Linux-Advocacy Digest #354, Volume #35 Mon, 18 Jun 01 08:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsft IE6 smart tags (drsquare)
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- He Created Unix, But Now Uses Microsoft Windows (drsquare)
Re: Getting used to Linux (drsquare)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (drsquare)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows (LShaping)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsft IE6 smart tags
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:52:50 +0100
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 02:32:31 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:42:42 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> ("JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>
>> >"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >> >But the issue here is the upcoming XP. Could one do this on XP as
>well?
>> >>
>> >> Who cares? Most people won't be able to afford it.
>> >
>> >If they're as broke as drsquare
>>
>> Or they don't have £500+ lying around to spend on something for no
>> real gain.
>
>You can't afford 100$ ?
I think it would be somewhat more than that.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dennis Ritchie -- He Created Unix, But Now Uses Microsoft Windows
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:52:51 +0100
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:32:00 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark)) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare wrote:
>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:46:01 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>>The linux version just installed and worked, what's more, it contained
>>>dependency info built it, in case there was a problem, so that it could
>>>be easily sorted, unlike the mess that was windows.
>>
>>"Just installed"? You mean you didn't have to worry about
>>dependencies, conflicts, libraries etc? You must be using a very
>>strange distribution.
>
>debian.
Surprise surprise, that's what I'm using. I take it you've never had
to install both xlibs and xlibg6.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Getting used to Linux
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:52:52 +0100
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:37:25 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark)) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare wrote:
>>On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:57:28 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>>I'll leave the rest to you. I imagine you'll fail at the next
>>>keystroke, but it'll be intersting to read the excuse.
>>
>>I wil fail, especially as I don't even know any of the technical
>>details of my modem.
>
>You don't need to. Just look in your motherboard book and it'll
>tell you all you need to know. Books are great.
It's not an onboard modem, so there is nothing about it in the
motherboard book, and I don't have a book for the modem.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:52:53 +0100
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 19:56:50 +1200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> It's very convenient. Much more convenient than loaded up a GUI, esp.
>> >> for simple things like file manipulation or running services.
>> >
>> >Lots of people use Excel for creating and manipulating text lists, are
>you
>> >suggesting that because gawk, sed & grep are more powerful tools for
>> >processing text lists we should remove Excel and give them those tools
>> >instead.
>>
>> When have I ever suggested that?
>
>It's a logical conclusion to reach from your previous statements
Then you must have a very strange definition of logic.
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 10:46:19 GMT
In article <9gkgt2$91e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, I can't be a judge yet, but I have read the thread on smart-tags.
> > But I know nothing about the smart tags. If I have a vax using netscape
> > 3.0 will I still be able to view all of the contents of a web page with
> > smart-tags on it??
> > Just making sure.
>
> Yes, NS will ignore all tags that it doesn't understand.
> At least it should ignore them.
The SmartTags aren't necessarily in the web pages. What some of us here
object to is the SmartTags that are stored in the browser's own files.
They're put there by Microsoft, and presumably could be updated over the
Internet. These tags are added to web pages by the browser itself,
without the knowledge or consent of the web page author.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 10:50:31 GMT
In article
<gOaX6.85749$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Daniel
Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suppose it depends what you call content. Those who
> have been bashing this feature here have used very
> strange definitions of this. Links are content, but
> images are not. I hesitate to ask whether prose
> is content!
I do not use this definition you're talking about. Pictures certainly
are content. Duuh. The fact that some browsers do not by default
download the pictures embedded in a page doesn't bother me: this is
known by most web page designers, and it is a subtraction of content.
> It doesn't seem terribly important, though. As I said,
> it's not the wavey underlines that you should
> worry about. That's a minor user interface issue. If
> SmartTags worked entirely in a separate window, which
> display tags according to what you had selected, or
> what you were pointing at, then all this nonsense
> about 'changing web pages' would never have been
> conceived- but the real issues would still be there.
Basically, that SmartTags *add* information to web pages, and the
information they add is not necessarily under the author's control. (And
if an author does add content using SmartTags to his page, then only
guests using the appropriate Microsoft browser will be able to display
that information.)
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 10:54:33 GMT
"green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> LShaping wrote:
>> >
>> > GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >LShaping wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> >"Chris Street" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message
>> > >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >> >> On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:28:22 GMT, LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> >LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >> >> >>"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?
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >Nevermind. Highly likely that was Microsoft's doing, but it does
>not
>> > >> >> >matter. Windows could unconditionally send a shut down signal to
>the
>> > >> >> >mainboard. Instead, Windows polls itself to see if shutting down
>is
>> > >> >> >OK. I have a macroer running which has something to do with it.
>The
>> > >> >> >same thing happens when I do Start - Shut Down. Probably has
>> > >> >> >something to do with the macroer's hooks. But the system is
>> > >> >> >controlled by the operating system. Therefore, it is Microsoft's
>> > >> >> >fault. My computer is supposed to shut down when I tell it to.
>What
>> > >> >> >would you think if you hit the power switch on your TV and for
>some
>> > >> >> >internal reason, it failed to turn itself off? This is another
>fine
>> > >> >> >example of blunderware from a monopoly OS maker whose only
>concern is
>> > >> >> >increasing profits and keeping appearances.
>> > >> >> >LShaping
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> So employ the power switch. It's the rocker on the back next to
>the
>> > >> >> power inlet. With an ATX board and a "power" switch that goes to
>the
>> > >> >> motherboard, you are at the mercy of the BIOS, and the OS.
>> > >>
>> > >> Must have an IBM PC-XT, from over ten years ago. Modern personal
>> > >> computers have only one power switch and typically do not have a
>> > >> rocker switch on the back next to the power inlet. Not in the United
>> > >> States.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >My IBM has a nice red rocker switch on the back.
>> >
>> > Provide a citation, a link to specifications of the power supply,
>> > since your opinion is meaningless.
>> > Microsoft slapped IBM so hard for wanting to include SmartSuite with
>> > IBM desktop PCs, IBM has stopped making PCs.
Correction. I read that somewhere, never verified it, and not sure
what it was referring to.
>> > Enlight and Antec power
>> > supplies have no such switch because, of course, before ATX mainboards
>> > came along the power switch on the front was wired directly to the
>> > power supply. Now, think for a minute. You cannot put two hardware
>> > switches together without extra circuitry. Besides costing the maker
>> > more, having two hardware switches wired to the same power supply
>> > makes no sense.
>>
>> Seems like only the brain dead can spew this crap... look dipshit... IBM
>> is international and they make equipment to meet the needs or
>> standardizations of various countries... to wit the nice red-rocker
>> switch on the back of my IBM pc.
>> If you had a clue about electronics <snip>
I have invented, designed, and built various Chess clocks (played
Chess before being introduced to real time strategy gaming). I
designed and built a low performance digital frequency counter which
was the size of a small matchbox. When doing hardware, I was
fascinated by electrical computer aided design. I bought MicroSim's
Electrical Design Automation evaluation software before I got a
computer to run it on. Later, MicroSim began to give it away on a CD,
without paper manuals. I grabbed that version too. Simulating simple
circuits blew away my fundamental misconceptions about how electronics
works. When National Semiconductor first published a CD version of
their complete collection of data books and gave them away for free, I
thought I had died and gone to heaven.
>
>2 switches on a computer could be confising.
>do both need to be on?
>or do you have that wierd effect of both can turn it on or off
>due to wiring ?
In the situation you are referring to, you would have two choices,
parrallel or series, neither is appropriate without logic.
>
>> I also have smart suite. No problems there and have never heard of such
>> a thing.
Nontheless, it is entirely true. (BTW, it is "SmartSuite", one word.)
The following large document will take a while to load at 28.8.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/computing/9911/microsoft.finding/microsoft.html
The IBM SmartSuite stuff gets going at about Finding 120. The meat is
around Finding 125.
>IBM never agreed to renounce SmartSuite or to increase its support for
>Microsoft software, and in the end, Microsoft did not grant IBM a license
>to pre-install Windows 95 until fifteen minutes before the start of
>Microsoft’s official launch event on August 24, 1995. That same day,
>the firms brought the audit issue to a close with a settlement agreement
>under which IBM ultimately paid Microsoft $31 million. The release of
>Windows 95 had been postponed more than once, and many consumers
>apparently had been postponing buying PC systems until the new
>operating system arrived. The pent-up demand caused an initial surge
>in the sales of PCs loaded with Windows 95. IBM’s OEM competitors
>reaped the fruits of this surge, but because of the delay in obtaining a
>license, the IBM PC Company did not. The PC Company also missed the
>back-to-school market. These lost opportunities cost IBM substantial
>revenue.
Microsoft is challenging very few of the Findings of Fact. Certain
parts of the Findings are interesting reading. Microsoft executives
really do look like barbarians.
>> IBM is still making pcs. Go to their website and look at the A20 to A60
>> series.
>> Besides the switch is pretty cheap... more like less than a buck if its
>> made in mexico.
>
>does it meet other countries standards though?
>and a buck can decide things when making a 1000 pc's
>swicth = $1
>extra wiring = 10c
>electricity and extra fitting 50 c ? I don't know depends.
>extra time to do fitting 20 c ?
>
>for each computer and people probably won't want to pay more so they have an
>extra switch.
>
>> --
>> V
>
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:07:08 GMT
In article
<t9bX6.85761$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Daniel
Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <br4X6.1948$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > In that web, you'd need Internet Explorer to function.
> > >
> > > *That* is the threat an MS-hater should fear, and not
> > > wiggley underlines.
> >
> > I don't like Microsoft. I dont like SmartTags.
>
> I noticed. :D
>
> > I've made it clear from
> > the start of this discussion that the reasons I don't like SmartTags are
> > different from "I don't like Microsoft."
>
> No, I really don't think you have, even if you meant to.
Then I shall repeat what I've said but you have ignored: I don't like
SmartTags because they allow some central authority to add new
hyperlinks to people's web pages.
> You have come of as if you are looking for
> *any* reason to condemn this feature, no
> matter how farfeched or ungrounded in facts.
The "facts" keep changing, and no one who knows the "facts" has coe
forth with a comprehensive and authoritative description of what
SmartTags are and how they work.
> > SmartTags allow some central authority to make additions to my web
> > pages.
>
> They allow lots of authorities to do that, but I
> don't see how any are 'central'.
The individual users aren't the ones I'm worried about. The one that
creates the SmartTags that ship with the browser (and will presumably be
updated fo the Web) are.
> > Yes, these additions are seen only by people using MS technology, and
> > for now, only by those who turn it on. But we have shown how MS invents
> > technology and inexorably tries to make it standard and pervasive.
>
> Yes, we have. This may be an example yet.
>
> > One objection to SmartTags is that it requires Microsoft technology to
> > make it work.
>
> That sounds very much like your reasons for
> hating SmartTags and your reasons for hating
> Microsoft, might just be related.
Sure, they can be related.
> Otherwise, why be so upset that it uses
> Microsoft technology in particular?
It's not the fact of Microsoft ... it's the fact that while it's an
option now, it is likely to become a default later on.
> > This makes it useless for anyone using some other operatig
> > system or browser. This is no big deal, really. I won't use SmartTags
> > and Linux and Macintosh users who visit my site won't see SmartTags.
>
> Yes. But it may be a big deal, if SmartTags are a big
> hit. Then again, it may not. The magic eight ball
> says: "Answer cloudy. Try again later."
> > The problem is that Microsoft users with SmartTags turned on will see
> > things added to my web site which I did not put there, which some
> > central authority over hwich I have no control put there.
>
> That's not important.
This is important. It is precisely the big deal I was talking about in
the previous paragraph.
> > The Web was originally about enabling individuals to publish their own
> > thoughts, ideas, images, songs, and so forth, for everyone to see,
> > pretty much no matter what sort of browser they used.
>
> Something more or less like that.
>
> > This has changed
> > to pretty much requiring a graphic browser, though some web designers
> > make their pages readable by text-only browsers.
> >
> > What this new technology does is
> > take away a web page deisgner's
> > exclusive control over content.
>
> You are complaining over an insignificance. The real
> import of SmartTags is not that it inflicts wavey
> purple underlines on your web page.
>
> That's no worse that the blue straight underlines
> that modern browsers inflinct on you. Those
> are *not* in the HTML, you know. They are
> a user interface element provided by the
> browser.
>
> What is important is not the squiggles but
> who put them there. And what is important
> is in particular that it is not just Microsoft!
> This thing is a platform- anyone can build
> on it.
>
> The threat is not that it will deface web pages
> but that it will replace some of them.
Don't use the bit about blue underlines as an argument against me; I've
never particularly talked about it. The aspect of *content* that
irritates me, as you've so helpfully but redundantly pointed out, is the
hyperlinks that are added to my web pages.
> > My web page will now be festooned with links, ads, images, comments made
> > by who knows who and put there by some central authority, and I will not
> > have any control over this crap defacing my wed site.
>
> Well, "festooned" is pretty strong, considering that they appear
> in a separate window, except for those darned squiggles.
>
> It's broadly similar to the way explorer bars are now,
> if you've ever seen those.
I don't care how it's implemented. Parts of my web pages become
hyperlinks I didn't put t here.
> > This sort of technology is not even very new. ThirdVoice, a failed and
> > not regretted Silicon Valley startup, provided a way for people to
> > deface other people's web sites. An Internet Explorer plugin would
> > contact a central database and look up each URL the browser displayed.
> > It would then display little symbols in the web site which, when opened,
> > would show comments made by web site visitors.
>
> Keen.
Defacement.
> > A number of people were upset about this, and there were web sites that
> > published Javascripts that defeated ThirdVoice by refusing to display
> > pages to a browser with ThirdVoice installed. I guarantee that the same
> > sort of thing will happen to SmartTags. Someone will even come up with a
> > patch for Apache that detects a SmartTags-enabled browser and
> > automatically send it to an alternate page. Maybe we need a new standard
> > error code for HTML, "Your browser offends me. FOAD."
>
> I grant that you have the right to refuse to deal
> with people who use products that you dislike;
> but I submit that that sort of thing will never
> be widespread.
Which sort of thing? ThirdVoice or servers that refuse to serve to
browsers known to mishandle incoming data?
> > No, it's not the purple squiggly lines that bother me, it's how this
> > wondeful cool technology, which was supposed to give the individual the
> > chance to publish his ideas, is being perverted to allow some central
> > authority to embellish those ideas with corporate-sponsored pap.
>
> ... in particular, corporate sponsored purple squaggly lines.
> That is what it is putting in there.
>
> Though I don't see how noncorporate squiggles are any
> better, honestly.
>
> What I'm trying to say is that the squiggles are not
> the important thing; this could have been done without
> *any* change to the way IE renders pages. Just have
> the pop-up window sensitive to what you hover
> over, and keep it up all the time. Simple.
>
> Not as user-friendly, but it achieves the same
> purpose, with no squiggles.
I don't care about the squiggles: the screen widget used to indicate a
hyperlink has always been implementation-dependent. What I care about is
that SmartTags are hyperlinks added to my pages without my control or
consent.
I don't pretend to speak for others in this debate. I have been clear
about my position on this matter. For you to focus on the visual aspects
of the SmartTags and correct me about the important implications of
SmartTags is irritating and dishonest.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
