Linux-Advocacy Digest #328, Volume #35 Sun, 17 Jun 01 09:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Marc Schlensog)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Marc Schlensog)
Re: The Win/userbase! (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: The Win/userbase! (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: The Win/userbase! (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Virus Scanners... (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Shane Phelps)
Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals (Rick)
Re: Is Linux for me? (Ralph Miguel Froehlich)
Re: Is Linux for me? (Richard Thrippleton)
Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64? (drsquare)
Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64? (drsquare)
Re: Microsft IE6 smart tags (drsquare)
Re: Microsft IE6 smart tags (drsquare)
Re: More microsoft innovation (drsquare)
Re: More microsoft innovation (drsquare)
Re: More microsoft innovation (drsquare)
Re: More microsoft innovation (drsquare)
Re: More microsoft innovation (drsquare)
Re: More microsoft innovation (drsquare)
Re: More microsoft innovation (drsquare)
Re: More microsoft innovation (drsquare)
Re: More microsoft innovation (drsquare)
Re: More microsoft innovation (drsquare)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) (Chris Street)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:40:25 +0200
Charlie Ebert wrote:
[Snipped]
> Microsoft has NO SUCH CAPABILITY. Microsoft is totally
> limited to the spectrum of the ALPHA and the IBM PC/INTEL
> arena.
IIRC, there is only x86 left, that's actively being supported
by M$. AXP-support ceased to exist beginning with WNT4.0 SP5 or6.
[Snipped]
Marc
--
They're only trying to make me LOOK paranoid!
It's fishtank (a) t-online.de, of course.
------------------------------
From: Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:54:10 +0200
Yeah, right, that's why M$ is starting anti-Linux campaigns.
But anyway, I despise M$ in the same way I despise Volkswagen
(seems logical, when one lives in Germany). It's because I know
what each one of them is capable, and I know, that there are
better alternatives, Linux on the one hand and Mercedes Benz on
the other one being such. Every Win-zealot is trying to tell us,
that Windog is easier to set up than Linux. Well, I can't relate
to that. I tried to set up my brandnew (well, it's used, but I
have it for about 2 weeks now) Duron-800 system. I installed Linux,
configured the kernel, compiled it, restarted /once/, and everything
was working perfectly. With Windows98 on the other hand, I first
downloaded the most current drivers for my hardware, installed them,
rebooted about 10 times, and it is still not working. Gimme one
reason for using Windows then?
--
They're only trying to make me LOOK paranoid!
It's fishtank (a) t-online.de, of course.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:03:58 +1200
Erik, the big thing I don't understand is this;
Charlie talks about how bad Windows is, and how unstable, unsecure
it is, etc etc, then posts his comments here. Now, as a
UNIX/Linux/Windows 2000 Pro user, I personally don't give a shit about
his anacdotal stories. If people choose to run Windows, Linux or any
other OS, good for them, however, don't come bitching and moaning
because you server/workstation was cracked, or infected with a virus.
Don't come out, all guns blazing because [product] doesn't do [feature],
or moan because someone insulted OS.
1. It is just software, not an animal, partner, sex toy or any other
"exotic" life necessity.
2. If you use Windows 2000 Pro, or Linux, then who cares? not me. How
is someone using Windows or Linux going to affect me? its not, hence, it
is not an issue.
3. Who cares what Microsoft does? I'm not worried about what Microsoft
does in its "secret under ground lear".
4. If you like using a particular piece of software or hardware because
it suites your needs, then so be it. Let the market place, and the
technology forums decide what is superior.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:07:48 +1200
> 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.
>
> 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!
>
> 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.
Here is one even better, been running Windows 2000 Pro for 2 years, no
virus scanner running or any other third party tools. I have had no
virus's, cracks, hack's, or anyother shit. I used to run Nutscrape
Scabpicker 4.77, now I am runing Mozilla 0.9.1. To get a virus, you
either have to be really, really, really unlucky, or fucking stupid.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:10:58 +1200
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>
>>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.
>>
>
> Um, yeah, I just thought of a couple of ways a JPEG lookalike could
> really be an exe in disguise. But then, I always switch on "show file
> extensions".
>
>
>>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!"
>>
>
> Unless you are root, of course.
>
>
Who runs in root when using UNIX?
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus Scanners...
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:16:04 +1200
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.
>
>
True, on my *NIX box I have 3 accounts, root, mgardiner, and internet.
Internet is used stictly for internet use only to ensure that nothing
can be deleted. mgardiner account is not used for net surfing, thus each
account is seperate from each other, thus stopping a viir from reaking
havok.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux
starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:19:58 +1200
>>Didn't Bismark say that Germany cannot effectively fight on two battle
>>fronts, hence, the defeat in the first world war?
>>
>>Matthew Gardiner
>>
>
> Not sure - but I think everyone agreed that fighting on more fronts
> that is needed is a stupid move.
>
Just checked, yes it was Chancellor Bismark. Had he remained in power,
the first world war would never have happened as the kaiser (William I)
would never have tried, "world politik", thus, "the balance of power",
with in Europe would never have been tipped.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 08:32:52 -0400
"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> >> My computer's Basic Input/Output Service settings and Windows settings
> >> are correct, as always. Microsoft has disabled the power switch in
> >> certain circumstances in an effort to cope with Windows technical
> >> problems. When I want to turn off my computer, I would like to use my
> >> computer's power switch to do so.
>
> >That's not Windows fault, it's to do with the ACPI BIOS I believe.
>
> And what entity dictated that standard?
Uh, Intel.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 22:39:12 +1100
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> Bob Hauck wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:37:34 +0100, pip
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Bob Hauck wrote:
> > > [snip agreeable stuff]
> > >
> > > > Static linking has problems too, BTW, just a different set of them.
> > >
> > > How so ? If I link to my own static lib or link to another static lib -
> > > at least I know it will work.
> >
> > Static binaries can't share code pages, which uses more memory. If the
> > kernel interfaces change, static binaries break, while dynamic ones can
> > still work if the libraries they use to make syscalls are updated. And
> > of course static binaries are bigger.
> >
> > In the case of GnuCash, which started this, I think someone said it was
> > 60-odd library dependencies. I'd say that is a bit excessive unless
> > most of them are pretty relaxed about which version you have. I agree
> > that developers need to pay attention to these issues and not just pull
> > in a big pile of stuff just because they can.
> >
> > --
> > -| Bob Hauck
> > -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> > -| http://www.haucks.org/
>
> Got a question then: Under Solaris 8 I have gcc and the libs. If the
> lib name is xyz.so.n.n is that a static or shared lib? If I have both
> types and I use the compiler what command line switch is there to link
> to shared libs?
> Under VMS I just typed in link/share to get a shared imaged for
> muli-user purposes.
>
> --
> V
Anything with .so in the name is a shared object by convention.
Libraries (strictly archives) end in .a, again by convention.
The linker precedence order is that shared objects take precedence over
archives (ie link dynamically if possible) if you use -l<library> in
the link options. This can be overridden by explicitly specifying the
library or object name.
For example:
ld -o fred fred.o -lxyz -lc -lm will create a binary fred, consisting
of whatever's in fred.o and dynamically linked with the libraries libxyz.so,
libc.so and libm.so. You can use ldd fred to check
while
ld -o fred fred.o <some path>/libxyz.a -lc -lm will create the binary fred,
consisting of whatever's in fred.o, whatever's relevant in libxyz.a and
dynamically linked with libc.so and libm.so
You can also get a bit more exotic and override functions in the libraries
by calling the appropriate object or library earlier in the link options.
That doesn't just apply to Solaris 8. It works the same with most Unix
linkers and probably a lot of those available for win32 as well.
Not that this has anything to do with the usual *advocacy flamefests ;-)
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 08:38:07 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Rick wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > drsquare wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 19:39:01 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > > > (Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Perhaps this is why he never gets any sex.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I do...with WOMEN.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >Women. Thats plural. Thats multiple sexual partners. Well, did you know
> > > > >your risk of contracting HIV is increasing exponentially?
> > > >
> > > > Which is also going against all the right-wing idealism he seems to
> > > > favour so much.
> > >
> > > false premise.
> > > I'm NOT right wing.
> > >
> > > Right wing and Left-wing political views are BOTH a form of SOCIALISM
> > >
> > > and...since I'm a libertarian, and libertarians are opposed to socialism
> > > in ALL forms, that means that I am opposed to right-wingers just as
> > > strongly as left-wingers.
> > >
> > > Hope that helps, you politically illiterate MORON.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> >
> > I repeat.
> > Women. Thats plural. Thats multiple sexual partners. Well, did you know
> > your risk of contracting HIV is increasing exponentially?
>
> No, that would be LINEARLY, you idiot.
>
> And that's based on the assumption that I engage in the SPECIFIC
> acts which make one open to infection.
>
I love it fools who show their ignorance, arrogance and bigotry.
Sex with multiple partners is having sex with more than one person at a
time, or having mutltiple partners serially.
And, unless you confine yourself to oral sex, you ARE engaging in
activity which makes you open to infection.
You really should take an AIDS Awareness Course.
> >
> > <Rude and obnoxious sig snipped.>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
<Rude and obnoxious sig snipped.>
------------------------------
From: Ralph Miguel Froehlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Linux for me?
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:55:25 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
/p@- wrote:
>
snip
>
> IE is the best browser. numbers talk for itself.
>
snip
>
Eat shit. Millions of flies can't go wrong.
--
Cheers
Ralph Miguel Froehlich
Using S.u.S.E. 4.3 and SuSE 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Thrippleton)
Subject: Re: Is Linux for me?
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 13:30:28 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jack Tripper wrote:
>
>I should of put 'editor' in there. I like to use crappy
>WYSIWY(almost)G stuff like Netscape Composer for the basic layout and
>then I go to notepad to put in all the fancy javascript stuff....I
>know netscape makes it's browsers, news readers, and email clients for
>Linux do they also make the N.Composer for Linux?
>
>I realize I may be offensive to some of you, I'm saying "I'm ignorant
>with web page writing and I want to stay that way", obviously if I
>have to sit down, bite the bullet and code by hand I will do that, and
>probably make better web pages for it. But I maintain so many that
>Netscape Composer is really useful for all the crappy stuff, putting
>in some links, taking out some links...
Let me guess, you're not a fast typist? That's usually the case for
those who prefer WYSIWYG editors. As for obtaining one, I think Netscape for
Linux has Composer, though I can't be sure. If you want something that
doesn't expand to fill all available RAM, then search www.freshmeat.net for
html editors.
Richard
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64?
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:12:48 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:23:29 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <9gfd3e$2rt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> > What for? The Linux desktop is _way_ behind Windows.
>>
>> Aaah, a classic PG argument: non trolling, well thought out and plenty of
>> good points backed up by facts.
>
>Just take a look at the numbers. Need I say more?
What numbers?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64?
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:12:49 +0100
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 06:02:59 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Linux Man" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> But you have not proven what precentage of those 1500 ARE worthless so
>> you have not proven your point. Given you exagurated claim of "200
>> window managers" I would think your claim that most Linux apps are
>> worthles is also an exaguration.
>
>So how many Window managers are there in the latest debian?
More than there are in the latest Windows.
>> Not one word about porting, but you claim that that was the point of your
>> post.
>
>??????? The entire thread is about apps ported to IA64, that's the context
>of the thread.
Windows apps ported to the IA64. Nothing about Linux.
>> Read the subject, it asks how many applications Windows can run on the
>> !A-64. By that means that this thread IS about Windows.
>
>Ahh yes, the article subject line is always such a definitive definition of
>what the content is about.
Then why is "Windows" in the IA64?
>> > your molehill and proclaiming yourselves rulers of the world.
>>
>> My molehill? It was you that claimed "200 window managers" and most Linux
>> distros having "6000+ plus apps. Gees, talk
>> about Pot->Kettle->Black!
>
>Apparently its even larger, debian seems to have over 7000 now.
Which is better than Windows, whereby you have to download all the
programs afterwards. When will they learn?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsft IE6 smart tags
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:12:49 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:35:37 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>drsquare wrote:
>> >> 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.
>
>So will the lap top... unless everything is sealed to MIL-SPEC.
But then how is the fan going to work?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsft IE6 smart tags
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:12:50 +0100
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:16:16 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>green wrote:
>> > You can't do that, sorry. If you would try to do that, it would fail and
>> > complain on being unable to do this due to locked files.
>> >
>> correct but you can move enough to cause a failure to load even safe mode.
>> and the option is a reinstall. and with persistence you can move all but a
>> select few.
>
>But the issue here is the upcoming XP. Could one do this on XP as well?
Who cares? Most people won't be able to afford it.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:12:51 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:18:11 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> A hyperlink is added to the page. In fact, loads could be. Ones which
>> were not intended by the original author.
>
>No, a hyperlink is *NOT* added to the page. Certain words are given Smart
>Tags, which act entirely differently than hyperlinks.
How differently?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:12:51 +0100
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 06:09:15 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Nonsense. Absolute, unadulterated nonsense.
>>
>> A hyperlink takes the user to another web page. Smart tags take the user
>> to another web page.
>
>No, the Smart Tag does not take you to another web page. The Smart Tag
>creates a popup, the popup provides hyperlinks which can take you to another
>page. The Smart Tag is what the user sees in the web page, not the popup
>window containing the links.
And therefore the user thinks it's part of the site.
>> They do exactly the same thing, although the actual clicking motion
>> varies slightly.
>
>No, they don't do exactly the same thing. The Smart Tag never takes you to
>another page, ever.
Oh, so what DOES it do then?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:12:52 +0100
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:00:51 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > But they aren't, anyone can add SmartTags.
>>
>> Any individual user can add his own SmartTags to his own web browser.
>> Big deal.
>>
>> But who supplies the initial list of tags? Microsoft?
>
>Yes.
>It also provides the user with the default homepage, bookmarks, settings,
>etc.
>Your point?
The links will be provided by MS, who will use them for their own
gain.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:12:53 +0100
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 07:19:32 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Yes.
>>
>> My point all along. I don't trust them to select the links for me.
>
>You can change that, your point?
About 1% of users will be able to change it. The rest won't.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:12:54 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:10:34 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, macman
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> But MS controls the default tags.
>
>I'm certain that this is incorrect. Everything I've been reading from
>the defenders of Microsoft suggests that there are no default tags, that
>all the tags are added by the user. }: )
In that case, for 99% of users, there will be no tags, so there is no
problem.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:12:54 +0100
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:56:10 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> The informed user can change it. What about the uninformed user? What
>> about when Microsoft decides that since everyone uses SmartTags, they
>> decide to make the default be On?
>
>The uninfromed user wouldn't be aware of this feature.
Exactly, they'll just use the links MS gives them.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:12:55 +0100
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:55:09 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> SmartTags, on the other hand, are selected by some other agency over
>> which you the user have no control. How do you know what content
>> Microsoft will supply? You don't.
>
>No, they aren't. You can choose whose definations you will use. MS provide
>such a defination, you can get someone else's, or write your own.
>The user has control on whose defination s/he is using.
Most users have trouble using Control Panel. How you expect them to
write tags, or even understand the tags, is beyond me. Also, if you're
writing your own, doesn't that defeat the whole point of the tags in
the first place?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:12:56 +0100
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 07:10:28 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> That's so amazigly self-contradictory it's hard to know where to begin.
>>
>> "MS provide such a defination" means that the tags are selected by some
>> other agency over which you the user have no control.
>>
>> In order to have such control, you're requiring the user to go and
>> delete all the MS-supplied tags. Tell me all the users are going to do
>> that!
>
>How many users are going to change the MS-supplied homepage?
You're contradicting yourself again. First, you claim that users will
be able to write their own tags, therefore there's nothing wrong with
the tags. Next, you point out that most users can't even change the
homepage. Am I missing something here?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:12:57 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:05:24 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > MS provides me with the tools to do so. I don't have the
>> > time/money/incentive to create this myself, why would MS be prevented
>> > from implementing this? The smarttags aren't hard-coded, they can be
>> > changed by the user,
>>
>> Which the user has to read some obscure DSK to find out how to do.
>
>This is rich, coming from a Linux user. You think man pages and how-to's
>are any easier?
They're incredibly easy.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 14:12:58 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 23:27:01 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> Why do ALWAYS fail to see anything wrong with anything that micro$oft
>> does?
>
>I don't, I've criticize MS in number of occations, usually on their prices,
>licenses, and 9x.
>
>> micro$oft provides the intial links list. CAN you remove those?
>
>Yes.
>> micro$oft CAN insert links to ftheir pages from competitor pages.
>
>Can you prove that they do that?
I will when smart tags are released.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Street)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux
starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 13:01:58 GMT
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:19:58 +1200, Matthew Gardiner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Didn't Bismark say that Germany cannot effectively fight on two battle
>>>fronts, hence, the defeat in the first world war?
>>>
>>>Matthew Gardiner
>>>
>>
>> Not sure - but I think everyone agreed that fighting on more fronts
>> that is needed is a stupid move.
>>
>
>
>Just checked, yes it was Chancellor Bismark. Had he remained in power,
>the first world war would never have happened as the kaiser (William I)
>would never have tried, "world politik", thus, "the balance of power",
>with in Europe would never have been tipped.
>
>Matthew Gardiner
Bismarck was most certainly one of the most gifted statesmen ever as I
recall. It's hard to imagine him getting his country into such a mess
as the Kaiser did over such a flimsy excuse.
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The other 42% are made up later on.
In Warwick - looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
