Linux-Advocacy Digest #295, Volume #35 Sat, 16 Jun 01 09:13:13 EDT
Contents:
Re: More microsoft innovation (macman)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (macman)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (macman)
Re: More microsoft innovation (macman)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (macman)
Re: The Win/userbase! (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Richard Thrippleton)
Re: Virus Scanners... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux wins again.... (drsquare)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (drsquare)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (drsquare)
Re: More micro$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$oft "customer service" (drsquare)
Re: The Win/userbase! (drsquare)
Re: The Win/userbase! (drsquare)
Re: Getting used to Linux (drsquare)
Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64? (drsquare)
Re: Getting used to Linux (drsquare)
Re: Virus Scanners... (drsquare)
Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64? (drsquare)
Re: IBM Goes Gay (drsquare)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (drsquare)
Re: Microsft IE6 smart tags (drsquare)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:12:32 GMT
In article <9gfgnd$e45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If I wanted links to send people to differnt places in my page, I
> would
> > > > provide them. IF I dont, I dont want some third party sending people
> to
> > > > places I have no control over.
> > >
> > > But it's not about you. It's about the *user*. We don't expect you
> > > to anticipate *every* thing that I might be interested in.
> >
> > Yes, it is about the web page author. There's no reason for all the
> > words in a web site to be linked to dictionary definitions, thesaurus
> > redefinitions, related news items, insider stock information, weather
> > reports ...
>
> Yes there is.
> I often encounter words that I don't understand, or find something of
> interest that I would like to check.
> Why do you think that you have the right to prevent me from doing it?
No one is saying you should be prevented from adding it.
We're saying that Microsoft -- convicted for abusing their monopoly
position -- should not.
>
> > And there's even less reason for these links to be controlled by one
> > company.
>
> But they aren't, anyone can add SmartTags.
But MS controls the default tags.
------------------------------
From: macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:13:14 GMT
In article <9gfgpe$e45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>
> > > It's *my* computer. How I choose to display your web page is none of
> > > your business. You supply the defaults, I supply the customization.
> >
> > I'm fine with that, as long as it's really you doing it. What I object
> > to is Microsoft (or anyone else) supplying new informational content in
> > the form of additional hyperlinks on my web site.
>
> By they aren't!
> They are supply a mechanism for the user to do it. And also supply a stock
> of smart tags, there is nothing wrong with this.
>
>
>
Read up a little bit on copyright law--specifically with regard to fair
use.
Now, try to explain how Microsoft's butchering of someone's web page
falls within fair use.
------------------------------
From: macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:15:05 GMT
In article <9gfgp3$e45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Neither Google nor anonymizer changes the _content_ of pages. If they
> > > > start changing the content, then they should be stopped.
> > >
> > > Smart Tags do not change the *content* of pages, either. It just
> > > presents more navigation options to the individual user.
> > >
> >
> > For a web page, hyperlinks are part of the content.
>
> But it doesn't add hyperlinks.
>
>
It adds tags which are functionally equivalent to hyperlinks. Even
Microsoft refers to them as 'extended hyperlinks'.
The bottom line is that Microsoft is adding content to web pages without
the author's permission - regardless of whether you call them hyperlinks
or not. What part of that don't you understand?
------------------------------
From: macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:16:15 GMT
In article <9gfgn9$e45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Dan wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If I wanted links to send people to differnt places in my page, I
> would
> > > > provide them. IF I dont, I dont want some third party sending people
> to
> > > > places I have no control over.
> > >
> > > But it's not about you. It's about the *user*. We don't expect you
> > > to anticipate *every* thing that I might be interested in.
> > >
> >
> > It IS about me, and my web page. -I- should be able to decide what is on
> > my page, not micro$oft. And, maybe I dont care what you are interested
> > in. Maybe I only care about my particular message.
> >
>
> Why should *you* decide? Why should *I* decide? It's displayed on *my*
> system, I want those SmartTags, what right do you have to not allow me them?
> And if I want to use the MS stock tags, what right do you have to tell me
> not to?
>
>
No one is telling _you_ what to do.
What they're complaining about is Microsoft's activity. What might be OK
for you, as an end user, to do is not necessarily OK for Microsoft, as a
monopoly, to do.
------------------------------
From: macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:16:45 GMT
In article <9gfgp8$e45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > That's absolutely true -- and falls under the Fair Use Doctrine I
> > already described to you.
> >
> > But for Microsoft to create a piece of software that automatically makes
> > changes to the content does not.
>
> So it's not all-right for MS to create a browser where you can shut-down
> sound/javascript/images/ etc?
Not showing all of the content is different than adding content.
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:37:06 -0400
> Simple:
>
> 1) Never run any untrusted EXE or ActiveX control.
>
> 2) Don't use Microsoft's EMail client - use one that doesn't support VB
> scripts.
>
>> I'll give you 1,000 sheets of paper and the next 10 years to
>> come up with something.
>
> I just came up with two simple rules, Charlie. They work very well for
> me.
>
3) If you run windows then always run a firewall.
4) Always use an up-to-date virus package on any EXE's you get sent even if
they come from a trusted source ( a virus on their system could have sent
the file). They may be generally useless for new virii but still better
than nothing and with luck the heuristic scanning will detect it anyway.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Thrippleton)
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:08:34 +0000
In article <HdxW6.1411$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Seán Ó Donnchadha wrote:
>
>Please. A thousand different configuration textfiles scattered all over the
>disk, each with its own syntax, is a billion times more "opaque" than the
>registry. The registry, being a transactional database, is also far more
>robust and less prone to corruption (when combined with a robust filesystem,
>of course).
Try telling that to one of my Windows using friends. Program locked
up his system, had to reboot, almost all of the registry corrupted. He
has a lot of work to do..... I'm guessing the program was accessing the
registry at the time.
It's easier to corrupt one file than many. All your eggs, one basket, go
figure.
As for different syntax in each config file, you think the registry
is any better? It might be name/value ordered but that doesn't make things
any easier. At least Unix config files are documented. The registry also has
this nice accidental feature of making it very easy for malicious apps
(i.e. spyware and spamware) to hide things from the user.
Richard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Virus Scanners...
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:42:26 +0100
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <9gevou$fej$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mig wrote:
> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> >> If XP is so secure then what will you say
> >> to a new computer with XP pre-installed and
> >> another Virus Scanning program also installed?
> >
> >Whats the relation to Linux?
>
> Linux has none nor will it ever have a virus scanner.
> Linux doesn't need a virus scanner.
>
> If you design your OS correctly you don't need such
> nonsense.
>
> Yet when you examine Windows and look back over time,
> they are probably celebrating their 15th anniversary
> of virus scanners and they still don't have a clue
> here.
>
> That's the relation.
>
> --
> Charlie
> -------
A badly administered Linux box is just as vulnerable to malicious code.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux wins again....
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:44:00 +0100
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:05:23 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Todd wrote:
>> W2k just wins because it has so much more built in functionality, more
>> ease-of-use, tons of built in support for hardware, and just far easier to
>> use overall.
>>
>> Linux is a *fine* server OS. But *nothing* more.
>>
>> -Todd
>
>It is always better to diversify ones skills. Don't put all your eggs
>into one basket.
>Keep your options open and try out and learn other o/ses as well.
>You'll be better off for it and opens new avenues of opportunity to you.
No chance of that happening. He's already decided that he's never
going to use anything other than Windows.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:44:02 +0100
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 19:34:48 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Seán Ó Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> First of all, DLL Hell doesn't mean a ton of libraries; it means a ton
>> of libraries THAT INSTALL OVER EACHOTHER (like MFC40.DLL, for
>> instance).
>
>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.
Your point?
>> UNIX does not have this problem because we have this
>> amazing thing called v-e-r-s-i-o-n-i-n-g on our libraries.
>
>No offense Craig, but you really don't understand the problem, so I suggest
>you drop the attitude.
It seems like you're the one who doesn't understand the problem.
>> They still have them. If you attempt to upgrade a library that
>> something else *depends* on, apt will scream at you; then you can
>> install *both* libraries happily together on the same system.
>
>Again, it doesn't matter if both are on the disk, since the symbolic link
>through which apps load the library can only point at one of them.
It's clear you know not of what you speak.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:44:05 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:36:02 +0900, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "drsquare"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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.
Which is all well and good if there is a package for it. But for the
large majority of software, there isn't.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:44:07 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:17:40 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Even if it's off by default and the user can turn it on, there's
>> > still the potential for vast abuse by Microsoft -- since they are the
>> > ones who set the default smart tags. To me, that's a much larger
>> > issue than whether it's on or off
>>
>> That is the most important issue, as far as I'm concerned. Who is in
>> control of these additional hyperlinks? Not the web page publishers.
>
>The user. The web page author can add some XML to have his/her own SmartTags
>displayed, though.
Like users are going to know how to do that.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:44:08 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:18:31 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Smart Tags do not change the *content* of pages, either. It just
>> > presents more navigation options to the individual user.
>> >
>>
>> For a web page, hyperlinks are part of the content.
>
>But it doesn't add hyperlinks.
Prove it.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:44:10 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:19:23 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> That's absolutely true -- and falls under the Fair Use Doctrine I
>> already described to you.
>>
>> But for Microsoft to create a piece of software that automatically makes
>> changes to the content does not.
>
>So it's not all-right for MS to create a browser where you can shut-down
>sound/javascript/images/ etc?
That's not adding or changing content to the site.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:44:12 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:21:07 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > It's *my* computer. How I choose to display your web page is none of
>> > your business. You supply the defaults, I supply the customization.
>>
>> I'm fine with that, as long as it's really you doing it. What I object
>> to is Microsoft (or anyone else) supplying new informational content in
>> the form of additional hyperlinks on my web site.
>
>By they aren't!
>They are supply a mechanism for the user to do it. And also supply a stock
>of smart tags, there is nothing wrong with this.
How is the user going to know how to do this?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:44:16 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:37:56 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Who controls the content of these added links?
>
>The user.
How do they do this?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:44:13 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:35:14 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > NONE of your examples changes the content of the page -- or adds
>> > hyperlinks. This is something new.
>>
>> They look like hyperlinks. They act like hyperinks. They are...
>
>They don't look like hyperlinks, they don't act like hyperlinks, they
>aren't...
They look like hyperlinks, they act like hyperlinks, they are...
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:44:17 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 08:44:14 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>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!
I've heard of a certain mail program automatically running certain
attachments. Also, your forgot to mention that Windows makes it easy
to make .exe files look like .jpg files etc.
>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.
Unfortuanetly, most users are stuck with Outlook Express.
>> will NOT work and Windows is NOT designed to stop any sort
>> of damage.
>
>The advantage of Windows security is that there isn't any. Security
>doesn't get in the way, like it can do on Linux.
I don't see how that's an advantage. I'd rather run a "cat /dev/null >
/dev/hd*" virus on linux than a "format c:" virus on windows. Why?
Because linux gives "Permission Denied!"
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:44:18 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 08:46:15 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> 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.
>
>Simple:
>
>1) Never run any untrusted EXE or ActiveX control.
Most users don't know what EXE or ActiveX means.
>2) Don't use Microsoft's EMail client - use one that doesn't support VB
>scripts.
Most users won't know what VB is, let alone that you can have
different email clients.
>> I'll give you 1,000 sheets of paper and the next 10 years to
>> come up with something.
>
>I just came up with two simple rules, Charlie. They work very well for
>me.
But not for the majority of users.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Getting used to Linux
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:44:21 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:57:38 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "drsquare"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> I find I use vi or vim a lot. Vi loads up faster than xemacs. One of
>>>> these days I'll buy O'reilleys little book on vi.
>>>
>>>Its a good book. There are loads of things I didn't know about vi, never
>>>mind vim.
>>
>> How much is it?
>
>IIRC £15 - £20
I think I'll just stick to reading things off the internet for free.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64?
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:44:22 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 08:49:17 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> MS better start cracking the whip if they want to keep up with linux.
>> :)
>
>What for? The Linux desktop is _way_ behind Windows.
Erm, have you been drinking again? In what way is the Linux desktop
behind Windows? Does having a MUCH wider choice of windows
managers/envirnments mean it's behind? Does being able to switch
resolution at the press of a key mean it's behind? Does having virtual
desktops and multiple work spaces mean its behind? Does not crashing
every ten minutes mean its behind? Does having better programs than
windows, all for free, mean its behind? You're confusing me now.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Getting used to Linux
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:44:20 +0100
On 15 Jun 2001 19:38:14 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(tom@nowhere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare says...
>>And for important things, like stability, efficiency, and
>>functionality, windows remains a few generations behind linux.
>
>I think win2k is very stable. Are you saying that win2k stability is
>few generations behind linux?
win2k? Sorry, but I'm just an average user who wants to surf the web,
write a few documents etc, and therefore I am left with what's
preinstalled: winME. I don't know what an OS is, let alone how to get
win2k.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus Scanners...
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:44:24 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 08:48:25 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>says...
>
>> Linux has none nor will it ever have a virus scanner.
>> Linux doesn't need a virus scanner.
>
>If it ever becomes popular on the desktop, it will need one.
No it won't. Linux makes it as difficult as possible for virii to
work. In linux, you can't just 'double click' on an attachment and
have it run.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64?
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:44:23 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:09:19 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> MS better start cracking the whip if they want to keep up with linux.
>
>A> Most of windows applications would work on IA-64 without even a
>recompile. They will be slow as hell, probably, but they will work.
Slow as hell? Then what's the point?
>B> All that it need, in nearly all cases, is a recompile of the application
>to IA-64 to get it to work on it in reasonable speed. That application, of
>course, wouldn't take advantage of what IA-64 has to offer, though. But I
>don't think that many of SuSe's application does it either.
You're forgetting one point: most windows programs are shit compared
to the linux equivalents.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM Goes Gay
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:44:27 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:06:48 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>> You're a mate of Kookis and you're trying to see who can get the most
>>> killfile entries. figures, really.
>>
>> Not really. I just hate the english, southern italians, most germans
>> and a handful of swedes.
>>
>> Kulkis hates everyone.
>
>No need to get nasty about your freinds, even if you are losing.
Ignore him, he's just after attention.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:44:28 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:06:46 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Hmm... if it's a winmodem then it's designed to work with Windows only
>and
>> >it's acknowledged that if you don't have the disk then you are, indeed,
>> >hosed UNLESS it's one of the several most popular brands that have
>drivers
>> >included on the CD already.
>> >
>> >And, tell me, how well does Linux work with a winmodem even with a disk
>> >handy?
>>
>> How well does Windows work with a linuxonlymodem even with a disk
>> handy?
>
>There isn't any.
Exactly!
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsft IE6 smart tags
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:44:25 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:29:38 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Dave Martel wrote:
>>
>> On 15 Jun 2001 14:04:09 -0500, "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >I gave some examples. Tell me ANYTHING about a printed copy that is better
>> >than the electronic version.
>>
>> You don't need electricity to read it.
>>
>> And have you ever tried to balance a notebook computer on your lap
>> while sitting on the toilet?
>
>Hehehe... especially if it accidentally falls into the toilet or gets
>wet.
>You can just dry off a book.
Yeah, but it will be completely fucked, unless it's glossy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
