie user either ...
But to boot up in a nice & clean (and, for a Windows user, sort of familiar)
KDE desktop was a very scary experience indeed. I selected KDE over GNOME
precisely because it reminds me more of ... yes, exactly Windows! <ducking
to avoid flying debris from infuriated KDE Penguinistas>
If your normal PC-pusher will pre-install Linux, throw on StarOffice, setup
the Internet thingies right, then the average user (including your uncle)
will IMO use this platform with the same (uneasy :-) ) ease as they would
any Windows PC.
Mikkel
"Chaparral" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9daq5c$9bs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> We can all say what we want about how Windows sucks and that Linux is the
> end-all-be-all, but after trying almost every Linux version to date, the
> bottom line folks is that Mr Gates has made operating a home computer easy
> enough for my great uncle to run. The Penguin still doesnt come close!
>
> What Linux is VERY good at is the handling of servers... this is stuff
that
> you are expected to fiddle with and fine tune. Home users don't want to
> fart around all day trying to figure out what to click and then having
> barely predictable responses.
>
> So, Linux sucks hard for the home user but beats the hell out of WinBlows
on
> the server farm... especially when you can tell a client that full-blown
> server software will only cost him $75 compared to $2000 plus for
> 2000Server!
>
> Microsoft will rule the home front for many years I think, but their
> exorbitant pricing and draconian licensing policies will soon cause the
> server market to dry up.
>
> Im done now.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 18:55:38 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete
Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> I knew you Brits were europhobes :) Mario Monti, Commissioner for Trade
>> (and thus having antitrust in his portfolio) stated about 2 weeks ago
>> that this was exactly the deal struck with the DOJ. Another nice point,
>> Scott McNealy was in Europe recently to lobby for more pressure from
>> the European Commission. I believe he was *not* happy with the lack of
>> action so far <g>.
>
> I must be pretty rare, being in favour of Europe. Mostly. Except for
> various directives on the shape of bananas (if the gutter press has got
> it right, which I doubt).
>
> As for the news you posted, where is that reported? I rarely read
> newspapers and I get all my news either from Ceefax or The Register and
> related web sites.
>
Um,
I am sorry to say that I get a lot of my news uit 'Het Financieele
Dagblad' aka The Financial Daily, the Dutch equivalent of the Financial
Times. They do have an online presence but 1. it is Dutch, and though you
do sound rather smart, I don't think you are going to be able to read it,
and 2. It is subscription only.
Sorry I can't give you the links, but I can assure you that what I said
in my previous post *can* be backed up. I might try to find the articles
at work and scan them in, but we generally keep the paper for about 1
week only.
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 19:16:38 +0100
>> Aaron simply claimed that birds do not nurse their young. This is
>> false. He probably meany to say they don't suckle their young.
>
> You are an idiot.
You claimed tat birds do not nurse their young. Yopu are wrong, and you
should admit it like a man. Then again, you are an idiot who knows less
about birds than you do about computers.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 17:16:30 GMT
[snips]
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >So? Look at the point being discussed: "denied the right to choose
whatever
> >OS they please."
> Because you're being forced to pay for the pre-installed Windows that you
> don't want. Why should I be forced to pay for an OS I don't want?
See the point up at the top? Good. Now, please exaplain, exactly, how
being made to pay for an OS you don't want *stops* you from using an OS you
do want. Be specific. Remember to include the part where shelling out X
bucks for Windows makes it absolutely impossible for you to subsequently use
Linux. Or whichever OSen you're wanting to use and whichever you're bieng
forced to pay for.
What's that? You *can* in fact still run Linux, even though you had to buy
a copy of Windows? Oh, okay, so you're _not_ being denied the right to
choose whatever OS you please; at worst, you're choosing to purchase a
machine from a vendor who pre-installs some other OS.
> I can buy blank video cassette disks. What if the only video cassettes
> available for consumer purchase were "Pokemon, the Movie" videos
> that you were free to tape over, however the price of the cassettes
> was greater precisely because you had to pay for the movie in addition
> to the cassette?
So? Then you *still* have the *choice* to record, or not record, whatever
movie you want; you are *not* being "denied the choice". Sure, paying the
extra bucks for Pokemon is annoying... but it is also irrelevant to the
issue.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 17:16:29 GMT
[snips]
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Of course. It was selling like gangbusters. And before that, Win98 was
> stable and high performance. Way back when, I bet flathead was crowing
> about how DOS was technically superior to any alternative.
Which version of Linux runs on an original IBM PC?
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 17:16:30 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ivo in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 24 Apr 2001 18:16:49 +0300;
> >What Can I say after all those discussions:
> >Use MS Windows & Word AND OF course
> >enjoy the ALL 65000 viruses (Probably more).
>
> That 65000 bugs; not all of them are virus vulnerabilities.
Last I checked, it was 65,000 *issues*. Which includes everything from "If
I do X, it crashes my machine" to "Gee, I'd like to be able to use a
gradient fill on my dialog boxes".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 17:19:30 GMT
On 9 May 2001 00:54:05 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Perhaps this is because you would open NOTEPAD and not run edit.com - DOH!
Not in a telnet session I can't.
> WHY on earth would you penalize yourself with some crappy text based
> interface when a beautiful set of antialiased fonts of any size you can
> imagine are right there on your desktop?
Maybe because I'm using the new telnet server that MS provided with
their new OS. Or does it not understand window resizing either?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 13:22:56 -0400
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Steve Sheldon wrote:
> >
> > "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > You might as well complain about the inadequate amount of storage
> > > capacity on a hard drive cause the last time you used one was
> > > 1996. Notice where 1996 is in the following:
> > >
> > > Linux kernel history:
> > > ---------------------
> > > Pre-1.0: 1991 - 1994
> > > version 1.x.xx: 1994 - 1996*
> > > version 2.0.xx - 2.1.xx: 1996 - 1999
> > > version 2.2.xx: 1999 - present
> > > version 2.4.0 - January 4, 2001
> > > version 2.4.1 - January 29, 2001
> > > version 2.4.2 - February 21, 2001
> > > version 2.4.3 - March 29, 2001
> > > version 2.4.4 - April 27, 2001
> >
> > Yes, and notice how little has really changed... Version numbers don't
tell
> > the whole story.
>
> That's probably why MS doesn't use version numbers anymore. They rely
> on marketing glitz and catchy monikers.
I thought they relied on some mythical "monopoly" status that has been
granted to them by the King of Fantasy Land.
You mean to say they have to actually market the products to customers? And
they use tried and true marketing glitz and catchy monikers to do it?
------------------------------
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
From: Eric Leblanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 09 May 2001 13:20:39 -0400
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "JamesW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <dB3K6.374$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > > Sure. If you are so confident, i'll give you an encoded bit of data.
> I'll
> > > give you a week to figure out what it is. It uses a 1 bit key, and the
> keys
> > > value is 1.
> > >
> > > The encoded data is (just the one line, not including carriage return):
> > >
> > > 2jhGjyD<qYwDgilj0sohkVuAy.
> > >
> > > Hell, I'll even give you hints when you need them. Here's the first,
> it's
> > > plain text words, but the values are not in ASCII.
> > >
> > > So, show me how simple it is to crack. Hell, after a week, I'll even
> tell
> > > you what the clear text is, and let's see if you can figure out a way to
> > > recreate a second encoded text that is encoded using the exact same
> > > algorithm. I'll bet you can't.
> >
> > From earlier posts by Erik I suspect his definition of a 1 bit key is a
> > flag to encrypt using some other method or a line in a file containing
> > random characters that are munged somehow with the plain text. Of course
> > this is not an encryption key but a pointer to the true encryption
> > method.
>
> A key is a key. Without the key, you must guess or brute force it, with the
> key, it allows unlocking without brute forcing it. It's that simple.
>
> Regardless, my method of encryption should be easily crackable given the
> claims the algorithm is irrelevant, and that anything but large keyspace
> public keys is secure.
I for one is not saying the algorithm is irrelevant. I'm saying that you
should not relies on the algorithm for security. Assumes the algorithm is
known to your enemy. If it is unknown, he has to waste ressource finding it.
If not, he still has to waste time brute forcing or finding a weakness in it.
if it has a weak key. It's trivial to decode any messages send with any keys.
Like i said in another response to you. If you are sure of the security of
both end use an one time pad (OTP) instead of relying on an algorithm that has
weak keys.
>
> > Erik was wrong with his original security by obfuscation claim. Adding
> > more and more layers of complexity in no way guarantees additional
> > security if the underlying key is weak - and a one bit key is certainly
> > weak. Maybe Erik thinks that ROT13 applied twice is twice as hard to
> > decrypt?
>
> ROT13 is a known algorithm. If ROT13 hadn't been invented yet, a single
> ROT13 would take a bit to figure out.
A bit? less than 5 mins by hand. Frequency analysis is your friend.
--
Eric Leblanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Departement de Mathematique % Univ. du Quebec a Montreal, Montreal, Qc
Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no
account be allowed to do the job.
-- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Pesky lack of support
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 17:21:42 GMT
On Tue, 08 May 2001 22:03:24 -0400, Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a Spacewalker hot-555a motherboard, and I'm trying to install a
> Western Digital 40Gb hard drive. The bios on the motherboard is too
> stupid to recognise the large drive.
> So, how can I get this drive installed and ready for Linux??
Have the installer put the kernel on a small /boot partition at the
beginning of the drive.
And ask further questions in a non-advocacy group.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: 9 May 2001 17:31:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jan Johanson posted:
>Perhaps this is because you would open NOTEPAD and not run
>edit.com - DOH!
Actually, Notepad sucks, even compared to edit.com.
>WHY on earth would you penalize yourself with some crappy text
>based interface when a beautiful set of antialiased fonts of any
>size you can imagine are right there on your desktop?
A computer *is* fundamentally a text-based interface. Sometimes
you just don't want the extra abstraction layers getting in your
way. Using a lower level of abstraction can be more efficient.
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*** One of your mules lost a bolt. Repairs cost you $250. ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 May 2001 12:25:54 -0500
On Wed, 09 May 2001 19:16:38 +0100, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Aaron simply claimed that birds do not nurse their young. This is
>>> false. He probably meany to say they don't suckle their young.
>>
>> You are an idiot.
>
>You claimed tat birds do not nurse their young. Yopu are wrong, and you
>should admit it like a man. Then again, you are an idiot who knows less
>about birds than you do about computers.
>
>
>-Ed
Man! Some of you can be dense. I'll try one more time...read very carfully
and use your pea-brain to understand: Using "nurse" in the context of the
definition of "mammal", birds do not nurse their young.
Now, if you want to use all the additional definitions of "nurse", then sure,
birds nurse their young, bees nurse their young, and ants nurse their young,
and human fathers nurse their young, and nurses in the hospital nurse their
patients, and teachers nurse their students, and on and on...
BUT USING "NURSE" IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEFINITION OF MAMMAL, BIRDS DO NOT
NURSE THEIR YOUNG....and the definition of mammal was the original discussion.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
