Linux-Advocacy Digest #358, Volume #35 Mon, 18 Jun 01 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" ("Seán Ó Donnchadha")
Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance (Thaddius Maximus)
Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance (Thaddius Maximus)
Re: More microsoft innovation (Sandman)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" ("Seán Ó Donnchadha")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" ("Seán Ó Donnchadha")
why open source is no threat to microsoft LOL (Steve Chaney)
Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Craig Kelley)
More on MS's war of words.... ("Linux Man")
Re: New BSD Advocacy site! ("Bracy")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Seán Ó Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:56:05 -0400
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >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?
>
My point is that Unix/Linux is just as susceptible to shared library
conflicts as Windows.
> >
> >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.
>
Perhaps you'd like to describe Unix's "solution" then? Be my guest. I'll be
verry happy to show you that you don't know what you're talking about, and
haven't even spent a second thinking about it, preferring instead to write
up a stupid knee-jerk response.
------------------------------
From: Thaddius Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:51:19 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Thaddius Maximus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Edward Rosten wrote:
> > >
> > > >> > The term "representative democracy" was devised by the democratic
> > > >> > party and the tabloid press. Repeat an error often enough and long
> > > >> > enough and people will start to believe in the big lie.
> > > >>
> > > >> BS. It is a description of a system where a buncha of representatives
> > > >> are elected (democratically) to run the country.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Give it a rest Ed. The fact that the people of the US choose
> > > > representatives is not indicative of a "representative democracy." For
> > > > the US to be a
> > > > "representative democracy" the elected representatives would have to
> > > > consult the people on each and every matter and cast their vote
> > > > accordingly. This is clearly NOT the case in the US.
> > >
> > > That's not a representative democracy, that is a democracy, period.
> > >
> > >
> > > > In a "representative democracy" sovereign power resides in and is
> > > > exercised by the whole body of free citizens through represenatives.
> > > > This is clearly NOT the case in the US.
> > >
> > > No, the representatives are elected democratically. They the npass laws
> > > without further referendum.
> > >
> > > > Yes, in both systems there are representatives elected by the people,
> > > > but in the US sovereign power does not reside in, nor is it exercised by
> > > > the whole body of free citizens. The US is clearly NOT a
> > > > "representative democracy."
> > > >
> > > > We have "representatives" but this does not make the US a
> > > > "representative democracy."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> The confusion is that "democracy"=="representative democracy" which is
> > > >> not true.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > The only confusion lies in your incorrect understanding of the US form
> > > > of government. We have no democracy in the US, we are a Republic!
> > >
> > > You have a representative democarcy.
> > >
> > > You seem to misunderstand what a representative democarcy is. Yopu are
> > > comfusing it with a true democracy. Under the *correct* definition, the
> > > US is definitely a representative democarcy.
> > >
> > > -Ed
> > >
> >
> >
> > Please enlighten yourself to the form of US government and representation.
> >
> > http://www.indixie.com/indixie/Articles/Republic.htm
>
> Thank you, but I think I'll listen to Thomas Jefferson, not some
> Civil War "The South Will Rise Again" wannabees.
>
> -c
Naw, you see only what you want to see. Thomas Jefferson help establish
a Republican form of government.
You should seriously give this a full read:
http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
....
------------------------------
From: Thaddius Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:52:49 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Thaddius Maximus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > "Thaddius Maximus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Edward Rosten wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> > The term "representative democracy" was devised by the democratic
> > > > > >> > party and the tabloid press. Repeat an error often enough and long
> > > > > >> > enough and people will start to believe in the big lie.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> BS. It is a description of a system where a buncha of
> representatives
> > > > > >> are elected (democratically) to run the country.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Give it a rest Ed. The fact that the people of the US choose
> > > > > > representatives is not indicative of a "representative democracy."
> For
> > > > > > the US to be a
> > > > > > "representative democracy" the elected representatives would have to
> > > > > > consult the people on each and every matter and cast their vote
> > > > > > accordingly. This is clearly NOT the case in the US.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not a representative democracy, that is a democracy, period.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > In a "representative democracy" sovereign power resides in and is
> > > > > > exercised by the whole body of free citizens through represenatives.
> > > > > > This is clearly NOT the case in the US.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, the representatives are elected democratically. They the npass laws
> > > > > without further referendum.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, in both systems there are representatives elected by the people,
> > > > > > but in the US sovereign power does not reside in, nor is it exercised
> by
> > > > > > the whole body of free citizens. The US is clearly NOT a
> > > > > > "representative democracy."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We have "representatives" but this does not make the US a
> > > > > > "representative democracy."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> The confusion is that "democracy"=="representative democracy" which
> is
> > > > > >> not true.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only confusion lies in your incorrect understanding of the US form
> > > > > > of government. We have no democracy in the US, we are a Republic!
> > > > >
> > > > > You have a representative democarcy.
> > > > >
> > > > > You seem to misunderstand what a representative democarcy is. Yopu are
> > > > > comfusing it with a true democracy. Under the *correct* definition, the
> > > > > US is definitely a representative democarcy.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ed, just let your epiphany moment happen without fighting it. You'll
> > > > be OK.
> > >
> > > What is your major malfunction?
> > >
> >
> > I understand our (USA) form of government. What is your
> > problem -- stuck on media buzzwords?
> >
> > http://www.indixie.com/indixie/Articles/Republic.htm
>
> Please cite legitimate sources, not some civil war revivalist.
>
> -c
If you're willing to read:
http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2000/tst121200.htm
....
------------------------------
From: Sandman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:03:09 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, macman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > None of it, since none of your objections are "facts". They're
> > > > all just paranoia.
> > >
> > > Is that supposed to be an answer?
> > >
> > > The facts are very, very simple. A web page author creates a page
> > > the way they want it. Smart tags add things the author never
> > > intended.
> > >
> > > I personally believe in intellectual property. This is a massive
> > > violation.
> >
> > Actually, I came to think about something... What if I have a anti-IBM
> > site for example. A site where I claim IBM is evil and IBM is this and
> > that. How inappropriate if every "IBM" is linked to the site, stock
> > quotes and company info and the company homepage, something I would
> > -never- want to promote on my anti site.
> >
> > Hmmmm. I can see the email going to the webmaster from an unsavvy IE
> > user: "Thank you for the link to IBM stock quotes, it helped me write
> > my report" - GAAAH! :-D
>
> That's EXACTLY the kind of thing I consider evil about Smart tags. Not
> only do they deface the web site, it could entirely change the overall
> meaning.
And furthermore, as I stated in another reply in this thread, Smart Tags
makes my IE do a connection to a MS server for -every- page I surf (or so
I've understood it) to collect data about the SmartTags on the page I am
surfing on. I imagined a connection like that could look like
"http://www.mysite.com/index.html Chrysler Apple Donuts Linux" that gets
sent to and MS server. Now, by that request, amongst the others my IE has
done, MS has actually a total record of what sites I have surfed and what
they contained.
This is, of course, evil. I am not interested in getting my surfhabits
logged at MS.
--
Sandman[.net]
------------------------------
From: "Seán Ó Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 10:07:52 -0400
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Nonsense, Gary. One of the biggest reasons for using shared libraries is
to
> > allow apps to inherit library fixes. So previously installed apps are
most
> > certainly affected; that's the whole point. The way this happens on Unix
is
> > different from the way it happens on Windows (overwritten symbolic link
vs.
> > overwritten library file), but the effect is the same; at the end of the
> > day, all apps linked against a given major revision all get the same
minor
> > revision. Sure, other minor revisions may still be on the disk, but
they're
> > just sitting there doing nothing.
>
> You forgot to mention the bit where your distribution tries very hard
> to make sure everything cooperates before giving it to you.
>
Give me a break, Craig. My distribution may simply have no say in the
matter. What forces a particular app to come packaged for my distribution?
Besides, none of this matters. The distribution's package manager assumes
that minor revisions are 100% back-compatible, which is precisely the
assumption that may get you in trouble.
>
> Random Joe, downloading some whiz-bang source package fresh from CVS
> has absolutely ZERO right to complain about it being difficult to
> install and compile.
>
Are you listening to yourself, Craig? What possible reason would Random Joe
have to download a source package from anywhere? Mr. Joe will buy his apps
online or at CompUSA. And then he has every damn right to complain if the
thing doesn't work.
>
> Linux applications (and UNIX in general) NEVER
> overwrite shared libraries; the distribution does that, and only when
> instructed to do so.
>
Strictly speaking, Windows apps don't overwrite shared libraries either, but
their installers sometimes have to. And if you think commercial Linux apps
won't have to ship with single-click installers for Random Joe (if they
don't already do so), then you've never shipped a mainstream end-user app.
What, you think Mr. Joe can deal with a README saying "oh, by the way, this
app won't run until you use your distribution to install the following
shared libraries..."?
------------------------------
From: "Seán Ó Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 10:19:03 -0400
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
>
> Sun's mistake is the same one Microsoft makes: their class
> definitions do not have versioning built-in all the time (yes, there
> are some that do, I know). Instead, Sun has mandated that all
> programmers be perfect and write backwards-compatible libraries.
>
Actually, Microsoft's OS provides versioning support for all executables,
including shared libraries. See the VS_VERSIONINFO resource. But again, that
doesn't solve the problem. See below.
>
> But the solution has been implemented for decades; they only but need
> to look... Hell, VMS, from whence NT sprang, had versioning on
> *everything*. They intentionally took it out to make it more Windows-
> like.
>
Not only do you not know anything about Windows (see above), but you're also
sadly mistaken to think that versioning solves the problem. It doesn't. It
doesn't even come close. The simple example is as follows. You install
libfoo-1.1. You install appfoo, which requires libfoo-1.1 and inadvertently
relies on a bug therein. You then get appbar, which requires libfoo-1.2. You
install libfoo-1.2, which fixes the aforementioned bug. You install appbar
and everything seems fine. Then you run appfoo, and it breaks. Don't tell me
it's appfoo's author's fault, because blame is irrelevant. This kind of shit
happens in the real world. The point is that versioning is not a silver
bullet by any stretch.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Chaney)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: why open source is no threat to microsoft LOL
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:25:47 GMT
http://slashdot.org/bsd/01/06/18/1153235.shtml
http://public.wsj.com/news/hmc/sb992819157437237260.htm
and
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/19771.html
hehehe.
-- Steve
===============================
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove the "-" to email me)
This site is just TOO COOL for a counter! http://www.self-acceptance.org
STOP SMOKING NOW!!! ASK ME HOW!!! http://www.geocities.com/brenduh52/
"Let 'em eat eep" - Lady Veteran
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[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 07:42:11 -0700
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> LShaping wrote:
> >
> > GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >LShaping wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> >so disable windows drivers for ACPI.
> > >> >> >if it can't use them it can't control them.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for the lead. I disabled ACPI and APM in the BIOS. I do not
> > >> use Windows power management since it is dysfunctional, always has
> > >> been. In the most advanced consumer version of Windows (Millennium),
> > >> it shuts off my monitor while I am watching Internet TV.
> > >> :o/
> > >> After doing the BIOS, Emmy redetected the system devices. Then I
> > >> reinstalled the video card drivers and disabled the VIA ACPI device
in
> > >> Control Panel. That should do it. If not, I will take your lead
> > >> farther.
> > >> C ya,
> > >> LShaping
> > >
> > >Ouch! There is your problem... VIA.
> >
> > You are clueless! Whether Windows unconditionally sends a shut down
> > signal to the mainboard has nothing to do with the chipset maker.
>
> Not clueless but experienced. Via makes crappy chipsets and just about
> anything can happen.
I can testify to the truth of that statement. I have
never seen Windows of any incarnation stay up for longer
than a week at the most on VIA-based motherboards. IME,
ASUS, Tyan, and genuine Intel are usually the best route
for stability and performance.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 07:56:30 -0700
"Seán Ó Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:t4oX6.1545$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> >
> > Sun's mistake is the same one Microsoft makes: their class
> > definitions do not have versioning built-in all the time (yes, there
> > are some that do, I know). Instead, Sun has mandated that all
> > programmers be perfect and write backwards-compatible libraries.
> >
>
> Actually, Microsoft's OS provides versioning support for all executables,
> including shared libraries. See the VS_VERSIONINFO resource. But again,
that
> doesn't solve the problem. See below.
>
> >
> > But the solution has been implemented for decades; they only but need
> > to look... Hell, VMS, from whence NT sprang, had versioning on
> > *everything*. They intentionally took it out to make it more Windows-
> > like.
> >
>
> Not only do you not know anything about Windows (see above), but you're
also
> sadly mistaken to think that versioning solves the problem. It doesn't. It
> doesn't even come close. The simple example is as follows. You install
> libfoo-1.1. You install appfoo, which requires libfoo-1.1 and
inadvertently
> relies on a bug therein. You then get appbar, which requires libfoo-1.2.
You
> install libfoo-1.2, which fixes the aforementioned bug. You install appbar
> and everything seems fine. Then you run appfoo, and it breaks. Don't tell
me
> it's appfoo's author's fault, because blame is irrelevant. This kind of
shit
> happens in the real world. The point is that versioning is not a silver
> bullet by any stretch.
But on top of that, WindowsNT/2000 has a sort of version
control anyway... Service Packs.
If a current system shared lib gets replaced by an older
version, and breaks several applications, it's possible
to fix the problem simply by installing the latest
Service Pack to make sure everything is up to date, or
more conveniently, simply extract the contents of the
Service Pack, and copy the libs over manually.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: 18 Jun 2001 08:56:14 -0600
drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 17 Jun 2001 17:13:01 -0600, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> >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.
> >
> >Name one.
>
> xcruise.
In stable.
> parted.
In stable.
> sc.
In stable.
> gnotepad.
In stable
> greed.
> dopewars.
So drug war games count as a 'large majority of software' now? I knew
the ATF had a big budget, but sheesh. :)
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: 18 Jun 2001 09:00:11 -0600
"Seán Ó Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
> >
> > Sun's mistake is the same one Microsoft makes: their class
> > definitions do not have versioning built-in all the time (yes, there
> > are some that do, I know). Instead, Sun has mandated that all
> > programmers be perfect and write backwards-compatible libraries.
>
> Actually, Microsoft's OS provides versioning support for all
> executables, including shared libraries. See the VS_VERSIONINFO
> resource. But again, that doesn't solve the problem. See below.
It does little good if visual studio supports versioning (it's a good
thing it does, though) -- the convention is to overwrite the filename
with the same filename and to link against filenames.
> > But the solution has been implemented for decades; they only but need
> > to look... Hell, VMS, from whence NT sprang, had versioning on
> > *everything*. They intentionally took it out to make it more Windows-
> > like.
>
> Not only do you not know anything about Windows (see above), but
> you're also sadly mistaken to think that versioning solves the
> problem. It doesn't. It doesn't even come close. The simple example
> is as follows. You install libfoo-1.1. You install appfoo, which
> requires libfoo-1.1 and inadvertently relies on a bug therein. You
> then get appbar, which requires libfoo-1.2. You install libfoo-1.2,
> which fixes the aforementioned bug. You install appbar and
> everything seems fine. Then you run appfoo, and it breaks. Don't
> tell me it's appfoo's author's fault, because blame is
> irrelevant. This kind of shit happens in the real world. The point
> is that versioning is not a silver bullet by any stretch.
No, but it does solve the *more common* case that goes like this:
o Install appfoo which uses libbar-1.1
o Install appmoo which uses libbar-2.0
They both co-exist just fine. I never said UNIX version was perfect,
I'm just saying that its *better than what Windows offers*.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Linux Man" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: More on MS's war of words....
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 08:15:30 -0700
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6291224.html
"Behind the war of words, analysts said, is evidence that Microsoft is
increasingly concerned about Linux and its growing popularity. The
Unix-like operating system "has clearly emerged as the spoiler that
will prevent Microsoft from achieving a dominant position" in the
worldwide server operating-system market, concludes IDC analyst
Al Gillen in a forthcoming report."
------------------------------
From: "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New BSD Advocacy site!
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:49:36 GMT
In article <9gkd87$8lg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I see you dont actually work with either one.
I see you don't bother to read message headers.
Bracy
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:05:29 GMT
"Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:lYaX6.85755$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> I don't see it your way ... but you don't want me, a web site designer,
> >> the luxury of *not* having my web pages defaced by additional
> >> hyperlinks.
> >>
> >> Why do you have special privileges?
> >
> > It's a question of property rights. He owns
> > the computer; he can say what it displays.
>
> Do you mean to say I can change anything I want?
Yes, but only on your computer, not mine.
> Kewl!
>
> > Lbh pna, orpnhfr bs vagryyrpghny cebcregl
>
> hmm, rot13 doesn't look too fun. I think I'll try something else
What copyright restricts is distribution-
you can mangle my post all you want,
but send it back out over Usenet
is questionable.
> > rights, forbid him from obtaining a copy
> > while walking through a dark forest
> > of your web pages- though as a technical
> > jolly green giant lolipop
> > matter that's hard to enforce.
OTOH, you are allowed to parody, so
what you are doing now is allowed
even if I don't like it. (Though I
do, actually. :D )
> > But if you do permit him to view the page,
> > while wearing a small tutu,
> > you do not thereby gain any rights over his
> > timex-sinclair 1000
> > computer.
>
> Well, you sound rather silly now. It's a good thing that I didn't change
any
> of your content, I only added to it.
You could have changed it to make it silly,
if you wished- parody is allowed. Intellectual
property rights are not at all like the physical
ones.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:05:31 GMT
"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article
> <gOaX6.85749$[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 is certainly far more objectionable to many
web designers than smart tags- it deletes advertisements.
For many pages, deleting images is far more
destructive than adding wavey underlines-
it can render a page unusable.
I don't think you need be concerned with
either 'defacement'; but if you really feel
that SmartTags invasive user interface
is a problem, then there are worse problems
for you to tackle.
> > 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.
They add wavey lines, which may be construed as information
with a small stretch- it informs you that there are
SmartTags for the underlined bit.
But I think they the real issues would remain even if no
such information was added at all.
> (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.)
Well, that's always an issue with these kinds of
technologies.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
