Linux-Advocacy Digest #516, Volume #34 Mon, 14 May 01 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Craig Kelley)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ray Fischer)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ray Fischer)
Re: Security in Open Source Software (pip)
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Jeffrey L. Cooper)
Re: Good Tex Pdf Files was Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office
97/2000? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Win 9x is horrid (Dave Martel)
Re: Good Tex Pdf Files was Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office
97/2000? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft ("Doug Ransom \(usenet\)")
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? ("pookoopookoo")
Re: MS POLL! ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: Win 9x is horrid ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: LOMAC shocks Microsoft! (Terry Porter)
Re: Win 9x is horrid ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 14 May 2001 19:11:19 -0600
"Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:dnXL6.12464$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Mon 14 May 2001 07:01, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> > [Snip]
> > >
> > > One BIG advantage of Linux is that SMP code can be inlined, by setting
> > > a compiler switch and rebuilding.
> > >
> > > In proprietary binary operating systems (PBOS), SMP support is provided
> > > by libraries. The kernel has to jump to the proper library function.
> > > This function call is necessary so that the PBOS can support both
> > > uni-processor and SMP machines. However, note that the function call
> > > is overhead that the open-source kernel can simply compile out of
> > > existence.
> > >
> > > Examples of PBOS's: Windows, Windows, Windows, Windows.....
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> >
> > I believe that this is wrong: NT/2K ships with two versions of the kernel
> > (and a few core libraries) pre-compiled on the CD, one with SMP support
> and
> > one for uniprocessor systems. However, due to the welded-hood approach of
> > Microsoft products, one must reinstall the OS from scratch to switch
> > between the two kernels. Yech.
>
> That is wrong. There is a simple utility to run to switch between the uni
> processor kernel and mutiprocessor kernel for NT4. W2K does not have this
> problem and you can change motherboard and CPU counts under it no problem,
> it reconfigures itself automatically when you come back up. I recently went
> from a uniprocessor m/b to a dual board and just shut down, changed hardware
> and came back up; had to reboot once more after it detected the changes.
Count yourself lucky. After XP comes out, you'll need to call a (as-
yet-unspecified-if-it-will-be-toll-free) phone number to beg
permission to boot the machine back up.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
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: Tue, 15 May 2001 01:13:22 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Out of cursosity, which API do you consider best at
> >present,. and why? And is it best for everything, or
> >just for some things? If so what things?
>
> Good question.
I hope so. But it is the answer
that I hope will be interesting.
> Unix has a multitude of APIs (well, so does Microsoft).
So does Apple. So do a lot of people. APIs seem
to breed like bunnies. :D
> The lower
> level process stuff is very simple: fork() as opposed to CreateProcess(),
> for example. To be sure, CreateProcess() does have the advantage of
> putting all the stuff in one place -- but there's just so much of it.
Yes, but is fork better? fork is mostly useless byitself-
you need exec() or whatever it is called to load the
process. It's a strange, roundabout way to launch another
process. Yes, it means you don't need a special way to say
"use *these* file descrptors"; but the structure
of the code you must supply instead is rather
contorted to my way of thinking.
Clever implementation can make it reasonably fast,
but why should we want an API that demands such
cleverness of the implementation?
In other words, I don't see why fork is *good*;
it's not enough to say its simple; it's simple but
by itself inadequate, you've got to consider all
the other stuff you need to do what CreateProcess
would do.
> X versus Win32 makes life interesting. X is a very-well documented
> protocol, in many respects, and also has the advantage that most of the
> bugs have been beaten out of it since it's been in existence since
> about 1986 or so, if not earlier.
GDI is pretty solid too, actually. It's well documented, too.
Mind you, those statements were perhaps less true
in 1986, only a year after Windows release, but
that was then, and this in now.
In 1986, there were much stronger reasons
to prefer Unix. Back then Windows wasn't
just segmented, it was *real mode*. Becaus,
as we all know, nobody will ever need more
than 640k of memory.
> Both the Unix and the X protocols are very stable (LineToEx()??),
I'll grant you that, but sometimes change is needed. The
addition of LineToEx and friends was to support 32-bit
coordinate systems without breaking existing code by
changing its APIs. So MS added new APIs that take
32-bit points and the like as parameters.
X has been very stable- to the point of being
stagnant. X still deals in physical pixels and
even physical pixel *values*, and makes the
programmed provide all abstraction.
X could stand to be a great deal more
device-independant than it is. But instead,
it's stable.
I think that's a bug, not a feature. :(
> and
> the only issue cross-platform that I can think of is the vfork/fork()
> issue and some minor issues with things such as HP-UX's tendency to
> kill processes if the underlying executable or DLL has been modified.
I suspect there are occasionally other cross-platform
issues here and there, other than that one. But I daresay
there is a reasonable clutch of Unix-like operating systems
that differ less from each other than Windows 95 from
Windows NT, if that's what you are getting at.
> I'm not familiar enough with IIOP/CORBA, but it appears workable.
> I'm not too thrilled with the GNU implementation for a fairly
> petty reason: there's no elegant method to do the equivalent of
> select()/XPending(). I may want to incorporate GNU code to make
> my own ORB, if I can grok it -- and there's a lot to grok. But at
> least I can conceptually do it, given enough time and momentum.
CORBA is workable, but it is also very complex, and
every ORB is different.
It's designed for something a little different than
COM is; it's not about integrating desktop applications
efficiently, but about distributed computing.
It so happens that either technology can do
either task, but they aren't really optimized for
the same thing.
> To be fair, Windows can do certain things fairly well; it has
> built-in dithering,
Sort of. It can't dither a bitmap down to a lower
depth. It can only dither solids. And honestly
I find that I want it to not dither more often
than I want it to dither.
> for example, and its GDI allows for WYSIWYG
> printing -- just send a different HDC in. Unfortunately, the
> implementation has some problems if the fonts differ between the
> printer driver and the screen display (this is less of a problem now
> than in the past, as I understand it).
I don't know what implementation problems you mean;
this is something Windows has always dealth with. If
there were previously bugs in this, I am not aware of
them.
An app that assumes that fonts will have the
same metric on the screen as on the printer, without
bothering to demand an exact match from the GDI,
is buggy. That's not really GDI's fault.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 01:13:29 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Gay-male sex leads to AIDS...especially when a condom breaks.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Sex is how AIDS is transmitted, but sex alone
>> does not lead to AIDS any more than masturbation leads to hairy
>> palms.
>
>Let's see...if you're a man, and you have sex with a female infected
>with AIDS, your chances of contracting AIDS is....
If you're a man, and your have sex with another man who does not have
AIDS, your chance of getting AIDS is?
Zero.
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 01:14:10 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Edward Rosten wrote:
>> > Where in my statements did I say I was afraid of homosexuals. I am not
>> > afraid of them anymore than I am afraid of people with bipolar disorder
>> > or any other genetic malfunction.
>>
>> If you have really firm evidence that homosexualtiy is genetic, I suggest
>> you publish.
>
>Then you admit that it's a choice.
Why are bigots so often stupidly illiterate as well?
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Security in Open Source Software
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:18:40 +0100
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> An interesting article about security in Open Source projects.
> http://webdeveloper.earthweb.com/websecu/article/0,,12013_621851,00.html
This is interesting but silly.
Open source is open -> people think people look at it -> false sense of
security
Open source is open -> people exploit code for there own gain ->
exploits
Open source is open -> people still don't find the bugs
It just does not stand to any reason to argue that Open source is
anything but MORE secure. It is like encryption algorithms : "my secret
unbreakable code". It just makes simple sense.
The only valid point is that just because software is opensource people
should not *automatically* assume that it is secure. But is this not
just common sense ?
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey L. Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 21:13:30 -0400
Drive Image may make images of ext2. I never looked into it because I
always felt better about a Linux install. Although, hard drive
imaging is the best no matter what OS you use.
Actually, I have not had many problems with Windows 2000. None of my
appllications ever crash, and all my games work. I am happy using it
and Linux and any other OS for fun. It's all good!
Regards,
Jeff
On Mon, 14 May 2001 17:17:35 -0600, Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 14 May 2001 15:07:44 -0400, Jeffrey L. Cooper
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>For example, Drive Image and Partition
>>magic or the competing products, will enable people to run Windows
>>without having problems again. Drive Image allows me to take an image
>>of a PERFECT installation that I can revert to at any time.
>>Furthermore, I do not use Windows to uninstall prgrams anymore. I
>>revert to an image as though it never existed.
>>
>>Recently I installed Service Pack 2 on my win2k machine, and prior to
>>doing so, I created an image to be safe.
>>
>
>I don't know about DriveImage, but Norton Ghost will image linux ext2
>filesystems. I do this all the time with Slackware, running Ghost from
>a bootable diskette and burning the images directly to CD.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Good Tex Pdf Files was Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office
97/2000?
Date: 15 May 2001 09:19:49 +0800
>>>>> "Edward" == Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Edward> However, it is still not useful for PDF since PDF doesn't
Edward> have outlined versions of the cmr fonts avaliable.
pdftex will embed them into the PDF output. Of course, this means
increased file size. What can we do? Use pdf(La)TeX more with CMR
fonts. When these fonts become so common, they may have a chance to
make their way into the core set of fonts in the PDF spec. :)
--
Lee Sau Dan u(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.privacy.spyware
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 19:15:31 -0600
(Crossposted to alt.privacy.spyware. Things are slow, they need the
excitement)
On Mon, 14 May 2001 19:05:18 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 14 May 2001 18:32:35 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > Real claimed that this was an unintentional programming error - but
>> >> > this is the second (or possibly the third) time one of their products
>> >> > has "unintentionally" violated users' privacy.
>> >> >
>> >> > It'll be a cold day in hell before I'll allow any RealNetworks
>product
>> >> > anywhere near my systems.
>> >>
>> >> Contrast with Microsoft, who openly admits that you'll need to send
>> >> them intimate knowledge of your machine if you wish to "activate" your
>> >> products in the future.
>> >
>> >It's not intimate knowledge, it's the equivelant of an MD5 checksum.
>It's a
>> >hash created by a number of unique identifiers, with no way to reverse
>the
>> >data to retrieve the original data.
>>
>> It's not the equipment info people object to, but the unique
>> identifier with which your system becomes associated. Not to mention
>> having to go to MS for permission to install an OS you've already paid
>> for.
>
>Craig most certainly did object to it.
I was speaking in general terms. Personally I agree with Craig but
don't think most people are all that sensitive about their hardware.
Just to save you repeating the claim that only an MD5 checksum is
transmitted, I don't believe MS's assurances one bit. The only way
that company will ever gain my trust is if Windows' complete source
code, as well as the source to all tools needed to compile it, becomes
readily available for public inspection.
>Further, the unique identifier can be used, how? It's not associated to
>your name in any way.
At least not until you provide personal info elsewhere which (usually
without notice) is then connected to the unique identifier or to some
_other_ unique identifier with which that one has been associated.
This is how tracking cookies work. At first all the tracking companies
have is an anonymous GUID, but they pay off websites to work with them
to tie that to actual identity. In the meantime they're recording the
travels of the GUID so that once they have an identity they can apply
it retroactively to your past activities. This is what DoubleClick
attempted when they bought Abacus.
If you have a firewall, watch your logs the next time you place a
"secure" online order. Shortly after providing identifying information
there's a good chance you'll see some image request, with a long
encrypted string appended, sent to one of the tracking servers. Don't
be too surprised if the "image" is transparent and one pixel by one
pixel.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Good Tex Pdf Files was Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office
97/2000?
Date: 15 May 2001 09:26:30 +0800
>>>>> "Edward" == Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Edward> Another alternative it so to
Edward> \usepackage{times}
Well? I like the CMR fonts. Many laymen to whom I have shown a
printout in CMR fonts ask me "What font is that? That looks very
nice!". Well... that it looks nice may be partly due to the excellent
typesetting capability of TeX (kerning, ligatures, hyphenation), but
the font should receive the credit, too. (No, I didn't show them any
equation. They'd be shocked that I could have the equations so neatly
formatted -- publisher's quality.)
Edward> and then go through the latex->dvips|ps2pdf
Edward> route.
I discovered 'pdftex' as well as 'pdflatex' in my RedHat installations
3 years ago. They come with the teTeX distribution of TeX (which is
the TeX distribution that RedHat uses). So, if you're using the teTeX
distribution and it is recent enough, you should have pdflatex.
So, you can generate PDF more directly with pdflatex. Instead of
generating DVI, it generates PDF *directly*. It can somehow embed the
CMR fonts in the PDF file. I think it embeds the outlines, not
bitmaps, because zooming-in many times does not creat any saw-teeth,
but smooth curves.
The only drawback is that pdflatex doesn't support EPS inclusion.
You'll have to convert them to PDF (with 'epstopdf') first. On the
other hand, pdflatex supports inclusion of PNG files directly.
Edward> Unfortunately, you have to use the Times fonts
Edward> since the (fantastic) cmr fonts have to be brought in as
Edward> bitmaps, which is rotten.
Wrong again. I've discovered on the Internet some *free* Postscript
fonts that are "equivalent" to the CMR fonts. It's called "bakoma"
fonts. Install the *.pfb files and modify your font-map file in the
DVIPS config. Then, DVIPS will include these outline fonts instead of
generating bitmap versions in the resulting Postscript files.
This is not the only choice. There's also "bluesky" fonts.
See also
http://www.fluidlab.naoe.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~minnie/TeX/#CMFonts
Have a look in:
http://www.rarf.riken.go.jp/archives/tex-archive/fonts/cm/ps-type1/
or other CTAN (www.ctan.org) mirrors.
--
Lee Sau Dan u(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Doug Ransom \(usenet\)"
<aQnjk6M A9@m^5a1ܝ_Wֿ[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Doug Ransom \(usenet\)"
<aQnjk6M A9@m^5a1ܝ_Wֿ[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 18:35:56 -0700
But is is soooo useful than linux is basicaly obsolete.
Linux is obsolete without a competetive run time object model to the common
language runtime.
> "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:4KDL6.72736$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <5ApL6.80$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tom Wilson"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > Actually, if compiler manufacturers had agreed on a common name
mangling
> > > scheme, most of what it offers wouldn't have been a neccesity. Common,
> > > set-in-stone interfaces are a good idea, also. I'm far from a
Microsoft
> > > fan, but I have to admit COM has its' strong points particularly with
> > > distributed aplications.
> > <snip>
> >
> > What did COM do for distributed applications? Nothing! Maybe you mean
> > DCOM. I never used that because it was 'in the works' the whole time I
> > was developing for windows. Corba would have met our needs very well,
but
> > instead we just waited and waited for the unfulfilled promise of DCOM.
>
> It took long enough to become even marginally usefull, to be sure. Its'
not
> too bad now. (And its' also the only thing you can use for that platform
and
> expect to work)
>
>
------------------------------
From: "pookoopookoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 21:49:31 -0400
> Eww I think Star Office is a Pig!
Sorry terry, but maybe your computer is a POS. Staroffice runs just fine on
my machine. Maybe you should update your pre-cambrian hardware to something
decent ;)
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS POLL!
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 18:58:26 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charlie Ebert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> And go where Frank? Another blockhead stupid fucking idiot WINTROLL
> shop? Go where Frank?
>
> Bill Gates has 95% of America hostage right now? Where the fuck are you
> going to go to get away from these blockheads Frank?
>
> These people are simple appliance operators Frank! They don't have a
> talent bone in their whole bodies Frank!
Yeehaw! Go get 'em, Charlie!
Our company just bought a MSFT-based accounting system because an
executive VP said "our consultant recommended it, and he drives a Mercedes
so he must know what he's doing." This is not a joke, I did not make this
up, this is God's truth what this person actually said at a staff meeting.
How do you reason with that kind of logic?
Charlie, as far as I'm concerned, you can't be crude or insulting enough.
When I was younger, I thought it would be interesting to join the Peace
Corps and work in a third-world country. It looks like the travel
requirement is going to go away.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 21:17:33 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Real claimed that this was an unintentional programming error - but
> > > > this is the second (or possibly the third) time one of their
products
> > > > has "unintentionally" violated users' privacy.
> > > >
> > > > It'll be a cold day in hell before I'll allow any RealNetworks
product
> > > > anywhere near my systems.
> > >
> > > Contrast with Microsoft, who openly admits that you'll need to send
> > > them intimate knowledge of your machine if you wish to "activate" your
> > > products in the future.
> >
> > It's not intimate knowledge, it's the equivelant of an MD5 checksum.
> > It's a hash created by a number of unique identifiers, with no way
> > to reverse the data to retrieve the original data.
>
> 1) It must be more sophisticated than an MD5 checksum of unique
> identifiers, otherwise they would be unable to tell if I changed
> a single NIC or the entire system
More likely, the hash doesn't change radically if you change one piece of
hardware, but if the entire hash changes, then you changed a lot of
hardware.
> 2) It is intimate knowledge, because if I change an eepro100 for
> a DE500 NIC, Microsoft knows about it. They can decide to sic
> the BSA on me because of it.
No, changing your NIC isn't a problem. In fact, you can change most of your
hardware without it triggering a re-activation. It's only if you change
everything at once.
> 3) Nobody else sees the need to use this draconian system.
Actually, Borland is going to do the same thing, and we're hearing noises
from Symantec and several other companies as well.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: LOMAC shocks Microsoft!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 15 May 2001 01:55:11 GMT
On Tue, 15 May 2001 00:19:59 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 14 May 2001 23:38:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
> wrote:
>
>
>>Firstly the desktop market is at the mercy of a certain
>>criminal company, who, using preditory trade practices
>>have forced manufacturers to sell pc's with *their*
>>lame desktop. Search for 'Sherman Antitrust Law' if you
>>don't know what that means.
>
> Maybe, but the world still uses Windows, for better or worse.
Agreed.
> Linux is
> right there out in the open for free, yet pitiful few are converting
> their desktops. And worse yet corporations who stand to save millions
> in licensing fees are ignoring Linux. If StarOffice/Gimp and the other
> typical Linux programs are really equivalent drop ins for the Windows
> counterparts why are they virtually ignored?
It's a complex issue, neglecting the preditory trade practices, that Ms are
so good at, I guess their are issues of re training, compatibility
(lets not forget Ms 'lock in') and implimentation.
> For that matter, why is StarOffice ignored even on the Windows
> platform?
I don't know, I don't use Staroffice.
>
> Seems to me if I had 10k licensees to purchase for my company, I could
> save a fortune using StarOffice, but yet virtually nobody is?
> Why is that?
All the above issues ?
>
>
>
>>Secondly, I have had a Linux only desktop since 1997.
>
>
> What works for you may or may not work for others.
Agreed.
>>Thirdly, Windows lovers see the world covered in Windows
>>desktops, they suffer from a certain personal bias, and
>>their observations are therefore suspect.
>
>
> We see productivity and compatibility with the rest of the world. if
> Linux could offer such for free the world would easily move. But it
> doesn't so we pay our $89.95 USD.
Or our $400 Australian (Win2k standalone)
Although you're the worst wintroll to ever hit COLA,
"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
I do aknowledge your audio issues and need for proprietary
software to use the audio hardware you need.
For you perhaps, Linux can't help (atm), but things are
changing, perhaps someone in this HUGE world is already
working on it :)
>
> Flatfish
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.privacy.spyware
Subject: Re: Win 9x is horrid
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 21:21:22 -0500
"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> (Crossposted to alt.privacy.spyware. Things are slow, they need the
> excitement)
>
>
> On Mon, 14 May 2001 19:05:18 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Mon, 14 May 2001 18:32:35 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> > Real claimed that this was an unintentional programming error -
but
> >> >> > this is the second (or possibly the third) time one of their
products
> >> >> > has "unintentionally" violated users' privacy.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It'll be a cold day in hell before I'll allow any RealNetworks
> >product
> >> >> > anywhere near my systems.
> >> >>
> >> >> Contrast with Microsoft, who openly admits that you'll need to send
> >> >> them intimate knowledge of your machine if you wish to "activate"
your
> >> >> products in the future.
> >> >
> >> >It's not intimate knowledge, it's the equivelant of an MD5 checksum.
> >It's a
> >> >hash created by a number of unique identifiers, with no way to reverse
> >the
> >> >data to retrieve the original data.
> >>
> >> It's not the equipment info people object to, but the unique
> >> identifier with which your system becomes associated. Not to mention
> >> having to go to MS for permission to install an OS you've already paid
> >> for.
> >
> >Craig most certainly did object to it.
>
> I was speaking in general terms. Personally I agree with Craig but
> don't think most people are all that sensitive about their hardware.
>
> Just to save you repeating the claim that only an MD5 checksum is
> transmitted, I don't believe MS's assurances one bit. The only way
> that company will ever gain my trust is if Windows' complete source
> code, as well as the source to all tools needed to compile it, becomes
> readily available for public inspection.
You people really amaze me. You are so paranoid about the activation
scheme, and refuse to believe MS when they say something. If you think
about it, if they wanted to collect information about you, they could do it
without activation and send encrypted packets out that would be impossible
to detect.
MS doesn't need activation to spy on you if they want to, so I don't see the
big fuss over this.
> >Further, the unique identifier can be used, how? It's not associated to
> >your name in any way.
>
> At least not until you provide personal info elsewhere which (usually
> without notice) is then connected to the unique identifier or to some
> _other_ unique identifier with which that one has been associated.
Again, if MS wanted to do this, they don't need you to activate to do it.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
