Linux-Advocacy Digest #997, Volume #34 Tue, 5 Jun 01 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications (Sean)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Jim Richardson)
Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Jim
Richardson)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Michael Vester)
Microsoft GPL'S WINDOWS! (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:39:03 GMT
The ugliest part of the CNET article is that it implies that
the coolest way to communicate with "friends, family and colleagues"
is using a computer. What happened to seeing your family <gasp!>
face to face! What happened to <gasp!> walking to your colleague's
cube and <horror!> actually talking to them. The stated benefit
of the XP communication tools is that they are "real-time"....as
though face-to-face communication was not "real time".
This piece of astroturf takes alienation to a whole new level,
and you need to pay Gates money for the privilege at the same
time. Perhaps it's true, then, that Gates is not really human!
Sean
====
LShaping wrote:
>
> http://investor.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-6177688-0.html?tag=ltnc
> <snip>
> LShaping
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:39:01 GMT
"Christopher L. Estep" wrote:
>
> How many UNIX geeks know about SAMBA (a slick little utility that enables
> UNIX/Linux clients to co-exist in Windows-based networks)?
Every geek who's installed Linux.
> Here's the most
> telling argument about SAMBA: it's not only included with any decent distro
> of UNIX/Linux, SAMBA even works against Windows *2000*-based networks.
> Microsoft could choose to wreck SAMBA, but hasn't (and won't, either).
That's because wrecking SAMBA would wreck their own CIFS networking.
Big deal. How about the unused field in Kerberos packets?
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 22:39:16 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "flatfish+++"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Setup.exe
> 1.Please Enter your Newserver Name.
> 2.Please enter your Pop server.
> 3. Please enter your name. ( Maybe this is the one they had trouble
> with?)
> 4.Shall I go online and retrieve a list of groups?
>
> That's real tough....
Yeh, installing stuff on Windows is so easy - until something goes wrong.
Case in point - I bought a Linksys ethernet card. Installed with no
problem on Linux. On Windows, I had to use the driver disk that came
with the card. No problem - or so I thought. But the install failed
midway through, complaining about some geeky file not being readable.
After careful inspection of the contents of the disk, I discover that there
are unreadable files. Ok, that happens. I got a bad disk. So I went
over to the Linksys web site, downloaded a fresh copy, and created a new
driver disk. Brought windows back up and it tried to install the driver.
No luck - it keeps complaining about one file or another. After a few
hours of tedious detetctive work, I discover that the problem now is that
the driver installation was half done. I carefully searched for all the
files that had been installed during the initial failed attempt and manually
deleted them. Finally, the install worked.
Now this could have all been avoided if Windows would just do a sanity
check first before starting the install. RPM does this, why can't
Windows? I have, on occasion had a bad download of an rpm file, but rpm
won't even start the install if there is problem so I' not left with the
thing half installed.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 21:41:59 -0500
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fji5f$hb1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:My9T6.8045$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9fi8iq$md7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > >
> > > Okay, why I don't like this?
> > > Why would the kernel BSOD just because the GUI crash? It should
restart
> > it,
> > > not stop.
> >
> > Why should it restart it? If the GUI crashes, that means something is
> > seriously wrong, and will likely just crash again.
>
> Why should the GUI crashing cause a full system halt?
> NT is aimed at servers, not just desktops. This just doesn't makes sense.
> Other platforms don't crash if there is a crash in the GUI (well, not
> always.)
What you fail to realize is that the GUI subsystem ran in the same subsystem
as other critical services as well. If that subsystem crashes, then you
lose a lot more than just the GUI.
> > > This doesn't sound right, and it's certainly not an excuse.
> > > It would crash *anyway* ?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Why? What is the reason for this decision?
How should I know? It just is.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 21:43:10 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9fhjt5$49d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:9fhcis$bqn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > "pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > daniel wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The core of the OS has not, and should not have anything to do
with
> > it's
> > > > > interface utilities in terms of robustness. Here you may insert
the
> > > > > problems of GDI being in kernel space.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you read "Inside Windows 2000", it thoroughly debunks the myth
that
> > > it's
> > > > bad for stability (from a guy with access to the source, and a guy
with
> > > > um... SoftICE)
> > >
> > > I don't have this book, and orderring it will take a month.
> > > Can you give a list of the reasons?
> >
> > Basically, the reason is that the way NT is designed, if the GUI
subsystem
> > faults, then the OS blue screens anyways, whether or not it runs in
kernel
> > space. The OS's main thread drops to a blue screen when the GUI
subsystem
> > dies.
>
> That was one of MS most dumbest decisions... bringing the GUI into ring
> 0. It should have been kept out in another ring.
You're not understanding. It doesn't matter if it ran in ring 0 or not, if
the GUI crashes, so does the OS, even if it's not running in ring 0.
------------------------------
From: Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:39:24 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In msgid <9f5eqf$if2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote: on
Thursday 31 May 2001 06:50
>
> "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 31 May 2001 09:24:15 +0100,
>> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > Ah I see what you mean. You mean control of windows. I had noticed you
>> > can drag around a window in Linux when its process is hung, something
>> > you can't do on Windows. However, that's not a huge advantage. I have
>> > seen you can kill a window on X but leave its process still hung and
>> > running. I think the same is possible on Windows.
>>
>> If Windows had a native process display, then you would know.
>>
>> With Linux if an app hangs and its window is unusable, one can easily
>> find the process and kill it.
>
> Same in Windows, what is your point?
>
>
>
>
difference is, when I kill -9 something, the SOB dies, when you
ctrl-alt-del and "kill" a task in Windows, you have no idea if it is
actually going to die or not. It's been my experience with W9X, that about
50% of the time, the process will not die, and will hose the system,
forcing a reboot. With linux, the worst case scenario, is that the process
is a zombie, in which case, doing kill -HUP on it's owning process will
take care of it.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:48:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gary Hallock wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "flatfish+++"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Setup.exe
>> 1.Please Enter your Newserver Name.
>> 2.Please enter your Pop server.
>> 3. Please enter your name. ( Maybe this is the one they had trouble
>> with?)
>> 4.Shall I go online and retrieve a list of groups?
>>
>> That's real tough....
>
>Yeh, installing stuff on Windows is so easy - until something goes wrong.
>Case in point - I bought a Linksys ethernet card. Installed with no
>problem on Linux. On Windows, I had to use the driver disk that came
>with the card. No problem - or so I thought. But the install failed
>midway through, complaining about some geeky file not being readable.
>After careful inspection of the contents of the disk, I discover that there
>are unreadable files. Ok, that happens. I got a bad disk. So I went
>over to the Linksys web site, downloaded a fresh copy, and created a new
>driver disk. Brought windows back up and it tried to install the driver.
> No luck - it keeps complaining about one file or another. After a few
>hours of tedious detetctive work, I discover that the problem now is that
>the driver installation was half done. I carefully searched for all the
>files that had been installed during the initial failed attempt and manually
>deleted them. Finally, the install worked.
>
And if you think that's a ball of shit, just try de-installing
WIN card hardware from the registry when you have to switch
to a new WIN card. WIN cards and WIN hardware are a cancer
even upon MS OS's.
>Now this could have all been avoided if Windows would just do a sanity
>check first before starting the install. RPM does this, why can't
>Windows? I have, on occasion had a bad download of an rpm file, but rpm
>won't even start the install if there is problem so I' not left with the
>thing half installed.
>
>Gary
MS leaves the installation of drivers up to the capable hands
of 10,000 seperate comanies. There is about as much control
in doing what they did as feeding time for the monkey's at
the zoo.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 02:49:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sean wrote:
>The ugliest part of the CNET article is that it implies that
>the coolest way to communicate with "friends, family and colleagues"
>is using a computer. What happened to seeing your family <gasp!>
>face to face! What happened to <gasp!> walking to your colleague's
>cube and <horror!> actually talking to them. The stated benefit
>of the XP communication tools is that they are "real-time"....as
>though face-to-face communication was not "real time".
>
>This piece of astroturf takes alienation to a whole new level,
>and you need to pay Gates money for the privilege at the same
>time. Perhaps it's true, then, that Gates is not really human!
>
>Sean
>====
>
>LShaping wrote:
>>
>> http://investor.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-6177688-0.html?tag=ltnc
>> <snip>
>> LShaping
The coolest part of the NEW Windows is it's constant contact
with MS about everything you have installed on your Windows
box, legal or illegal.
They are going to sell the information to prosecutors.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 19:56:08 -0700
In article <l10T6.7283$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> How would you propose that it be kept in the public domain without some
>> form of restrictive licensing? Publically funded research
>> automagically becoming public domain is a myth as far as I am
>> concerned.
>
> Huh? Once it's in the public domain, it's always in the public domain.
Ohmygawd. This is so wrong I don't really know quite where to begin.
"... some 73 percent of the science papers cited by U.S. industry patents
were public science - authored at universities, laboratories, and other
organizations primarily funded by public resources."
http://www.chiresearch.com/nltviii1.htm
Intellectual property does not enter into the public domain simply because
it was publicly funded. That is a myth and a misconception, and I stand
by my original statement.
If you want more information on publicly funded intellectual property,
then just plug that term into Google and you'll get thousands of
references. Additionally, many "publicly funded" universities either have
a technology transfer office or an explicit copyright policy and an IP
review process that addresses publicly funded research. Here's a good
place to start....
http://www.library.yale.edu/~okerson/copyproj.html
In my case (which you snipped), I, as the author, transferred my rights to
my employer; my employer effectively became my publisher. My employer
then transferred distribution rights to our sponsor in exchange for
indefinite royalty-free use of the copyrighted material. I am still the
author, the sponsor is my publisher. I can use it, they can use it, you
can't. Unless you pay. Even though it was publicly funded research.
> Yes, a company can try to patent it or copyright it, but the prior art
> is there and obvious. Any lawsuit will show that.
Prior art is a concept that only applies to patents; I was talking about
copyright. There is a similar concept in copyright law called
"originality" (or novelty), but with subtle yet significant legal
differences. Read Justice Learned Hand's ruling in Sheldon v.
Metro-Goldwyn Pictures, 81 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1936) to gain an understanding
of the difference.
>> If you want a modern day corollary, just look at what Microsoft did
>> with Kerberos. Kerberos development was publically funded, but through
>> the simple addition of an extension to the standard, it became
>> copyrighted Microsoft intellectual property. So even though Microsoft
>> Kerberos was primarily developed with public funds, you will have to
>> pay to use it.
> No, you are mistaken. The only thing MS copyrighted was their
> extension, not Kerberos itself. Further, the Kerberos team actually
> created the extension field themselves specifically for uses like this.
>From Microsoft's original Kerberos agreement....
"Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v. 1.0 for Microsoft Windows
2000 Operating Systems, April, 2000; Copyright 2000 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved. "
Do you see any attributions there? I don't.
And in reality, Microsoft has every right to copyright the entire content.
Ideas are not copyrightable (Judge Learned Hand again), and a
specification such as Kerberos is merely an idea. Microsoft's
implementation, if completely re-written to implement the idea being
copied, and without plagiarizing from any other source, is lawfully
copyrightable "en toto". This is one of the legal precepts that allow
projects like Samba to thrive. If you want to deny Microsoft this right,
then you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
> It would help if you didn't distort the facts.
It would help if you had some facts.
------------------------------
From: Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 19:46:44 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In msgid <3b17aa90$0$94311$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
on Friday 01 June 2001 07:45
>
> "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> > For being customizability hounds and bashing on MS, you guys really
>> > have no concept of accessibility. Not everyone is a white male that
>> > can walk, talk, hear, see, has 10 fingers and toes, and can speak
>> > English.
>> >
>>
>> Is this the reason why SuSE scans for Braille-devices during setup?
>
> Oh yeah, one set of devices for one class of handicapped invidiual.
> I'm sure this device is pervasive throughout the OS and every
> app can use it, right? Sure... right.
>
why not? it's just an input device, any app asking for input, can use it.
> So I have a braille device, but it probably won't do me any good
> because half the apps (probably more) won't support it, or it
> doesn't support some of the features necessary to run Linux.
can you give an example?
> Have all braille devices been written to the stringent X
> windows standard that apparently Logitech hasn't achieved?
how so? I have a logitech cordless mouse, and trackball (usb both) they
work great. I will probably get the cordless kbd in a week or two.
>> Because Wintendo showed them how to do it?
>>
>> Tell us, Chaddy boy, what Braille-devices does windows support
>> out of the box, even automagically set up during install?
>
> Quite a few, I'm sure. It supports many alternative input
> devices which MS categorizes them as "Human Input Devices".
>
funny, that's what they are called under linux too, for example, the
aformentioned usb cordless mouse, when viewed with usbview, gives me this
info.
SB Receiver
Manufacturer: Logitech
Speed: 1.5Mb/s (low)
USB Version: 1.10
Device Class: 00(>ifc )
Device Subclass: 00
Device Protocol: 00
Maximum Default Endpoint Size: 8
Number of Configurations: 1
Vendor Id: 046d
Product Id: c501
Revision Number: 9.10
Config Number: 1
Number of Interfaces: 1
Attributes: a0
MaxPower Needed: 50mA
Interface Number: 0
Name: hid
Alternate Number: 0
Class: 03(HID )
Sub Class: 1
Protocol: 2
Number of Endpoints: 1
Endpoint Address: 81
Direction: in
Attribute: 3
Type: Int.
Max Packet Size: 8
Interval: 10ms
Could you explain to me how I would get this info under windows?
(sidenote, usbview is a cool util, check out freshmeat for details. )
> So basically, you're saying that only one Linux distro
> supports only ONE alternative input device?
>
> And you're trying to claim that Linux has better support for
> the handicapped individual?
No, he pointed out one example of linux supporting one group of
handicapped.
>
> When will you guys learn...
>
> -c
learn what? reboot to fix problems? we don't need to, stuff works, stuff is
stable, life is good with linux...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 20:25:44 -0700
"Christopher L. Estep" wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001 13:48:10
> > >"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > [...]
> > >Well, WindowsNT has always had a good shell (better than Bash in
> > >most cases).
> >
> > Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! You're the only moron foolish enough to claim
> > this, Chad.
> >
> > >The simple fact is, 99% of the users don't use half the
> > >things you mentioned, and Win2K has two forms of low-latency remote
> > >access as well.
> >
> > Wow! TWO?
> >
> > >Who uses wget besides a bunch of Unix geeks (less than one percent
> > >of one percent I'm sure).
> >
> > Maybe about there, yea. But still a larger percentage than Windows
> > idiots who know how to use command line FTP. ;-)
>
> Care to bet on that? Command-line FTP started with Windows *NT* 3.1 (the
> *original* NT) nad has been in *every* version of Windows since (even
> Windows for Workgroups included CLI FTP in their TCP/IP stack, originally
> code-named *Wolverine*, and later cross-ported to the non-workgroups Windows
> 3.1). Windows 9x has *always* had CLI FTP (I remember using it to download
> the original 32-bit Netscape Navigator 1.0 in early 1995).
>
Windows 95 came out August, 1995. That is the "later" part of the year. I
believe that Netscape ws already a 2.x by then. If this guy for real?
> How many UNIX geeks know about SAMBA (a slick little utility that enables
> UNIX/Linux clients to co-exist in Windows-based networks)? Here's the most
> telling argument about SAMBA: it's not only included with any decent distro
> of UNIX/Linux, SAMBA even works against Windows *2000*-based networks.
> Microsoft could choose to wreck SAMBA, but hasn't (and won't, either).
>
They have tried and failed.
> Christopher L. Estep
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Microsoft GPL'S WINDOWS!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 03:08:29 GMT
Interesting title.
I think we should have a debate right here and now!
Would MS remain a monopoly should it GPL all of Windows?
Why not? RedHat, Suse, Mandrake, Caldera, Yellow Dog
are all GPL'd linux distributions anybody can download
off the net and they are selling like hotcakes at the
store. Comp USA can't hardly keep the boxes on the
shelves before they are gone.
I'm going to say if they GPL'd Windows MS would
probably remain in power.
Correct or incorrect thinking?
You decide.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
