Linux-Advocacy Digest #841, Volume #34 Tue, 29 May 01 16:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly ("Mike")
Re: Businessweek: 'Rah Rah Microsoft!' ("Mike")
Re: Why does Linux / OSS community love mailing lists and hate news servers? (Colin
Watson)
Re: A new concept for our friends in misc.fitness.weights: SexualMarketValue
(SMV) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: ease and convenience (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Darin Johnson)
Re: Opera ("spicerun")
Re: It just keeps on getting better! ("spicerun")
Re: ease and convenience ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Josiah Fizer)
Re: IBM to let Linux fans use mainframe--for free (drsquare)
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly (drsquare)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (drsquare)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (drsquare)
Re: Opera (drsquare)
Re: Opera (drsquare)
Re: Opera (drsquare)
Re: Opera (drsquare)
Re: Opera (drsquare)
Re: Opera (drsquare)
Re: Opera (drsquare)
Re: Opera (drsquare)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 02:51:46 +0800
On Wed, 30 May 2001 02:00:17 +0800, Eugenio Mastroviti wrote:
>> Also, I fail to understand how you could possibly have installed Win2K
>> without repartitioning and reformatting as NTFS. In that respect
>> (destroying existing data), Linux and WinNT/2K are on equal footing. Be
>> warned, if you installed to a FAT32 partition, you had better keep the
>> machine behind a very tight firewall...
> Sorry, mine IS behind a tight firewall, and I only use it for
> videogames, as I do everything else with SuSE 7.1, so I won't claim I'm
> a Windows expert - but why the difference in security between the 2
> filesystems?
I'm no expert at all - but NTFS does have a lot of security built in. I
think it is similair to *NIX filesystems, in that you can allow different
users different access levels to files and directories.
As opposed to FAT32 that has NO filesystem-level security. The best you
can do is make a file read-only and hope you don't click "Yes, I *really*
want to delete the file" by mistake.
In terms of network security on FAT32, it's equivalent to running all
your services as root on a linux box - if the server is defective and a
remote entity can coerce into running a command...
Another example is file sharing - if you have a writeable fileshare on a
FAT32 partition open to guest access, anyone who can access your machine
from the internet can potentially play with it (I don't know if other
access controls in 2K would prevent this)
Just my 1c.
--
Mike.
Remove "-spam" to mail me.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Businessweek: 'Rah Rah Microsoft!'
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 02:55:05 +0800
On Wed, 30 May 2001 03:16:20 +0800, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> Just as a note, bonobo (they *really* has to start finding better naming
> techniques in the OSS) is based/ispired on COM. And, I believe, COM is a
> standard as well.
I love the OSS naming standards. I'll take potato, seawolf and zoot over
95->2000, Me, NT and XP any day :-)
--
Mike.
Remove "-spam" to mail me.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Colin Watson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Why does Linux / OSS community love mailing lists and hate news servers?
Date: 29 May 2001 18:53:47 GMT
Villy Kruse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 May 2001 13:17:36 -0000,
> Jan Schaumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Mutt (http://www.mutt.org) and Gnus (was it http://www.gnus.org?) both
>>thread very nicely.
>
>How does it do this without In-Reply-To: headers or something similar?
>
>Even if mutt or gnus generates those headers, that doesn't make every
>other mail program do the same.
In practice, the majority of messages on the mailing lists I'm on
(Debian plus a few others) do have at least In-Reply-To: set where
appropriate. The few that don't aren't enough of a problem to worry
about.
--
Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
"A recommended acceptance test might be to experiment with subjects
whose skulls are only at partial vacuum, such as Vice-Presidents of
Marketing." - RFC 1437
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.jackie-tokeman,soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A new concept for our friends in misc.fitness.weights:
SexualMarketValue (SMV)
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 19:06:05 GMT
Followups restricted to a single group.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, BrendaLee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 28 May 2001 16:56:52 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>"Public " wrote:
>>
>> brenda lee amidala wrote:
>>
>> >> Still Rockin' Aound that Christmas Tree?
>> >
>> >Hee, One of her better songs, I think..
>> >
>> >BrendaLee
>> >
>> >BTW.. trees rock!
>>
>> how is brenda lee and a christmas ornament similar?
>> they're cute on the outside
>> and empty on the inside
>
>I am sorry you see me in that light for I am as rich and
>illuminated on the inside as I am on the outside..
Twinkle Twinkle Brenda Lee,
Oh it's nice that you I see,
Up above the non-debate,
With the jackie tokeman bait...
OK, so I got inspired for some bizarre reason. :-)
Now, erm, what precisely was this subthread about again?
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random very bad poetry/song here
EAC code #191 29d:10h:08m actually running Linux.
Life's getting too complicated, even listening to the radio.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 19:12:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Todd
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 28 May 2001 13:48:15 +0800
<9esojp$edm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Todd wrote:
>> >
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:yAHP6.22323$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > Not sure why you chose to do it the hard way...
>> >
>> > Windows:
>> >
>> > 1) Start->Windows Update
>> > 2) Download your browser of choice IE 5.5 or 6.
>>
>> Only if you're a fucking MORON
>
>You just called most of the computer literate population a 'fucking MORON'.
>
>You have some nerve.
Perhaps a good chunk of the Windows-using computer literate population.
There are other operating systems, you know. :-) (Some of them
might even stay up for more than a month on a regular basis. :-) )
(Side note: IE is now part of Windows, as of 98 and W2k. Therefore,
one might download IE6, but that's about it.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 99999 = 9 days uptime, 9 crashes afterwards, 99 bugs,
and 9 versions of what is supposed to be the same API :-)
EAC code #191 29d:19h:30m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. When it absolutely, positively has to act weird.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 19:15:39 GMT
unicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While the bloated giant Microsoft is buying favorable publicity
> in News-fluff magazines with promises of big chunks of
> advertising for the X-flop video game, smart firms are realizing
> the truth - Microsoft is in serious trouble.
Actually, as far as the X box goes, I've talked to a game developer
from a well known game company, that is anxious for X box to succeed.
The reason is that the other big console boxes charge huge license
fees ($20-40 per game), thus making games more expensive and cutting
into profits.
So in this sense, even though I dislike Microsoft, if they can help
break open other markets, then that's good (as long as they don't turn
around and monopolize it later).
------------------------------
From: "spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 13:29:56 -0500
In article <1104_990887593@terry>, "Terry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Many of you seem to be having troubles with your browsers and the
> features some of them have. If you want a really useful, Linux compliant
> browser, try Opera.
>
Too expensive for licensing multiple copies.... Now, if they were to
change their licensing to allow me to buy one copy and use it on 3 of my
own machines, then I'd consider Opera. Personally, I dislike paying for
the same program more than once.
------------------------------
From: "spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It just keeps on getting better!
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 13:35:53 -0500
In article <oveQ6.7906$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Les
Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You must have Win98 Second Edition to get internet sharing. It actually
> does work fairly painlessly if you don't have any existing network setup
> that you need to preserve (like printers or other devices with
> previously assigned addresses). However, Linux has had the ability to
> do internet sharing for years before Microsoft thought of it but until
> recently you had to configure it by hand.
>
>
I believe MS also limits you to a maximum of 5 computers on their Internet
Sharing....whereas Linux has no limits built into the software. You're
only dependent on the bandwidth of your connection and the horsepower of
your machine to share your connection under Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:47:37 +0200
"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9esohj$ed3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> With Windows, there is a *central* help system for all OS related things
> that is *fully* text indexed for easy retrieval.
Hi, that is not fair, Linux has one too, it's called "man"
As in, the man is after you, I'm presuming.*
Of course, people** think that they should be obsolete, they seem to think
so for a very long time, but nothing has popped up so far that can replace
them.
[*] Or manual, but I like my version better.
[**] by people I don't mean anybody special, just me, bunch of friends, the
GNU people, and a large number of Linux users.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:52:27 +0200
"Burkhard Wölfel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[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.
On what system?
Can't tell for Linux, but on Windows, I can do just about anything without
needing the mouse.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 22:03:22 +0200
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9euom4$lob$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > > It's not necessarily the case that you need a good understand of the
API
> > > and library in order to use it. I agree knowing the API helps, but I
> > > don't think it's essential.
> >
> > Doing it this way mean that you don't understand what is going on in
your
> > program.
> > This mean that if your program in inefficent, you don't know how to fix
it.
> > If there is a bug, you may be at lost as where to start fixing it.
>
> Efficiency can depend on how well written the library is, surely.
And how well you use it, which is why you need to know it well.
> And you can spot immediately your bug with 1,000 lines of code?
If I wrote it, probably within 30 minutes of finding out about the bug.
If I didn't, it can take longer.
KLOC is not so bad to debug.
Especially since this small a unit tend to do just one thing.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[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 22:05:57 +0200
"Burkhard Wölfel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> try
> http://www.microsoft.com/PIRACY/samguide/tools/lic_types/default.asp
Non of them talks about Office license.
Replying on top is discouraged, btw.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[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 22:19:53 +0200
"Dan Pidcock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I was under the impression that you could use code released under GPL
> in your own commercial product as long as you supplied source code to
> the stuff you nicked from GPL: not necessarily your stuff. Any GPL
> experts care to confirm/deny this?
You must license *all* your code under the GPL if you use even one GPL
function.
Same if you link (statically or dynamically) to a GPL shared library.
The issue gets fuzzier if you are using LGPL code, apperantly there are some
situations where you still need to release *your* code under LGPL if you use
LGPL code.
> How about comparing Windows 3.0 and OS 2/2.1. Or Internet explorer 3
> with Netscape at the time. They start crap and lumber their way along
> to good enough, hustling competition out of the way.
The quality of IE3 & NS3 wasn't very different.
The difference was that NS has tons of users, and IE had to attract new
users, because it wasn't obviously much better than NS, people used what
they knew.
On IE4, IE was obviously better than NS, enough to cause people to move.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 22:25:21 +0200
"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Another example is file sharing - if you have a writeable fileshare on a
> FAT32 partition open to guest access, anyone who can access your machine
> from the internet can potentially play with it (I don't know if other
> access controls in 2K would prevent this)
Then can, but I've no idea to what level of granulity they can do that on an
FAT system.
I think you are down to read/read-write only.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 22:29:49 +0200
"Eugenio Mastroviti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chronos Tachyon wrote:
>
> > Also, I fail to understand how you could possibly have installed Win2K
> > without repartitioning and reformatting as NTFS. In that respect
> > (destroying existing data), Linux and WinNT/2K are on equal footing. Be
> > warned, if you installed to a FAT32 partition, you had better keep the
> > machine behind a very tight firewall...
>
> Sorry, mine IS behind a tight firewall, and I only use it for
> videogames, as I do everything else with SuSE 7.1, so I won't claim I'm
> a Windows expert - but why the difference in security between the 2
> filesystems?
> If you think it's OT here, would you please send me an email? I'm really
> curious.
FAT32 is a hack on top of a hack that goes back nearly 30 years ago.
It wasn't even designed to support *directories*.
It's security is *entirely* optional.
That is, read-only files, they are implemented via a flag that tell the
application "this is a read-only file, you shouldn't touch it".
There is *nothing* to prevent the application from modifying it.
It's like running everything on root.
On the contrary, NTFS is a designed FS, so it has many advantages, built-in
security is one of them.
NTFS is comparable to *nix FS, it's built to be secure & reliable, FAT isn't
build to be anything, it just grew.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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 19:39:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 29 May 2001 11:29:13 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Burkhard Wölfel wrote:
>>
>>
>> > 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
>
>Kodak <grin>.
>
>Kleenex.
>
>Puffs <grin>
>
>Coke.
>
>Pepsi <grin>
>
>Microsoft.
>
>Apple <grin>
>IBM <grin>
Xerox -- although Canon, Ricoh, IBM, and others may be changing that.
But the word "xerox" -- meaning "duplicate via photoelectronic means" --
has passed into more or less common usage (presumably to Xerox's
intense annoyance).
Microsoft should be so lucky. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random brand name here
EAC code #191 29d:19h:37m actually running Linux.
This is a pithy statement. Please watch where you pith.
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[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 12:44:17 -0700
On Tue, 29 May 2001 19:39:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Tue, 29 May 2001 11:29:13 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Burkhard Wölfel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > 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
>>
>>Kodak <grin>.
>>
>>Kleenex.
>>
>>Puffs <grin>
>>
>>Coke.
>>
>>Pepsi <grin>
>>
>>Microsoft.
>>
>>Apple <grin>
>>IBM <grin>
>
>Xerox -- although Canon, Ricoh, IBM, and others may be changing that.
>But the word "xerox" -- meaning "duplicate via photoelectronic means" --
>has passed into more or less common usage (presumably to Xerox's
>intense annoyance).
>
>Microsoft should be so lucky. :-)
q-tip?
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM to let Linux fans use mainframe--for free
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 20:49:12 +0100
On Mon, 28 May 2001 01:17:39 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Stephen Rank wrote:
>>
>> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> When posting long URL's please adjust your line length so that they don't
>> >> get fucked up
>> >
>> > Am I the only one who enjoys the irony of a complaint about netiquette
>> > coming with a sig over *50* lines long?
>> >
>> No, but a lot of the guys here simply killfiled that jerk.
>> He´s simply not worth *any* effort at reading.
>This is why you fail.
This is why most people killfile you.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 20:49:13 +0100
On Sun, 27 May 2001 00:44:04 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)) wrote:
>On Sat, 26 May 2001 13:46:55 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 May 2001 00:44:02 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)) wrote:
>
>> >XFree86 on Cygwin still has some problems. But Cygwin itself seems to
>> >work fine for me. What do you think is wrong with it?
>>
>> The installation program leaves it with about 400000 errors and
>> missing DLLs.
>Hmm...the version I installed about three months ago worked fine. Was
>this on NT or 9x? Win9x is known to be more problematic than NT as far
>as running Cygwin.
98.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 20:49:14 +0100
On Sun, 27 May 2001 19:02:24 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Philip Nicholls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>On 24 May 2001 17:47:01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad
>Everett) wrote:
>>Can I setup Windows XP at home so that I can log into it via ssh and have
>>a server running that acts as a proxy web browser, allowing me to
>>browse the web from my machine at work over an encrypted channel and
>>bypassing the filters on my company's firewall? And do all this with
>>out-of-the-box free software?
>Can the average Joe or Jane off the street do this with your free
>software? Would the average Joe or Jane off the street even WANT to
>do any of this?
If they wouldn't want to do this, then how is it relevant?
>>Can I use Windows XP as a NAT server and firewall and allow the machines
>>on my LAN to all share a single internet connection? And do all this with
>>out-of-the-box free software?
>>
>>Can I use Windows XP as a software development platform with the software
>>that it comes with, without the need to purchase additional software for
>>lots of money?
>>
>>I can do all this and more with linux, for free.
>Bully for you. And how many other people on your block have the
>technical expertise to do all this?
>
>I'll tell you a secret. Most of them don't, most of them don't CARE.
>Windows XP caters to them.
It's not that difficult.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 20:49:15 +0100
On Sun, 27 May 2001 22:54:55 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Most of the stuff you mentioned has better alternatives in Windows
>(like cmd.exe instead of bash, IIS instead of apache, ASP instead of PHP,
>Windows instead of X, jesus christ, etc) so you wouldn't need to download
>most of it.
Are you actually TAKING the PISS?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 20:49:16 +0100
On Sun, 27 May 2001 04:49:27 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>Many of you seem to be having troubles with your browsers and the
>> >>features some of them have. If you want a really useful, Linux
>> >>compliant browser, try Opera.
>> >Opera?
>> >
>> >Yuk!!!!!
>> If you don't like Opera, then must DEPISE netscape and IE. What
>> browser do you use then?
>lynx?
Oh, well, with such an AMAZING browser, he can't go wrong.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 20:49:17 +0100
On Sun, 27 May 2001 02:57:16 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>On Sun, 27 May 2001 02:34:57 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>If you don't like Opera, then must DEPISE netscape and IE. What
>>browser do you use then?
>Netscape sucks, on any platform.
Agreed.
>I liked Opera when it fit on one floppy disk, now it's just another
>bloated browser and to pay for it?
> Why?
What do you mean, pay for it?
>I use IE 5.0 under Win2k with just about everything turned off.
I tried that, but there's still too much shite. For instance, you
can't spontaneously turn on all the images, or press Ctrl+N to open a
new sub-window for another site, and you can't turn off automatic
referrers.
>I use Agent for email and news.
Agent: one of the only reasons I still use Windows. Apart from the
fact I haven't fully set up linux yet, and I have a winmodem.
>Works great and takes me out of the Outlook loop.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 20:49:18 +0100
On Sun, 27 May 2001 14:34:32 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>On Sun, 27 May 2001 12:59:23 GMT, "Paul Dossett"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Ah, yes, all the flaws, none of the frills. Makes sense to me.
>
>Not really, just none of the Active-x and Java scripting stuff.
>It's rare that I find a page that won't load with IE 5.0 in that
>configuration.
>
>Compare that to Opera which always seems to be missing some plug-in or
>another, and that is with the full version.
Who the fuck uses plugins anyway?
>Compare to Konquerer which seems to have lot's of troubles with pages.
>
>Compare to Netscape which under Linux is awful and under Windows is so
>bloated that the entire machine grinds to a halt just loading the
>beast :)
That's what happens with NOTEPAD under Windows.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 20:49:19 +0100
On Mon, 28 May 2001 03:59:18 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Paul Dossett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"flatfish+++" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 27 May 2001 12:59:23 GMT, "Paul Dossett"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Ah, yes, all the flaws, none of the frills. Makes sense to me.
>>
>> Not really, just none of the Active-x and Java scripting stuff.
>> It's rare that I find a page that won't load with IE 5.0 in that
>> configuration.
>Ah, understood. I thought you meant you'd disabled images and flash
>animations, and all that jazz.
Which is all useless. Apart from the occasional image, or when all the
menus are images instead of text because the administrator is a
complete WANKER.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 20:49:19 +0100
On Sun, 27 May 2001 14:36:27 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>On Sun, 27 May 2001 13:43:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
>wrote:
>>On Sun, 27 May 2001 02:57:16 GMT, flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I liked Opera when it fit on one floppy disk, now it's just another
>>> bloated browser and to pay for it?
>>Yeah, what a bloat-monster. 2.5 MB for the Windows version.
>With Java it is 9.96 meg.
Who the fuck uses Java anyway?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 20:49:20 +0100
On Sun, 27 May 2001 03:18:42 +0000, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Thrippleton)) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare wrote:
>>On Sat, 26 May 2001 17:59:14 +0000, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Thrippleton)) wrote:
>>>In article <1104_990887593@terry>, Terry wrote:
>>>>Many of you seem to be having troubles with your browsers and the
>>>>features some of them have. If you want a really useful, Linux
>>>>compliant browser, try Opera.
>>
>>> Can't stand the adverts. Besides, it's non-free as in speech.
>>>I prefer Links myself.
>>
>>What adverts? My version doesn't have any adverts? Is that just the
>>linux version?
> Version 5 for Linux has adverts. How does the Windows version
>persuade you to buy the full version?
I don't know, but then again I've cracked it.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 20:49:21 +0100
On Sun, 27 May 2001 03:59:57 +0000, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Thrippleton)) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Thrippleton wrote:
>>In article <1104_990887593@terry>, Terry wrote:
>>>Many of you seem to be having troubles with your browsers and the
>>>features some of them have. If you want a really useful, Linux
>>>compliant browser, try Opera.
>>>
>> Can't stand the adverts. Besides, it's non-free as in speech.
>>I prefer Links myself.
> Following up on the adverts;
>ipchains -A output -d 207.69.194.213 -j DENY
>ipchains -A output -d 209.11.42.244 -j DENY
Yeah, but I bet you'll still have the area where it's supposed to be
taking up half the screen.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 20:49:22 +0100
On Sun, 27 May 2001 17:36:44 +0800, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >It was great until it crashed.
>>
>> Mine's NEVER crashed, and I use it all the time.
>Ok, so other poster's versions did crash and took Linux with them (as in the
>core dump from the previous poster who uses linux).
>
>And you just claim that you use it "all the time".
>
>> Netscape and IE crash
>> every few days.
>They crash 'every few days' which is implying you don't use Opera all the
>time ???
>
>Which is it?
Before I got Opera I used Netscape, before that IE.
>> And they're slower and less powerful than Opera.
>So why do you use *both* Netscape and IE then???
I DON'T NOW I HAVE OPERA.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
