Linux-Advocacy Digest #834, Volume #34 Tue, 29 May 01 07:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Dan
Pidcock)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Burkhard =?iso-8859-1?Q?W=F6lfel?=)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Burkhard =?iso-8859-1?Q?W=F6lfel?=)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Burkhard =?iso-8859-1?Q?W=F6lfel?=)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Why should an OS cost money? (pip)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Burkhard =?iso-8859-1?Q?W=F6lfel?=)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Burkhard =?iso-8859-1?Q?W=F6lfel?=)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pidcock)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 10:17:08 GMT
On Tue, 29 May 2001 06:27:12 GMT, Rex Ballard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JS \\ PL wrote:
>> and copy and paste is still much much better between apps, as opposed to the
>> hit and miss copy/paste support in Linux.
>
>Linux uses the X11 "center button" (or two buttons down at same time)
>to
>paste. It works very well, and you can cut/paste between different
>applications
>without having to load the binaries of multiple executables for each
>pasted document.
The centre button to paste selection does not always work so great.
If I have some text in a document that is a URL and I want to paste it
into the address field of my browser window, I have to select the
current address in the browser to delete it so that becomes the
selection when I try to paste. So I have to delete it then go back to
the document select the browser and finally past. A real PITA.
How well does X selection work with images, e.g. in GIMP & xv? I've
never really tried that.
Dan
remove .hatespam to reply
------------------------------
From: Burkhard =?iso-8859-1?Q?W=F6lfel?=
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 12:01:04 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Maybe about there, yea. But still a larger percentage than Windows
> idiots who know how to use command line FTP. ;-)
I was one, btw. launching a GUI ftp client takes clicks. My fingers are
in bad condition, a dos console and "ftp ftp.anyserver.com" is less
painful and even faster to get _a few_ files per ftp.
One of the main reasons for me to use Linux is the cli, multiple
consoles, users, etc.
I love this discussion. It'll never end X-)
--
=============================================
Burkhard Wölfel
v e r s u c h s a n s t a l t (at) g m x . de
pubkey for this adress @ pgp.net
=============================================
------------------------------
From: Burkhard =?iso-8859-1?Q?W=F6lfel?=
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 12:06:08 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
> >>Stability doesn't count, I'm afraid, I've stopped running 9x long ago, so
> >>I don't suffer from any crashes, BSODs, or anything like this.
> >
> > Guffaw. If you think NT is stable, you don't know what stable means.
> >
>
> Most Windows users think 'Stable' is where horses live ;-)
Some people let Microsoft define what's stable.
Some people even complain to the software manufacturer, as this standard
crash message states. (in german it is "Bitte wenden sie sich an den
Hersteller")
Some people think that stable means less than one or two reboots per
day.
--
=============================================
Burkhard Wölfel
v e r s u c h s a n s t a l t (at) g m x . de
pubkey for this adress @ pgp.net
=============================================
------------------------------
From: Burkhard =?iso-8859-1?Q?W=F6lfel?=
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, 29 May 2001 12:29:15 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
try
http://www.microsoft.com/PIRACY/samguide/tools/lic_types/default.asp
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sun, 27 May 2001 12:49:46 GMT, Daniel Johnson
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > > > Certain perks, such as taking your work copy of Office home, have
> > > > > > been eliminated as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you sure they ever allowed this?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I am sure. [snip] This one went away quite a while ago.
> > >
> > > I'm sure; that's like stamping a big neon sign saying
> > > "pirate me" on the disks.
> >
> > How so? If it says you can take it home and use it as long as you
> > don't use both copies at once, how can you pirate it by doing that?
> > What it was, was MS trying to build market share and then tightening
> > the screw once that had been accomplished.
> >
> > Yes, I know that others play this game. They had a price hike too.
> >
> AFAIK, an Office license stills allows you to install it on two computers,
> just as long as you don't use both copies at once.
>
> Has this changed?
--
=============================================
Burkhard Wölfel
v e r s u c h s a n s t a l t (at) g m x . de
pubkey for this adress @ pgp.net
=============================================
------------------------------
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: Tue, 29 May 2001 06:52:13 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> This is a tedious long post,
You are right. It is tedious becasue you pay so much lip service to
yourself and micro$oft.
> but I think my reflection on StarOffice
> may be of general interest; page down
> a bit, they are in there.
You "reflections" (oops, did that scare you?) are pretty much tripe.
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > These don't count as action by Microsoft somehow?
> > > Or are the failures of MS competitors not direct
> > > results of these things? Are they indirect results
> > > somehow?
> >
> > What. Read the damn sentece again, you moronic sock puppet...
> >
> > The difference is that in the 2nd, m$ manipulates licenses, freezes the
> > market or outright steals the competitor's product. It is illegal.
>
> Ah, so it's just that "put out of business" has
> a special meaning for you.
>
This waht makes people describe you as dishonest. And/or
passive-aggressive. or just plain stupid. You very well know how m$
drives other companies from the market place, and it has nothing to do
with competition and everything to do with predatory, anit-competitve
behavior.
> I really should have been about to figure
> that one out on my own, honestly. :(
>
Its the honestly part that gives you probelms. BTW, which group do you
post from. I dont want to subject others to your innane "reasonong".
> [snip]
> > > > m$ had NEVER competed on a level playing field. NEVER.
> > >
> > > Not even when selling their first BASIC
> > > for the Altair?
> >
> > You'll reach for ANY straw to defend m$, wont you?
>
> Well, I after all, you even capitalized "never"...
>
> [snip]
> > > Could they have secured the dominance
> > > they now have in this way? If not, why
> > > not?
> >
> > Who knows, who cares. Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Didnt.
>
> Well, I suppose it doesn't matter to you, but
> I see it as a window into Max's mind.
>
Blah, blah, blah. Yada, yada, yada.
> [snip]
> > > > Nasty? NAsty? Its nasty to have altruistic people create things, and
> > > > then want to make sure no can take those thing proprietary?
> > >
> > > It's nasty to try to compell others to adhere
> > > to your own ideology; that's what the GPL
> > > is about.
> >
> > Idiot. You can choose to use the GPL or not. You can use a BSD license
> > for your software, or any other license you choose.
>
> Not if you use any GPLed code, you can't.
>
You reeally dont mind looking stupid, do you? Why would you pull GPL
code to use in "your" BSD licensed app?
> > But you cannot call
> > it Free Software with another license.
>
> Sure you can. You would even be right,
> if you used sometihng like the BSD license.
>
> > Still, how does anyone force
> > anyone to use the GPL?
>
> The idea is that you can't use any GPLed
> code unless your own code is GPLed too.
>
Duh. Thats one of the main points of that particular license, as opposed
to other licenses.
> > > The GPL doesn't just prevent someone from
> > > making your stuff proprietary- practically any
> > > OSS license will do that- it makes other people's
> > > stuff non-proprietary.
> >
> > Those "other people" chose the GPL. How were they coerced?
>
> That's the last reasoning I'd expect from you. How
> were MS's customers coerced- they chose
> Windows, after all.
THEY WERENT GIVEN A CHOICE you damned idiot. You can use GPL, BSD or
write your own license. HOW ARE PEOPLE COERCED into usiing the GPL as
opposed to BSD, or any other license?
Answer the question.
>
> > > This is why most corporations won't touch
> > > the stuff, inspite of the tremendous advantage
> > > of having free-as-in-beer programmers working
> > > on it.
> >
> > Free-as-in-beer programmers produce BSD licensed apps too.
>
> And a good thing too; if they didn't the open
> source movement would be, well, caged by
> the GPL.
>
Caged, in your opinion. GPL authors, and there are very many, dont agree
with you.
> [snip]
> > > > They dont give away ALL the docs. They keep some things hidden.
> > >
> > > No, they don't. Or at least, whenever
> > > I've looked into particular examples,
> > > I've always found the allegedly hidden
> > > stuff on MS's website.
> >
> > Oh? What about the backdoors that have been recently revealed by the
> > media? Or what about in the days of DOS, when they loaded their stolen
> > disk compression routines at an undocmented time in the boot sequence?
>
> I take it from this that you agree that MS does not
> have hidden APIs?
>
Then you would be, as usual, wrong.
> > And you are NOT the only person in the world.
>
> Oh sure. That's *your* story. :D
>
> > Others have looked.
>
> The people who I hear saying that there are
> hidden APIs don't seem to have looked.
>
Others have looked.
> [snip]
> > > It does not perform the right tasks, and it's
> > > got lousy a user-interface for the most part.
> > >
> >
> > Whats wrong with "THE" GNU user-interface? (oops, did I scare you?).
>
> Nothing, if you like command line apps; it's a bit
> better than the usual Unix thing. But users want
> GUIs today, and GNU's programs tend to not have
> that.
And the GPL GUI's arent GNU interfaces?
>
> > What is "THE" GNU interface?
>
> They have particular format for command
> line programs that's typically GNUish;
> it's the thing with the double-dash flags.
>
So, you are saying ONE shell is THE GNU interface? What about all the
other shells? or the other GUIs? Are they not GNU interfaces?
> I sure prefer --foobar to -f.
>
> > What are the "right tasks"?
>
> For a desktop computer, probably
> desktop applications would be a
> good start. :D
>
So WP, SS, DB, graphics manipulation, cd ripping... are these desktop
apps? If so then GPL software does the right tasks.
> > > > What is wrong with Star
> > > > Office, Applixware, teh scientific apps, GIMP, xmms, cdparanoia and
> > > > all the others? Huh?
> > >
> > > It depends on the product, naturally, but
> > > I don't think very many of those are GNU
> > > software.
> >
> > Applixware is indeed commercial. The rest, IIRC are GPL.
>
> That does not make them GNU.
>
How is an app produced under the GNU Public License, not a GNU app?
> > However, if you
> > hadnt snipped context, you would see that you inserted GNU, and I was
> > producing Linux apps that work - and work well.
>
> If you say so. That's not how I remeber it, but
> really who cares?
>
If you dont care, dont respond. And your memory is, at best, faulty.
> > BTW, you didnt answer
> > the question... as usual. What is wrong with those apps. What cant they
> > do? How are they inferior?
>
> I don't know all of them, and frankly "the scientific
> apps" is a bit vague. :D
>
Then go to a machine with Linux, BSD or some other UNix installed, and
look at them. Go to freashmeat.net, sourceforge.net or tucows and
research them.
> StarOffice is a good example of something I've
> been talking about though; I've downloaded
> the Windows version of it. It's pretty clear that
> they had to go to considerable lengths to overcome
> the deficiencies of Unix.
>
Just what Unix defiencies are those?
> StarOffice does not use the normal control
> set. It *almost* the same, but it's different.
> For instance, to cancel a pulldown menu
> without selecting anything, it's my habit
> to click the title bar above it. Works for
> real menus, but for StarOffice menus.
>
"Normal" control set. Does everything HAVE to use window$ control sets
to be normal?
> That's a small thing, but annoying, and
> there are a lot of little things like that.
> It's an MDI app, but it doesn't quite
> work like other MDI apps- you have
> to 'unmaximize' each document separately.
> The buttons and title bars are too small
> too.
>
So? Star Office isnt window$. Its Star Office.
> It's very, very hard to get a consistant user
> interface without using a common toolset,
> but StarOffice can't use the Windows
> tools because they do not work on Unix.
>
window$ is NOT the be-all, end-all of software. SO exists as an
-alternaticve- to window$.
> Here's a big thing: StarOffice has its own
> desktop/file manager. It's not a bad desktop,
> really, it's very explorer like. It has it's own
> tree view that you can pop out like with
> explorer, and all that stuff. It can replace
> Microsoft's, even give you its own
> start menu and taskbar.
>
Yes. that has been noticed ans is being vchanged in Open Office.
> It's quite a good effort at replicating the
> MS experience without using MS tools,
> but it's a tremendous effort and it doesn't
> quite measure up.
It doenst measure up in your bigoted mind only because it isnt window$.
> The explorer substitute
> doesn't have thumbnails; you can't drag
> new items into the StarOffice Start
> menu, like with the Windows one.
>
That means something to you, it may not mean anything to others.
remember, uses send requests to developers. Its much more direct than
with your precious window$.
> That these Unix developers had to
> waste their time doing all this says
> a lot about why desktop apps are
> usually developed for Windows,
> I think. These guys were supposed
> to be writing a Office package.
>
DUH. Its called Star -Office-. And you also show your ifnorance of Unix.
SO was originally an envionment for "office" type tasks.
> I've been fooling with the word processor.
> It's got a lot of features.
>
> But if it has a feature Word has not,
> I don't see what it is. Perhaps you
> can point it out.
>
I never claimed it had a feature Word did not. I said it was an example
of desktop applicaions.
> The quality of the implementation is just
> not quite there. Drag and drop is messed
> up; it seems to treat OLE objects separately
> from text.
How would it have OLE objects?
> You can only drag plaintext to
> non-StarOffice Windows, but autoscroll does
> not work. Autoscroll happens if you drag an
> OLE object, but with nasty visual defects.
> OLE objects can go to other apps, though.
>
> Tables can't be dragged at all. Odd that. They
> seem reasonably functional, if you don't mind
> the user interface.
>
> Visual defects do crop up quite a bit, actually,
> just fooling around. It needs debugging; visual
> defects make a bad first impression, even if
> they don't make the program unusuable.
>
> OLE is only partly there. There is no support
> for linking. Embedding OLE objects works, but
> you can't edit them in place, or copy them out
> of StarOffice. StarOffice documents can't be
> embedded into other apps at all. You *can*
> embed StarOffice documents into each
> other, though.
>
How can it have OLE?
<snip>
Im tired of your whining. SO is micor$oft software. Get over it. AND it
IS widely deployed inthe *nix world. get over that too.
>
> > > Most of the GNU stuff is command line
> > > tools useful mainly to programmers.
> >
> > really? Are you sure? Do you count GPLed apps as GNU apps?
>
> Of course not.
>
Tell us... just how does an app get to be a GNU app?
> [snip]
> > > That is kind of what "mainting it's ill gotten monopoly" means,
> > > actually. But the rewards of getting ahead- and thereby
> > > pilfering said monopoly- are very great.
> >
> > What the hell is pilfering the monopoly?
>
> You know. Taking over from Microsoft.
>
Yeah, right.
> [snip]
> > > > They how did they achieve dominance?
> > >
> > > In my opinion? *Partly* through
> > > product quality.
> >
> > Bullshit.
>
> You don't agree, but you don't
> really have much of an argument
> against it, either.
>
If stated over and over again. m$ products are merely "good enough" That
is all m$ aspires to, if that.
> [snip]
> > > Apple had a workable GUI system
> > > *years* in advance of Microsoft's
> > > offering; MS had been vastly too
> > > ambitious for 1985 PC technology
> > > and their early Windows product
> > > was unusable; in no small part they
> > > simply waited 5 years for the PC
> > > hardware to catch up.
> >
> > They already had a DOS monopoly going.
>
> They obviously didn't think that was
> good enough- they went for Windows
> anyway. Microsoft was agressive;
> they didn't assume that their dominance
> with DOS was some kind of divine
> right to rule.
>
Didint matter what they "thought" They already had a monopoly.
> That is why they are still on top.
>
They are still on top because of predatory, anti-competitive behavior.
> [snip]
> > Apple didnt give m$ anything. Atari and Commodore had "cheap" GUI
> > alternatives. They died.
>
> They had very weak GUI alternatives,
> and they had seriously problematic
> management, even compared to Apple.
>
They had "weak" GUI alternatives? compare to what m$ was offering at the
time?
BWAHAHAHahahahahahah.. ahahahahahahhaa.... ahahahahahahaha
> [snip]
> > > Again, MS wasn't divinely ordained
> > > the 5 extra years they needed; they
> > > got them because IBM made a mistake.
> >
> > .. and riding on their DOS monopoly.
>
> As I've said, I think they could have
> done without, given that everything else
> that historically broke for them
> still does.
>
.. riding on their DOS monopoly.
> The DOS "monopoly" gave them
> revenue, but I think they could have
> scraped by without it. It gave them
> very little else.
>
It gave them control of the OS, you idiot.
> [snip]
> > > Microsoft thought Netscape was a threat and
> > > moved aggressively on many fronts to counter;
> > > while that *was* good for the consumer, it was
> > > still based on a false assumption- that Netscape
> > > could become a platform.
> >
> > They moved through forced bundling, threatening ISPs anf finally by
> > "integrating" the browser into the OS.
>
> They tried bundling from day 1 with IE, but
> it did not work. They wound up having to
> improve the product.
>
No, they did not. The Plus CD had to be purchased. They wound up have to
"integrate" it into the OS.
> But they also cut deals with ISPs to distribute
> the thing, and they never stopped bundling it,
> unless you think "intergration" is fundamentally
> different from bundling.
>
You are an idiot. Of course "integrating" is different than bundling.
> They used a howitzer to squash a gnat, and
> they missed the real threat.
>
Who was the gnat and what was the threat?
> > > We *now* know that Netscape had terrible
> > > code quality problems that precluded any
> > > such strategy from working.
> >
> > No, we dont.
>
> It was pretty easy to guess they had
> a problem even before they open
> sourced it- NetScape always suffered
> from terrible stability problems.
OK... you A+CANT be this stupid... so you HAVE to be dishonest.
Netscape open sourced to gain unpaid developers. They were hoping they
could hold of m$ in this way. Stop lying... to us and yourself.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should an OS cost money?
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 11:59:43 +0100
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> pip wrote:
>
> > As a Java programmer I certainly do :) But Java is no panacea.
>
> My experience is that Java is not as safe from buffer overruns as Sun
> would like you to believe. For example, one time I saw a bunch of
> garbage in a String object I had create; it had all kinds of junk
> followed by java.lang.string repeated multiple times.
I'm affraid I am about to prove you wrong.
> Check out this monstrosity I concocted:
>
> class calc {
> static String tohex(int num) {
> int r, q;
> StringBuffer sb = new StringBuffer(20), sdig;
> String[] dig = {"A", "B", "C", "D", "E", "F"};
> q=num;
> sb.append("0x");
> do {
> r = q % 16;
> sdig = new StringBuffer (r<10?Integer.toString(r):dig[r%10]);
> sb.append(dig);
//And here is the problem! sb.append(dig)
// a) It's wrong - it should be sb.append(sdig);
// b) You are appending an array object which will give you the memory
address
// of the allocated object. You get the same address three times as you
iterate three times!
// Sorry no overrun here. Just a simple error! Buffer overrun's are not
possible in Java.
> q = q / 16;
> } while (q>0);
> //sb.reverse();
> return (new String(sb));
> }
> }
>
> public class app {
> public static void main(String[] args) {
>
>
> String s;
> s = calc.tohex(1994);
> System.out.println("1994 = " + s);
> }
> }
>
> Here's the output when you run "java app" on the monstrosity:
>
> cd /usr/home/dmmiller/tmp/
> java -classpath app
>
> 1994 =
>
>0x[Ljava.lang.String;@255efb47[Ljava.lang.String;@255efb47[Ljava.lang.String;@255efb47
>
> Process app finished
>
> Of course, I finally found and fixed the problem. But, I thought it was
> intesting that Java would allow such a value to be written. It looks as
> though a bad address bad its way into the String. The good part is that
> any buffer over-runs would be constricted to the JVM, and not allowed to
> spread to the OS.
Well I hope my explination helps to clarify this misconception. If only
Linux advocacy could be conducted like this :)
------------------------------
From: Burkhard =?iso-8859-1?Q?W=F6lfel?=
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, 29 May 2001 12:31:42 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Name another *market* where a single *brand* is known to the common
> consumer. ONLY a single brand, and most people have never even heard of
> any alternative
Polaroid
--
=============================================
Burkhard Wölfel
v e r s u c h s a n s t a l t (at) g m x . de
pubkey for this adress @ pgp.net
=============================================
------------------------------
From: Burkhard =?iso-8859-1?Q?W=F6lfel?=
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, 29 May 2001 12:44:30 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> This is a tedious long post,
> but I think my reflection on StarOffice
> may be of general interest; page down
> a bit, they are in there.
>
> snipsnipsnip
> I now know, however, the Clippy the Office
> Assistant is *dead*. No, not just unemployed as
> those sugarcoated revisionist Flash animations at
> http://www.microsoft.com/Office/clippy/default.asp
> would have you believe. Dead.
>
> I know this because his ghost is haunting the
> StarOffice help system; little help boxes pop up
> unbidden, leaping right on the way, moved as if by
> an unseen hand.
>
the soffice52-"clippy" warned me once that autocorrect was triggered.
Wouldn't have noticed otherwise.
I click the checkbox saying: "don't laucnch autocorrect at... event" or
so.
It IS annoying, of course. But it's easy to switch off.
But I don't say you were wrong.
Cheers, butch
--
=============================================
Burkhard Wölfel
v e r s u c h s a n s t a l t (at) g m x . de
pubkey for this adress @ pgp.net
=============================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
