Linux-Advocacy Digest #431, Volume #34 Fri, 11 May 01 18:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Bob Hauck)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Linux disgusts me (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Darren Wyn Rees)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The Economist and Open-Source ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
Re: Linux still not ready for home use. ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:12:22 GMT
On Fri, 11 May 2001 15:33:35 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Quite, apparently. No computer generated algorithm can generate truly
> random numbers. /dev/random can create exceeding complicated predictable
> patterns, but that doesn't make the truly random.
/dev/random is not a PRNG. It is more akin to the various hardware
schemes that people have mentioned (resistor noise, radioactive decay,
etc). The generated numbers will meet lots of statistical tests for
randomness, and they also meet your critera of being extremely hard
(probably impossible in practice) to predict from past behavior. They
do not repeat in a cycle as the output of a PRNG would. The source code
contains this explanation:
* This routine gathers environmental noise from device drivers, etc.,
* and returns good random numbers, suitable for cryptographic use.
* Besides the obvious cryptographic uses, these numbers are also good
* for seeding TCP sequence numbers, and other places where it is
* desirable to have numbers which are not only random, but hard to
* predict by an attacker.
*
* Theory of operation
* ===================
*
* Computers are very predictable devices. Hence it is extremely hard
* to produce truly random numbers on a computer --- as opposed to
* pseudo-random numbers, which can easily generated by using a
* algorithm. Unfortunately, it is very easy for attackers to guess
* the sequence of pseudo-random number generators, and for some
* applications this is not acceptable. So instead, we must try to
* gather "environmental noise" from the computer's environment, which
* must be hard for outside attackers to observe, and use that to
* generate random numbers. In a Unix environment, this is best done
* from inside the kernel.
*
* Sources of randomness from the environment include inter-keyboard
* timings, inter-interrupt timings from some interrupts, and other
* events which are both (a) non-deterministic and (b) hard for an
* outside observer to measure. Randomness from these sources are
* added to an "entropy pool", which is mixed using a CRC-like function.
* This is not cryptographically strong, but it is adequate assuming
* the randomness is not chosen maliciously, and it is fast enough that
* the overhead of doing it on every interrupt is very reasonable.
* As random bytes are mixed into the entropy pool, the routines keep
* an *estimate* of how many bits of randomness have been stored into
* the random number generator's internal state.
*
* When random bytes are desired, they are obtained by taking the SHA
* hash of the contents of the "entropy pool". The SHA hash avoids
* exposing the internal state of the entropy pool. It is believed to
* be computationally infeasible to derive any useful information
* about the input of SHA from its output. Even if it is possible to
* analyze SHA in some clever way, as long as the amount of data
* returned from the generator is less than the inherent entropy in
* the pool, the output data is totally unpredictable. For this
* reason, the routine decreases its internal estimate of how many
* bits of "true randomness" are contained in the entropy pool as it
* outputs random numbers.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
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: Fri, 11 May 2001 17:17:25 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > Note: you arent making any sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay, let me put it this way, without MacOS9, MacOSX need only 64MB.
> > > > > With MacOS9, it need twice that much.
> > > > > That is a terrible thing to do for backward compatability.
> > > > > That is loading another freaking OS, beside the one you already had.
> > > >
> > > > DUH.
> > >
> > > It's bloody inefficent!
> > >
> >
> > So, write abetter one.
>
> *I*'m not the one responsible for Macs backward compatiblity.
> If I was, you can be sure that I would've tried a better way.
>
Not worth it.
> > > > > Now the OSX doesn't do quite the same thing as VMWare, but it's
> close.
> > > >
> > > > Actually Classis should run better than VMware. There is now "virtual
> > > > machine".
> > >
> > > Okay, then let's take a new example.
> > > Running Unix on VMWare from Windows or running Cgywin or Services for
> UNIX
> > > is a better example.
> > >
> >
> > You mean running a complete second OS under the first? Isnt that
> > -"bloody inefficent!" ? Especially if you have to laod -another-
> > application to do it?
>
> No, VMWare is my example of loading another OS. What Mac OSX does.
> Cgywin or Services for UNIX provides a *copatability layer*, this mean that
> you don't have another fscking OS beside the one that you already have.
>
Except that with VMWare is an app that lets you run a second OS UNDER
the one you are already running. Just like MacOS X does.
> > > > > They should've done something like Linux does with WINE & DOSEMU and
> NT
> > > > Why not? It works. Well.
> > >
> > > Horribly inefficent!
> > > Would you accept a car that double its mile/galon ratio if you have two
> > > passangers in it?
> > >
> >
> > ... and VMWare is different how?
>
> It isn't, it's my parallel example to what Mac OSX does with OS9.
>
You said VMWare was a better way to run apps of a differnet OS that the
main one you are running. Now you are saying it is the same as MacOS
X/Classic, but MacOS X/Classic is inferior.
get your story straight.
> > > > > It *is* however, the easiest way, I guess.
> > > > > And in computers, as in life, the easiest way is rarely the optimal
> way.
> > > >
> > > > You are so so smart... you do it.
> > >
> > > I never programmed for the Mac, and *they* are the one with the inside
> > > knowledge.
> >
> > and they did a pretty good job. BTW, you DO know OS 9 is going away,
> > right?
>
> Yeah, *right*!
yeah, right.
> Backward compatability goes away *slowly*, Rick.
> The minimum that Apple can make it go away is three years, and that is if
> they try *hard*.
In -YOUR- opinion.
> And even then, we are talking about general trend in *new* applications
> being developped.
> What Apple need to do is to discourage any further development on OS9, and
> porting everything to OSX.
They are trying to do that very thing.
> It's bloody hard to do something like this. And users would *still* want to
> use old applications.
They have a successful track record in difficult switchovers.
> I did some work for an accountant that used an 8 years old DOS program to
> manage the accounts. He plans to keep using this program more or less
> forever, there are plenty of people like him.
> You won't see OS9 compatability going away any time soon.
>
> Check for other OS major upgrades for examples.
> Dos -> Windows9x is a good example.
A good example of what?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:16:59 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>If you read the entire message, which you didn't, you will see that I
>>said the font can be changed. My point was with why it is not
>>standard,
>
> Because RedHat doesn't have an illegal monopoly.
What has that to do with the price of fish. Titter.
>>and why it is such a PITA to change,
>
> Because you are ignorant about how to change it, until you do, but then
> you shouldn't ever have to change it again. Since RedHat has no need to
> lock you in to their product, it makes more sense to avoid wasting time
> on development of an "easy way" to make this change, and instead make it
> so you don't have to continually re-apply the change, because the OS
> does not forget, corrupt, or require re-installation (and thus force the
> end user to repeat the configuration), like with the monopoly crapware.
And how does setting dpi to 75 or 100 lock you into their product? Chuckle.
>>and why, if it is not
>>important is it more than likely the number one question asked in the
>>setup forums?
>
> Because many people are still forced to buy a PC with Windows on it (to
> avoid the PITA that hunting down an alternative causes, particularly
> when you are still a newbie) and then installing Linux on it. Since
> there is no OEM to configure the system for them, they have to
> "de-uglify" their fonts themselves.
Ahah a connection at last. If it is so easy to deugly fonts why don't
distros do it?
>>And yes 100dpi fonts have been in distros for a long time. They should
>>be default.
>
> No shit. So what's your point? <*Chuckle*>
One wonders what yours is. Snigger.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:19:21 GMT
Terry Porter wrote:
> It's interesting how experiences differ. I usedtoinstall Cisco
> and ComputerProtocol routers, and never had much trouble there.
>
> Windos was always a fight,between the apps running, and the neccessary
> tsr's to support networking(Banyan Vines).
WinDOS went out with the arc, as did TSR's. Windows is hardly a fight now
to use TCP/IP et al.
>>> I think that the complexity is less of an issue than the way that
>>> Windows forces one to impliment it.
>>
>> It has IP address, mask, gateway, DNS etc. What else do you need?
>
> An easier way to set them up.
You fill in one or two dialogs. How hard is that?
>> I put together a simple network at home with Windows with apparent ease.
>> Enter Linux and things got complex.
>
> Hahaha exactly the REVERSE of my experiences.
So my experiences differ from yours.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:24:28 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>You said "DirectX sucks" and you offer nothing to back up that
>>statement.
>
> How marvelously observant of you.
Why thank you.
>>When challenged on that point, you fall to childishly throwing back
>>what's been said to you.
>
> I'm merely pointing out that this observation was not only anticipated,
> but in fact the whole point to my comments.
Your point is obscure. I'm asking you directly how DirectX sucks. So far
you've been extremely evasive.
>>C'mon, either put up or shut up. How does "DirectX suck"?
>
> If you don't know for yourself, you're not going to believe anything I
> say on the matter to begin with, now are you? I mean, I presume we're
> both using "the same" DirectX (every version I have ever seen has also
> sucked, so I don't see what difference this might make). If you are not
> bright enough to be able to know that the frequent stutters, frequent
> crashes, rampant incompatibilities, upgrade merry-go-round used to
> ensure no alternative can gain a foothold, and overall crappy
> engineering prevalent in any monopoly crapware, while mitigated somewhat
> by outrageous amounts of resources and expensive hardware, is because
> DirectX *SUCKS*, then how is my explaining it to you going to make you
> any smarter? You're supposed to be able to figure that out for
> yourself, Mr. Consumer.
Now you've prejudged me. What a surprise.
You don't _seriously_ believe I don't _know_ how DirectX sucks do you? I
wanted you to state specific examples - yet you dragged this out for ages,
because of your dogmatic approach (you think I'm a troll).
Of course I know how DirectX sucks!
Whilst I may not entirely agree with your assesment above, I am aware of
the shortcomings of DirectX.
--
Pete
------------------------------
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: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:25:02 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > Developers care what apps you want. They use the
> > tools that let them produce those apps that you
> > want.
> >
> > And if that means they write Windows apps, then
> > they write Windows apps.
> >
> > And Windows wins.
> >
> > [snip]
>
> Yeah,... thats why Gates and Microsoft are so scared of Open Source in
> general, and the GPL in particular.
Exactly. Developers *like* open source, and the
like it numbers.
If they go and program for open-source
platforms, Microsoft loses.
Open source is a competitor in
the *real* market Windows is in.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:27:24 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Yes but you're not giving any good reasons as to _why_ DirectX sucks. I
>>might just as well say "Linux sucks".
>
> Anybody who knows a thing about me (and we ain't just talking Usenet
> here) knows god-damned-well *why* I would think DirectX sucks. And
> believe me, your lame attempts to derail any competition to the illegal
> monopoly is not anywhere as near as compelling an argument, son.
But I don't know you from Adam, do I? All you said was "DirectX sucks" but
you offered no explanation as to why. In another post you finally put forth
some reasons why it sucks - and guess what, I agree with you, partly.
As for my so called lame attempts to derail any competition to the illegal
monopoly, I think you're doing a brilliant job of that yourself!
>>Linux. I use it. It sucks. 'nuf said.
>
> I'm afraid you're mistaken.
Of course. I don't believe Linux sucks. I've said so before. You - as usual
- aren't paying attention.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:28:26 GMT
Terry Porter wrote:
> All operating systems suck, but for me,
> *Linux sucks the least*.
Linux sucks. Windows sucks. Ho hum.
Linux rocks! Windows rocks! 8)
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:32:50 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Does. Shuffling back and forth between old and new games that break on
> different versions with a perfectly respectable video card with all new
> patches on a brand new system means it *does* suck.
Is there an alternative, I wonder.
> Happy now, Pete? Don't get comfy; it's just the tip of the iceberg,
> believe me.
So, why didn't you point this out before. What took you so long? Did you
believe you were talking to a Windows fanatic who would refuse to accept
anything bad about Windows?
Yea verily. DirectX sucketh.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:33:52 GMT
Terry Porter wrote:
> Max is an excellent debater, I've admired his posts for years
> so nyah, nyah!
He's not debating though. He's baiting. That makes him a troll.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:35:37 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Now why should that be? I don't feel in the least bit stupid. Why is it I
>>feel you are from a completely different planet, sometimes?
>
> Because you often don't understand what I am very reasonably trying to
> explain. That, however, should only make you feel ignorant, not stupid.
>
> You should feel stupid because you are, in the end, a troll, that's why.
> Doh!
You say DirectX sucks then you leave that statement without any facts. You
offer no reasonable explanation and then you fall hook line and sinker for
my trap.
You're the stupid one.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:36:52 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> Perhaps you can clarify this statement. One does not use DirectX
> directly, as it is an API/library; instead, one plays a game or
> uses a sophisticated 2-D or 3-D rendering system which requires
> Direct X. I assume, for the sake of this argument, that Direct3D
> is built on top of DirectX. You'll see why in a moment.
You're not expecting a reply, I hope.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:38:06 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Linux. I use it. It sucks. 'nuf said.
>>
>>There?
>>
>>Happy now?
>
> Took you long enough. Du-uh!
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. I was happy when we started, son. I'm always
> happy. Livin' in the now, you know what I mean? :-D
Sigh...
Sad.
Of course, I don't believe Linux sucks. I was trying to make a point. Which
you missed entirely.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:40:08 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>If they're bad mouthing Windows and praising Linux, then why are they
>>still using Windows? That sounds to me like hypocracy.
>
> You're apparently trying very hard to remain ignorant of precisely what
> we are bad mouthing Windows for.
I'm not trying, I'm succeeding. I call you a hypocrit because you'rev still
using a Windows application. Surely if you believe Windows is crap, you'd
drop it in favour of a Linux equivalent?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 22:42:57 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy :
>>>You still haven't defined gaming OS.
>>
>>Umm... an OS with which one can play games. [1]
>
>So the fact you can buy good quality games for Linux completely undermines
>your argument. Or are you just arguing the absurd for arguments sake? If you
>take your statement above then Linux *is* a gaming OS.
Aw, pull the other leg. There is a paucity of Linux games available
and it is untruthful, and indeed absurd, to suggest otherwise.
>>[1] Of course, the premise being, there are games available.
>
>Which there are.
ROTFL. Next Linux comedian please.
--
"S+M is outta the question, have you got a better suggestion
I'm fed up of waving my right hand" - rat salad www.ratsalad.co.uk
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:44:18 GMT
Terry Porter wrote:
>> If they're bad mouthing Windows and praising Linux, then why are they
>> still using Windows? That sounds to me like hypocracy.
>
> It's not tho.
If they say Windows is crap and still use it, then it's hypocracy (sp?).
> Some people have to use Windos, they don't want to, but for
> whatever reason, they must. The bulk of Linux advocates,
> fall into this category, in my observation.
Like Charlie, who maintains NT servers but badmouths them at every
opportunity. When asked why he doesn't leave and get a job in Linux, no
answer.
> This places them in a ideal position to be critical of
> the thinks that they don't like about Windos.
Excuses! Excuses!
> It's interesting how either camp (Windos or Linux) jump
> to claims of hypocracy or Trollism, when their OS is under
> attack.
I get called "shithead" or "troll" the moment I criticise Linux. It appears
to me Linux has become a sacred cow.
> Naturally, informed and intelligent critisism of Linux, by
> Linux advocates is welcome here also.
But be ready to be called names and such!
> I suppose if I posted to a Windows advocacy group
> (something i've never done btw), then I'd be a
> Linuxtroll, especially if I used Windows to post
> anti Windows stuff.
>
> On the other hand, if I used Windows to post
> pro Linux stuff on COLA, and anti Windows stuff
> on COLA, then I'd simply be a Linux advocate.
Huh?
> I fail to see how anyone can accuse Max of being
> a hypocrit.
I just did.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:48:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> the current high end audio boards prefer to use WDM drivers instead of
> MME types and Win98se is less than stable with the WDM drivers. Some
> work, some don't but the bottom line is manufacturers are writing for
> Win2k and XP.
What!?! I develop WDM audio drivers! How are they unstable!
Besides, the Great Shaitan, I mean Microsoft, has decreed that all new
device drivers shall be WDM, and no VXD one's shall pass GO and collect
£200. Since all OEMs want they're stuff to pass WHQL, that means the rest
of the industry has to follow suit.
Mind you WDM does offer things you can't do with VXD audio - like mixing of
multiple application output (VXD ones typically report the device is busy).
WDM also means one binary exists for Win9x and Win2K. A grand idea!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:50:19 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>OK, why are you using a Windows application (which you despise?) instead
>>of a Linux equivalent (which you think is wonderful?).
>
> It's more convenient to use Windows than to avoid Windows, and I already
> paid for it (and Agent) long ago. That doesn't make it reliable or
> stable.
But if Windows is _so_ bad, why use it at all? If you think it's "monopoly
crapware" surely you cannot even touch it?
Either that, or you're a hypocrit.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 21:51:49 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Simply pointing out that it was empty rhetoric, to begin with. Were a
> more original response required, you know full well I would have had no
> trouble providing it. When you rise to the level of saying something,
> you can be sure I will respond.
Now how would I know that? Based on your style of noting what I've come to
expect from you is pure unadulterated noise, and not much else.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[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: Fri, 11 May 2001 23:57:50 +0100
>> > I don't know about better, but it sure is more portable.
>>
>> useless for decive independent stuff (what the thread was about). One
>> rendered for a 1200DPI Laser printer wil lprint badly on a 300 DPI
>> HP500.
>
> Oh?
>
> Can't you scale it down reasonably well?
>
> I wouldn't have thought this an insurmountable problem.
Bitmaps are rotten for device independent work. Even if you ship a very
high res image (eg a huge 1200 dpi A4 bitmap), imagine scaling it up to A0
(eg for an engineering drawing). Now you've only got 75 dpi.
Also, if your printer is not a neat multiple or factor of the resolution
of the bitmap (eg 1200 dpi bitmap, 720 dpi printer), the scaling gets
rather worse.
-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: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Economist and Open-Source
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 00:01:02 +0200
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chris Sherlock wrote:
> >
> > I like the bit down the bottom of the article:
> >
> > To advocates of the open-source approach, this looks very much
> > like one-way sharing. Customers can look at the source code of
> > Windows, tell Microsoft about bugs and suggest improvements,
> > thus saving the firm a lot of money-but they still have to pay for
> > the next version.
> >
> > How very true.
> >
> > Chris
>
> When has Microsoft ever included some of my recomendations? or am I one
> of Microsoft's droans? I subscribe to the Linux kernel mailing list, and
> at least the development process is as transparent as possible. How do I
> know Microsoft isn't holding back some bug fixes because they want to
> sell more of their next product? at least when I get an error, I email
> the mailing list, developers receive the information, and the problem is
> isolated and solved, unlike the Microsoft way which requires you to have
> a huge wobb of cash just to get them to listen to you.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
I think that it is perhaps a little too easy to "daemonize" companies like
Microsoft regarding why it takes so long to get bugfixes. One very likely
explanation is simply inefficieness (not that this will make it better
:-) ). When you mail the Linux kernel list, you will undoubtably hit some of
the developers directly. Large commercial SW shops like MS tends to "shield"
the developers behind a layer of "customer service" people. This is in a way
a good idea, but introduces the risk that a bug report will not "hit" the
right developer right away. I have seen this occur in a couple of companies
I've worked with.
Mikkel
------------------------------
From: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux still not ready for home use.
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 00:04:38 +0200
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 10 May 2001 21:59:26 GMT, Bob H <bh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Gotta agree. My dad at age 75 took up computing last summer, using
Win98.
> >He's getting pretty darn good at it too. But if he had to look at a
> >command
> >prompt (boy do I like helping people at work by using a Dos box-the looks
of
> >fear are astounding), he would have dropped it right away. Much less a
> >Linux
> >command prompt.
> >
>
> What does you 75 year old Dad do when Win98 shuts down "uncleanly" and
> on the next boot he's presented with all those command line prompts asking
> for decisiions about what to do with those CHKDSK errors?
Not because I want to defend Win98, but you do not get any command line
prompts about anything in Win98 following an unclean shutdown. You will see
the ScanDisk screen, which is a (sort of) GUI thing, and it will only ask
you about stuff it cannnot resolve itself. And if you select the default
reply to any question, you will be OK.
Mikkel
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
