Linux-Advocacy Digest #99, Volume #35 Sun, 10 Jun 01 03:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Argh - Ballmer (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: UI Importance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I propose a GPL change... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Here's a switch for a change (Terry Porter)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Terry Porter)
Redhat video problems. ("William J. Giffen")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Clarice)
Re: Here's a switch for a change ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals (Jet)
Re: Here's a switch for a change (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Here's a switch for a change (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:11:39 GMT
Said Charlie Ebert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 10 Jun 2001
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Charlie Ebert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001
>>
>>The GPL is a copyrighted [sic] license, Charlie. That is why other
>>people think that government-funded development should not be GPLed.
>>
>>>All software developed by the U.S. Government, written in house
>>>or funded and written by a contractor should be GPL'd.
>>
>>I agree, but obviously not for precisely the same reasons as you're
>>imagining.
>
>Explain yourself.
>#1. What was I imagining.
The relationship between public domain and GPL that made you confuse the
two in some way and say that GPL software was not "copyright licensed",
I think.
>#2. What's your angle?
I agree with you; all government-funded software should be mandatorily
GPL. I also agree with those who would claim it is an impractically
radical suggestion, though. Aside from the majority who do not
understand the idea correctly. They are mistaken. To force commercial
developers to learn from but not exploit tax-payer funded works is
enough reason for me. Just like back in the ancient days of the
Internet, when the AUP was in force, before MCI replaced NFSNet.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:11:40 GMT
Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 10 Jun 2001 10:47:23
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Learn to read.
>
>Eek. My typo originally, I meant to say Windows CLI. That was the context
>in which the previous discussion was taking place. My bad.
I appreciate that. Thank you.
[...]
>> >I'd like to see a few examples of what you can do with bash without using
>> >any other programs.
>>
>> I have already provided several in post you are replying to. Learn to
>> read.
>
>You haven't at all.
You can type '!' to repeat the previous command. Now I have, for sure,
OK? Go back and read the earlier posts and you'll find more. I've
never been discussing the GNU tools, just bash.
[...]
>If you cannot use certain tools in your shell, you are limited. If you can
>use any tool in your shell, you are not limited.
So? This somehow makes cmd.exe the equivalent of bash? Not by a
LOOONNG shot.
>> >> >Give me an example of how it's crippled?
>> >>
>> >> No korne, bourne, OR c shell syntax support.
>> >
>> >So it sucks because it isn't Unix?
>>
>> No, it sucks because it does not support the de facto standard shells
>> for Unix.
>
>Why should it? It's not Unix.
Because they are superior to the one that it does support. Why
shouldn't it? They use BSD internet tools (ping, netstat, etc.), why
not a BSD shell?
WHY NOT?
>> >> It finally has tab
>> >> completion,
>> >
>> >What do you mean finally? Since 1996?
>>
>> That one didn't work. MS didn't even mention it exists, really; some
>> 'NT secrets' researcher figured out NT had tab completion, but it was
>> off by default. It wasn't until 2000 that Windows "finally" had a
>> usable tab completion feature.
>
>It's documented in the knowledge base how to turn it on. It's not some
>"secrets" researcher.
Okay, a treasure-hunter, then.
>> >> but it still fucks up how more should work. No c shell
>> >> "bang" history syntax support, either.
>> >
>> >Not familiar with this sorry, can't offer a comment.
>>
>> Indeed. Now, explain to us why you are claiming BASH doesn't have any
>> features that cmd.exe has when you obviously don't even know what
>> features BASH has to begin with?
>
>Because I've never seen a bash script that doesn't use any external
>executables.
And for this reason you expect to be able to squirm out of defending
your ludicrous claim that cmd.exe is not laughably limited in comparison
to bash?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:11:41 GMT
Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 10 Jun 2001 12:50:04
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 10:47:23 +1200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>
>> >> Indeed. Now, explain to us why you are claiming BASH doesn't have any
>> >> features that cmd.exe has when you obviously don't even know what
>> >> features BASH has to begin with?
>> >
>> >Because I've never seen a bash script that doesn't use any external
>> >executables.
>>
>> if [ $UID > 200 ]
>> then
>> ulimit -u 2
>> fi
>
>This is hardly an example of how the Windows CLI is crippled I'm afraid.
Well, you're obviously afraid of something. ;-)
>Given that Windows doesn't do process limits in a unix fashion, not having
>this ability in the command interpreter is not crippled.
So now bash cannot be better than cmd.exe simply because Unix is better
than Windows?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:11:42 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 4 Jun 2001 06:04:31
>"daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> It seems clear to me that this is going on at Microsoft to a major
>> degree with respect to 1) interoperability with other platforms, and
>> 2) with respect to the open protocols and standards which enable
>> technology to progress and develop around the world.
>
>.Net
>
>> Apparently some parties at the company believe that it helps their
>> company to severly limit their products' capacity to interoperate with
>> other platforms, such as with Linux. As simple example of this is the
>> fact that from a Windows machine you cannot access an ext2 filesystem
>> without a 3rd party application like Explore2fs, while with Linux most
>> stock kernels are compiled out of the box with FAT and VFAT support
>> and go so far as to set up an fstab entry to automatically mount a FAT
>> or VFAT filesystem each time the system runs.
>
>How many of MS' users need ext2 support?
How many MS users need .NET support?
>No, how man Linux's users need ext2 support?
>In precentage, please.
Now, how many MS users need Linux support?
In percentage, please.
>> Let us look at another thing: the DOS shell. The DOS shell is
>> basically a nearly useless joke. Why not implement a real shell
>> environment such as BASH? But I wonder if the people who set policy
>> at Microsoft even have the capability to see how the BASH shell is
>> such an important part of Linux and why it is so popular. Having a
>> full, feature-rich shell environment which underlies the gui and which
>> provides full-functionality in every respect such that the gui becomes
>> almost secondary (in many instances it is truly secondary) means that
>> the core of the OS is solid and robust.
>
>Use CMD, not COMMAND.COM, much better.
*Slightly* better. Still radically disfunctional, in comparison to any
Unix shell.
>But you've to realize that Windows is GUI orineted, not CLI oriented.
>Beside, you can take Bash if you really want it.
No, you can *get* bash if you really want it. MS sure doesn't give it
to you.
>> If I were the president of Microsoft
>
>Ah, we can all dream, now can't we?
I would acquiesce to the federal conviction, begin implementing the
remedy, and desperately hope that something competitive can be salvaged
from the monopoly crapware.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I propose a GPL change...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:11:43 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 7 Jun 2001
>"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >You cannot patent code, you can only patent algorithms.
>> >
>> >There is much GPL'd and free software that violates patents as well, for
>> >instance vorbis ogg is claimed to still violate the mp3 patents.
>>
>> Or so the spokesman for the patent holders says. The ogg people claim
>> differently, as does the FSF. I believe the latter, because I haven't
>> seen a lawsuit from the patent holder yet.
>
>Which is exactly my point (which you snipped). The typical response, even
>by free software, is to ignore claims of patent infringement until a lawsuit
>is brought.
That is not just the typical response; that is the correct response.
Patents are nothing more than the ability to sue. Until a lawsuit is
brought, they are not an issue. Unless your infringement is purposeful,
vague claims should certainly not be enough to exact money from someone
just by saying they infringed, if you aren't able to bring a lawsuit
against them.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Here's a switch for a change
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 10 Jun 2001 06:12:17 GMT
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 13:27:19 +0800,
Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:13:08 +0800,
>> Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > So he'll probably spend about a week *trying* to get Linux to *install*
> on
>> > his system only to find out he can't run shit.
>> >
>> > -Todd
>>
>> Thats right Todd, if he wants to run shit, he better stay with
>> Microsoft products.
>
> lol. not exactly the interpretation i was looking for...
>
> -Todd
Hahah, thats what ya get on COLA
comp.os.literal.advocacy ;-)
--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 10 Jun 2001 06:17:31 GMT
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 01:12:08 -0400, JS \\ PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> Yes, crashing out of X-Windows back to a console is pretty routine.
>>
>> Of course, that is an outright lie.
>
> Come on. It's usually the first experience people have with X Windows.
> Watching X crash back to a console prompt that is.
>
>
No it's not, as stated previously, it's an outright lie.
My first experience with XWindows, was a refreshingly
neat and tidy screen (Fvwm2).
XWindows does NOT crash.
--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "William J. Giffen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Redhat video problems.
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 01:10:15 -0500
I have just installed redhat on my backup computer system (I am a newbie,
but working hard to end that). However, when I first did it, it probed the
video card (a Diamond MM Monster Fusion) and got 3dfx's Voodoo Banshee
(right chipset, wrong card). I never found another way of changing this
short of wiping the whole system and rerunning the installer from scratch.
If anyone knows a workaround, I would appreciate it. As to the major
problem: under BOTH driver sets (which I assume are similar) I have been
geeting screen flickers on boot and lots of visual problems under Gnome. Is
this likely that it is a bad card (as a friend has suggested) or is there
something else I have overlooked. Like I said, i am a newbie and I am sure
there is all sorts of relevant info I've left out.
Thanks for the time.
Bill
------------------------------
From: Clarice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.jackie-tokeman,soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 23:31:22 -0700
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
> drsquare wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Kulkis got dumped by his boyfriend?
> >>
> >>
> >>I only go out with females, you ass-reamed moron.
> >
> > I doubt any female would want to go out with you.
> >
> Nope, those that otherwise want $5 for their job would do it.
> But they will demand a hike in the price to about $50.
> (And that if Aaron keeps his hands off them. Otherwise it will
> be more about $500)
Are you, Peter Köhlmann, German?
> Peter
>
> --
> Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
10 out of 10 ferrets agree with this sig line.
C.
--
'Dude, what the fuck is WRONG with German people?'
- SP
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Here's a switch for a change
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 09:23:58 +0200
"Greg Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9ftjl0$5va55$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > > Further, his data isn't gone. Just the OS is corrupted.
> > >
> >
> > So how does the average user supposed to get his / her data back when
the
> > OS refuses to boot when most users need help just using the system
normally
> > - if you upgraded your copy of windows and were left with an unbootable
PC
> > and faced losing an important research project ( and maybe also failing
an
> > important exam or destroying your career because of it ) and were told
by
> > the shop that none of their staff can help and maybe being told you need
to
> > buy even more software to try to recover that data ( norton utilities
> > perhaps) or being offered a refund on the upgrade then wouldn't you feel
> > well pissed off.
>
> You could at least try booting with the emergency boot disk you created
> as part of the install of the new version of Windows, or the emergency
> boot disk from a previous version...
Previous version, certainly.
ME's rescue disk sucks.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 09:33:47 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:W1BU6.35572$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9fu779$rce$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > >
> > > > > I'm thinking that there has got to be a way to do this with NT,
what
> > > > > with ACL's and all. Any pointers from the Winvocates?
> > > >
> > > > She didn't know how to do it?
> > > > Strange, it's very easy.
> > > > Okay, here is how do to it:
> > > >
> > > > cacls *.* /t /p Everyone:W
> > > >
> > > > This should turn all the files (and all sub directirues) to write
> only.
> > >
> > > A filesystem where no one can update files is pretty useless.
> >
> > In this case, everyone can update, but no one can read.
> >
> > > How can I make it impossible to write via ftp but still allow
> > > the customer support people who are updating files for
> > > download to write on the shared directory? (The anon
> > > ftp account was only supposed to have read access but
> > > that wasn't enough to protect it).
> >
> > Uncheck the "Enable write" in the FTP configuration.
> > Set the permissions so IUSR_MachineName has read only access, too.
> > (IUSR is the default anonymous connection, you might want to change
that,
> > though).
> >
> > Then share the FTP directory and give the customer people write access.
> >
> > Is that good enough for you?
>
> I think that is the way it was originally set up (by someone who
> understands NT's quirks better than I do) but then we needed to
> allow one ftp user write access. Soon afterwards the internet
> bandwidth filled both our T1's and then I found the directory
> named PRN (how did they do that?) and the hidden video
> clips under it. But, the anon user still wasn't supposed to
> be able to write and I don't think the person with the password
> to the writable account did it.
You might not be able to delete the directory directly because there are
checks in the UI for this, but you might want to try to log in as a user
with write access to the FTP and try delete it from there.
I don't understand why it would prevent you from deleting it.
Check the permissions on the FTP's directory. If IUSR has write access, then
any anonymous person could've done that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jet)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals
Date: 10 Jun 2001 00:00:01 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > mlw wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ray Fischer
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote
> > > > > on Wed, 16 May 2001 22:30:16 GMT
> > > > > <9duuvt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > > >Robert W Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >>And where is your evidence that people have no choice over their homosexual
> > > > > >>behavior?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Yeah! You could choose to be interested in men so it's obvious that
> > > > > >homosexuals could choose to be interested in women.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Right?
> > > > >
> > > > > One could mimic such behavior to avoid detection; such has been done
> > > > > in the past, as I understand it -- even to the point of a
> > > > > loveless, or at least sexless, marriage.
> > > > >
> > > > > This no more makes the homosexual a het, anymore than a woolen overcoat
> > > > > makes a wolf a sheep.
> > > >
> > > > What part of "IT's the BEHAVIOR(*)," do you not understand?????
> > > >
> > > > (*) not the desire
> > >
> > > Normally I would not even touch such a string of posts. What two adults do in
> > > privacy is no ones business. Who gives a flying fl&^%k what two people do
> > > together? Seriously what does it matter?
> >
> > When two adults spread communicable diseases like Hepatitis and Tuberculosis,
> > it is a matter of PUBLIC HEALTH and is EVERYBODY's business.
> >
> EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THE FUCK SEXUALITY HAS TO DO WITH T.B.?
> AND I WANT TO SEE A CAUSAL CORRELATION HERE.
Let me explain something to you. Aaron is what I call a bitter boy. I
believe bitter boys are that way because they can't get laid. (Aaron
had to buy a mail order bride.) It also seems they tend to hate people
they view as getting sex when they are not, such as gay men and
blacks.
Look how irrational he is! He wants to make what gays do everybody's
business because of AIDS, but doesn't seem to care about diseases
spread mainly by heterosexual contact.
J
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Here's a switch for a change
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 07:00:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Further, his data isn't gone. Just the OS is corrupted.
>
> Hahahah Eric, this sounds just like trying to placate a man
> whos car has been stolen...
>
> " Your car isnt really gone, its just that you don't have
> the use of it any more" ;-)
Eric's point is that the data is recoverable.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Here's a switch for a change
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 07:03:13 GMT
In article <9fsk8g$385$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > I'd like to have been there and heard the manager try to explain that
> > not only was his data permanently gone with no chance of compensation
> > but he couldn't have a refund on the software because he agreed to the
> > no-refunds
> > clause in the EULA when he installed the product. - but he could have
> > another copy of the same product in exchange.
>
> I don't believe you can waive your right to a refund in the UK, but I
> might be wrong here.
The EULA has a clause saying "this does not affect your statutory rights"
I believe. One of those rights is along the lines "not fit for the
purpose intended" or whatever. Though, how you might prove Windows 98 SE
is "not fit" for the purpose intended I'm not sure.
Basically, no contract you sign or accept can ever sign away your
statutory rights here in the UK, as far as I understand it.
--
Pete
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
