Linux-Advocacy Digest #117, Volume #35 Sun, 10 Jun 01 20:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: Will MS get away with this one? (Dave Martel)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: I propose a GPL change... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
What language are use to program Linux stuff? ("Rene")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows advocate of the year. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Laugh, it's hilarious. (Terry Porter)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Redhat video problems. (Terry Porter)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Redhat video problems. (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:07:39 GMT
In article
<%SLU6.71643$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Daniel
Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Jim Polaski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snip]
> > I wouldn't call HTML weak, I'd call it versatile. It's pretty cool that
> > the same document can be displayed on wildly different applications
> > suited to computers of different processing power.
>
> You can call it versatile, but you can't pretend that
> it gives you the control over the final representation
> that you say MS is trying to take away.
Sure, I can. When I create a web site, part of the final represenation I
can determine is the hyperlink structure. MS's new browser changes the
hyperlink structure.
> You don't have that. You never did. MS may
> wish to do so, as they wish to do all other
> evil things for no reason, but they can't
> take away what you do not have.
You're creating a straw-man agument that runs like this:
HTML browsers differ from each other in how they render the
informationpresented to them by the web server. Therefore the web page
author has no control over the content of his pages and any changes made
by the web browser is permitted.
That's stupid!
Web browsers are supposed to faithfully present the *content* of the web
pages in a layout consistent with the capabilities of the disp;aying
technology. This new browser, in that it adds links not supplied by the
web page author, is not faithfulto that original content.
> [snip]
> > > > This is the nature of the net. It's also not all that different
> > > > from Netscapes "What's related" function. The only difference is
> > > > that the smart tags appear inline (it doesn't change your actual
> > > > page, just provides a way to hover over words and get more
> > > > information).
> >
> > That means it's adding information to the page ... information that may
> > not be wanted by the page's creator. That's like adding sticky notes to
> > every issue of Time magazine in a magazine rack to publish your own
> > views on some event or advertisement. You're violating Time's freedom of
> > press.
>
> That's a rather odd way to look at it. I believe
> some people are arguing that it violates Time's
> *copyright*.
Freedom of the press means the freedom to print what you want to and the
freedom to not print what you do not want to.
> I'm not sure putting sticky-notes in a copy of
> Time *does*, especially if it isn't done except
> by consumer, and only at that consumers individual
> discresion.
But it's not done by the consumer, it's done "on his behalf" by
Microsoft's browser.
> I dion't see what the freedom of the press has
> to do with it. Time can publish copies without
> sticky-notes no matter what you do, after all.
If I hijack a truckful of Time Magazines on their way to Safeway...
Yes, some copies of Time Magazine remain that are unaltered, but that
truckful is changed. (Since it's my analogy, I'll be the first to admit
that it can quickly be strained because of basic incompatibilitiws with
the reality of the web. But the reason I bring it up is that when the
discussion is based in what technology can do, it's too easy to forget
about the limits on what it should do. Bringing it back to the ethics
surrounding an exsiting technology helps to clarify what I mean.)
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Will MS get away with this one?
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 17:08:26 -0600
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:14:34 +0100, Peter Hayes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Who were the major players in the early 80's home/office computing market?
>IBM/Microsoft with their PC/XT and Apple with the Lisa and Macintosh. DOS
>and, later, Windows, together with the cloning of the IBM BIOS outcompeted
>Apple's closed expensive hardware/software solution.
>
>Be ever so slightly grateful to IBM/Microsoft, else we'd be hostage to
>Apple. With their closed architecture Apple would be far more predatory than
>Microsoft.
I don't think so. Apple's always been too disorganized to dominate the
market for long. Take away IBM/Microsoft and I believe we would have
seen true competition.
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:08:15 GMT
In article <9g0b3l$7sg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:%SLU6.71643$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > I'm not sure putting sticky-notes in a copy of
> > Time *does*, especially if it isn't done except
> > by consumer, and only at that consumers individual
> > discresion.
>
> IANAL, but I believe that this fall under fair-use laws.
Yes, if I alter my own copy. But if I alter, say, every copy in a
newspaper box on the street corner?
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:10:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg
Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > In article
> > <QTyU6.72927$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > How about if the bookshop sells you the yellow highlighter, as
> > > well as the book?
> >
> > How about if Infernosoft sold special DVD players with an AI module
> > that recognized beer cans and cereal boxes in movies it played, and
> > placed ads for Killer Beer and Poopsy Smacksies onto all of them?
> > Mr. Kubrick, would you want your movies played on such a DVD
> > player?
> >
> >
> Actually, I just heard about a new technology becomming available
> that will allow a TV network or station to substitute objects in the
> background of a movie or program. For instance, that can of Coke on
> the table can suddenly become a can of Pepsi...
This would require the cooperation of the content providers. Star Trek,
for instance, would never allow a can of Pepsi to appear in Ten Forward.
(Or even Mountain Dew, even though it is green.)
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:14:51 GMT
In article
<HPLU6.71636$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Daniel
Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snip]
> > > For instnace, if I use a text-only browser,
> > > all those pretty blue underlines will vanish.
> > >
> > > Vandalism! :D
> >
> > It's not the change in the appearance of the web site that people find
> > unacceptable, it's the change in its hyperlinked content.
>
> This feature does not do that. Despite what some
> articles are saying, these SmartTag things are not
> hyperlinks, not unless you think anything that
> involves and underline is a hyperlink.
I'm not concerned with the typographical conventions used to indicate
hyperlinks. I'm concerned with the addition of new hyperlinks to my
document.
> OTOH, do you object to BabelFish? It
> *realy does* change the content of a page-
> it translates it. That *is* covered by the
> copyright conventions unambiguously,
> unlike this stuff.
>
> Is BabelFish also evil?
Straw-man argument. Theoretically, the information content of the page
(its mapping from symbols to real-world objects, actions, and concepts)
is not altered when it is translated into a different language.
> > Let's say you're a paperboy or a newsstand. Do you have the right to
> > insert your own pages into the newspapers and magazines you sell?
>
> Don't they? I observe that some bookstores insert
> advertisements for themselves in books. Sure, they
> call them 'bookmarks'... :D
The bookmarks advertise the bookstore where you go the book and are
recognized by the reader as separate from the book. The links added by
he MS browser, however, may not be distinguished by the user as being
added by the browser and not the page author.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I propose a GPL change...
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:17:55 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >There is much GPL'd and free software that violates patents as well, for
> >instance vorbis ogg is claimed to still violate the mp3 patents.
>
> Until it is proven in court, it is not worth quibbling about. It is
> open source code; whether it infringes on a patent is a matter of facts,
> not urban legends.
So then, you agree that AT&T suing MS for patent infringement is also not
worth quibbling about until proven in court, correct?
> >It's quite easy to unintentionally violate a patent. Of course AT&T
claims
> >that MS willfully violated the patent, however, it's pretty much common
> >practice to ignore patent issues unless actually sued, since most of the
> >time the claims are baseless.
>
> It is *possible*. It is not 'quite easy' to unintentionally violate a
> patent, or else patents would not be possible to uphold. Your
> explanation of the common approach seems to contradict your own point;
> if most of the time the claims are baseless, then obviously it is not
> easy to unintentionally violate a patent, though it may be easy to get
> sued for a baseless claim.
One example of a patent that has been unintentionally violated by millions
is the XOR cursor. Nearly every programmer has created a cursor-like image
that is XOR'd from the original image.
There are literally tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of
similar cases.
> >> How can Microsoft expect Windows pirates to feel the least
> >> bit guilty, when MS are themselves pirates on a mammoth
> >> scale?
> >
> >Patent infringement is not copyright infringement.
>
> IP infringement is IP infringement. How can MS expect Windows pirates
> to feel the least bit guilty, when MS are themselves pirates on a
> mammoth scale?
Copyright infringement is the willful copying of code verbatim. Patent
infringement can and does happen without knowledge of the patented item.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie.
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:21:35 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >Okay, you are getting confused here.
> >Yes, you are allowed to sell GPL software.
> >But you are also forced to make the software avialable at no charge to
> >anyone who ask for it.
>
> No, you are "forced" to distribute it to any third party if you
> distribute it, and you are prevented from charging for licenses.
Actually, you are not "forced" to distribute it to anyone, even if you do
distribute it to others. You simply cannot put restrictions on those others
from redistributing it and you must make source available to those you
distribute it to, and ONLY those you distribute to (but again, you cannot
restrict those you distribute source to from redistributing it).
------------------------------
From: "Rene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: What language are use to program Linux stuff?
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:36:53 GMT
1.- Is Linux (kernel) programmed on C or C++?
2.- Is GNOME programmed on C or C++?
Is this the wrong place to post this question? Sorry I apologize, could you
please be so kind to point me to the right news group?
Thank you.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:27:14 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> pip wrote:
> >
> > GreyCloud wrote:
> > >
> > > I'd highly doubt this very much on your last statement here. That is
> > > why intel made these processors like this in the first place. That is
> > > why Linux is quite stable in regards to isolation from the graphics
> > > interface. I guess Dave Cutler knew what he was talking about when he
> > > originally wrote NT. (Keep the kernel in ring 0 and the rest in the
> > > other rings.)
> >
> > I 100% agree!
> > The plot thickens - so why did he change ?
>
> Only rumour you know, but insiders said Gates was paying David a real
> high salary at the time. As soon as the orignial NT was finished and
> working, Gates let him go. Gates then turned around and took the NT
> code and tried to put a GUI around it. It failed miserable and Gates
> couldn't get his pet project on the market fast enough. So he paid even
> more money for David to come back and fix it up. It ran too slow for
> Bills' taste and wanted to know if there was a way to speed it up.
> Someone suggested to shove the video in with the kernel, and then a
> heated argument erupted over it. Gates then fired David, and tried out
> this idea and found it worked to his desires. Just rumour mind you.
This story doesn't fit the timeline.
NT had a GUI in the beta stage for starters, long before Cutler would have
"finished" it. Secondly, They didn't move the GUI into the kernel until NT
4, which was 1996, 3 years after NT first came out.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:30:15 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 5 Jun 2001
> >> > 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.
>
> But this is begging the question; had they not designed it this way, it
> wouldn't be the case. You seem to understand why competent engineers
> see putting the GUI subsystem in the same area as critical services is a
> bad decision, but you come at it sideways by claiming, with no
> justification, that it doesn't matter. So why not build everything into
> kernel space, since once something crashes, it doesn't matter if the
> whole kernel crashes, by your logic?
My point is that because of the way it was designed, it doesn't matter. Not
that it couldn't have been designed differently. There is no more or less
of a stability change because of the move of the GUI into the kernel because
of the way NT was desigend.
> >> > > 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.
>
> Backward compatibility with the DOS monopoly. A way to get around the
> piss-poor performance of NT. Incompetence of engineering, lack of
> competitive capabilities, inability of the market to reject badly
> designed software when it is monopoly crapware. Take your pick, Ayende.
Your logic is failing. The argument is why NT was designed with the GUI in
a critical place (either before or after the move to the kernel), you are
mixing the move into the kernel (to gain performance) with the original
design decision which was well before the performance of NT was known.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:34:29 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9g0f61$o63$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9fv23s$1uj5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stuart Fox"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:55:42
> >>
> >> >So in summary, moving the window manager and the GDI from user mode to
> >> >kernel mode has provided improved performance without any significant
> >> >decrease in system stability or reliability.
> >>
> >> I presume this is from Microsoft. According to them, W2K doesn't have
> >> any reliability or stability problems. Shocker.
> >
> > It's from a Microsoft Press book yes, written by a Microsoft employee,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > and someone who is just very knowledgable about NT/2000 (Mark
> > Russinovich - http://www.sysinternals.com). It doesn't say that W2K
> > doesn't have any reliability or stability problems, it just says that
> > whether windows manager
> > & GDI are in the kernel or not has no net effect on stability.
>
>
> Not exactly unbiased, then.
Mark Russinovich is not a MS employee.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows advocate of the year.
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:37:58 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Mart van de Wege wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <9fi5n6$89j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Edward Rosten"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Not all windows advocates are bad.
> > > > >
> > > > > They are capable of reasoned, rational arguments (though you might
not
> > > > > believe it with the amount of drivel coming out of people like
Chad
> > > > > Myers).
> > > > >
> > > > > I think we should have a Wincvocate of the year nominated (it
makes a
> > > > > change from nominating trolls).
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to nominate Ayende Rahien. If all windows advocates
were
> > > > > like this, this group would be a much better place. Heck, if all
Linux
> > > > > advocates were like this, he group would be a better place.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -Ed
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Second that and I nominate Erik F. for second place (like most
people
> > > > seem to do). Both are very reasonable people, though Erik is a
little
> > > > more stubborn, and that tends to get people irritated.
> > > >
> > > > Mart
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, Eric seems to have demonstrated quite a bit of computer lore and
> > > knowledge.
> > > He's okay to argue with. I'd just wish he'd try out more o/ses on
> > > different platforms to get a better feel for things. I get the
feeling
> > > a lot that he is more neutral on a lot of topics than we think.
> >
> > I have extensively used many OS's.
> >
> > Windows
> > Dos
> > Amiga
> > Mac
> > OS/2
> > BeOS
> > QNX
> > Various flavors of Unix
> > VMS
> > AS/400
> > DOS/VSE
> > VM
> > MVS
>
> An impressive list. Which ones did you get to administrate for the
> longest period of time?
Well, I've never administered the OS/400, VMS and MVS machines, but I've
been the administrator/effective adminstrator on the rest (most of them
don't have "administrators").
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Laugh, it's hilarious.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 10 Jun 2001 23:41:50 GMT
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:19:04 GMT, Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's in work. We are adding a commercial fuel injection system. I'm
> adding a PC104 form factor with Embedded RT Linux to monitor and report
> for now. Later we intend to replace the commercial fuel injection
> computer with our own to include spark advance. The idea is to get more
> control ( choose tables base on driving conditions : city, highway,
> economy, drag). There is a serial port for connecting up an external
> computer for diagnostics/reprogramming. Like the current diagnostic
> connectors without all the extraneous stuff (No 3 friggin temperature
> sensors for the cat. converter).
> Any one wants to participate, contact me. There is an Explorer Scout
> project working on the diagnostic part (see my homepage below). They
> have the user computer working. We bend metal on the automotive end next
> week. Anyone want to be a beta tester?
Hey Russ, automotive engine management is one of my hobbies, and
embedded is what I do for a living, I'd love to know more.
I have a reasonable amount of experience with automotive engine
management sensors etc, and may be of some help.
My email is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
> Russ Lyttle
> "World Domination through Penguin Power"
> The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
> <http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:44:52 -0500
"Jesse F. Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > And how is that any different from the links available based on a page
from
> > the Netscape "What's related" feature?
>
> While I agree that the reaction on this group has been more extreme
> than is warranted, the MS feature is distasteful in a way that the
> Netscape feature is not. Specifically, it rather prominently suggests
> related pages by altering the presentation of the page itself. The
> Netscape feature is a much less visible menu in the menubar (one which
> I had never viewed until just now).
HTML is not a presentation definition language. It's open to interpretation
by the client and isn't a precise page definition, though it is growing more
and more into that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Redhat video problems.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 10 Jun 2001 23:48:00 GMT
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:25:14 GMT, flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10 Jun 2001 07:41:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
> wrote:
>
> All the guy wants to do is change the driver that Linux mis-installed.
> He's not interested in writing a research paper.
>
> Sheesshh...
>
More FUD from COLA's self apointed Wintroll:-
"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
"On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 14:39:14 GMT, flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 02:28:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
Ebert) wrote:"
Charlie: You've been telling people for months now that Linux is
Charlie: a peice of shit and won't even install on your machine.
Flatty: You have me mixed up with someone else.
Flatty: I haven't had a problem installing Linux
Flatty: on a machine since RedHat 5.0.
Flatty: Installing Linux in most cases is a breeze.
--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:48:00 -0500
"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Jim Polaski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > If you consider that HTLM is a very weak page layout format to
> > > begin with, you will realize that no two web browsers ever display
> > > a page exactly the same, thus *EVERY* web browser alters it to some
> > > extent. It's possible for your page to be included in other pages
> > > via frames and many other things.
>
> I wouldn't call HTML weak, I'd call it versatile. It's pretty cool that
> the same document can be displayed on wildly different applications
> suited to computers of different processing power.
So you agree that HTML is at most a recomendation to the browser, which it
usually accepts.
> > > This is the nature of the net. It's also not all that different
> > > from Netscapes "What's related" function. The only difference is
> > > that the smart tags appear inline (it doesn't change your actual
> > > page, just provides a way to hover over words and get more
> > > information).
>
> That means it's adding information to the page ... information that may
> not be wanted by the page's creator. That's like adding sticky notes to
> every issue of Time magazine in a magazine rack to publish your own
> views on some event or advertisement. You're violating Time's freedom of
> press.
What about web browser that remove information from your page? Many web
browsers can't display certain pieces of information, so it ignores it.
This is also changing the format of your page, and could have drastic
consequences.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:51:21 -0500
"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article
> <kMLU6.71633$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Daniel
> Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Josh McKee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 22:35:55 -0400, "Lance Togar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > I believe the arguement revolves around the fact that the web author
> > > is no longer in complete control over how their web content is viewed.
> > > One cannot merely avoid this issue by "not buying it" because it is
> > > the site visitors and not the site owner who will need to "not buy
> > > it".
> >
> > OTOH, the web author never was in complete
> > control of this. No two web browsers are the
> > same about how they render things, you know.
> >
> > HTML is just not the right tool to use if you
> > want that kind of control.
>
> Yes, it is.
>
> In HTML you have control over the hyperlink structure of your document.
> Until now, any browser that you rendrered the page in would faithfully
> reproduce that hyperlink structure.
Not true. For instance, if you have a hyperlink in a format your browser
doesn't understand, it will not display it, such as if it were in a frame
and you were using a browser that didn't support frames.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Redhat video problems.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 10 Jun 2001 23:59:29 GMT
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:25:14 GMT, flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> All the guy wants to do is change the driver that Linux mis-installed.
> He's not interested in writing a research paper.
>
> Sheesshh...
>
> Wait till he discovers .Xdefaults, .xconfig and all of the other
> wonderful joys of video under Linux.
This is why most of Flatfishies cave man ancestors, have little
holes in their skulls, and if you shake them, you can hear the
sound of a tiny tiny flint chip rattling around inside.
Bone arrow heads "worked just fine" for Flatties ancestors, but those
silly Cro-Magnon man flint tips were just "too hard" to make.
--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
