Linux-Advocacy Digest #411, Volume #25 Sun, 27 Feb 00 08:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: Propagandist Chad Myers Lies About Linux 150 Times (Jim Richardson)
Re: One mantra of Windows lovers (George Marengo)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (Damien)
Re: IE on UNIX ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: IE on UNIX ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (David Misner)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Jeffrey B. Siegal")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Nick Manka)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Jeff Szarka)
Re: A Trip to the Store (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("Joseph T. Adams")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 27 Feb 2000 07:20:10 GMT
> Whats more I've never seen anyone
>> run Quake style games in lower then 640x480
I ran it at 320x200 so it would play tolerably on a P100.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
members.xoom.com/marada Colony name not needed in address.
"New Windows feature: distributed.microsoft.com-- Fifty million machines
generating random C code in an attempt to produce the next version of Windows."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Propagandist Chad Myers Lies About Linux 150 Times
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:38:20 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 04:37:38 GMT,
Chad Myers, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > 'Section2
>> > config4=blah
>> > config5=blah
>> > config6=blah
>> >
>> > How would you secure Section2? How would you secure config6?
>>
>> Why would the subadministrator need write permission for only part of
>> a file?
>
>Let's suppose...
>
>You were an enterprise administrator
>Your company had branch offices
>These branch offices had sub-administrators that had basic troubleshooting,
> password changing, and a few other permissions for generic stuff.
>
>You had an application that the offices used for daily work.
>However, each branch office had a little bit different way of doing things,
>and they would like to customize different parts of the application.
>
>You wanted to give your branch offices a little room for customization,
>but certain configurable aspects of the application MUST remain standardized.
>
>Let's say you had a branch office in eastern Europe.
>
>One of the options in the application was for languages to load on startup
>
>#critical stuff
>memusage=128
>rootpath=/usr/bin/thisapp (or something, whatever you get the point)
>
>#languages to load
>language1=czech
>language2=german
>language3=etc
>
>What if you wanted to allow the admin to add and/or remove languages,
>but not mess with the critical stuff.
>
>How would you solve that?
>
>Yes, this is strawman, but it's more to illustrate that there
>CAN be situations where that functionality would be necessary
>or would ease administration.
>
>How would you solve a situation similar to this? Break it out
>into multiple files? Then you just increse the complexity.
Simple, one global file which the sub-admins have no edit privs,
and a local file which they control, how is that complex? Pretty
standard in Linux and other Unix-like osen.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: One mantra of Windows lovers
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 08:36:20 GMT
On Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:12:46 -0500, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>Privately eh? Obviously because it will not bear the scrutiny of public
>examination. Oh, and lets not go into the 49.7 days API call either (one
>hint: heartbeat). Maybe you wanna also disbelieve the 119 days on NT4/IIS
>sp4 web server or 1 year+ on NT4 workstation voice mail system.
That's odd... why would you even bother to run NT when in your
alter-ego of Alex Boge you claimed that you had a Windows9.X
with an uptime of 331 days running a VoiceMail application? I get
it, you must have been running that voice mail app on a Win9.X
and an NT machine just for grins.
If anyone is interested, we were discussing Windows9.X (in)stability
when Alex made the claim. Here's the link:
http://x37.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=518851113&CONTEXT=951639847.186056751&hitnum=1
BTW, it's been nearly 6 months since you said, on 9/29/99, of Hotmail
(again, as Alex Boge) : "Let's talk about Hotmail again in 6 months -
lets see what it's running then..."
My guess (I haven't checked) is that they're still running Solaris.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 27 Feb 2000 09:26:18 GMT
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 04:25:01 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 21:20:29 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
| > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | > No support for ActiveX is a bad thing?
| > |
| > | Yes, it's a bad thing.
| > |
| > | If you don't know why, then perhaps you should do some research.
| >
| > ActiveX: Proprietary client-side scripting introduced by Microsoft.
| > Has numerous documented security holes and poor security design in
| > general.
|
| But it works.
But it locks you into a specific vendor.
| Minor security holes are something that can be
| easily overcome (you see fewer and fewer reports of ActiveX related
| issues, and when you do, it's usually highly specialized, difficult
| to reproduce isolated issues).
The security holes are not minor they are a major design flaw.
| Please, enlighten me as to how Java's security is flawless? What
It is flawless by design. Implementation problems (especially on
Windows) have caused problems.
| about all it's issues? It was designed from the get go with
| security in mind and yet still has issues.
So let's go with something that that was designed without the least
bit of concern for security.
| > ActivX is a Bad thing(tm)
|
| Java is a Bad Thing(tm). Nice language, too bad the code doesn't
| run fast on anything, let alone run well.
Speed is certainly an issue for Java, of course better implementations
of the bytecode compiler and virtual machine will elminate this
problem eventually. What do you mean when you claim it doesn't
'run-well'?
Also, you claimed in a subthread that there were some platform
dependency problems, could you be more specific about where these
occur, what objects and methods cause these problems?
What you failed to mention is the possibility of running ActiveX on
multiple platforms. Am I wrong in assuming it's a Windows & IE only
thing?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 03:31:37 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:89ahnt$mu8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Umm.. how do you think the Windows market got started? Users *CHOSE*
> > windows over OS/2.
>
> Now people are starting to *CHOSE* linux over windows!!! And you're all
> huffy about it!
Not at all. If Linux works for you, great. Just don't tell me it should
work for me and everyone else too.
I have never faulted anyone for choosing Linux, Be, Unix, OS/2, or whatever
OS. My primary beef is when people start telling ME that i've made the
wrong choice. If it does everything you need, then it's the right decision
for you.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 03:34:44 -0600
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >Umm.. how do you think the Windows market got started? Users *CHOSE*
> >windows over OS/2.
>
> Um. No.
>
> IBM really didn't comprehend the "Pee Cee" market at the time. They did
> not know how to deal directly with users outside their usual role of
> selling support contracts within IS departments.
You forget, Microsoft was behind OS/2 as well up until about 1991. Windows
3.0 was originally intended to be the "Windows 95" of the OS/2 world. It
was intended to bridge the gap between DOS and OS/2, much like Windows 95
was intended to bridge the gap between Windows 3.1 and Windows NT.
> Microsoft quite clearly grasped the need to have Windows preloaded on
> PCs, and set up contracts with vendors that tremendously encouraged
> this.
Not until after the release of Windows 3.1. OS/2 had been being pushed by
MS and IBM for 5 years before that.
------------------------------
From: David Misner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 02:09:17 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The more I think about it, and the more virulent the commetns made in here
> against linux, the more it becomes clear that the only reason there are people in
> NGs arguing against the widespread acceptance of linux is a financial tie to ms.
>
> Why would anyone be against gettings something for free, that they can change as
> they see fit, that offers exactly the same amount of tech support but instills
> more confidence than the current expensive option availpable?
>
> Let's see now:
>
> -windows is expensive, bloated, and difficult to use. MS is highly resistant to
> working with customers to make changes and make using a computer easier.
>
> -linux is free, and completely malleable. It is simply a matter of time before
> an appealing GUI is placed on top of it to allow neophytes to comfortably make
> use of it.
But it is like impossible to install
David
------------------------------
From: "Jeffrey B. Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 02:24:48 -0800
Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Exactly, and this is why a lot of people would sponsor John Commack
> > (sp?) to develop Quake IV as a free software product if he wanted to do
> > it that way. Do you doubt it?
>
> No. But I do doubt that it would amount to nearly as much as he'd make by
> writing Quake IV first and then selling it.
>
> For one thing, the issue of instant vs. delayed gratification comes into
> play. ...
>
> For another thing, there always exists the possibility that his next
> effort will fail for whatever reason. ...
A community sponsorship system like cosource does not require that the users
pay ahead of time, nor does it require that they be exposed to risk of
failure.
The developer need only contract with an investor who pays the developer up
front for the cost of development in exchange for a percentage of future
sponsorships. Once the product is developed and can be evaluted by trusted
reviewers (or even end users in a limited or demonstration version), sponsors
can be solicited to support release of the product.
If sufficient sponsorships are received, the product is released, the investor
receives a share of the sponsorships and the product is released.
If sufficient sponsorships are not received (with the threshold set by the
developer and investor), this is a market signal that the product as developed
does not satisfy users' demands, and should be reworked, or is simply a
failure. It may be the case that the optimal threshold should be low for
initial versions of a product, as releasing them creates demand for future
versions and future products by the same developer, but these are the kinds of
decisions which should be made by the developer and investor.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Manka)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: 27 Feb 2000 11:39:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Do they? References? Of course, they would be correct to do so --- MS
>> *does not* have a 64 bit OS right now, and the smallness of 32 bit address
>> spaces are quickly becoming a problem in many areas.
>
> MS has Windows 2000/64 in beta right now and it works right now and runs on
> 64 bit processors right now.
That I'd like to see. Merced is still only available in engineering
samples and won't be produced in useful numbers till later this
year and MS no longer supports the Alpha since Compaq decided to
stop funding them.
Sort of cuts the available platforms down to zero.
--
Network Samurai http://www.syncronym.org/~nick/
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 06:50:57 -0500
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 05:26:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr_rupert)
wrote:
:Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K. Coming soon.
There are a ton of high volume sites running NT4 & Win2k. Being the
zealot you most likely are, no matter how the upgrade turns out,
you'll claim it went poorly and proves your agenda.
When it comes right down to it, who gives a fuck? Hot mail works,
Microsoft.com works, bn.com works. Who cares?
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 06:54:12 -0500
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 03:47:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr) wrote:
:
:Total sales of shrink-warp Windows 2000 in major retail stores
:has not exceeded 100 in the greater Houston area, reported in the
:Houston Chronicle business section today.
<snip>
Yea because you know... Linux zealots blindly roll out new versions
that their business might depend on since THE GREAT ONE (Linus) says
so.
My NT4 servers/workstations work fine. All my new systems will use
Win2k and when/if the NT3.51/4 systems need Win2k features they'll be
upgraded too.
See how the real world works? Neat huh? You use what works and don't
worry about promoting your political agenda.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 06:59:15 -0500
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 17:07:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
() wrote:
:On Tue, 22 Feb 2000 23:24:56 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>I find such a report to be unbelievable. In just the 20 minutes I was at my
:>local CompUSA I saw the sale 5 copies of Win2000. Of course i'm not in
:>Houston.
:>
:>It's a bit dishonest of you to say that there are no apps that run on
:>Win2000. That's patently false.
:>
:
:No, but like with every previous major release from microsoft, you'll have
:to replace all your apps to get decent performance.
Huh? What do old applications have to do about OS performance?
I sometimes wonder if Linux zealots use some sort of bizarre GNU FUD
generator. This stuff gets stranger and less coherent everyday.
I mean come on, "no apps run on Win2k" Wow, that's odd. Every piece of
software I use works fine. (currently about 30 apps, including 4 or 5
of the best selling games of the last few years)
This particular claim is downright stupid. I've tested Office 97 on
Win2k and it runs great. Exactly what are you talking about? I mean
EVEN IF the OS got slower why would a new version help? What you said
makes absolutely no sense but I am read this at COLA after all. I
should expect these things.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Trip to the Store
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 07:10:33 -0500
On 22 Feb 2000 10:58:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
<snip>
:That's in contrast to the anti-Linux propaganda spammers
:like you, Jeff, who are proven liars -- for example, you
:with your Phat Linux installation that you purposely rigged
:to fail and then claimed that it proved that Linux was
:totally useless for anyone.
Yea... I guess I did. Damn me for buying semi-modern hardware and
expecting Linux to support it. You got me Mark... I purposely used
semi-modern devices like a USB mouse and a netcam. I purposely used a
3 generation old video card (TNT1) which is "supported" by Linux and I
purposely used the most popular sound card on the market (SB Live)
Yes, I certainly am clever. I rigged an install of Linux by simply
using modern/popular hardware. Exactly what does this prove? Yep,
that's it. Linux is totally incapable of handling semi-modern, popular
hardware.
What was your point again? Oh yes, I remember now. That Linux has
horrible hardware support and you can rig an install by simply using
modern hardware. Yes, I agree Mark. I'm glad you see things my way.
**Note, the above was sarcasm. The hardware in my system was chosen
mainly on price/performence and compatibility with NT/Win2k. Mark's
claims however that I did rig it does show clearly that Linux can't
even support some basic, semi-modern. Hardware. He doesn't dispute the
fact it doesn't work, he only questions the circumstances on which I
use this hardware.
I mean really, how can we consider the SB Live/TNT/USB/ISA modem the
type of hardware you'd rig an install with?
:Truth vs. lies, sharing vs. gouging, helping vs. harming,
:honor vs. shame, good vs. evil.
:
:It's pretty simple, Jeff, and it's pretty clear which path
:you have chosen.
:
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 27 Feb 2000 12:27:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I wish people would stop arguing over which operating system is best and
: just let all operating systems exist in harmony.
Those of us who advocate standards-based operating systems, such as
Linux, the free *BSDs, and Unix, expend considerable effort to make
sure all operating systems that choose to do so *can* exist in
harmony.
We have nothing to fear from competition, nor from the realization
that there are some market niches in which our favorite OS will do
extremely well and others in which it needs improvement or is
relatively ill-suited.
The only folks who have anything to fear or to lose are the Microsoft
advocates. They also happen to be the ones who throw constant and
deliberate roadblocks in the path of interoperability between
operating systems and platforms.
They will lose.
What will result is a situation where no single OS, not even Linux,
dominates the scene, and where any OS can be replaced if need be
without losing one's investment in hardware and software.
: I thought the whole point of linux was to give users a choice as to which
: system to run on their machines.
No, the point of Linux is to provide users at least one good choice
that they did not have before.
The *BSDs are great choices as well, and MacOS is a great choice for
many nontechnical folks for whom neither Windows nor Unix are
sufficiently easy to set up and use. "Appliances" oriented toward
gaming and Internet access and application serving are additional
choices for certain market segments. I'd like to think that many of
these additional choices were inspired by Linux, but they exist as
additional viable choices regardless.
: If linux users force all users to use their system then they are becoming as
: bad as the mighty microsloth.
No one's doing that, at least as far as I can see.
: Lets just make sure all computer users know that there is more than 1 choice
: out there and let them decide whether to run MS Windblows or Linux (or even
: Beos or Mac OS or good old msdos / calera dos).
Corporate and enterprise users mostly don't have a choice today, and
that is where most of the money is. Those decisions are made
primarily by nontechnical managers who have absolutely no knowledge of
technology, and toward whom Microsoft's fraudulent marketing is
primarily aimed. The decisionmakers *think* M$ is the only choice,
even though the IT staff of today by and large know better, and
realize that moving some mission-critical systems from Unix to NT was
a mistake that should be corrected sooner rather than later.
Home users do have a choice, but the Unix-like choices are perceived,
rightly or wrongly, as being too difficult for average home users to
install and configure. This leaves the others, which have less
software and hardware support than Linux, although I would like
nothing better than to see most software be written portably and
hardware to be released with specs, so that *all* operating systems
can at least in theory be supported.
: And before anyone accuses me of being financially connected to microsoft let
: me just add that I hate their unstable operating systems as much ay you do
: and my home PC is dual-boot win98 / Linux (may also add Beos now it is going
: to be free) but I do beleive in letting users make up their own minds
: without being forced to run what everyone thinks they should run (same with
: the Linux KDE / Gnome / Afterstep desktop manager choice).
No one except Microsoft is trying to take choice away from anyone.
I would oppose attempts to do so, if I were aware of any, just as
vehemently as I oppose Microsoft's attempts to do so now.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 27 Feb 2000 12:54:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Excellent point. I for one am sick and tired of Linux users slagging on
: the Mac, OS/2, BeOS or the Amiga. They are all fine OS's and they
: should all be able to live in harmony with each other. It's retarded.
I don't see Linux users "slagging on" any of these.
At least not here or anyplace else I frequent.
All of these have their strengths, and none of them attempts to
monopolize this or any other market.
: Good point. If someone is perfectly happy running Losedoze then hey let
: em, huh?
I haven't encountered too many folks who are happy with 'Doze but
quite a few are willing to at least tolerate it, and until we have
alternatives that they perceive as clearly better, I really don't have
a problem with that.
A lot of people though are so fed up with 'Doze that they try Linux
even though it may not be ready for the specific (and often
specialized) needs that they have. Linux isn't a direct Windows
replacement, and probably never will be until long after Windows has
become obsolete. Hopefully, though, the software of tomorrow will be
written portably and will therefore be compatible with all
standards-based operating systems.
Joe
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
