Linux-Advocacy Digest #454
Linux-Advocacy Digest #454, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 16:13:04 EDT Contents: Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Les Mikesell) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ed Allen) Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 compatible w/MS Office 97/2000? (Igor Sobrado) Re: Pesky lack of support (David Goldstein) Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft (Charles Lyttle) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 compatible w/MS Office 97/2000? (Igor Sobrado) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina) Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (Ayende Rahien) Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Chad Myers) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Chad Myers) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Chad Myers) From: Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4 Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 18:51:44 GMT Ayende Rahien Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:9djuud$ens$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... I meant something like WDM, where you have one driver for 98,ME, 2000 XP. AFAIU, the same is not (always?) true for linux. Nobody but Microsoft fragments their lines for marketing purposes to the point that a combined model is needed. With Linux the only fragmentation is supposed to be between the current stable and development versions and there is usually only a problem near the transitions where developers want to stop back-porting the development (or newly stable) changes to the dying (or dead) old version.Since there are no licensing issues or fees to switch among any Linux kernel it is a different situation than the one Microsoft enforces. If you need a driver that is only available for a particular kernel version you are free to run that kernel. With Windows most people are stuck with whatever came preloaded on the box. But if I want to run 2.4 kernel, and I only have 2.2 driver ? That is what I'm talking about. Since the transition of 2.4 to the current-stable release is fairly recent you might have this problem, but drivers with any support should have a 2.4 version available or on the way. Support for older versions will slowly go away. And what if I've software that wouldn't run (well) on the kernel I've drivers too? Etc, etc, etc. Do the same thing you did with all of your Win 1.0, 2.0, 3.1, WFW, Win95, etc. programs. Upgrade or toss them, or keep running the old system that worked.For the many thousand apps that come in a typical Linux distribution, you take care of the whole problem in a few minutes as you load the new copy. With Windows you spend as long just to get the OS in, then you have to feed the box another 20 CD's over the course of the next week to get all of your apps reloaded. Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen) Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 19:00:30 GMT In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JS PL the_win98box_in_the_corner wrote: [prison!come onyou can't be that deluded...] Much as it might surprise you some felons do actually spend time in jail. What will not happen, but should, is prosecution under the RICO Act and confiscation of his, Ballmer, and the other top executives' entire fortunes. -- Microsoft Motto: Illegal we do immediately. Unconstitutional takes a little longer. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Linux -- The Unix defragmentation tool. -- From: Igor Sobrado [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 compatible w/MS Office 97/2000? Date: 12 May 2001 19:01:15 GMT In alt.solaris.x86 Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Writing my own man pages is where I got started with *roff years ago. More recently (but still several years ago!), I looked at both TeX and *roff (I've even read Knuth's The TexBoo). I decided in the end that *roff suited my needs better. I agree with you. TeX is a great typesetting software and The TeXbook, one of the great books of Donald Ervin Knuth, is the best reference for it (another good book was written by Leslie Lamport, the developer of the LaTeX macro package for TeX) but *roff is more adequate for some needs. For example, I am writting some software. TeX is great for documentation (the old Hewlett Pakcard and even Microsoft
Linux-Advocacy Digest #454
Linux-Advocacy Digest #454, Volume #33Sun, 8 Apr 01 18:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (GreyCloud)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (GreyCloud)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (GreyCloud)
Re: DVD on Linux? (Chad Everett)
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... (Donn Miller)
Re: t. max devlin: kook (Donn Miller)
Re: Baseball (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: t. max devlin: kook (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... (Goldhammer)
CLI vs. GUI (667 Neighbor of the Beast)
Re: Read this clueless Linux advocates... ("Chris Z. Wintrowski")
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a
tosser, and lies about free software)
Date: 8 Apr 2001 19:32:14 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
"Rob S. Wolfram" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Les Mikesell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you understand way there
cannot be a new GPL'd gif-writing program?
Because of a Unisys patent.
Or DVD-decoding program?
Because of some stupid US-only law. $DEITY forbid other WIPO countries
to also implement article 11 of the WIPO 1996 treaty.
So you do understand the specifics - but you didn't answer the general
question: if you still maintain that all necessary combinations can be
GPLed as a whole is it because you think other restrictions are not
significant or that all users can do without all code where other
restrictions
apply?
For examples like this, read section 7 of the GPL. It is there for a
reason.
For other examples I'd say that it is entirely possible that you can
freely redistribute it under Non-GPL conditions but not under GPL ones,
but then I state that those licenses are also encumbered in its
redistribution rules. Why only blame the GPL?
Case in point: if you cannot change the distribution restrictions to
GPL, then the license is just as restrictive as the GPL. So it is not
only the GPL who is to blame for your being unable to distribute the
combination.
No, for the hundredth time, the other restrictions did not, and would
not under any circumstance prevent distribution. Only the GPL did.
Your logic is flawed here. If one part of the system is "most
restrictive" (i.e. GPL), then why couldn't you distribute the whole
system as GPL? There really are only two possibilities here:
1. It was legally possible but *you* *chose* not to distribute the whole
under the greatest common denominator (i.e. the GPL) so *you*, not the
GPL, is the restrictive force here.
2. It was legally impossible because you could not apply the GPL to the
other part(s). This means that like the GPL, the other parts were
licensed under equally restrictive conditions (i.e.: you can only
redistribute this software under license A, B or C).
If you see a third possibility, I am eager to hear about it.
Still, sharing is sharing and using is using. Different viewpoints.
But the 'using' viewpoint is only possible after distribution is allowed,
and the GPL prevents many instances of distribution.
Correct. The GPL ensures the freedom of use of the software you *have*.
It also ensures the freedom of use for the person that gets the software
from you.
This comes down to the circular argument. You keep hammering on the
distribution. If someone would sell me his product for big bucks under
the BSDL and I couldn't get it from anywhere else, this would still be
very legal and the software would be just as free. The license talks
about how I can *redistribute* the stuff, not about how I can get it.
No, the license talks about the circumstances where you are prohibited
from redistributing, and covers most of the possibilities.
Bzzt, wrong, thanks for playing. The distribution is prohibited *by
default* via copyright law. The license *allows* distribution and sets
the conditions for such allowance.
So
can you please explain to me why not being able to get the software
makes the software non-free?
By definition: the restrictions preventing distribution make it the
opposite of free.
So my being able to have an unencumbered use is of no significance to
you?
See above.
Yes, only the GPL makes this sharing impossible.
See above ;-)
That's exactly the scope of software that I'm talking about
Linux-Advocacy Digest #454
Linux-Advocacy Digest #454, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 15:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Will politics kill the case or will justice prevail? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows Stability (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Windows 2000 (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows Stability (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: You and Microsoft... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: You and Microsoft... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: You and Microsoft... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: You and Microsoft... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Re: You and Microsoft... (The Ghost In The Machine)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:43:46 GMT
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:50:06 GMT, Charlie Ebert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik fukenbush is not an intelligent man.
I think you're mistaken. Erik seems to be quite intelligent to me.
He's just an asshole.
More of a pedant and hair-splitter. Like Microsoft Marketing, he is
good at creating an impression without actually saying what the casual
listener might think he said.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:00:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kyle Jacobs
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 02:57:03 GMT
3A886.63445$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ah, because just leaving them on = perfect computing. Right?
Or does doing nothing with them all day = perfect computng, right?
Yep, you're right, we should all install Windows Me on all of
our computers, turn them off to conserve power, and behave like
good little people and kowtow to the God of Redmond.
Spot The Flaw. (Hint: computer equipment -- especially disk drive --
lasts longer if continuously powered.)
"The Ghost In The Machine" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kyle Jacobs
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:24:31 GMT
3uR66.27155$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
That's because Windows 2000 users shut their computers down at night, and
actually sleep.
Why? Because their human.
So am I, and I leave my two machines on 24/7. I've had very
few problems with them after I did that.
Of course, it helps that they're in an adjacent room :-).
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random fan whirr here
EAC code #191 2d:09h:57m actually running Linux.
All hail the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh)!
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 3d:06h:07m actually running Linux.
We are all naked underneath our clothes.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Will politics kill the case or will justice prevail?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:07:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:06:32 -0600
7Nq66.441$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
"Pete Goodwin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:a3o66.161894$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
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? I mean, Microsoft have been found guilty of being a monopoly,
yet they're happily continuing as before. So far there's no teeth to this
case.
Appeals take time. The Appeals court has to sift through mounds and mounds
of evidence before even the first words are uttered in argument.
And by that time .NET will be firmly and nearly irrevocably entrenched
in the corporate substructure, and Microsoft will win again, not
unlike OLE versus OpenDoc, and COM versus CORBA.
Sigh. At least Java's still out there, roundly trouncing ActiveX. :-)
Maybe it'll trounce .NET, too -- one can hope.
(Side point: a monopoly is not necessarily a bad thing; it's the
abuse of monopoly power that causes problems. I don't remember
whether the courts have determined Microsoft has, or not -- it's pretty
clear that Microsoft's been a bit shady, though, in some of its,
ahem, agreements -- if one can call an agreement something that is
functionally more like a "do this or else" sort of thing.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 3d:06h:11m actually running Linux.
Are you still here?
--
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) [EMAIL PROTECT
Linux-Advocacy Digest #454
Linux-Advocacy Digest #454, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 20:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
From: "Ayende Rahien" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 01:40:18 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:48:48
"Johan Kullstam" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
"Ayende Rahien" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"mark" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In article 8vploe$5eu5a$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Ayende Rahien
wrote:
Actually, no, I couldn't.
If I'm on win9x, I would've to go to Dos(real mode) and do it.
Otherwise, I would get permission denied or some such error.
You have to be root user in linux to achieve this, this means,
at the _very_ least you've made a specific decision to do
some admin task. Otherwise you'll get permission denied or
some such error.
A lot of users are running as root.
In nt/2000, you've to elevate your admin privileges in order to
damage
the
registry, which is something an ignorant user simply is unlikely to
do.
on the contrary, those who run their own unix-like system do not run
as root most of the time. they run as a regular user and become
super-user when they need to. in unix, su is quick and easy.
So it is in windows.
runas for cli
Or shortcuts"Run as another user" or shift right click for gui
*Very* useful.
But not quick and easy. This is the equivalent of an 'rexec' function,
when su provides 'rsh', if you know what that means. Being able to run
a command as root is OK, but *being* root (almost), is better. Or at
least quicker and easier for most actual purposes.
Runas /user:administrator cmd
Voila, you are admin
Here is another one:
Create a shortcut to explorer.exe, check the "run as another user"
Double click it, explorer will open, you are now, within this windows and
within any windows or applications that you launch from this widnows, an
admin.
a lot of people run as admin in nt because of the lack of "su" type
facility. logging off and logging back in as admin is a large
annoyance; most people don't want the bother.
See above.
Notice it didn't appear until W2K, an OS which most people still aren't
using. BTW, is it included with the main product, or do you have to
install it separately or get it from a resource kit or something?
In 2000, it's part of the OS.
For NT, I *think* that it's in NT resource kit.
there are always plenty of ignorant users to go around, my money is on
more people (both absolute and proportional to user base) always
running nt with admin privileges than linux people living as root.
NT usually being mainly a bussiness OS, I don't think so.
But the numbers are higher for both absolute and proportional because NT
has
a *lot* more ignorant users than unix.
No, its just not as easy to know what you're doing. You mistake running
as admin with having admin privileges, as well. A much larger
proportion of people than you think have admin privileges on their
account because they need it to get certain software to work. Still not
as many, I'd bet, as people who run Linux as root, particularly outside
a business setting.
Adaptec Easy CD Creator require me to run as admin in order for it to burn.
I run it using Runas, problem solved.
CorelLinux 1.2 acts like a single user OS, if you don't take extra steps in
order to make sure it wouldn't.
The only acount defined is root, and you've *no way* of defining the root
password during the install.
--
From: "Ayende Rahien" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 01:43:03 +0200
"mark" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In article 8vr68p$5g8i9$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Ayende Ra
Linux-Advocacy Digest #454
Linux-Advocacy Digest #454, Volume #29Wed, 4 Oct 00 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (dc)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
2.4! (Bartek Kostrzewa)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: How low can they go...? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Linux and Free Internet? (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Migration -- NT costing please :-) ("Adam Warner")
From: dc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 15:52:25 -0500
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 09:39:21 -0500, Bryant Brandon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article
[EMAIL PROTECTED], dc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
@Do you have any proof that it can do that?
Machine #21, AUDB room #307c, UNT campus, Texas. IOW, the very
machine we've been discussing this entire thread.
The *ONLY* thing we know about the machines in question is that
you're
getting a disk error @ login. Aside from that, *EVERYTHING* else
mentioned in this thread is pure conjecture.
@@@
@@@ You asked for "any" proof. Is this not "any" enough for you?
@@@
@@@No, because it isn't proof. You have no proof that the -profile- (and
@@@limiting it via quotas) is the issue here in any way, shape, or form.
@@
@@ So, now you want quotas too?
@@
@@I want you to fix this problem by finding someone to help you, rather
@@than simply giving up.
@@
@@Before I run around trying to prove
@@things for you, would you mind telling me what all I need to prove
@@before I begin? You have a nasty habit of applying "bully rules" to
@@your conversations. ie, changing the rules midway when you start
@@losing.
@@
@@You have a nasty habit (you've done it here in this PC discussion of
@@your lab's issues) of blaming a lot of things without having a shred
@@of proof. I'm merely pointing out to you that you don't have that
@@proof, so you really don't have any idea what's wrong or whether
@@quotas/profiles are at fault (or would help).
@
@ You don't want me to prove it. OK.
@
@I don't? I didn't say that. Learn to read. I said you can't because
@you don't have proof. You aren't capable of doing so. You may want
@to do it, but it probably isn't going to happen.
I told you to be specific in what you wanted me to prove, and you
refused. So, no matter what I prove, you'll later saddle it with more
qualifiers/exceptions, and make me prove it all over again. But as soon
as you're willing to tell me what to prove, I'll be happy to prove it.
Prove the disk issue would be solved by quotas.
I haven't given contradictory information. I've given information
that could apply in a variety of different scenarios, and you got
confused.
@@@
@@@ Yes, you gave a variety of scenarios. However, when you presented
@@@them, you gave _no_ indication that they were different.
@@@
@@@Your lack of technical understanding clouds the issues.
@@
@@ By "technical knowledge," do you mean "familiarity with windows," or
@@do you mean "ability to read my mind"? Perhaps there is another
@@definition I did not consider. Please, elaborate.
@@
@@Familiarity with Windows, NT/2k in this instance.
@
@ So, it's not really a lack of technical knowledge, as you stated, but
@a lack of familiarity with windows. Calling me nontechnical implies
@that I am incapable of understanding, whereas I merely lack knowledge.
@That was rather dishonest of you. Now, we've established that I don't
@really lack technical understanding, merely a lack of information, how,
@exactly, would that explain how I got confused, without assuming that
@you're a poor writer?
@
@Spin...spin. Joe Ragosta would be so proud! (But he's off slinking,
@after we handed his guts to him on a platter for his incredibly
@numerous debacles and screwups.)
It's not my fault you cannot write intelligently.
I write *very* intelligently; you're spinning.
@Do you have any administrative experience at all?
Yes.
At what, exactly?
@@@
@@@ My stuff. Net BSD on my IIci talking to my Quadra. Two
@@@ machines.
@@@
@@@Two users: root, and me.
@@@ Therefore, I have administrative experience.
@@@
@@@Not even close. You've set up a single BSD machine, something
@@@that
@@@typically takes about 30 minutes to a few hours and requires
@@@no
@@@or
@@@a
@@@very light technical skillset; administrativ
Linux-Advocacy Digest #454
Linux-Advocacy Digest #454, Volume #28 Thu, 17 Aug 00 12:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous (Salvador
Peralta)
Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux ("Rich C")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
From: Roberto Alsina [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:34:25 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
I just have no idea of what you are saying. Are you saying my answer was
not an accurate answer to your question? How am I supposed to answer to
"was he mistaken?" if not by "yes, he was"?
It is lost in the mist of time, Roberto. I don't have time or patience
to backtrack to review your pedantic point.
If you are not willing to answer the questions, don't reply to the
posts.
An answer saying "I can not be bothered to reply" is not an answer.
I did answer the question. I just didn't give you the answer you wanted
to hear.
If you don't want others to answer your questions, don't ask them.
If the answer to your question id correct and useless, your question
is badly formulated.
Yea, sure. Heh.
Yup.
Suffice it to say that some
answers are technically correct, and still not simply useless, but
wrong, within the context of the discussion.
Suffice to say that you are willing to say anything, as long as
its insulting.
Yea, sure. Heh.
Well, you have tried many different insults, at least.
Perhaps you are more stupid than I expected. I honestly believed you
were just ignorant.
Stupid, ignorant, misinformed, misguided; I have the full range of human
failings. I don't deny it.
So why is it you are still unable to keep up with me in honest
discussion,
So you say.
and want to keep getting side-tracked into meta-discussions
where you malign my intent and work furiously to distract the
conversation by providing technically accurate but realistically useless
responses,
Coming from the man that believes the effect of the sticky bit
is a "t" that appears on his screen every once in a while.
and then arguing over whether they are accurate, rather than
whether they are cogent?
That word again.
--
Roberto Alsina
--
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:27:54 GMT
"T" == T Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Said Marty in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
Chris Wenham wrote:
"rj" == rj friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Face reality sonny boy. It is not a case of the whole world
being wrong and you being right. Stick your head in the sand
and pretend all you want - but deep in your heart you have
to face the fact that you are 100% full of shit.
And why are you so full of coprolalia?
Either you're talking *way* over his head or you just misspelled "crapola".
I think he meant "coprophilia", actually.
Coprolalia, literally translated, means "shit talk".
Regards,
Chris Wenham
--
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 15:35:18 GMT
"rj" == rj friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 15:53:28 Chris Wenham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
¯ Face reality sonny boy. It is not a case of the whole world
¯ being wrong and you being right. Stick your head in the sand
¯ and pretend all you want - but deep in your heart you have
¯ to face the fact that you are 100% full of shit.
¯ And why are you so full of coprolalia?
Full of what?
I usually look up words I don't understand :-)
¯ Just debate the facts, man...
What facts are there to debate.
I guess the ones listed in the Findings of Fact. If someone disagrees
with the court's findings, then I think Usenet is an excellent place
to take that argument. You MIGHT even find people willing to humor
you in a civilized manner
Linux-Advocacy Digest #454
Linux-Advocacy Digest #454, Volume #27Tue, 4 Jul 00 14:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I thought only Windows 98 SE did this! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Ready for Linux ? The "Furniture Scale" (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do(Gary
Hallock)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: A hot one (Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box?) ("Gonzo")
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Cihl)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... ("Rich C")
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Cihl)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 17:28:51 GMT
But how many people are actually USING Linux?
I have some 15 different distributions/versions on my shelf and use
none of them.
Trying Linux and sticking with Linux are two completely different
things.
simon
On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 16:11:29 GMT, Charlie Ebert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 23:28:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:46:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They don't have to...
Win2k, even WITHOUT advocating STILL has a far higher market share
than Linsux
...an interesting assertion considering that Microsoft
itself is discouraging it's use as a general purpose
desktop OS.
Whatever. The fact remains that it still has far more marekt share
than Linsux...
Check the scoreboard. Microsoft just announced that they have
sold or given away 3 million copies of Windows 2000 including upgrades.
In the past 12 months.
Red Hat sold 3 million copies,
No boys and girls,,, this is 3.
SuSE sold about 4 million (much of it in Europe).
Now it is 3 + 4 = 7
Caldera is a bit behind at 1 million.
Now it is 7 + 1 = 8
Mandrake sold about 4 million copies (primarily U.S.)
Now it is 8 + 4 = 12
Corel sold about 2 million copies.
Now it is 12 + 2 = 14
Turbo Linux sold about 4 million copies (mostly Asia).
Now it is 14 + 4 = 18
Debian sold about 1/2 million copies.
Now it is .5 + 18 = 18.5 + Rex's missing downloads rounding to at least
19.
Thanks Rex
FreeBSD sold about 1 million copies.
Non Linux but okay.
and OpenBSD sold about 1 million copies.
Ditto.
(though FreeBSD and OpenBSD aren't actually "Linux", they share
the same software application and library base).
This puts Linux at nearly 20 million copies.
And this is a god damn conservative figure Rex.
What about the other 75 some odd linux distributions.
Then we have to factor in the old kodgers who UPGRADE
only when the blue fin turle mates on the north pole
There are still masses of individuals who are still runing the first
version of
slackware.
Let me give you another GOOD one which isn't even included in these
simple statistics.
Compaq, Dell, Gateway, and others sell machines direct.
Their installs are not included in these figures.
Between all of them we have 49,000,000 servers sold in 1999.
On 50 % of their servers you found Linux installed.
And of the desktops Linux still sold around 4-5 million with
the big computer manufacturers.
So if we took 24 million and added them to the 20 million above,
all we have left are the millions of downloads they don't even
account for.
Rex,
Just about everybody in my club downloads new versions of Linux.
People will buy maybe 3 -4 copies of Linux and then not buy anymore
for 2-3 years. They just download.
So we have 44 million sold, and an X number of downloads.
I will say the X is 25 million easy.
This is based on a combination of official sales figures
reported by public companies, and market share claimed
competitors.
The figures may be slightly out of date, and are based on
"hype".
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
This figure is simply too low Rex.
There is NO-WAY you will ever convince me that
there is only 90 million Linux users.
If we have already figured 65 million people accessing NEW
software in 1999, then how can we justify the 90 million.
It's a well known statistic that many Linux users are on older
machines and do not want to upgrade
And there are a pile of older machines out there.
Conservatively speaking Rex, I will ball park the Linux
encampment at 150,000,000 users easy.
and growing at over 5%/month!
Even you agree. At 5% a year you can't stay at the same old 90,000,000
user
statistics forever.
You have run this for I'm guessing 2 years now Rex.
Charlie
--
Fro
Linux-Advocacy Digest #454
Linux-Advocacy Digest #454, Volume #26 Thu, 11 May 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!! (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux (abraxas)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (abraxas)
Re: Window managers (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (rj friedman)
Re: Not so fast... (Tim Kelley)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (rj friedman)
RE: win millenium ("Alberto Trillo")
RE: Why Solaris is better than Linux ("Alberto Trillo")
Re: win millenium ("Robert L.")
Re: Which distribution ("wfpatrick")
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Peter Petersen)
Re: Not so fast... (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Window managers (Sierra Tigris)
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh^%T!!!
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 09:10:52 -0400
On Wed, 10 May 2000 19:24:10 -0400, mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have actually tested this on netscape, it it complains. I have setup
two application accociations in netscape, one a pdf file and another a
shell script. The pdf opens up without a single question, the script
pops a windows, "This is an executable "sh" script..." and goes on to
warn me what could happen if I run it. There is NO way to get rid of the
warning.
One of the few things Netscape does right. One of the numerous things
netscape does better than MS.
How is this "better than MS"? Outlook pops up a warning whenever you
try to launch any attachment. There's no way to get rid of that
warning either. This just goes to show that most Microsoft bashing is
totally mindless.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: 11 May 2000 13:12:22 GMT
Bobby D. Bryant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is some activity
in products like this for Linux, but still nothing like what's available for
Windows, not even 1%.
So. Solaris is better because, even thought *it* can't beat Linux, something else
can?
Solaris is better than linux because it scales better. While linux can scale
tremendously well on the small side (embedded systems, etc), solaris scales
on the large side (E1+) and remains exactly the same operating system as
it does on the small side (ultra1-).
Solaris is better than windows because its not windows.
=yttrx
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: 11 May 2000 13:19:08 GMT
John Culleton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK lets return to the original question. Is it possible to hurt
a Linux system through a mail bomb type of attachment to email?
Is it possible for an ordinary user (not root) to destroy the
system from a terminal?
No.
I think we can all concede that any
system can be destroyed from the console and any system can be
destroyed by one with superuser privileges.
Yep.
A part of the problem here is that Linux source code is available
to anyone. If you have a plan of the castle it is easier to
attack it.
Its also easier to defend...:)
But I would like to see/hear about a successful attack
strategy through terminal access, ftp, mail, whatever that does
not involve prior knowledge of the root password. (Attacks that
ferret out the root password through some strategy are valid.)
There are thousands of these, nearly all of which have been patched. New
ones are discovered now and then, most notably a recent gnapster bug which
allows remote users to write directly to the filesystem.
Go look at Rootshell.
=yttrx
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Window managers
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 23:29:14 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Wed, 10 May 2000 14:05:34 GMT...
...and Alberto Trillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi everyone. I've been thinking about KDE and GNOME and at
how each other window manager is changing its code to make it
GNOME and KDE hints compatible, and I've decided that I do
not like that.
[schnibble]
Before we continue this thread, please tell me that you understand
that KDE and GNOME are not window managers.
mawa
--
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line.
It's the size of a county and it comes every 150 seconds.
-- a Londoner
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rj friedman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: 11 May 2000 13:32:24 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 02:25:14 Marty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
¯ Now you see why I used to think he was a moron (knows
¯ nothing, yet has an opinion on everything).
¯And how did you leap to that a
