Linux-Advocacy Digest #359, Volume #35 Mon, 18 Jun 01 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Microsft IE6 smart tags ("JS \\ PL")
Re: More on MS's war of words.... (pip)
Re: More microsoft innovation ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:05:33 GMT
"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article
> <t9bX6.85761$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Daniel
> Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > > 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.
Did I not comment on this? They allow many
'authorities' to do so, though how any is
'central' I don't see.
(At least, they do if you count wavey underlines
as hyperlinks, which many here seem to do. I'm
downplaying them in order to bring up some more
important issues, but I do not think calling them
'hyperlinks' is entirely unreasonable.)
> > 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.
Well, we aren't Microsoft; you have been pointed to
MS's SDK, which is MS's authoritative and comprehensive
description, if that is what you want.
> > > 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.
IMHO, Microsoft can't make any real impact
if only *their* preinstalled SmartTags are
ever used.
But if SmartTags because an new avenue of
content distribution, that would be very
different. That would greatly increase
Microsoft's influence.
[snip]
> > 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.
And therefore, not quite as separate as
you had lead us to believe?
Eg, perhaps you would not have objected
to this technology had it appeared in
Netscape first, even with the wavely
underlines.
> > 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.
I see no reason to believe this. I expect that what
will really happen is that you will be able to download
new SmartTags from the web, and if you do this
SmartTags will turn on automatically.
Though I don't see any reason to care
about whether its on or off by default, anyway.
[snip]
> > > 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.
It's not a big deal. It's just a little bit of user
interface for the browser. There are more
significant issues here.
Those wavey underlines are not essential
to what SmartTags does.
This remains true even if you call them
hyperlinks, by the way.
[snip]
> > 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.
I have. It's comparable; it's a user interface
element imposed into the body of the
page by the browser.
> 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.
I don't care much whether you call the wavey purple
underlines hyperlinks or not. What I'm trying to
point out is that you are making a huge deal of
a minor user interface change. You are
straining at the gnat, and ignoring the elephant.
[snip]
> > 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.
That's odd. You have been talking as if you care
very much how its implemented- you care that
they put wavey underlines in the body of
your web page, as opposed to keeping everything
in separate windows (as they might have done).
Do you condemn the "links" bar in IE too? It also
adds links, but these are not in the body of
page. If you don't care how its implemeneted,
then presumably you find the links bar just as
bad, right?
[snip]
> > 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?
The later. :D
I think you'll find that few web designers care
much about these little things.
[snip]
> > ... 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.
What if they were not added to your page, then?
What if they lived *entirely* in a separate window?
If you say that that would be okay then, then you
are complaining aout the presence of the wavey
purple underlines, and that's a triviality.
If you say that would be wrong, they you should
also be condemning the link bar.
> 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.
I do this, irritating or no, because you keep
trying to inflate wavey underlines into a big deal-
and I therefore must keep pointing out that
the big deal is elsewhee.
You are focused, laser like, on a very minor
aspect of the things, and you are missing
the potential impact of this technology.
I know you want to say "it adds hyperlinks"
rather than "it adds wavey underlines"; you are
trying to make this part of it sound more
important than it is- but it does not matter
whether you call the things hyperlinks or
wavey underlines, they are still not the important
bit.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:05:36 GMT
"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article
> <lYaX6.85755$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Daniel
> Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But if you do permit him to view the page,
> > you do not thereby gain any rights over his
> > computer.
>
> I don't pretend to be a lawyer. Nor do I pretend to understand how
> current copyright, intellectual property, or property law affect
> SmartTags.
>
> What I understand is this: SmartTags change the content of my web sites
> in ways I cannot control. I don't like that. I don't know what legal
> remedies I have or would want to exercise.
You have a real easy one- you can refuse to serve
your pages to IE 6 users. You have no rights over
his computer, or mine, but you have rights over
yours, and we do not have any right to be given
your pages just because we want them.
What you might like to do is make a case that
*everyone* who serves web-pages should being
doing this same thing. I don't think you've made
that case yet, though.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:05:38 GMT
"Tim Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> in article FAaX6.85742$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
> Daniel Johnson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 6/17/01 6:56
> PM:
[snip]
> >> No! It allows you to view PDF files in your browser.
> >> It doesn't make the PDF file a web page.
> >
> > What is a "web page", in your view? Is it just
> > arbitrarily defined to be "an HTML file"?
>
> While I don't limit web pages to HTML since there are several variations
> (XML and the like) I also would include something along the lines that it
> uses a graphical interfaces and hypertext links for easy navigation
between
> sites.
It is my understanding that PDF does support
embedding links. It's rarely used, though. HTML
is almost always preferable for navigation, exactly
because of its adaptability.
I will see if I can't dig up an example of
a PDF with a link in it. This may not be
easy, so have patience.
Though it seems to me that demanding a "graphical
interface" leaves HTML out- or at least it leaves
HTML viewed by a text-only browser out. I
suspect you meant something a little different from
that, but I don't see what it might be.
[snip]
> >> So if some company writes a plugin to display the source code of .exe
> >> files, all .exe files currently available for downloading on the
internet
> >> become web pages?
> >
> > It would. However, what you describe is not
> > possible, and would not be useful were it possible.
>
> I know a person who would find it very useful. He would, and has, taken
> source code, modified it and returned it to the original author. In one
case
> several years ago he de-compiled a small (~18K) screen print program, and,
> while keeping all of the functions intact, returned a 4k program to the
> author.
Viewing it as a web page would not be useful; you'd
want to bring the thing over into your IDE, not view
it in a browser!
But the impossible bit is decompiling the original
code from an executable. You can, with great effort,
get *some* sort of code out, but not the original-
information is lost.
What your friend did is extremely difficult.
> It wouldn't be a web page however but a source code file.
> The same with viewing PDF's online. They are not web pages but PDF files.
They are PDF files, just as most web pages are HTML
files.
> >> That is what you are say regarding PDF files.
> >
> > Yes, it is. 'Web pages' are a user interface
> > element; it is possible to make even Word
> > documents into web pages, though only
> > MS is so silly as to actually do it. :D
>
> But they don't instantly change from Word documents to web pages just
> because you can view them on the web UNLESS you indeed convert them to
some
> form of HTML, which is what MS, Adobe, and others offer as a 'save as'
> option in several programs. This 'save as' (real poorly IMO) adds the tags
> for you.
No, that's not what I mean. Word includes a plug
in that allow you to browse right into word documents,
just as you do with HTML or PDF. It's neat, actually;
links to .doc files work just like .html files.
And I suspect that you could put links into
Word documents too, though it might take
a gruesome hack to manage it. :D
Word doesn't have a lot to recommend it as
a web-page format, but it does work as
such.
I think the only way you are going to
sustain your point is to arbitrarily define
"web page" as "HTML file served over
the Internet".
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsft IE6 smart tags
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:05:54 -0400
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
So in other words, you don't have a clue what the prices will be for the
various versions of Windows XP. You just know you won't be able to afford
it. ROFLMAO!!
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More on MS's war of words....
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:08:41 +0100
Linux Man wrote:
>
> 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."
...and more on when they retract them....
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2776342,00.html?chkpt=zdnn_tp_
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:08:35 GMT
"Sandman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, macman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > 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.
What's your source for this?
No description of SmartTags I've yet seen
has implied it. It's the sort of thing that MS bashers
will believe if you tell it to them, but I'd like
to know if you have any reason to believe it
yourself.
> This is, of course, evil. I am not interested in getting my surfhabits
> logged at MS.
Nobody is. Nor is it obvious what MS would
gain by doing such a thing.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: 18 Jun 2001 09:09:07 -0600
"Seán Ó Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > 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.
Just like a DOS program *may* work under Windows 3.11, or a 16-bit
Windows app *may* work under Windows 95, or a Windows 95 app *may*
work under Window 2000; a RedHat 6.2 RPM *may* work under Debian Sid.
To be completely sure, one should be using dpkg (preferably with an
intelligent front-end like apt) and not trying to out-think the
distribution.
Minor revisions usually *don't* break backward-compatibility, which is
why RedHat got in such hot water over shipping broken versions of gcc
and libstdc++. As I've repeatedly stated: UNIX isn't perfect, but it
is more perfect than Windows.
Just because the problem can't be solved doesn't mean people shouldn't
try to do better than nothing (which is what Windows used to do before
2000).
> > 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?
Go back and read the first post to this thread sometime; this is
exactly what we're talking about (gnucash).
> 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.
Oh? Just like Adaptec Easy-CD Creator 4 users were SOL under Windows
2000 perhaps? Where's the outrage? People had to go and buy version
5.
> > 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..."?
I've never come out against static linking where it makes sense. My
Opera browser under my Redhat 7.1 desktop is all statically linked.
It may very well be the case that most commercial software ought to at
least provide for static binaries in addition to dynamic ones (Loki
does this all the time).
--
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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
