Linux-Advocacy Digest #292, Volume #35 Sat, 16 Jun 01 06:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Win/userbase! ("Osugi Sakae")
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Will MS get away with this one? (Peter Hayes)
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" ("Osugi Sakae")
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (drsquare)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (drsquare)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (drsquare)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (drsquare)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (drsquare)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (drsquare)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (drsquare)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (drsquare)
Re: Getting used to Linux (drsquare)
Re: Getting used to Linux (drsquare)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (drsquare)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:25:39 +0900
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete
Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> [rhetoric snipped]
>
>> 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."
>
> Let me see, how long have I been on the internet. For several years. How
> many Window virii have I seen...
>
> None.
>
> How many have infected my machine...
>
> None.
>
> Do I run a virus checker?
>
> Occaisonally. It always pronounces my machine as clean.
Fair enough, but it is personal experiences and not valid evidence that
windows 9x is a "safe" operating system. Better evidence comes from the
repeated outbreaks of email virii and the occassion newsarticle about
subseven or other backdoor / trojans for MS products. Even given the
disparity in installed bases, windows - or at least windows users - seem
to be more suseptable to virii than linux / unix.
> Why is my machine clean?
>
> ONE THING YOU FORGOT TO POINT OUT TO YOUR FRIEND CHARLIE!!!
>
> A fairly basic piece of advice.
>
> If you don't know where the EXE came from, DON'T RUN IT!
How many typical windows users know how an exe is different from any
other sort of file? they are used to clicking on a file and having it
open in an associated program. viewing a picture and running a program
are identical in their eyes.
Also, more virii / trojans / etc. pass themselves off as another sort of
file (like porn). So telling someone not to run any exe files fails cause
they will try to open that picture of the naked tennis player. Then they
will complain to you that you never said a jpeg file could cause any
damage.
> Now, in terms of EMail, I've never used the ones that come with Windows.
> I've always used something else. Right now, I use an SMTP/POP3 client
> called "The Bat". It works for me. And it NEVER runs attachments
> automatically.
>
> You can hold back viruses by just being careful and not running dodgy
> EMail clients.
Another problem - the vast majority of windows users will use whatever
comes on their computer. If outlook or outlook express comes with their
computer, most users will not change to anything else. So your advice
would likely fall on deaf ears.
[snip]
> The advantage of Windows security is that there isn't any. Security
> doesn't get in the way, like it can do on Linux.
>
> The disadvantage is that there is no security and ANYONE can get at your
> files once they're in. The trick is to run behind internet security. Why
> do you think I've never been attacked or infected yet?
>> I concluded that no matter how hard he tried, he would never be able to
>> make Windows safe to use on the internet.
>
> You cannot make ANY machine safe to use on the Internet. Even with a
> firewall, there is a risk. The ony safe way is to be _disconnected_. You
> have to accept that if you're on the internet, you could be attacked.
>
>> 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.
>
> Windows was designed to be a consumer OS for people who don't want to
> bother with tedious stuff like security. That is at the same time a
> benefit and a disadvantage.
actually, i believe it was designed to be a single-user, single-machine
sort of os. So no need for security.
> Linux is a multi-user system and has that kind of security model. It
> doesn't stop virii it just makes it harder.
>
> It depends what you want. To use an analogy, do you want locks and keys
> on every door of your house, or just on the front door? How much do you
> trust the people in your house?
Many houses have locks on several doors. Bathroom, sometimes bedrooms,
storage rooms. And how many people have some sort of mini-safe / lockbox
sort of thing for important papers?
So how many houses follow the win9x security model of "one easy-to-pick
lock on the front door and no other locks anywhere in the house"?
[snip]
> Nonsense, Charlie. You can run Windows in the Internet and you can be
> safe. It doesn't take much to do it. Just a few simple rules:
>
> 1) Don't run anything unless you trust it.
>
> 2) Disable any scripting you can find, or don't use anything that allows
> scripting.
>
> If I can do it, anyone can.
not true. i know several windows users who would not be able to do the
about without first taking classes on using windows. They can:
turn the computer on and off
open and use basic functions of ie
do email with outlook
open word,type, and print,
and not much else.
> I'm sitting here on a machine that happily used ZoneAlarm as a personal
> firewall. I've never been attacked yet. I've never seen a virus either.
really? Define attack? I get scanned on a regular basis - at least a few
times a week, sometimes once or twice a day. Usually on port 21 - ftp. I
consider that an attack, albeit not a very serious one (i do not run an
ftp server).
[snip]
Regardless of the validity of Charlie's story, the fact is that windows
9x is an insecure os that is marketed to the least knowledgable computer
users - ie the ones least able to adequately secure their computers. For
every win user like Pete who takes serious and effective precautions,
there are at least 10 windows users who do not and would not even know
how to.
--
Osugi Sakae
====== 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: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:25:10 +1200
>>Whats the difference between a dell machine assembled in Malysia by a
>>
>>chinese person vs. a machine assembled by the system admin? Nothing.
>>
>>
> Quality is the difference. The machine assembled by the system admin
> will be of much higher quality. For example, the sys admin will probably
> actually connect the wires to the power switch, the HDD led will
> probably be checked to insure it works, the motherboard will be properly
> secured to the cabinet, and the sys admin will probably remove most of
> he loose screws from the case. These are all problems I had with the
> last out-of-the-box system I bought (Wednesday). Yes, I know I voided
> the warrantee when I opened the case. But that was much easier than
> carrying the system back to the store only to be told that the warrantee
> didn't cover the problem and I would have to pay a fee to have them look
> at it.
I agree with you. My supplier for example, I have a choice between 3
different memory brands etc etc. vs. Dells, here is the computer, if you
don't like the memory used, then tough luck. I am also able to select
from a wider range of motherboards, for example, in the server boards, I
have 6 configurations I can choose from, everything from the basic all
the way up to dual channel SCSI 160, fault tolerant memory etc etc. I
can, as a system admin, tailor every component to the customers need.
>
> Before someone starts some racist junk, the problem isn't that the
> worker is Chinese. Its that the workers, of whatever background, are
> being exploited and neither they nor the corporations care. The workers
> make the junk they are forced to make, and Americans buy the junk they
> are told to buy.
I chose Chinese for this example because they are one of the major
ethnic group in Malaysia, I could have used Indian or Malay in that
example if I so wished. Regards to Malaysia, Dell have an assembly plant
their for their Asia/Pacific business, hence the reason I pointed out
the factory on origin. It was no indication of the quality, I was
simply pointing out that a mass produced computers are either equal or
worse than one made from scratch by a system admin. For the record, I
currently am using a Dell XPS T550r (Coppermine), 2 year, and no problems.
>
>>Also, if you were to use it for enterprise, you would get a prioprietry
>>solution from SUN or IBM, REAL hardware with a REAL os.
>>
>>
> Depends on the situation. Sun or IBM would be the choice for most very
> large systems. But there are a number of reasons neither they nor MS
> would not be choosen: Economy, special security, physical limitations
> (size, temperature, location).
>
For medium and small businesses, as the chinese would say, "the wise man
does not try to kill a fly with a cannon". For large, mission critical
operations, proprietry technology ensures that all the components that
are used work in harmony with each other and the OS, with out any
quirks. Hence, when SUN had the problem a few years ago, it had nothing
to do with SUN, it was cheap-ass admins using no-name brand memory with
in a big irons such as a starfire. Hence the reason SUN/IBM and SGI
always push their ram because they can promise you that you will not
have any problems with it.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Will MS get away with this one?
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 10:27:38 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 19:22:37 -0400, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Hayes wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:31:31 -0400, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > How has Apple shafted as many as micro$oft. Just by sgeer size, m$ HAS
> > > to have shafted more. After all, everyone that uses an m$ OS is getting
> > > a big one from Gates.
> >
> > OK, maybe I should have said "in proportion to its size .....
> >
> > Peter
>
> Maybe you shouldnt have said anything at all. You are spouting nonsense.
If you like, but it doesn't change the fact that Apple are just as bad as
Microsoft.
An Apple dominated home and office environment would be far worse than the
one we have now, since Apple would control both the hardware and the
software.
Ciao
Peter
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:28:30 +1200
GreyCloud wrote:
> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
>>GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Matthew Gardiner (BOFH)" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Chad Myers wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Who cares what you run in your home. We're talking about
>>>>>>>real businesses making critical decisions that effect their
>>>>>>>bottom line. It appears that they don't chose Linux.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yeah, yeah, Chad. By your definition IBM is no *real* business.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Moron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Peter
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Chads just pissed because he didn't sell off his MS stock in time last
>>>>>year.
>>>>>He must have lost at least 2/3 of its original value by now.
>>>>>By spreading FUD he is hoping his stock will improve.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I never invested in those crappy tech stocks, I have shares in Capital
>>>>Properties, United Networks and Auckland Airport, where I earn 11%
>>>>interest a year. Long term investments give the best return to those who
>>>>are willing to wait.
>>>>
>>>>Matthew Gardiner
>>>>
>>>>
>>>11%... is that all?? We were getting around 18-19% with utilities.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>22% actually, I didn't look at the financial perspectus when posting the
>>original post, hence, it was a rectum plucked figure before.
>>
>>Matthew Gardiner
>>
>
> Then that's pretty damn good returns! :-)
>
>
You've got to consider that capital properties have a garenteed
customer, government departments. They own all the buildings the
government department uses. It used to be a SOE (State Owned
Enterprise), then a few years ago, there was an offer, and I bought
several thousand shares at a few dollars each.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:30:51 +1200
>
>>>>>for some sustainted advertising dollars)
>>>>>
>>>>That's rich. Oh, that's precious. A linvocate trying to talk about
>>>>"going-out-of-business" and trying to make some dollars? given the
>>>>"performance" of EVERY single "linux" related company you can think
>>>>
> of -
>
>>I
>>
>>>>find that laughable.
>>>>
>>>Like IBM and Oracle?
>>>
>>>
>>What precentage of IBM/Oracle resources is directed at Linux?
>>
>
> Then ask; what percentage of income do they derive in return for these
> resource expenditures...
>
>
>
>
HP, $100million last year, in linux based servers sold. They hope to
get it up to $150-$200million by the end of this year.
Matthew Gardiner
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:36:02 +0900
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "drsquare"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:58:51 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>>drsquare wrote:
>
>>>>(null)) guile1.4-slib (0 (null)) perl (0 (null)) eperl (0 (null))
>>>>libgwrapguile0 (2 0.9.1) gnuplot (0 (null))
>>>>
>>>>Wow, that is a lot of dependencies. Good thing the package manager
>>>>takes care of it all automatically.
>>>
>>> You've still got to go and get all the packages yourself.
>>
>>Well, sure I don't. I just tried it. I'll put a transcript of
>>installation (and uninstallation) below. My input to the installation
>>consisted of typing 'apt-get install gnucash' followed by entering the
>>letter 'y'. And yes, I did launch gnucash just to make sure it was
>>really this easy.
>
> Where does it get the packages from? And what if the package manager
> doesn't know where to get them from?
You are either a horrible troll or a total, wet-behind-the-ears newbie.
Or both. You obviously know nothing about debian.
If it recognizes the software then it can install it and all the extra
packages that might be needed. That is one of the great things about .deb
packages.
Hell man, i don't even use debian and i know that.
In fairness, i guess that if you try to install something extremely new
that no one has made a package for, the install would fail. Probably just
give you some error like "gnucash version ### is already installed" where
version ### would be the old version because it didn't know about the new
version yet. If it knows about it, it will know about all dependencies
and get them ok.
(Debian users please correct me if i am wrong here)
--
Osugi Sakae
====== 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: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:39:16 +1200
>>"Hello, Gartner? Yeah, Miller from Microsoft again. Look, we'd like you
>>to do another independent study for us. You know, call up a bunch of
>>system administrators and ask them if they've bought any Linux servers in
>>the last year. Oh, no, not at all, we'll be more than happy to provide
>>you with a cold-call list. Just don't tell anybody we culled it from our
>>MSVP and MCSE mailings. Good enough. Pleasure talking to you again."
>>
>
> "Hello Netcraft? Yea, Linus here. Look, can we jigger those figures again.
> You know, publish some really high numbers for Apache, low ones for IIS,
> jigger then around a little up and down and since there is no independent
> verification and no one else is even trying I'm sure no one will mind. Of
> course I won't be paying you anything, I don't have any money, but I can
> guarentee you'll get mentioned on Slashdot again this month. Great ... and,
> please, wear that aftershave I sent you, it really turns me on."
>
> sheesh...
>
Accussing a person of that sort of number tampering, then later proven
incorrect, he could sue you for defimation.
Also, I have never heard Linus, any time say he wants to "take over the
world" or any other "pro-take-over the world/PC" aims. Maybe you should
read up about him, watch some interviews then come back and try to
justify your statement.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:43:15 +1200
>>"That is completely untrue. Here is a little tool from MS that will assist
>>you in creating and managing up to about 5000 virtual hosts on a single
>>server (Scalable Hosting Solutions):
>>
>
>>http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/IIS/shsover.asp
>>
>
> Which doesnt, and has NEVER worked. Never actually tried it, have you?
>
> Try running 500 high traffic coldfusion sites on one W2K box of ANY size.
>
> Never done that before either, have you?
>
>
>>Depending on the application, a single IIS 5.0 server can host up to 5,000
>>sites due to the amount of storage required in the Metabase for each
>>additional site.
>>
>
> Which is generally seen (even by microsoft engineers, ask paul salada) to
> be the biggest braindeath of IIS. Next to its allowance out of the box of
> random writings to the registry of course.
>
>
>>SHS however, is designed to support many more sites because
>>all virtual site subdirectories share the same configuration of the root
>>directory web site. Therefore, with SHS, you can create and maintain tens to
>>hundreds of thousands of parked and/or virtual sites."
>>
>
> Yes, thats what the whitesheet says. So microsoft created a product to make
> IIS work just a little bit more like apache---and it doesnt even work.
>
> Thats lovely.
>
>
>>http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/IIS/shsadmin.asp
>>
>
>>Beats apache any day ...
>>
>
> It does? Proof please.
>
>
>
>
> -----.
>
>
>
DO you run a webserver? maybe you should give YOUR account of what
happens. What Microsoft/other vendor says and what happens in the real
world are two totally different things.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:28:13 +0100
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:46:44 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <9gdm1k$35d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Sure. It should be something that you can _choose_ to install. It should
>> > not be installed by default.
>>
>> It's off by default.
>
>In this version.
>
>When does the option get turned on by default? When does the option to
>turn it off disappear?
As soon as MS starts getting bribes to put in certain links to certain
sites.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:28:10 +0100
On 15 Jun 2001 16:45:03 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Settle down.
>>
>> We know that the file on the server is not changed.
>>
>> What's at issue is that new hyperlinks are added to the text of a web
>> page before it is shown to the user, and that the author of the web page
>> has no control over these new added hyperlinks.
>
>Once again, so what? The author of the web page has no control over my
>choice of fonts, colors, graphics, sounds, etc. Why no wailing and
>complaining about that?
Because that's not altering the content of the site. How can you find
this so difficult to comprehend?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:28:15 +0100
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 23:21:51 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Really? Microsoft isn't a third party?
>
>No, it doesn't get involved in this at all.
Then who supplies the links????
>> So when I view a web page using MSIE with Smart Tags, there are only two
>> parties?
>
>Yes, the user, and the page author.
>No where along the line it's going through MS' servers and being changed.
>
>IE6 gives the user the ability to display some words in a special manner. MS
>supply stock implementation of this.
Ahah, so you admit MS IS deciding on the links.
>The user can change that implementation to whatever he wants.
Most users don't know how to change the screen saver, never mind
"implementations"
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:28:11 +0100
On 15 Jun 2001 17:28:02 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Don't I, as the web page developer, have the *right* to have my page
>> free of smart tags? Why do you insisit on taking away the web page
>> author's right to determine what hyperlinks are displayed on his web
>> page?
>
>For the same reason we took away the author's right to determine what
>fonts and colors are displayed on his web page.
>
>It's *my* computer.
No, it's not *your* computer we're talking about. It's the millions of
users who will be viewing sites intercepted and distorted by MS for
their own gain.
>How I choose to display your web page is none of
>your business. You supply the defaults, I supply the customization.
Not when you're supplying to other unsuspecting users.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:28:14 +0100
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 23:16:29 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Neither Google nor anonymizer changes the _content_ of pages. If they
>> start changing the content, then they should be stopped.
>
>Google colors the pages,
Oh my god, COLOURS. Oh my FUCKING GOD. What a SHOCKER.
>anonymizer changes the links so you go through
>their site.
And? The links are still going to the same sites. The user still gets
the same content. Also, anonymiser is COMPLETELY up to the user.
Anonymiser doesn't come built in.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:28:17 +0100
On 15 Jun 2001 16:42:04 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > It's strictly local to the machine viewing the page. The page on the
>> > server IS NOT CHANGED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> >
>>
>> He never said it was.
>>
>> He said the pages are 'intercepted' and changed. Presumably by the
>> browser.
>
>If that were true, then changing the fonts and colors is also
>"intercepting and changing". Why is no one complaining about that????
BECAUSE CHANGING THE RENDERING OF THE PAGE IS NOT ADDING CONTENT TO
THE PAGE. WHY ARE YOU SO FUCKED UP THAT YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS?????
IF YOU COME UP WITH SUCH FUCKING IDIOCY ONCE MORE, YOU'RE IN MY
FUCKING KILLFILE.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:28:16 +0100
On 15 Jun 2001 17:17:14 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) 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?
He would be if he was adding in extra content, especially if his
browser was used by ~~90% of the world.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:28:18 +0100
On 15 Jun 2001 16:47:04 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >It's strictly local to the machine viewing the page. The page on the
>> >server IS NOT CHANGED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> What difference does that make? Before the user sees the page,
>> microsoft has intercepted it and stuck in some links.
>
>So if I change the fonts, colors, turn off graphics and sounds, etc.
>then Microsoft has "intercepted it" and changed it in some way that the
>web author did not intend?
>
>What's the difference here? No one complains about that!
It's obvious you have mental difficulties, thus your inability to
distinguish between style and content. I am not dedicating any of my
valuable time into reading any of your worthless posts.
*plonk*
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Getting used to Linux
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:28:21 +0100
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:39:12 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>> > Well, I use XEmacs, not GNU. What is the explanation for that then?
>> > (Demonic infighting comes to mind)
>>
>> Emacs is Satanic. XEmacs is the product of Beelzebub.
>
>What is wrong with XEmacs or Emacs anyway? just curious.... seems I
>missed out on one of these holy wars. :-)
You need the control key every .0002 seconds.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Getting used to Linux
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:28:23 +0100
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:40:38 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>drsquare wrote:
>> >> I have, but it's proving difficult to find anything.
>> >
>> >Try http://www.linmodems.org/
>> >
>> >They call 'em linmodems. Maybe you'll find what you're looking for
>> >here.
>>
>> I had a look there, but it's a complete maze. Almost impossible to
>> find a modem listed.
>
>Do you know what brand of modem you have? like for instance Lucent?
>Let me know and I'll take a look at it for you and let you know.
I don't know. It came preinstalled, and Windows system properties is
no help. I know it's made by Conexant, but nothing specific.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:28:05 +0100
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:25:47 +0600, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <9gdnp2$r6v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>> Maybe you should know a bit more about DLL Hell.. its not about the
>> number of libraries but about the versions of the libraries installed.
>
>It's OK, he was just quoting the drivel he read elsewhere. He isn't
>expected to think about it critically -- or even understand it -- so
>long as it leaves him with the comfy feeling that Linux isn't a threat
>to his MS fantasy.
He probably wouldn't be here at all if he didn't think Linux was a
threat to his MS fantasy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
