Linux-Advocacy Digest #442, Volume #27 Mon, 3 Jul 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use? (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Where did all my windows go? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Where did all my windows go? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Numbers for users,hackers? ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: Petition for Microsoft (Charlie Root)
Re: Numbers for users,hackers? (Charlie Root)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (phil hunt)
Re: Ready for Linux ? The "Furniture Scale" ("bmeson")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 14:53:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Mon, 03 Jul 2000 07:45:40 GMT <8jpgb1$34p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Your weenus comments exceeded 80 columns so I corrected them for you
>so that others could
>> read them.
>>
>> BTW, why didn't IE correct your ability to type past 80 anyway?
>
>I've never known IE to be a Newsreader. Blimey, accrediting it with
>things it doesn't do, wow, do you know Windows or what!
Indeed; the headers of this post show you're using Netscape,
which is about as bad when it comes to typing past 80.
However, one can attempt to fix that with judicious fiddling with
the settings, resulting in a monospaced font; one can then
resize one's window to fit 80 characters.
Whether all of this is worthwhile or not...I can't say. (Outlook
Express doesn't do it well either; of course, Outlook Express is
very peculiar when it comes to its support of several versions
of followup formatting!)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- SLRN. Simple, Likable, Reliable Newsreader. :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 14:55:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Mon, 03 Jul 2000 02:17:25 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
[snip]
>Actually, you can write a program that slowly varies the delay
>between back-and-forth head seeks, and eventually, you will hit
>the harmonic frequency of the drive chassis, and the whole thing
>will shake itself to death (kind of like the Verazanno Narrows
>bridge in Tacoma, Washington that lasted for all of three months...
>it's the weirdest thing, watching movies of solid concrete flexing
>like a long piece of white engineer's eraser (you know, the kind
>in a long clicker, like Pentel and other make..)
Heh...shoulda thought of that. Nasty!
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- but I prefer my drives working :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 15:00:56 GMT
In article <8jpejn$us$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8jmhkn$4va$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > If it was W@K you would have had to reboot!
>
> What is W@K?
>
> If you mean Windows 98 SE, yes I agree.
>
> If you mean Windows 2000, it would have told me what just died (which
> Linux did not) and would have carried on as if nothing had happened.
>
> This is one area Windows 2000 scores over Linux.
>
That's a totall crock of bullshit.
First of all, If a process in W2K eats up to many resources it will hang
or slow you system down to a total crawl. It does not pop up a message
telling you how kill the process. You have to know in advance to type
ctrl-alt-del to kill the process.
Secondly, all of the following W2K BSOD's give you no warning
whatsoever:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q245/1/12.ASP
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q260/9/56.ASP
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q232/9/48.ASP
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q254/6/11.ASP
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q257/8/13.asp
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q195/8/57.ASP
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q259/1/44.ASP
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q128/6/30.asp
And thirdly, it's strictly KDE, not Linux, that has this bug. Linux does
not have to run KDE. KDE runs on other OS's the KDE bug can manifest on
other OS's. You have been told this a dozen times over an you still
don't get it. It's no wonder people are calling you a moron.
Overall, the fact that you are using this one obtuse non-critical KDE
bug to protray linux as unstable shows that you are nothing but a liar,
FUDster, and a troll.
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 15:09:46 GMT
In article <8jpfci$2bp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I object to statements
> like "Linux is faster than Windows",
But in many cases it is. People are running supercomputers on Linux.
Linux runs on a number of architectures that are much faster than the
IA-32 architecture that Windows is limited to. And in some instances,
it's faster on IA-32 as well. Try running W2K on a machine w/ only 32
megs.
> and "The Linux desktop is as good
> as Windows".
>
That's entirely subjective. I find my desktops much better than anything
on Windows.
Perry
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 15:24:25 GMT
Correction.
The bridge was "The Tacoma Narrows Bridge".
It was also known as "Galloping Girdie".
The Verrezano Narrows Bridge" is in NYC.
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 02:17:25 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Actually, you can write a program that slowly varies the delay
>between back-and-forth head seeks, and eventually, you will hit
>the harmonic frequency of the drive chassis, and the whole thing
>will shake itself to death (kind of like the Verazanno Narrows
>bridge in Tacoma, Washington that lasted for all of three months...
>it's the weirdest thing, watching movies of solid concrete flexing
>like a long piece of white engineer's eraser (you know, the kind
>in a long clicker, like Pentel and other make..)
>
>
>>
>> [.sigsnip]
>>
>> --
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 3 Jul 2000 10:29:47 -0500
In article <Hr185.4268$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >Java has some strong points, but the portability Sun claims
>> >for it is simply not real. It is if anything *less* portable than
>> >C++.
>>
>> Who besides MS has broken it so it is no longer portable?
>
>Sun. :D
>
>Sun has specified the behavior of the types in very great
>detail. This means it is portable to those computers which
>can efficiently support the types Sun has specified.
>
>Not everybody has 32-bit words, you know.
I wasn't aware that there was some requirement for CPU register
sizes to match java data types. Where did you find that?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 3 Jul 2000 10:24:12 -0500
In article <Gr185.4267$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snip]
>> >> A free upgrade would
>> >> have been nice, but I don't see how bundling it into the
>> >> cost of the not-free upgrade to 98 is good for anyone. It
>> >> just takes away the choice of getting it or not.
>> >
>> >This is entirely nonsensical.
>>
>> Bundling/unbundling. It is just a question of who has the choices.
>
>Why do you prefer giving the DoJ the choices, then?
They have no choice but to enforce the law.
>[snip]
>> >The people who do *are* hurt; they must pay extra simply
>> >to support an inferior (in their view) competitor.
>>
>> Who said anyone was going to have to pay extra?
>
>I do. But I think it so obvious that it hardly needs to be
>said.
But that will be Microsoft's decision. If don't like what
they decide, deal with someone else. Weren't you trying to
say they didn't have a monopoly earlier?
>> If MS
>> continues to include the cost of IE in the OS where it
>> doesn't belong, that is entirely their own fault and you
>> should take it up with them.
>
>You're kidding yourself if you think the price of Windows will
>go *down* because of all this. There isn't a reason in
>the world for MS to do that.
Why not?
>> Look at it like a trip to the grocery store. You might prefer
>> to be handed a pre-filled basket with one price and no choices
>> but that makes one of us.
>
>There are a *lot* of people who like their computers pre-assembled;
>it's really the rule, not the exception.
But they don't have to be pre-assembled the way a single
OS vendor dictates.
>
>I'd insert a car analogy here, but then you'd have to kill me. :D
No, as usual, I would just point out how you were wrong.
>Anyway, this factor is, in essence, why operating systems exist
>in the first place.
No, this is why systems integrators exist.
>You can still have choices; the choice is which pre-filled basket to
>go with, and what to add to it.
Yes, but after the change you will actually have a choice.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Numbers for users,hackers?
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 17:42:54 +0200
for the number of users, check out www.thecounter.com/stats
for the number of experts, who is there to judge?
"Oliver Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Can anyone tell me where I might find reasonable estimates of
>
> a)the number of Linux users there are
> b)the number of expert users there are on average online available to
> help somebody with problems of a more-complicated-than-RTFM level.
>
> I would need to know what the source of the estimates is--as in the
> method used and who did the estimating. I'd really like something
> "authoritative," since this is for a magazine article.
>
> Thanks for any advice.
>
> - Oliver Baker
------------------------------
From: Charlie Root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Petition for Microsoft
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 15:54:54 GMT
OSguy wrote:
> Obviously, I won't be signing your petition....Good Riddance.
Is it possible to signing the petition commenting to end monopoly?
------------------------------
From: Charlie Root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Numbers for users,hackers?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 15:58:26 GMT
"1$worth" wrote:
> Oliver Baker wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone tell me where I might find reasonable estimates of
> >
> > a)the number of Linux users there are
> > b)the number of expert users there are on average online available to
> > help somebody with problems of a more-complicated-than-RTFM level.
> >
> > I would need to know what the source of the estimates is--as in the
> > method used and who did the estimating. I'd really like something
> > "authoritative," since this is for a magazine article.
>
> There are no authoritative figures. It is like asking how many people
> access the Internet. You may find http://counter.li.org/ useful though.
> As for online help, there are many, many kind and good people willing to
> give up their time and expertise to help, but I doubt if any of them
> have recorded their efforts anywhere for surveys such as this. It it
> reasonable to assume that if you have a genuine problem where you have
> made an effort to solve it yourself, you WILL get help if you ask. It's
> a friendly community thing....
The http://counter.li.org/ is not accurate either. May be ask Linux
vendors: Red Hat, Corel, Mandrake, OpenLinux, etc., for the figure.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 3 Jul 2000 10:57:02 -0500
In article <Jr185.4270$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sorry, but it is the theory that differs from observations
>> that must either be discarded or proven. Mine predicts
>> the problems that have been seen in practice.
>
>Predictions have to predict things that *haven't already
>happened*; predictions after the fact aren't really
>predictions.
I've always predicted problems with MS software, even before
the first windows releases.
>I can make up lots of theories that "predict" stuff
>that's already happened, but it isn't evidence that
>those theories are true.
So make one up that predicts why my unix/linux servers
have always been reliable and the NT boxes set up by
people with NT training and experience crash all the
time...
>> You are
>> the one who claimed it is just poor implementation,
>
>I did not so claim. I do not consider this relevant, so I made
>no comment on it.
You said I changed the subject from your postulation of security
improvements by MS to:
"NT's poor implementation record compared to some."
Please explain what you meant by that if I misinterpreted it.
>> so
>> perhaps you would like to elaborate on why you think
>> someone with a problem implementing the details would be
>> able to generate a flawless design. Or why you would promote
>> something like this as an improvement.
>
>I do observe that you have snipped, without comment, my claim
>that this is all irrelevant: regardless of whether or not
>NT's security is badly designed, it exists and if you want
>to "interoperate" with it, you have to cope with it.
>
>Just saying "It should be more like Unix" won't do. It isn't.
I don't 'cope with it', I firewall it and do not allow any
NT boxes open access from the internet. I have a couple of
Win2k boxes that can be accessed on port 80 only but they
are isolated from everything else.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 15:49:22 GMT
In article <8jpgmk$3eg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "Whining", as you so crudely put it, might make someone pay attention
> and make the changes that could make Linux into a real Windows beater.
If you have suggestions you can send them to the KDE developers, or post
them on the KDE mailing lists. If you find a bug in KFM you should
submit a bug report. If you are having technical problems with your
system and sincerely want to fix them you should post sincere questions
on the technical support newgroups. None of the above would be whining.
But when you get on an advocacy group and vent your frustrations by
stretching blatent misconceptions to the limit, and imposing your
subjective experience on others as if they are universal, then you are
whining. Period. What do you want us to do here?? Feel sorry for you??
> > You are distorting the context when you say "Linux". Most of your
> > whining has been about things specific to KDE, that could happen or
> > FreeBSD/KDE or Solaris/KDE as well.
>
> If you say Windows, which one do you mean? Windows 98 SE is not the
same
> as Windows 2000. Yet everyone here simply uses the term "Windows", or
> more crudely, WinLose or WinDoze or whatever derogatory term you can
> think of.
In most cases, people on this NG mean NT4 or W2k. Yes, W2K is more
reliable than '98SE. In fact. Microsoft claims W2K is
3 times more reliable than NT4
13 times more reliable than '98
This however, still does not come close to the reliability of Linux,
which can easily have uptimes of a year or more. And quite frankly, I
don't think Linux is as reliable as the BSD's or the commerical Unices.
> But bugs in Windows 98 are being attributed to Windows 2000!
Where? Provide a reference. I have only provided you references to W2k
and NT4 bugs.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 16:29:25 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 03 Jul 2000 12:19:17 +0100, Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>>> "Volker" == Volker Hetzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Volker> Phillip Lord wrote:
> >> Economic aid is almost entirely a sham. It always comes with a
> >> price. Its worth remember for instance that despite all of the
> >> wonderful aid we give to the third world that more money heads in
> >> the opposite direction.
> Volker> Yet, what is the alternative?
>
> There are positive moves towards changing the attitudes of the
>banks towards third world. The second thing is I think to publicise
>some of the impacts of the arms trade. So for instance I think that
>quite a lot of the UK population is aware now for instance of the arms
>trade going on between the UK and Indonesia, and some of the impact
>this has had on both Indonesia and E.Timor. But considerably fewer of
>the population are probably aware of the Export Credit Guarantee
>Scheme which means that the UK taxpayer has unwritten a large part of
>this arms trade.
Selling arms to foreign dictators is one thing, and there's a case to
be made for doing so; but giving them away (which is what happens when
they default on the ECG loans, as Indonesia has done) is another thing
entirely, and has no merits whatsoever.
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
From: "bmeson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ready for Linux ? The "Furniture Scale"
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 12:53:35 -0400
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> I would still reccomend Mandrake 7.0, SuSE, or Caldera. Red Hat
> is nice, but not as "desktop-friendly", it is more "administrator
> friendly".
>
One and half years ago I had a lot of trouble reading a big SuSE install
manual. Later I tried Red Hat, which seems a lot more simpler to install. I
have no experience on Mandrake and Caldera. Can you explain the diffenence
between "desktop-friendly" and
"administrator friendly"?
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 03 Jul 2000 12:56:16 -0400
Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You miss my point badly I am afraid.
I don't think so.
> But when one of our MP's suggest ... the press jumps down her throat.
> The drugs issue ... but very few MP's will seriously discuss this.
In other words, these issues *are* publicly debated. I think you
just don't like the outcome of the debates.
> But the extraordinarily divisive society that we have means that
> power to do this is vested in only a few.
I don't think you mean "divisive" - even if we have such a society,
how does that lead to power vesting in only a few people?
> This is not all that different from the monarchical oligarchy that
> existed for much of the last millennium. Which is a pity.
The difference is that there are no monarchical oligarchs to make
certain speech illegal. Attempting to sway the opinions of millions of
people is always going to take large amounts of resources. In the
US, we do not, or should not, allow the law to censor the content
of the message based upon the means used to accumulate the resources
by which the message is presented.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 3 Jul 2000 11:50:27 -0500
In article <Kr185.4271$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snip]
>> >I don't agree. It does *not* in fact permit you to change
>> >one endpoint at a time; you cannot switch protocols that
>> >way, but only implementations- and this is very limiting.
>>
>> How is it limiting? Take email as the example where you
>> can interchange any conforming SMTP implementation with
>> any other and you can switch among file access to the
>> message store, POP, IMAP, or some other protocols, one
>> endpoint at a time. Please give an example to the contrary,
>> where a proprietary protocol proves to be better, especially
>> in a mixed environment.
>
>I don't know enough of the details of SMTP, POP and IMAP to
>know how this works; it does nto seem like an example
>of using a standard protocol to interoperate. It seems like
>three protocols.
If you don't understand the issues, why continue the discussion?
SMTP is the transport protocol that handles delivery to
the destination host where it is stored for access by the
user. POP and IMAP are network user access protocols that
allow reading the stored messages on demand. POP simply copies
the messages over to the user's program, usually all at once.
IMAP allows the messages to remain stored on the server and
accessed from different remote locations. You can also
use other protocols simultaneously, and all of these have
had protocol revisions which can co-exist. Where is the
'very limiting' part of this?
>Proprietary protocols are not necessarily *better*; but they exist
>and pretending they don't doesn't make them go away.
It is irrelevant that they exist if they don't interoperate except
that they reduce the value of the ones that do. It is like a building
with a private phone network that doesn't interconnect with the
public lines. If enough places used such things that you couldn't
contact the people you want, your own phone would become useless.
>You're
>little SMTP/POP/IMAP network won't be able to interoperate
>with a client that knows none of these protocols, unless you
>have some way to add a protocol to it.
Little? SMTP spans the world and I believe into space. And yes,
every non-standard, non-interoperable client reduces its value.
>You know, some sort of plug-in architecture.
No, I don't know. You haven't said anything to show how it
is better than using standard protocols. Examples please,
large-scale if possible. Show how an API is going to improve
on SMTP's 20+ year span of interoperability across just
about every computer and OS capable of networking.
>> >The MS plug-ins approach does let you switch an endpoint
>> >at a time, because each client can be made to support
>> >multiple protocols and can use the appropriate one,
>> >depending on who it is talking to. You can switch clients
>> >one at a time until all are switched, and only then delete
>> >the older protocol.
>>
>> This has absolutely nothing to do with the argument that
>> the wire protocols involved should be standards so you
>> are not limited to this single plug-in implementation
>> or whether one exists for the platform in question.
>
>I think it does have something to do with it; you said the *reason*
>for using standard protocols everywhere was to enable one
>endpoint at a time changes. In fact, I point out, a plug in
>archecture *does* allow this, and even permits you to change
>the protocol itself one endpoint at a time, which standardizing
>on a single protocol does not.
No, it doesn't have anything to do with it because no one ever
said anything about using only a single protocol. And even
if you do, protocols normally have version negotition which
allows changes within the protocol to provide backwards
compatibility without having to touch existing configurations.
>[snip]
>> >But you can. The API works with something like a driver;
>> >you can add unforseen new entities by obtaining (or writing)
>> >such a driver and installing it wherever it matters.
>>
>> You can't do any such thing if the network protocol
>> is unknown.
>
>You can't do *anything* if the network protocol is unknown;
>but in that case you clearly aren't dealing with a "standard"
>protocol, either, and your "make em all use 'standard'
>protocols" runs up against the gritty reality that they don't
>all use 'standard' protocols.
So, just say no. Standard protocols exist for most necessary
services and can always be created for new ones. You don't
have to be trapped by any single vendor.
>> >You can do this easily if the "unforseen new entity"
>> >supports such drivers- just give it the drivers for your
>> >network. If it doesn't, you have to install a driver
>> >on every *other* computer so they know whatever
>> >protocol it is using. But either way you can do it.
>>
>> So, where is this mythical driver-like thing that will
>> allow a non-MS product to be a domain controller?
>
>I've already given you the links. It's called a "security support
>provider".
But it requires replacement of the client. That's not interoperability.
>It's because of these things that you can use a NetWare directory
>server as a domain controler; but you can also write your own.
Novell says it is impossible with the win2k scheme. If they can't
do it I doubt if I could either.
>[snip]
>> >> If you don't document the protocol then you can't make any
>> >> claim of interoperability.
>> >
>> >Sure you can. Haven't you noticed me claiming left and right? :D
>>
>> And I've politely refrained from saying you are lying, since
>> you may simply be confused.
>
>:D Well, i think it's more precise to say that I'm using a different
>definition of "interoperability" than you are; I'm insisting on
>communications between *different* systems.
Yet you keep talking about the MS system that doesn't.
>[snip]
>> >You really do seem to be *defining* "interoperability"
>> >as "fixed wire protocol". I don't think that's a promising
>> >approach.
>>
>> OK, so don't claim interoperability.
>
>I don't know. Why can't I be annoying and stubborn
>about defining "interoperability"?
I suppose I would eventually be goaded into making crude
sexual references to the effect of 'viva la difference'.
>> >I do agree- they've done the work. The interoperability
>> >you see to day between Windows and Unix,
>> >such as it is, is largely due to Microsoft's efforts.
>>
>> That's is too funny for words, given that it isn't a bit
>> better now than what could be done with Windows 3.1, Trumpet
>> or any 3rd party TCP, and Netscape, back when MS was
>> still in the dark ages.
>
>Actually, it is better. Back in the days of Windows 3.1 it was
>much more difficult to make Windows use a 3rd
>party directory server. Most of this plug-in stuff I'm going
>on about did not exist.
No, it is still the same when you have to change the client
to make it work. It doesn't matter whether a third party
provides the usable client or not, or whether the piece it
replaces was designed to be replaced it is still just as
much trouble.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 03 Jul 2000 13:01:08 -0400
Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes. Even ideas that quite a lot of the population see as
> reasonable are included in the ideas which will get ignored
> though. And the "people" who are doing the ignoring are not the
> population as a whole, but rather the few who control the media and
> political system.
I assume that in the UK, like in the US, essentially anyone may start
a newspaper or a magazine, or write a book, or run for office. The
people who "control" the media and the government have achieved that
position through popularity, not force. It still sounds to me like
you don't happen to like the outcome of such popularity contests.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
