Linux-Advocacy Digest #456
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: Linux has one chance left. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux has one chance left. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Gary
Hallock")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Economist and Open-Source ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Economist and Open-Source ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:11:10 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001
>> >> Or, more honestly, it's the best tool to build apps for that desktop,
>> >> because it dominates (criminally) that desktop. Nobody ever accused
>you
>> >> of being honest, though, eh, Daniel? :-*
>> >
>> >The amazing thing isn't really that you believe that.
>> >
>> >The amazing thing is that you can't wrap your
>> >brain around the notion of anyone disagreeing
>> >with you.
>>
>> What in the world gave you that impression?
>
>That would be: "Nobody ever accused you of
>being honest"
>
>You seem to think that I can't *really* believe
>what I say, so I must be lying.
I suppose it might seem that way to you, sure. I don't mistake lack of
lying for being honest, though. Whether you believe what you say is not
a subject I'm willing to discuss as an entire category. I'm not
planning on second-guessing you, but simply double-checking your
statements indicates you are being dishonest, routinely. Perhaps it is
meant to be light-hearted, but I've already pointed out that there's
little humor in criminal activity, so your supposed merriment is
obviously just trolling.
>> Just because people
>> disagreeing with me are often in error does not mean I have any trouble
>> with the concept of their disagreement. Post to Usenet and believe
>> no-one can disagree with me? The cognitive dissonance of the very idea
>> makes my head hurt.
>
>Mine too.
>
>> Hell, *I* disagree with me all the time! What's the problem?
>
>Really? I've never seen you do that. :/
I don't do it out loud, for god's sake. They'd have never let me out of
the hospital if I still did that! :-D
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:11:11 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >I don't find any of these criteria particularly
>> >satisfying.
>>
>> Welcome to the fascinating world of abstraction. Ever read Plato,
>> Daniel? That's what you're trying, known as the Socratic or Platonic
>> method; through this means it is possible to "prove" that nothing
>> "exists". Ever heard the term "post-modern bullshit"? That'
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456, Volume #33Sun, 8 Apr 01 23:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: CLI vs. GUI (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman (Isaac)
Re: XP = eXPerimental (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Bob Hauck)
Re: XP = eXPerimental ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Xerox bans XP = eXPerimental beta ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: t. max devlin: kook (mlw)
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (JulianD.)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Jim Richardson)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Jim Richardson)
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a (Jim Richardson)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("RTO Trainer")
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (silverback)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (silverback)
Re: DVD on Linux? ("mmnnoo")
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (".")
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? ("Jimi Thompson")
Re: Linux is just another Unix (yawn) (Peter R. Wood)
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: CLI vs. GUI
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 01:23:20 GMT
667 Neighbor of the Beast wrote:
>
> > "Aaron R. Kookoonut" wrote:
> > >
> Ever see a true newbie in front of a Windows machine?
> > >
> > > They are just as stymied by a GUI as they are by a command line.
>
> Yes it has been proven that DOS accounting apps are 3X more productive
> for a business to use than GUI accounting apps cuz the office workers
> find them so much easier to use.
A newbie always moves tentatively in a new neighborhood, whether
on foot, on a bike, or in a car.
--
[ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 01:11:45 GMT
On Sun, 08 Apr 2001 17:39:02 -0700, Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Isaac wrote:
>> First they claim that if you distribute
>> a program that can link only to a GPL'd library, that when you distribute
>> the program even without the library, you are really still distributing
>> the program+library.
>
>I don't know whether they actually claim that or not, but frankly, it's
>ridiculous.
I agree with your assessment. Unfortunately, there aren't any usenet
archives available that are older than about 6 months, so I couldn't
pull up some of RMS's posts on the subject.
Without re-reading I can't state for sure whether that claim was
explicitly stated or whether it was just a corrollary of some other
facet of RMS's position.
Isaac
--
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: XP = eXPerimental
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 01:32:20 GMT
Goldhammer wrote:
>
> On Fri, 06 Apr 2001 17:21:34 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >:> Naw...It means eXtra Profit...
>
> >eXtra Pathetic
>
> eXceedingly Perverse
>
> eXorbitant Price
>
> eXtraordinarily Purulent
>
> eXtraneous Procedures
>
> eXpect Pus
Yum yum!
> eXtreme Pain
XenoPhobic
Xanthoma Producing
Xmas Present (for the kiddies)
Actually, this here dictionary has an entry
for XP:
"A monogram used to represent Christ or
Christianity, composed of chi and rho, the first
two letters of the Greek word for Christ."
I guess that means Microsoft won't be donating
this OS to any public schools .
Chris
--
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 01:36:12 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECT
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456, Volume #32 Sat, 24 Feb 01 21:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Dan Pop)
Re: RTFM at M$ (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: [OT] .sig (was: Something Seemingly Simple.) (Mark McIntyre)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Stuart Krivis)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ ("Edward Rosten")
Re: How much do you *NEED*? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: How much do you *NEED*? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Which Linux? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (J Sloan)
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 20:10:24 -0500
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> -hs- ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : To avoid the question "Why isn't it in radians as is the standard?"
>
> So, it is in radians. Now that I know about the "-lm" switch for the compile,
> I get to make a degree2radian conversion line to add to my code. Something
> off-topic is that the TI-86 calculator out of the box defaults to radians.
> (you set it to degrees)
>
> Here's a chance to correct (and flame) me. Last time I checked, a full circle
> is 3.1415926 radians, that being pi number radians to equal 360 degrees.
> Time to add the conversion line to my little programme.
>
correct. Pi radians = one circle.
> --
> FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
> The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
> The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: "meow" is yet another anonymous coward who does nothing
but write stupid nonsense about his intellectual superiors.
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
--
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 02:02:23 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Peter
Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I then thought CUPS must be to blame, but from what you say it
> would seem to be GIMP, but how is it that some people don't
> have the problem?
>
> Peter
Well,
Steve Mading pointed out his configuration *always* filters
printer output, even if it is labeled raw. It appears that
different distros apply different filtering policies. I don't
what distro Steve is running (he didn't mention, or I missed it)
but I would consider that behaviour as broken, because if I
state that I want unfiltered output to my printer I don't want
my system to second-guess me and filter it anyway. OTOH, I
compulsivel
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 16:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows Stability ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Re: Will politics kill the case or will justice prevail? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard
))
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: Windows 2000 (Shane Phelps)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: The real truth about NT
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: 14 Jan 2001 20:12:15 GMT
In comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Perhaps it would be worth reflecting on the fact that many of the stability
: problems for NT and LINUX as seen by advocates on both side of the issue are
: the result of inexperience with the OS they despise most!
There is some truth to this, but it's just a little more complex.
First, Linux itself (the kernel) doesn't have stability problems, but
Linux distributions often do, because they often ship with buggy apps
and/or security settings that simply aren't appropriate for machines
that aren't behind a firewall. These problems will bite newbies more
than advanced users, but they are problems in the apps and/or
configuration, not in Linux itself.
As for NT, it tends to be relatively stable out of the box, and then
become less so over time, as DLL Hell and bitrot slowly and
insidiously take over. Both of these are preventable, but only
through very competent systems administration, which is difficult to
find in the NT world, since competent sysadmins can earn much more for
doing much less stressful work in a Linux or UNIX environment.
For the record, I have *far* more experience using and developing for
NT than for Linux, but still far prefer the latter.
Joe
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:15:25 -
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:18:21 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Here is a question for all us Linux people.
>>
>> If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
>> others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
>> consider it?
>
>The problem is that X is so entrenched in Linux that it would be damn near
The bulk of what constitues Apple NeXTstep is already
running on top of X courtesy of GNU and has been for
awhile now.
[deletia]
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
--
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Will politics kill the case or will justice prevail?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 20:06:06 GMT
In article ,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The Register: MS anti-trust appeal looms
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/15891.html
>
> This case appears to just run and run.
>
> Why is it taking so long for the US Courts
> to come to any conclusion in
> this case?
The American court system was designed from a very interesting point of view.
Because of the travisty of justice that happened during the Salem Witch
trials, the American court system was designed to protect defendents from
"Witch Hunt" style persecution. The defendent is presumed innocent until
convicted. They have a right to legal council, they have a right to privacy
and search and seizures require judicial review. Even the best judges and
prosecutors make mistakes, or can be politically or economically motivated to
engange in unjust prosecution. For this reason, we have an appeal process
that can often take years to complete.
Keep in mind that it was under the administration of George Bush senior that
Microsoft was first investigated and prosecuted. The federal trade
commission investigated Microsoft, identified a number of illegal actions,
and after negotiating a conduct agreement with Microsoft opted NOT to have
the Department of Justice prosecute Microsoft). It was only when Microsoft
violated the original Bush agreement that the DOJ reluctantly took the
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 23:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: C++ -- Our Industry... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("PLZI")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: C++ -- Our Industry... (kiwiunixman)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. (spicerun)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: C++ -- Our Industry...
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:16:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>> Windows has made it's fair share of EXPERTS in the fields
>> of wasting money and pissing people off.
>>
>> Anybody who spends time developing applications for VB
>> is an idiot. Hell! The whole crappy Microsoft shitbag
>> will be gone! Vanished in just 5 years!
>>
>
>It won't be gone in 5 years, but the issue is longevity. VB stuff
>written now, will not function in 5 years. It will require a rewrite.
>
>C/C++ code written today may need to be recompiled, but C/C++ are
>standards.
>
>We are in a disposable economy. Years of people's lives wasted on silly
>things is OK if you can make a profit.
They had NO DESIGN! When asked how did you develop
this crap for the last 3 years the answer was
we assigned everybody a loose idea of the project
in peices and had them spend 1.5 years writing it,
then they FITTED the peices together for the other
1.5 years.
>> But there are a TON of NITWITS out there my friend
>> who will spend millions proving they are assholes.
>
>I have yet to see a real product made with VB. I have seem lots of
>prototypes that have wow-ed management, to just fall flat when a
>productization push was made.
>
>
>--
>http://www.mohawksoft.com
Management could not accept the notion of delaying
the project for another year so all these peices
could be fitted together properly and tested.
We found this all out when the last VB crudster
resigned 2 weeks ago. They all left in the
span of 3 months.
And this final paragraph is ironic as hell!
wow-ed by prototypes then fell flat on their faces
when management forced shipment.
This is EXACTLY what happened.
And customer confidence in the product went to
ZERO! And the product was shut completely off.
A dismal and expensive failure as management felt
they KNEW BETTER than the more experienced software
developers. They felt the certifications were the
real key, the aspect they had 6 months to 2 years
experience with VB was the real key!
The REAL KEY was you have to have experience with
developing projects from the ground up. It has
nothing to do with instrumentalities. It's the
experience in designing a project then bring it
forth from the ground up as a team.
They weren't even a team. VB people don't work
that way. Their most serious projects always
seem to revolve around some limited web site.
Even more shocking! The team they hired managed
to spend almost twice the money during a 3 year
time period as the in-house mainframe department
did with all their purchases and needs.
I disagree with you about 5 years. Microsoft
will be gone in 5 years because of cost.
That and subscription based crap will turn
customer incentive away from Microsoft and
toward Linux.
And I'm certain of this.
Charlie
--
From: "PLZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:28:24 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:DseU5.25033$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "PLZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9G8U5.91$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > I am NOT saying that MS is Doing the Right Thing when not giving the
> > intricasies of these services - but I fully understand why they do not
> give
> > them. I can come up with tens of examples, where the protocol is open,
but
> > the service which uses the protocol is prorietary.
>
> Then why do they keep up the deceptive pretense that they use
> standard protocols and can interoperate correctly with anything else?
> They don't and can't as long as they use proprietary protocols and
> should be forced
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456, Volume #29Wed, 4 Oct 00 19:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Michael Marion)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the (mlw)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Michael Marion)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: SE is simply unstable!!! ("George")
Hotmail still runs BSD. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: GPL & freedom ("Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? ("MH")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Open Source to impact industry in 4 years. (Charlie Ebert)
RE: Open Source to impact industry in 4 years. ("Raul Iglesias")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
What to do if your stuck using Windows. (Charlie Ebert)
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 19:17:21 -0300
El mié, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
>[a bunch of tripe.]
>
>
>A, this is finally coming to an end.
Are you considering leaving the thread? I notice this is in reply to that post
where you made such a terribly obvious logical error. Perhaps you are too
ashamed?
--
Roberto Alsina
--
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 22:13:01 GMT
Darren Winsper wrote:
> Getting Evolution to compile on Linux is a painful experience at the best of
> times, I dread to think how bad it would be on Solaris.
Well I was able to do it so nyah. :)
Evolution is definately a long way from done though... but it does have
promise.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://www.miguelito.org
My karma ran over your dogma.
--
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 18:15:33 -0400
John Garrison wrote:
>
> Bear in mind too (I'm no fan of M$ but) that Windows, on one cdrom, has
> to manage to run on about ten thousand different machines all with slightly
> different procliviities. The fact that WIndows is so er, ummm, robust a
> piece of work makes it so much harder to accomplish that feat. I am guessing
> that much of WIn code is a kludge, it will never be perfect becuase it was
> not written specifically for your machine. IT's a function of the way
> windows is written, in a high level language that requires multiple layers
> of translation before it becomes the machine code of 1's and 0's that your
> computer understands. IMO Object Oriented Programming and the use C++ et
> als, is the bane of elegant software authorship. I like to eat Spaghetti,
> but I can't tolerate spaghetti code!
The Windows alleged stability comes not from workmanship of the artisans
at MS, but the bludgeoned OEM's that must do what Microsoft says to get
a cute little Windows flag on their box.
Were one to argue that Windows has accomplished some amazing feat, one
could easily look at the likes of Linux and FreeBSD. With little, if
any, OEM participation, these operating systems operate with fewer
problems with common hardware than does Windows.
So what feat of Windows' accomplishment are you addressing?
>
> --
> Counfucious said:
> He cannot die happy; that hasn't owned a Jeep.
> "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8qt17n$jgk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8qsv46$t6i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > 3. Microsost doesn't seem to fix the problems. If I build you a house
> > > and you move in before it is totally complete (say the landscaping
> > > needs completed and the basement ceiling needs installed) I HAVE to
> > > complete the job or you can sue me for not fulfilling the contract.
> > > However, if WIN98 comes out and there are bugs that cause the system to
> > > freeze Microsfot is not required to fix these problems. Sure they can
> > > put out service packs if they want - - but they don't have to "complete
> > > the job" so to say.
> >
>
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456, Volume #28 Thu, 17 Aug 00 15:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: It's official, Microsoft® porting applications to Linux ("Rich C")
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates) ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux ("Rich C")
Re: Email spamming to the readers of these NG's (Brian Langenberger)
Re: It's official, Microsoft® porting applications to Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Karel Jansens)
Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Josiah Fizer)
Re: Decent Linux CDR software wanted. (Tim Kelley)
Re: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you! (Tim Kelley)
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's official, Microsoft® porting applications to Linux
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 14:15:50 -0400
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Milton wrote:
>
> In a desperate attempt, to regain some legitimacy in the high-tech
> software arena, Microsoft® is letting a an experienced 3rd party,
> Mainsoft, port it's applications to the state of the art operating
> system, Linux.
>
> The results, so far, have been disappointing.
>
> Brought to you by Windows 2000 Magazine
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2874
>
> :)
This sounds more like MS trying to find ways to make sure all of its
current security problems can be ported to Linux. Or a way of trying to
make Linux look bad in other ways. I just don't think MS is capable of
doing this in an attempt to look technically efficient. It is more than
likely to make Linux crash and burn. Or, as the article itself says, to
use poor and 'behind the times' apps on Linux to try and convince people
to move 'to Windows'. Of course, this is a little silly since a lot of
us moved FROM Windows to Linux.
Of course, I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time either.
I think it's more of an attempt to carry forward MS's bloated, proprietary
document formats to other operating systems, to hold those users hostage as
well.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
--
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 04:25:58 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8nh80n$q6c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ng5vn$6ft$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8ng5jh$uv4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8ne7hg$bk2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > Sheesh. First you use TWM, and now mc running in an *xterm* ?
> > >
> > > No, I never said I was using TWM.
> >
> > My bad, it was fvwm, was it not ?
> >
> > > > And you wonder why people accuse you of "cheating" ?
> > >
> > > If the finctionality is equivalent, where is the cheating?
> >
> > Because the functionality *isn't* the same - that's the point.
> >
> > > > Explorer can and has done that since IE4.
> > >
> > > Again, talking about the Windows Explorer (explorer.exe) NOT Internet
> > > Explorer.
> >
> > It is normal explorer, using the IE component from within it.
> >
> > Or would you prefer good ol' wheel-reinventing and have FTP implemented
in
> > explorer *and* internet explorer ?
>
> What version of Windows Explorer are you considering?
IIRC, you can do this once you've installed IE4 (and its "shell
integration") on whatever version of Windows you are running.
--
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456, Volume #27Tue, 4 Jul 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Which Linux should I try? ("Joe Kiser")
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux code going down hill (Aaron Kulkis)
[OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm
ready! I'm not ready.)) (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm (Aaron
Kulkis)
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. (Aaron Kulkis)
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 19:10:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Codifex Maximus) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>While I haven't been to alt.os.linux.mandrake, I'm sure there is an army
>of people there helping that army of people who need help.
At the moment there's confusion as many people say "it works for me" and
just as many say "not for me".
Pete
--
From: "Joe Kiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which Linux should I try?
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 15:15:16 -0400
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> You can try them all. It's cheap.
>
> For the price you'd pay for ONE copy of Windows 2000, you can have a copy
> of all those mentioned PLUS debian.
I paid three dollars.
--
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 19:17:33 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8js6lj$lv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>No, he is NOT! Linux is an OS kernel and KDE is a Unix desktop Developed
>by DIFFERENT people, though cooperating they are INDEPENDENT of each
>other. The Linux (being a KERNEL) servers an different function than KDE
>the desktop. Linux CAN and does run WITHOUT KDE and KDE can and DOES run
>without Linux. They are independent of each other! I would submit a
>Linux bug to the Linux development team and a KDE to the KDE
>development team!
Avtually I was referring to calling it a lie, not KDE bug = Linux bug.
>Using your logic, any application that RUNS on Windows that has a bug
>means that Windows has that bug! after all, KDE is only an APPLICATION
>that runs on Linux!
See above.
>Did you check the logs You claim an absolute! that means that there
>can be NO error recorded ANY where! Or were you just being unclear
>again??? Being so unclear that I could say "if there was no error, how
>did the application crash?"
Yep, checked the logs. No error reported. No indication that kfm crashed.
>What's that got to do with the computer that meets *MY* needs??? windows
>lags FAR, FAR behind in the FLEXIBILITY that I need! You claimed an
>absolute again when you claimed that Linux is lagging behind Windows.
>(what windows? 3.1??? you're unclear again) You must now prove that
>Linux lags behind EVERY VERSION of windows in EVERY situation. Not
>flashing an error message if trivial compared to what it takes to run on
>- Alpha's, 390's, macs, Intel, SGI. Windows (ALL VERSIONS) lags behind
>here! Super computers??? Going to Linux or Unix windows (all versions)
>lag behinde here!!! So your statement that "Linux is lagging behind
>windows" is FALSE and MISLEADING!
Blimey, if you carry on like that, you'll burst a blood vessel. Calm down.
Would it help if I qualified my statement? As in:
"The Linux desktop lags behind Windows"
Is that better?
>wow how nice of you!
Yes aren't I just.
>Pete, Are you going for the troll of the year award???
Are you going for the insult of the year award? Stop calling me troll and
maybe I'll stop using "Linux" so casually.
Pete
--
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 19:18:51 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hear! Hear!
Pete
--
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 15:22:42 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting abraxas from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 2 Jul 2000 13:22:47 GMT
>[...]
> >Solaris is an exceedingly specialized UNIX, linux is not UNIX at
> >
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456, Volume #26 Thu, 11 May 00 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Which distribution (abraxas)
M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware! (billy ball)
Re: simply being open source is no guarantee of security. (John Culleton)
Re: Which Flavour Is Best? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Which distribution ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Not so fast... (Matthias Warkus)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Which distribution (Yns)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Linux Setup (John Culleton)
Re: Browsers and e-mail (Dorai Sitaram)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (John Hasler)
Re: Here is the solution (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (WickedDyno)
Re: Need to make UNIX autoresponder (Craig Kelley)
Challenged Todd Returns (Was: Here is the solution ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Which distribution
Date: 11 May 2000 15:00:09 GMT
John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find Slackware easy and the most generic distro. We should
> perhaps tell new users that Linux is for fiddlers. It does not
> just install itself and run without some decision making on the
> user's part.
I think that perhaps the best distrib for the newbie is Mandrake; but
it is ABSOLUTELY nessesary to read the fucking manual before you get
started with this distrib; otherwise you stand a very good chance of
installing something WIDE open.
> We should answer all questions courteously. There are no stupid
> questions.
This is one of the Big Lies. There are of course stupid questions.
This is one of the Ethically Sound Big Lies, since it is usually used
on children who are still developing a skin thick enough to withstand
The World (TM).
> There are sometimes stupid and/or arrogant answers.
Damn skippy. Stupid questions, stupid answers, etc. The trick is to
make sure that you're stuck before you ask. Effort is what draws
respect.
=yttrx
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball)
Subject: M$ wants to censor Slashdot - ISPs Beware!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:03:26 GMT
fyi:
once again, M$ sticks its foot in its mouth... here's an interesting letter
from a M$ bottom-feeder asking ./ to censor postings:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/11/0153247&mode=nocomment
--
Subject: Re: simply being open source is no guarantee of security.
From: John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 08:06:21 -0700
Design is the important thing. A secure design is less vulnerable
than a less secure design. The tradeoffs are features and
convenience vs. security. If you design the overall system to
allow emails that sing and dance then you make the system
vulnerable to emails that rewrite the boot sector. One can create
a closed proprietary system theat is very secure. Microsoft
didn't bother to do that but they were pursuing other goals, like
marketablity, glitz, ease of use etc.
Unix/Linux has fairly simplistic protections, like passwords and
root/only privileges etc. but they do work most of the time. The
openness of open systems in theory renders them more vulnerable
to attack by crackers (after all, they have the source code!) In
fact since the days of the infamous Internet Worm there haven't
been many attacks on Unix and its lookalikes (including Linux.)
To be candid there aren't enough of us to attract attention.
Sendmail has had and may still have security holes which is a
good argument for using another mail client instead.
JOhn Culleton
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
--
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which Flavour Is Best?
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 15:04:33 GMT
In article ,
"none2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave Rolfe
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >
> > I agree! I just installed Mandrake 7.0 and it is really very good.
The
> > only thing I would fault them with is the install docs are a tad
> > confusing and self contradictory. I found that ignoring the "warning
>
> mandrake is prolly the worse distro i've seen, its basically a copy of
> Redhat, btw dont give me that "optimised for pentiums shit" most of
RH's
> stuff is already -O2 optimised, and the kernel is the only thing that
> needs to be optimised, like that 3dnow optimised shit.
Before you start badmouthing the work of others, you should get
informed.
a) -O2 has nothing to do with "optimizing for a
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456
Linux-Advocacy Digest #456, Volume #25Wed, 1 Mar 00 14:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian (George Richard Russell)
w64k - the bugs are being found ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Gregory Neil Bastow)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Joseph T.
Adams")
Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid?? (Darren
Winsper)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Christopher Smith")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Christopher Smith")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Chad Myers")
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 17:11:54 GMT
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 23:14:11 +, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>George Richard Russell wrote:
>> Ye gods, because its a stupid limitation, easily fixable, yet left in since
>> those that wrote Emacs want menus (check box | ticked) but don't use them, and
>> hence, don't realise (care) how poorly done they are in emacs.
>>
>
>Actually, X requires a mouse. So any GUI version of emacs (for Linux at least)
>may as well require it.
Why perpetuate the flaws that permeate X11 into Linux'es GUI apps?
>>
>> Its just bad design practice for GUI apps to force the use of the mouse.
>>
>
>Then blame X
Have done, like many others. Can't fix X. Someone could fix emacs. Backwards
compatibility really sucks when better ideas arrive.
>> really? 10 deep nested menus is an example of GUI design par execellence, then?
>> At least some GUI's have heard of dialogs, tabbed widgets, and moved on slightly
>> from sticking to menu and pointer only.
>>
>
>Emacs needs the depth for its functionality. 10+, hmm, I'd like some evidence
XEmacs that comes with SuSE 6.2, go configure the gnus newsreader from the
menus, gnus's menu structure starts 7 deep, and gos for another 3 levels.
The extreme amount of stuff stuck in emacs's menus is just another UI
annoyance.
Would you like a screenshot? I can't guarantee to fit all the menus onto
a 800x600 screen, but it'd be worth doing to show the importance of UI
design.
George Russell
--
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: w64k - the bugs are being found
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 18:18:01 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From bugtraq:
> I'm running Windows 2000 Pro on a FAT32 file system. I've got a
> program that creates a very large number of temp files in a single
> directory. Somewhere between 25000 and 3 files the system
> reboots. After the reboot I noticed file system corruption. (It
> toasted my mailbox files. This may have been due to having eudora
> running at the time of the crash.)
and another one:
> I've been looking into disk quotas under Windows 2000 and have
> uncovered a few anomalies. On top of a few peculiarities there appears
> to be a bug which allows a user to exceed their disk quota by as much
> as they wish.
>
> *** The problem:
> Tested with Windows 2000 Professional build 2195 (release
> version). Existing files can be extended even if a user is over
> quota. If exploited by a malicious user then at best it is a nuisance
> at worst it may act as a DoS if the disk if filled.
>
> *** Description:
> After playing around with the newly introduced disk quotas in Windows
> 2000 I soon uncovered a bug which would allow an ordinary,
> unprivileged user to exceed their allocated disk quota and fill a
> disk/partition. Under normal circumstances when a user is under quota
> I discovered by experiment that new files can be created upto a size
> of (Quota - UsedSpace + 2KB - 1byte), i.e. they can go overquota by
> up to 2047 bytes. Not too much of a problem. Extending existing files
> can be up to (Quota - UsedSpace +1KB -1byte) i.e. up to 1023 bytes
> overquota - nothing much to be worried about.
>
> However, if you are overqu
