Linux-Advocacy Digest #282, Volume #35 Fri, 15 Jun 01 21:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Rick)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Rick)
Re: More microsoft innovation (Rick)
Re: More microsoft innovation (Rick)
Re: The Win/userbase! (pip)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Richard Thrippleton)
Re: The Win/userbase! ("Joel Barnett")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Bob Hauck)
Re: MySQL? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Bob Hauck)
Re: The Win/userbase! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: What language are use to program Linux stuff? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The Win/userbase! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: The Win/userbase! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux wins again.... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:11:14 -0400
Dan wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > PLEASE GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL---No one has ever suggested that
> > it goes through Microsoft's servers.
> >
> > But Microsoft's software does change the structure of the web page by
> > adding hyperlinks that the author never intended. Microsoft is clearly
> > involved.
>
> PLEASE GET THIS THROUGH *YOUR* THICK SKULL--- I can make more
> "structural changes" to a page by changing fonts, colors, turning off
> graphics and sounds. Hell, I can use a text-only browser. Is the
> author of my text-only browser involved in a copyright issue?
>
> Dan
GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL.. you may think you control the smart
tags, but micro$ft really does. They can add anything they want, in ways
you wont find. They can remove the optioin to turn the damn thing off.
They can add links to send people from yahoo, AOL or anyplace else to
MSN. They could add linke that sends people to competitors from my
pages. And you have no choice in the matter. Get a clue. Buy one if you
have to.o
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:12:05 -0400
Dan wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Go read up on Fair Use.
> >
> > You as the user have different rights than a third party would.
> >
> > Furthmore, Microsoft most certainly _did_ make a change. Copyright law
> > doesn't care whether you turned the feature on or not. The fact that it
> > exists at all is a violation of the author's copyright.
>
> Baloney. The page has not been changed. If you consider an underline
> to be changing the page, then what of changing fonts, colors, turning
> off graphics and sounds? That's more of a change than this, yet no one
> is complaing about that.
>
> Dan
You know, you really are a one note song. get a new one.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:14:55 -0400
Dan wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No matter how you look at it (if you bother looking rationally), it is a
> > big deal.
> >
> > From a creative author's standpoint, it's very negative since Microsoft
> > is changing the content of the site. In fact, to the extent that the
> > links are one element of the author's intent, Microsoft is even changing
> > the intent of an author's site.
> >
> > From a practical standpoint, it's negative. Microsoft is now able to
> > steer ALL INTERNET USERS to their site -- regardless of what the viewer
> > wants.
> >
> > From a business standpoint, it's negative. It gives Microsoft the
> > ability to usurp the web sites of their competitors -- or even companies
> > they don't like much.
> >
> > From an advocacy standpoint, it's negative. Microsoft can effectively
> > deface the pages of anyone supporting alternatives to the MS monopoly.
> >
> > It has a huge number of negatives and few, if any positives.
>
> Relax, Joe. Have you even seen it? You sound *extremely* paranoid
> here.
>
> Dan
Really? Then prove these links dont deface pages, and prove that m$ CANT
add links to their pages from competitor's pages. prove that m$ wont
remove the ability to turn smart tags. And, if you dont know that m$
plays by all the dirty tricks they can muster ,you havent been around
too long, or you havent been paying attention.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:18:47 -0400
Dan wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > If I wanted links to send people to differnt places in my page, I would
> > provide them. IF I dont, I dont want some third party sending people to
> > places I have no control over.
>
> But it's not about you. It's about the *user*. We don't expect you
> to anticipate *every* thing that I might be interested in.
>
It IS about me, and my web page. -I- should be able to decide what is on
my page, not micro$oft. And, maybe I dont care what you are interested
in. Maybe I only care about my particular message.
> >
> > I dont control the fonts on my page, within the limits of HTML. You can
> > change the font family, perhaps, but generally not the sizing or
> > placement. You can turn graphics on and off, but not change them. This
> > little ploy of micro$oft's is nothing more than changing other people's
> > intellectual property, and the ability to start sending omore and more
> > people to more and more micro$oft approved sites.
>
> So Apple, Yahoo, Cisco and the University of Michigan are "Microsoft
> approved sites"!!!!
>
At the moment, yes. As well as m$'s own sites. They will be able to add
liks to their sites from competitor's sites. You just dont get it.
> Sigh. You clearly don't understand how these work.
>
> Dan
You clearly don't understand how these work.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:27:27 +0100
Charlie Ebert wrote:
[snip]
Hmmmm. Interesting but a few points.
1) Virus scanners now should use heuristics rather than just "known
patterns"
2) You can write viri for Linux - it just does not do a much damage (if
you are lucky and not as root or an account with too many unchecked
privileges)
But I agree with you main point that Virus scanners are rubbish. If it
can't stop a simple VB macro in an Email then things are in a bad way.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Thrippleton)
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:02:28 +0000
In article <A_uW6.15206$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Zsolt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I see you still don't get it...
>> In Linux (and Unix in general) the version number is part of the name and
>it has
>> always been like that - Windows just copied that in XP lagging behind a
>few
>> decades as usual. So, installing the required specific versions does _NOT_
>> impact other applications (that require other specific versions) at all!
>> So, _you_ in XP might be just past that, but _we_ in Unix world have never
>> been there (in DLL hell)... sorry to disappoint you!
>
>That only goes so far.
>
>When dealing with common libraries this can cause many problems.
>
>Consider an application which uses 3 libraries. liba, libb, and libc. The
>application and libb require liba version 3, but libc requires liba version
>2. When you link the libraries together, only one version of liba will be
>linked in, and that will be liba version 3, because the libraries themselves
>don't have linkage information. libc breaks because it expects liba version
>2, and isn't compatible with version 3.
You fail to see the point. In unix these libraries would be called
liba.so.2, liba.so.3 etc. So the older versions would be there when
necessary.
Richard
------------------------------
From: "Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:31:23 -0700
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
... a worthless diatribe that I have snipped.
The Windows user's biggest mistake wasn't using Windows, Charlie, it was
asking you for help.
jbarntt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:44:16 GMT
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:43:10 +0100, pip
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This seems rather crap. Libraries should provide a *single* binary that
> simply gets added to and bugfixed. Changing interfaces is EVIL, WASTEFUL
> and reeks of poor design and a bad philosophy.
Yeah, yeah, whatever. Unfortunately, it is the real world we live in.
In that world, nobody is perfect, and systems do evolve. People who
work on shared libraries should be more careful about making changes,
but often they aren't, particularly for works in progress like Gnome.
Static linking has problems too, BTW, just a different set of them.
> In other words it sucks big time and you should admit it!
What solution would you propose? Note that "be a perfect programmer" is
not a viable solution.
> I am not defending windows dll hell, just that this "solution" is crap.
Shared libraries have certain inherent problems, just like everything
else. The Unix solution at least makes it possible to use an old
library if you have to.
I actually don't have that many library problems, even on Windows.
OTOH, I don't go running around downloading the latest and greatest of
everything either. If you want your system to be stable, you have to
avoid gratuitously changing it. This applies to all computer systems.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:44:14 GMT
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:09:56 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Caldera OpenLinux 2.4 does... it came with GnuCash and it worked.
It does? Where? COL doesn't even have a Gnome desktop, just the
libraries.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:44:20 GMT
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 19:34:48 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Unix scenario is exactly the same, except that it wastes disk space on
> no-longer-used minor library revisions. It doesn't matter how many versions
> of libfoo.so.1.* are on the disk, because the libfoo.so.1 symbolic link can
> only point at one of them.
That's why God made LD_LIBRARY_PATH. See, you can put libfoo.so.1 into
the app directory and make a link to it called "libfoo.so". Then make a
wrapper that sets LD_LIBRARY_PATH and launches the app.
Yeah, it requires some effort. But at least it is possible to make it
work even if the app developer didn't help you out.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: MySQL?
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:44:26 GMT
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 22:30:53 +0200, Henrik Andersen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a distribution where MySQL is included???
Probably most of them. Caldera has it for sure. It isn't hard to
install in any case.
> And PHP support of course....
Same there. Probably all of them that have Apache have PHP.
> Write me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nope. Post here, read here.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:44:28 GMT
On 15 Jun 2001 14:07:08 -0500, Jon Johansan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And, tell me, how well does Linux work with a winmodem even with a disk
> handy?
If it is one of the ones that are supported (e.g. Lucent), then about
the same way as Windows. Winmodems are still a bad idea though.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:48:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
pip wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>[snip]
>
>Hmmmm. Interesting but a few points.
>1) Virus scanners now should use heuristics rather than just "known
>patterns"
Well that's fine. So after the virus has infected the machine,
you will get a warning from the 'heuristics' device then?
Still, I fail to see what good this does.
Further, you include the words 'now should use'
This sort of leaves a blanket taste in my mouth with the meaning,
it doesn't yet.
>2) You can write viri for Linux - it just does not do a much damage (if
>you are lucky and not as root or an account with too many unchecked
>privileges)
>
I believe the point is, within Windows every user is the root.
And there's nothing they can do about that.
>But I agree with you main point that Virus scanners are rubbish. If it
>can't stop a simple VB macro in an Email then things are in a bad way.
And I'm happy to hear you agree with me.
Everybody has a right to an opinion. Even if that
opinion leads them to travel in circles, forever appearently.
But this IS the Windows effect on people...
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: What language are use to program Linux stuff?
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:49:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, drsquare
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 12 Jun 2001 19:26:34 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 16:32:53 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>Question: Why are you using such enormous indents? :^)
>>
>>I'd prefer doing:
>>
>> char *function(char *string) {
>> char *buffer = malloc(strlen(string)*2+1);
>> char *ptr = buffer;
>> char current;
>> do {
>> switch (current = *string) {
>> case '@':
>> case '\'':
>> *ptr++ = '@';
>> default:
>> *ptr++ = *string++;
>> }
>> } while (current);
>> return realloc(buffer, ptr-buffer);
>> }
>
>Are you TAKING the piss??? All indents should be like THIS:
>
>char *function(char *string) {
> char *buffer = malloc(strlen(string)*2+1);
> char *ptr = buffer;
> char current;
> do {
> switch (current = *string) {
> case '@':
> case '\'':
> *ptr++ = '@';
> default:
> *ptr++ = *string++;
> }
> } while (current);
> return realloc(buffer, ptr-buffer);
>}
This could get into a religious war :-), but...
I for one prefer something like the following:
char * function(char *string)
{
char * buffer = maloc(strlen(string)*2 + 1);
char * ptr = buffer;
char current;
do
{
switch(current = *string)
{
case '@':
case '\'':
*ptr++ = '@';
/* and drop through */
default:
*ptr++ = *string++;
}
} while(current);
return realloc(buffer, ptr-buffer);
}
mostly because { and } line up. IMO, it makes matching things
a little easier.
I tend to just hit the TAB key, though, for indentation.
At some point, I'll have to cobble up some VI magic (there's
a line one can put near the top of source code) to autoset
the tabs for me -- or just use .virc or .vimrc or something.
Some other users might do:
char *
function(char * string)
or
char *
function(
char * string /* this is something useful */
)
although it depends in part on how many arguments said function needs.
One nice feature about the last: one can document the arguments, a line
at a time (although in C++ and Java it's easier to use //, but the idea's
the same).
Also, one can search fairly easily for function headers:
/^[a-z][a-z0-9_]*(/
(although in my case /^\{/ would work almost as well).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 0d:21h:32m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. When you're not aggravated enough.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:52:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joel Barnett wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>... a worthless diatribe that I have snipped.
>
>The Windows user's biggest mistake wasn't using Windows, Charlie, it was
>asking you for help.
>
>jbarntt
>
Well,
Better than this, perhaps you might as well tell us all what we
can do to make Windows safer. Show me what I should have said
to this USER.
I'll give you 1,000 sheets of paper and the next 10 years to
come up with something.
In the mean-time, I think it's a crime that hundreds of Windows
USERS are reading this follow-up you've posted, and concluded
there is a solution to this man's problem. The worlds problem -
with WINDOWS.
Finally, I'd just like to say, if you felt it really was
worthless diatribe as your so proud of saying, then why did
you so quickly reply to the man you obviously think so highly
of?
Could it be your full of shit?
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 18:06:44 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Forgive me for mentioning this - BUT THE POINT OF SHARED LIBS ARE: 1)
> REDUCE CODE SPACE
> 2) REUSE CODE
>
> having multiple versions of a library is violating point 1. Sure it
> works - but it also sucks as a design decision.
>
> comments ?
"Memory is cheap."
I borrowed that comment from a review of Windows XP I read on C|Net. If
the extra memory requirements are not seen as a problem for XP, why harp
about a few wasted megs under Linux?
And down the road a short piece, maybe by RedHat 7.2 or 7.3, this
particular problem will be history. It's the price we pay for progress;
bleeding edge software always requires more effort and more resources than
legacy stuff, and it doesn't matter whether it runs under Windows or Linux
or Irix or Solaris. It's been that way since the UNIVAC arrived on the
scene a half century ago.
But in the meantime, it can be made to work, and in harmony with what we
already have. And that's really all that matters, isn't it?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 19:57:30 -0500
Charlie, it's really easy to tell when you're lying. You always give these
long drawn out stories in which you insult everyone you talk to, yet they
never seem to understand that you are insulting them.
If you talked the way you claim you talked to this person in this message,
nearly anyone would have either left, or punched you in the face.
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On a sunny afternoon, I was called upon by a Windows user
> to explain exactly how a virus scanner works and why his
> virus scanner didn't detect a virus and kill it.
>
> I explained that a virus scanner for Windows works by
> scanning your memory and hard drive for known patterns
> of existing viruses and if it finds software which matches
> a known pattern it will either eliminate the virus or
> alert the operator or both depending on how you have it
> set up.
>
> He then went on to ask the question again, YES BUT WHY
> DIDN'T IT STOP MY COMPUTER FROM BEING INFECTED!
>
> And I re-explained that a virus scanner for Windows works
> by scanning your memory and hard drive for KNOWN PATTERNS
> of EXISTING VIRUSES and if it finds software which matches
> a KNOWN PATTERN it will either eliminate the virus or
> alert the operator or both depending on how you have it
> set up.
>
> After hearing this again the man just shook his head and
> said "I heard what you said so I'll ask the question again,
> WHY DIDN'T MY VIRUS SCANNER KEEP MY MACHINE FROM BEING INFECTED!"
>
> I responded by saying, "The virus which infected your machine
> was obviously not one with a known pattern. It must have
> been a NEW VIRUS and not a pre-existing one which the company
> who wrote your virus scanning program knew about. So the virus
> just slipped thru the system undetected and damanged your setup."
>
> I proceeded to say "You know a virus scanner will only work in
> Windows if the scanner knows what to look for. If you have a
> NEW virus then it will not work at all. More importantly,
> even if you have a detected virus on your system, the virus
> has already infected you and it's too late to do anything
> about it. The Virus scanner CAN NOT REPAIR DAMAGE to DAMAGED
> SOFTWARE. It can only alert you it happened! That's all it
> can do!"
>
> He then backed up a foot and said, "Who makes the BEST VIRUS
> SCANNER then?"
>
> I told him "you can't buy a good Virus scanner as there is
> NO GOOD virus scanner as most all viruses are NEW! That
> under Windows relying on a Virus scanner for your security
> is not going to work. That as I already explained, even
> if it detected a virus it would be too late, the damage is
> done. That it's absurd to even run a virus scanner."
>
> He then told me that this was the second time he reloaded his
> machine from the emergency disk and he wanted me to know he
> was tired of reloading it and just wanted me to tell him
> who made the best Virus scanner. Since I was good with
> computers and ran Linux that he was sure I could help him
> solve this problem.
>
> I told him that with Linux or any Unix, executables have
> to be declared by the user. That people can't just click
> on files and expect them to execute from E-mails. And that
> if a user declared a script attachment an executable and
> ran that script the most damage he would do to his machine
> would be to his local home directory and nothing more.
>
> I added that with Windows, scripts can be executed by simply
> double clicking on them. That there was no safety net to
> stop people from executing scripts. And that these scripts
> would or could destroy everything on his hard drive as there
> is no concept of a home/user area in Windows. So virus scanners
> will NOT work and Windows is NOT designed to stop any sort
> of damage.
>
> I concluded that no matter how hard he tried, he would never
> be able to make Windows safe to use on the internet.
>
> That Windows was designed by people who haven't a clue about
> security and that Virus Scanners are worthless CPU wasting
> piles of crap which while they make the operator feel good,
> they do nothing for your safety nor security when operating
> Windows.
>
> I concluded that if this is a problem you simply need to run
> an OS like Linux which is designed to be run safely on the
> internet. The internet is viewed by the ignorant public
> at large as a safe electronic medium designed by geniuses
> for the fast and convienent use of both private citizens
> and business's for the greater good of the world economy!
> This view is absolutely WRONG! Exposing a personal computer
> to the internet is exactly like stripping off naked and having
> sex with over 1,000,000 women in less than an hour and forgetting
> to put on your personal protection device! The internet
> is in reality a thilfy dirty slut of a woman who will hurt
> your machine bad if it's not designed for the experience!
>
> Well the man concluded by saying, just give me a couple of
> names of virus scanners if you can remember any Charlie.
>
> I looked at him and said "Forget virus scanners will you!
> They will NEVER make your windows powered machine safe! It's
> impossible!"
>
> After six more go arounds the man left saying I think your
> right Charlie. I agree with your advice.
>
> At this time there were other Unix Sysadmins present and listening
> to this exchange. The man had gone 6, maybe 7 full rounds with
> me and still didn't even bother to listen to the advice he was
> asking for!
>
> I confirmed with the others after the encounter if they hear'd
> what was said. I asked can you believe this. The man
> asked ME for advice and I gave it to him and he just kept
> going on and on like a completely disconnected loonatic!
>
> I asked the group, "Why do they even bother to ask for advice
> if they are not going to take it?" "Why"
>
> I got a round of laughter from the group on that one.
>
> This is what happens when you mix high technology, Windows,
> and the common man - "Stupidity at the speed of light"
>
> Linux is the penguin.
>
> I have concluded that Windows is the TICK! The Colorado
> Rocky Mountain spotted Feaver TICK!
>
> It can't be happy just drinking blood from it's host,
> it must piss on the inside of your organization until it
> is completely dead!
>
> And I'd like to note that Windows XP is a classic example
> of this with it's encrypted file system. In their childish,
> idiotic attempt to address internet security and software
> piracy, they have actually managed to come up with a system
> which REQUIRES double the horsepower it took to run a NT
> box or a Linux box.
>
> And I'm positive that the stupid public at large will
> in the future be asking for advice on the best virus scanner
> to run on an encrypted XP file system -- AND -- that these
> virus scanners will be selling in the millions and billions
> of quantities!!!! HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!
>
> Microsoft has created millions of extremely dangerous
> people in American business's. They may have just spelled
> an end to our E-business way of life.
>
> --
> Charlie
> -------
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux wins again....
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 19:59:01 -0500
"Rex Ballard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> This is a very interesting article. Interesting first because
> Microsoft even allowed the benchmark to be run and then published.
> Since the NT Server license
> requires Microsoft approval of all benchmarks I'm surprised it was
> ever published.
The NT Server EULA doesn't have any such limitation. You are thinking of
the SQL Server license, which does (as does Oracle and every other major
RDBMS).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
