Linux-Advocacy Digest #285, Volume #34 Mon, 7 May 01 07:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Edward
Rosten")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: where's the linux performance? (robert bronsing)
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP ("David Brown")
Re: Why does Flatfoot feel so threatened? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Why does Flatfoot feel so threatened? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Matthew Gardiner)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 12:14:49 +0100
>> Yes, I know this. It is not as convenient as just dragging the window
>> to a new size and it doesn't really do the same thing either. Making
>> it smaller just adds scroll bars, IIRC, but doesn't change the actual
>> size that apps think they are working with. An xterm notifies the app
>> running in it of the new size.
>
> Hmm, I just took my mouse dragged my cmd window to be the size of my
> screen and ran edit.com in there. Now edit didn't like the size and
> decided to change it to an 80x50 window, but that's still larger than
> the default
> 80x25.
DOS (ie what the whol;e text based stuff in NT is loosely based on) was
able to work with 80x25, 80x43 and 80x50. Pretty much nothing was able to
work with anything else. Try getting it to work with 81x26.
> You know Bob, have you ever stopped and considered that maybe this isn't
> all that important of a feature?
Have you ever considered that there is more out there than your small,
closed world. If you got your head out of your arse, you would realise
that not everyone works in the same way as you do. For me it is a very,
very useful feature and I probably use it hundreds of times every day.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 05:11:24 -0500
"Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > In article <Ny7I6.22197$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I guess it depends on what you mean by "secure". If someone
> > doesn't
> > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > the decode algorithm, 4-bit encryption could be quite secure
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What crap. If you don't understand something don't make
pathetic
> > > > > > > attempts to show that you do. ANY 4-bit encryption algorithm
could
> > be
> > > > > > > cracked by brute force in less time than it took you to write
such
> > > > > > > rubbish. The best known encryption algorithms are known and
open
> > to
> > > > > > > peer review. If you invent a new encryption algorithm but
won't
> > make
> > > > > > > it open to peer review then it just will not be accepted.
Security
> > > > > > > through obscurity just doesn't cut it at any time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What's crap is your understanding.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can only brute force it if you know the decode algorithm.
You
> > can
> > > > > > guess, and analyze and do lots of things, but it could be things
> > like
> > > > XORing
> > > > > > the data against a pets name, while rotating 3 bits and
compressing
> > it
> > > > using
> > > > > > 10 different compression algorithms. The number of possible
> > > > combinations of
> > > > > > decode algorithms is limitless.
> > > > > >
> > > > > You aren't required to know the algorithm to crack encryption. You
> > don't
> > > > > care about the algorithm, you care about recovering the message.
So
> > the
> > > > > attack has to create an algorithm that decodes the message. It
doesn't
> > > > > matter if the algorithm is the "correct" algorithm or not. In
fact,
> > > > > doing things such as you suggest often make a code easier to
crack.
> > When
> > > > > you apply multiple compression algorithms, or multiple xor, the
> > attacker
> > > > > doesn't have to know how many times you compressed, he just has to
> > find
> > > > > one scheme to go from encrypted message to plain text.
> > > >
> > > > Ahh, but that's just it. Such a scheme typically needs to have a
> > "rosetta
> > > > stone" or some way to identify at least one character or word in the
> > data.
> > > > Suppose the encrypted data isn't plain text at all, but something
that
> > is
> > > > based on a random character set chosen for the day it was encrypted?
> > You
> > > > need a point of reference, and without having that, you might as
well
> > have
> > > > monkeys banging on keyboards.
> > > >
> > > No, you don't typically need a "rosetta stone". If you have such, then
> > > you can apply a "known plain text attack". But that isn't the only
> > > attack.
> >
> > I said a "rosetta stone" *OR* some way to identify at least one
character or
> > word in the data.
> >
> If the message is in a Latin or Germanic language the probability is ~1
> that it contains the letters "A" and "O". If it is in Greek, it will
> almost certainly contain the letters "A" and "O". But if it is in
> Cyrillic, then one would check for the letters "A" and "O". There are
> corresponding checks for languages such as Hebrew, Japanese ( "A" and
> "O" in their telegraph codes), Thai, Chinese, and Korean.
> Normally, the attacker would start not making any assumptions about
> language, but would look for indicators of key length, and try to deduce
> the alphabet size. After establishing some statistics, these would be
> bounced off a program that would check for probable language. Then
> probable words would be located, and unknown words deduced. I don't
> recall where I saw the memo quoted, but it went something like "Does
> anyone know of someone whose name contains the letter 'K' who went
> somewhere last week. He may have been German or Romanian." Apparently,
> from statistics, the mathematician had deduced the above with no
> knowledge of the message contents or language. Today, we would have just
> done a regex search of a data base to see if there was someone who met
> the requirements.
You're forgetting. I already offered that it would be quite possible to
device an encoding scheme where the same sequence of characters are not
encoded the same way twice. Thus, all your occurances of A and O would be
different for each time they occured. Suppose I used the 4 bit key as an
index into a completely arbitrarily chosen letter translation table.
Example:
a = 1 the first time the a is used.
a = z the second time it is used
a = l the third time it's used
a = 0xfe the fourt time it's used.
Now, a key with a value of 3, means that it starts at the third arbitrarily
chosen entry. Thus, a message of "aaaa" would have be encoded to l0xfe1z.
There is no recognizeable pattern there, and no way for you to guess at all,
given only the data and the key with the value 3.
Further, the message could be written in an imaginary language (or one known
only to the author and recipient, such as Apache which was used during the
WWII). That in itself is a form of encoding. You might be able to assume
that the imaginary language uses typical human language patterns, but if the
language were made specifically to defy all known language patterns, you are
again lost.
> > > > Typically, when trying to break encryption without knowing the
> > algorithm,
> > > > you either look for common algorithms, or you look for patterns that
> > match
> > > > known language patterns.
> > > You look for clues. Compression algorithms for example, will add
> > > information to the file that permits deduction of the compression
> > > scheme. So applying (by computer) tests for compression will very
> > > rapidly "back out" the compressions.
> >
> > You're assuming that someone just ran a file through zip. That's not
what
> > i'm talking about. There are many compression algorithms that you can
apply
> > without creating file information. The output of the algorithm should
> > appear random if you don't know that it is compressed data.
> >
> No, I didn't assume that you just ran the file through zip. To be useful
> for this purpose, the compression scheme has to be both reversible and
> lossless. Otherwise you would never be able to decode the uncompressed
> version of the compressed file (
> Decrypt(Uncompress(Compress(Encrypt(text))) != text). So all usable
> compression routines add information to the file. They just do it in a
> way that takes up less space than the original file. As someone else
> pointed out, you are better off compressing first then encrypting. That
> would obscure the compression marks.
I said that the output would itself then be encrypted again, multiple times,
in multiple ways. It could be encrypted in 1000 different arbitrarily
chosen ways. Further, not all compression algorithms add identifiable
signatures or structures.
> > > >If you disguise the language patterns by making
> > > > sure that even the same phrase doesn't create the same series of
bytes,
> > then
> > > > you remove the ability to deduce a new algorithm.
> > > >
> > > But you can't do that with a 4 bit key. A 4 bit key means a cycle
length
> > > of 16. So every 16 letters, or words, you can get repeats. These
repeats
> > > will have spacing with a factor of 16. If 16 is the smallest factor,
> > > then I need only to test for key lenghts of 2 and 4, which totals out
to
> > > 4 +16 = 20 keys.
> >
> > No, a 4 bit key simply means that the key is 4 bits. The key may not
use
> > factors at all, it might be the value that is XOR'd for example, or any
of a
> > billion other ways those 4 bits might be used to encode the data.
You're
> > making the critical error of assuming the use of a known algorithm,
which is
> > exactly my point.
> >
> A Caesar Cypher on an extended alphabet is a 5 bit key. It is a simple
> add or xor the 5 bit key to each letter. This is easily read as the
> cycle would be immediately recognized as one byte. A 4 bit key applied
> thus to each nibble would also be recognized as one byte, with upper and
> lower nibbles equal. Another possibility would be to use the 4 bit key
> as the seed for a random number generator. But then there are only 16
> possible random number sequences. Any random number generator with a 4
> bit seed will have a short cycle length easily identified. Even if you
> expand the 4 bits to int length, all your messages would be encrypted
> with one of only 16 sequences. Repetition would be noticed across
> messages if not along messages. Even if you did something as complex as
> using the 4 bit key as the key for triple DES, it would be a give away.
> Only 20 (max) tries, about 3 uSec, needed to decode.
Suppose the 4 bit key was actually an index into a set of 1024 bit keys
known only to the two parties?
You're still not getting my point. That a 4 bit key can mean *ANYTHING*,
and unless you know what the key is referencing, it's useless.
------------------------------
From: robert bronsing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 12:30:05 +0200
Ok, this is interesting. I am by now reasonably comfortable using
slackware at home. All the things you mention I can do. So, why switch
to BSD? What is better in BSD than in Linux?
Ian Pulsford wrote:
>
> Jonathan Martindell wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm just a beginning Linux user. I've recently tried Linux-Mandrake 7.2 and
> > then Linux-Mandrake 8.0 and also Caldera OpenLinux 2.4. I've been very
> > disappointed in the performance of all of these. My machine, I think,
> > should be more than adaquate: 708MHz celeron fcppga cpu, 256 meg rams, 10
> > gig partition for linux (20 for windows 2000) on Ultra66. I've tried
> > running KDE, Gnome, and Icevm. Programs like KMail take over 10 seconds to
>
> As you say, you are a beginner, take the time to learn the system and
> tweak it for maximum performance. First remove services unnecessary for
> a desktop that are often included with a new install. Then learn how to
> make a custom kernel. Then switch to FreeBSD.
>
> IanP
--
Robert Bronsing
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 12:29:16 +0200
Ayende Rahien wrote in message <9d4olk$2op$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> > "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:9d38m6$r3r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > > Probably wouldn't be hard to put a coffee maker on, but that may
>violate
>> > > some gpl on the howto for getting linux to make coffee.
>> >
>> > That is one thing that frighten me about the GPL.
>> > There is already GPLed data, what happen when other things start to get
>GPL?
>>
>> I don't see why you're frightened.
>> You develop something, you want to make money out of it, you copyright
>> your work, then sell licenses or whatever, and nobody else is allowed to
>> make money out of it.
>> I develop something, I don't want to make money out of it (maybe because
>> I'm making money selling hardware), but I want to share my work with
>> other developers in order to make it better and useful for a lot of
>> people, me included, so I GPL my work, and nobody else is allowed to
>> make money out of it.
>> In both case we're speaking of protected IP. Nobody else is allowed to
>> make money out of it except the rightful owner.
>> Except that in case of GPL everybody else is entitled to use it and to
>> make money from its usage (e.g. I can use a GPL Apache to sell IP
>> service).
>> So what's wrong with GPL?
>
>The GPL is viral & unremovable.
>When you start to GPL data, you can start GPL other things.
>What about GPLing a network protocol? Since every program that uses it is a
>derivative, every such program must be GPL.
>GPLing is not nice, spesifically because it all-encompasing natute. I don't
>have a problem with forcing people to open the changes they made to your
>code, that is logical. But I've big problems with forcing them to GPL
>*their* code.
>
>Consider this scenrio, MS release WindowsGPL, where the license has once
>exception "A program need not to be GPLed if it used just enough of the
>system's resources to query whatever this is WinGPL or normal Win, and then
>display a message saying this program cannot be run on WinGPL"* ?
>Essencially meaning that everything you run on WinGPL must GPLed, too. Now,
>they also have normal Windows, which doesn't have this provision.
>How much software would run on WinGPL and how much on normal Windows? (I'm
>talking about the *exact* same base code, the only difference is that the
>reutnr value of bool isWindowsGol(); )
When you write software, you can put whatever licence you want on it. MS
could specify that the in order to use the Windows API, your program's
window had to have a dark blue border - only those willing to pay for
special extended licences would be allowed to choose a red window border.
One of the particular features of GPL and the definition of "open source" is
that you cannot place restrictions on what programs use it and what users
use it. Thus such as licence as you suggested would not be "open source".
>
>(Linux gets away with it with a license exception that says that you don't
>have to GPL your program for normal system calls)
The header files are covered by the LGPL, which is specifically made to
avoid this potential problem - it is not Linux-specific. Basically, the
LGPL says that if you write code that is based on the main code of the
LGPL'ed library, you need to (L)GPL your code. But if you just include the
headers, you don't. That is what makes it possible to write closed source
programs using open source tools.
>
>GPL limit the scope that the code can be reused.
>At the moment, I can avoid developing GPL, but what happen if people start
>GPLing all sort of stuff, beside code.
>
>
>*Translation from layer speak in capital letters.
>
>
>
>The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom.
> --Supreme Court Justice William Orville Douglas
>
>
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Flatfoot feel so threatened?
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 22:39:52 -0700
> >If Power Point is a requirement, then Power Point is what you should
> >use. If she just needs to be able to show images, then any program
> >in that class will do; in a pinch you could even use the Gimp.
>
> When a grade is at stake I prefer to use a known product instead of
> being a hero and running a Linux version in the hope that it will work
> ok on the teachers PC.
Why not use Corel Wordperfect Suite for Linux and use Presentations?
make up the slide show, then dump it onto a disk using show-on-the-go
(remembering to select "Windows 98/95/NT"). All your daughter has to do
is go off to her Windows PeeCee at school, double click on the icon, and
the presentation automatically loads with-out the need for extra
applications. Flatfish, what is so hard about that? I used it all the
time whilst at University and College.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Flatfoot feel so threatened?
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 22:41:04 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On 07 May 2001 02:01:36 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
> wrote:
>
> >I have found the software well written, the authors friendly
> >and approachable, usually answering my emails about bugs or
> >features, within ONE day.
>
> I'll agree with the author part, my experience has been the same.
>
> Flatfish
Now, if only Microsoft had that sort of response time, then I would be
really impressed.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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!
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 06:43:55 -0400
billwg wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > How do you know it is not presented in evidence? Do you have a catlog of
> > evidence and if so, have you searched it?
> >
> The transcripts for the DOJ actions are on the DOJ website, at
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm. They are also on the Microsoft
> site in their PressPass area. I've read most of it and I've never seen any
> reference to any such contract or offering.
Is this for the trial? The cited letter would have been in reference to
DOS and W3.1. It would have been collevted as evidence byt the FTC or
DOJ during the last action which resulted in the consent decree stopping
product tying and per-processor licenses.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 10:42:27 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:BiuJ6.22946$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:FjrJ6.14$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> > > > > That's exactly my point. Pascal properly hides what shouldn't be
> > > > > normally used by an application developer (i.e. dirty tricks with
> > > > > pointers). You can do in Pascal anything you can do in C, but you
> must
> > > > > state very explicitly, so that you're made aware of what you're
> doing.
> > > > > Once you've learned, you may start playing with C++, if you feel
> like,
> > > > > but your background will make you avoid all the trivial errors you
> can
> > > > > do with C++, without the compiler telling you, and learning only
at
> > run
> > > > > time.
> > > >
> > > > Not true. You can't do anything can do with C++. You can't write
> > device
> > > > drivers, for instance.
> > >
> > > I don't see why. Do I miss a point?
> >
> > Hmmm, I've written DOS Device drivers using a mixture of Assembly and
> > TurboPascal 5 before (Interface to a DC-600 Tape Drive)
> >
> > I don't see the point, either.
>
> I should have clarified. You can't write Windows device drivers. These
> require, among other things, a special PE signature that the Delphi linker
> doesn't provide.
Ahhh, makes sense now.
I never equate PASCAL and Windows. I played with Turbo Pascal for Windows
only long enough to decide I didn't care for it. Delphi didn't strike me as
being that different - Just a VB-Like front end to the latter and a more
cohesive design. Windows 3/3.11 seemed tailor-made for C.
------------------------------
From: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 12:43:43 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Mikkel Elmholdt in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001
> >"Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ><snip>
> >> This is only the first in a series of articles. This one is
interesting
> >> only for the fact that subsequent benchmarks will have to take into
> >> account the poorer response times for WinNT. The rest of the series
> >> should be more entertaining. BTW, that "IBM guy", as you referred to
him,
> >> is IBM's product guru in charge of MSFT, not Linux. I'm expecting bias
> >> in a different direction than you.
> >
> >OK, maybe this thread has taken a bad turn. I was not really objecting to
> >the article as such (and I apologize for the dismissive "IBM guy" term).
I
> >was more after the poster, who believed that the test described said
> >something about the relative performance of Linux versus WinNT.
>
> It was a comparison of performance. Why wouldn't it describe something
> about the relative performance?
I think that I've stated that already, but nevertheless ...... for
(experienced) Windows-programmers it is well-known that the
QueryPerformanceCounter() is not suitable for fine-grained performance
measurements, as it has been implemented in a circumspect way, and,
according to some reports, can take more than 1000 CPU cycles to complete on
some hardware. Ordinary Windows applications does not suffer from this
problem though, as they rarely use this function in production code. So that
QueryPerformanceCounter() takes considerably more time to complete than it's
Linux equivalent, is not necessarily proof that Linux will outperform NT on
a general basis.
But I will agree that it does not exactly further the opposite claim either
... :-) If the NT developers can make such a hash of a simple thing, then
God knows what other stunts they may have pulled.
Mikkel
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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!
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 06:45:14 -0400
JS PL wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS PL wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > > typo and all huh?.. That looks real authentic. Oh I see, it came
> from
> > > the
> > > > > fictional book The Microsoft File.
> > > >
> > > > Fictional? Prove it. Better yet, sue th author. If it is so fictional,
> > > > tell us why Microsoft didnt sue.
> > >
> > > It's not my job to prove made up events didn't happen. It's the authors
> job
> > > to prove they DID. Something that is soreley lacking in the gossip fish
> > > stories of the Microsoft File.
> > > Prove aliens didn't come down for a photo op with Clinton? Same thing.
> > >
> > > There's a pretty good precedent for huge corporations *not* being
> > > successfull in suing rouge loners with pencils. Just ask the author of
> > > WalMartsucks.com et. al. On top of that, the book has surely caused no
> harm
> > > to Microsoft.
> >
> > That proves you didnt read it. You does plenty of harm to Microsoft.
>
> I've glanced through it at Barnes & Noble and read reviews. Why would I want
> to BUY tabloid trash? I'd rather purchase factual books.
Then you should start.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 22:44:09 -0700
> >You are absolutely correct. Linux turns consumers into producers and
> >encourages them to think for themselves. Why expose your daughter to the
> >hazards of thought? That will only maker her unhappy and she might vote
> >to cut of your social security. Exposing your children to Linux is child
> >abuse! She might fail and damage her self-esteem. Instead of Linux run
> >right out and buy her a sack of McDonald's and some Guess jeans.
>
> The Lesson in this case is French, not learning how to use a computer.
>
> My 11 yo son uses Linux and likes it.
>
> Flatfish
How long have you grounded your son for?
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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!
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 06:45:51 -0400
billwg wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Fictional? Prove it. Better yet, sue th author. If it is so fictional,
> > tell us why Microsoft didnt sue.
> >
> The proof lies in the lack of corroboration in an environment where
> corroboration would be very loudly acclaimed. Microsoft can't really sue
> because there is no measurement of any damage. The only people who may have
> believed the book were already against Microsoft. The people who like
> Microsoft don't believe the book. Nobody else was interested in the book.
> So no damage to sue for and any significant response by Microsoft would only
> serve to publicize and dignify the book itself. It's like answering a
> troll.
We answer you, dont we?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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!
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 06:48:57 -0400
billwg wrote:
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9d4c2k$g9v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > But why do you think that Windows makes a better desktop platrom than the
> > MacOS?
> >
> There's a lot of philosophy involved here that transcends the technology
> issue. Many people sneer at Windows and point to various technology
> limitations or design deficiencies, but a great deal of that effort is
> misdirected. Windows is a great product for the lone reason that so many
> people use it and can therefore connect effectively with one another and
> exchange information in a useable way.
>
> MacOS is just fine for running a Macintosh computer AFAIK, but it is not as
> fine for exchanging information in the form of files or floppy diskettes,
Ive been able to read/write DOS disks on my MAc for -years-. When did
that ability end?
> or
> such with others simply because Macintosh computers are far less prevalent
> in the community.
When did cross-platfor apps stop reading their data files?
>
> Windows can certainly be made better and frequently is by
> Microsoft. No one can dispute that Win2K is better than WinNT4 which was
> better than WinNT3.51 which was better than WinNT3.1, etc, and the same for
> Win3.0/Win3.1/Win3.11/Win95/98/Me. XP will be better yet.
>
Well, better than the previous -Windows- anyway.
> But all will allow their users to intercommunicate with one another and
> exchange information.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 22:48:34 -0700
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > If I were doing extensive tables and equations etc type work I would
> > probably take the time to learn LaTeX.
>
> I'd take the time to learn it anyway. Once you're used to it everything
> else seems primitive. And the output quality is second to none.
>
>
> > Isn't Latex available for Windows as well?
>
> Yes it is. Look for MikTeX
>
>
> > I can't stand WinWord BTW.
>
> That makes 2 of us :)
I prefer using Wordperfect. The Linux version I have been using for 3
days is extremely stable and responsive. Maybe if businesses weren't so
Corel-o-phobic, then Linux would actually make inroads onto the corp
desktop market.
btw. I can't stand WinWord either, that makes three of us :)
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
