Linux-Advocacy Digest #363, Volume #35 Mon, 18 Jun 01 14:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- He Created Unix, But Now Uses Microsoft Windows (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals (BrendaLee)
Re: More microsoft innovation (Peter Hayes)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (The Ghost
In The Machine)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Peter Hayes)
Re: Is Linux for me? ("Ian Pegel")
Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows (Chris Street)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Mayor Of R'lyeh)
Re: OT: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance (Rotten168)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: More microsoft innovation (Macman)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (drsquare)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 17:01:32 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 10 Jun 2001
>"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snip]
>> Yes, it does. It adds new hyperlinks to the user's representation of the
>> web page. Who controls what hyperlinks are added? Microsoft and whoever
>> pays them enough money.
>
>Actualy, this part isn't so. As is typical for MS, SmartTags
>are a plug-in architecture. Anyone who wants to can write
>new ones.
And hope that there product doesn't threaten MS in any way, shape or
form. Then they'll find their plug-in will suddenly become incompatible
with the next release of any MS software.
>Paying MS is not required.
Paying obeisance is still mandatory.
>Though MS can and no doubt will provide
>their own, included as standard.
And churned as necessary to monopolize, as well.
--
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.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 17:01:34 GMT
Said Dave Martel in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 11 Jun 2001 20:49:51
>On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 01:25:29 GMT, Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave Martel
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 20:46:38 GMT, Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare
>>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Well, it's not like they're being redirected there from my site, so
>>> >> I'm not too concerned
>>> >
>>> >Unlike some people, I can look at this problem from more points of view
>>> >than only my own. They may be redirected from my customers' web sites,
>>> >so I am concerned.
>>>
>>> Personally I think this is all much ado about nothing,
>>
>>I'm amazed at how staunchly you defend nothing.
>
>One for and one against hardly counts as a staunch anything.
>
>>> "'That makes it a new work (and) you are not allowed to do that under
>>> copyright law,' Gross said. While Gross said she would need to see the
>>> Smart Tags in action to determine whether they cross the "derivative
>>> work" threshold, she warned that Microsoft is, at the very least,
>>> dancing dangerously close to the line.
>>>
>>> "And even if the Smart Tags don't violate copyright law, Gross said,
>>> they could put Microsoft on the wrong side of regulations preventing
>>> deceptive trade practices."
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>Well, there you go. I guess itwas something after all.
>
>It'll be fun to watch what happens, but legal or not you can be sure
>that Microsoft's army of lawyers has already examined all the legal
>angles and concluded they can delay any lawsuits until hell freezes
>over.
They've already claimed ownership over any works which exist on their
servers. So the obvious legal tactic is to extend the claim to the
client. After all, they are not forcing you to use IE, so they have a
right to control anything that you do use IE for, don't they?
--
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.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 17:01:39 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 8 Jun 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > "Jim Polaski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB991862595554629527.html
>> > >
>> > > Now if I'm the owner of a website and someone using M$ software comes
>> > > along and alters my site, I should think my lawyer is going to be
>> > > contacting someone about what unauthorized actions they have done. I
>> > > want to think I' see a legal issue here.
>> >
>> > If you consider that HTLM is a very weak page layout format to begin
>with,
>> > you will realize that no two web browsers ever display a page exactly
>the
>> > same, thus *EVERY* web browser alters it to some extent. It's possible
>for
>> > your page to be included in other pages via frames and many other
>things.
>> >
>> > This is the nature of the net. It's also not all that different from
>> > Netscapes "What's related" function. The only difference is that the
>smart
>> > tags appear inline (it doesn't change your actual page, just provides a
>way
>> > to hover over words and get more information).
>>
>> It provides a way for links to be followed from a page that were not
>> intended to be there. If I write a page, I dont want m$ changing it.
>
>And how is that any different from the links available based on a page from
>the Netscape "What's related" feature?
They are visually segregated and do not present themselves as if they
were original content.
--
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.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 17:01:43 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 11 Jun 2001
>"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <9g0b3l$7sg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
>> <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:%SLU6.71643$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
>> > > I'm not sure putting sticky-notes in a copy of
>> > > Time *does*, especially if it isn't done except
>> > > by consumer, and only at that consumers individual
>> > > discresion.
>> >
>> > IANAL, but I believe that this fall under fair-use laws.
>>
>> Yes, if I alter my own copy. But if I alter, say, every copy in a
>> newspaper box on the street corner?
>
>But you don't.
>You've to spesifically ask the browser to do it.
Since when does MS default a new feature to 'off'?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 17:01:45 GMT
Said Dan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 15 Jun 2001 17:07:05 -0500;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>It's more like an index than a hyperlink. It's actually very useful.
>Perhaps you should withold your opinion until you've actually used it.
There is no need, because it will make no difference at all what our
opinion, or anyone else's is, so long as this 'feature' does not somehow
prevent monopoly.
--
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.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 17:01:47 GMT
Said Dan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 17 Jun 2001 10:02:07 -0500;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>Ahh, of course. Apple's automatic changes are there to help you.
>Anything MS is automatically evil.
>
>I see now.
No, you don't seem to see at all. Microsoft has been convicted in
federal court, Apple has not. You're the one that keeps bringing up
'evil'. "Criminal" is enough to get the point across, though. You can
use "anti-competitive" or "unethical" just as easily.
--
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.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dennis Ritchie -- He Created Unix, But Now Uses Microsoft Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 17:01:49 GMT
Said Rex Ballard in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 17 Jun 2001 07:03:22
[...]
>Keep in mind that Linux can be made to look very much like Windows.
>You can use
>WINE to run Windows Programs under Linux. You can run Win4Lin to run
>Windows
>under Linux, and you can use VMWare to run Windows NT or Windows 2000
>under Linux.
>Without detailed examination of the picture, it would be hard to say
>which system
>was being run.
Mr. Richie mentioned a prominent pale yellow window. Doesn't Win4Lin
have a big yellow splash screen?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: BrendaLee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 17:01:09 GMT
SSunbird wrote:
>
> jet wrote:
>
> > What do you have against 12 year olds?
>
> interesting you should bring that up. someone accused my son of acting
> like a 15 year old on the net. in four years, he'll catch up to that.
Ha, that is pretty funny. :)
A belated Happy Fathers Day to you, SSunbird
BrendaLee
> ssunbird
--
BrendaLee
Lady DreamCatcher
====================
http://www.cocreator.com/ehmka/
=====================================
brendalee makes the world better by her presence in it.
~~jackie 'anakin' tokeman~~
when you dance with an angel the angel don't change the angel
changes you
~~jackie 'anakin' tokeman~~
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 18:18:23 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:30:45 GMT, Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Sandman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nowhere, these are all my logic assumptions. Perhaps I should have stated
> > that more clearly. I know almost nothing about the Smart Tags technology,
> > but I assume, and you have to agree with me I think, that my IE needs to
> > connect to a MS server to get the information the Smart Tags provide,
> > right? It's not logical to assume that all the information is already in
> > the browser, right?
>
> Actually, you _seem_ to be wrong. As far as I've heard, the Smart Tags
> are there when the browser has shipped. I haven't seen any reports that
> the browser updates its smart tags.
Surely the SmartTags would have to be updated on a regular basis, otherwise
they pretty soon become out of date. Plus, of course, Microsoft will be
marketing SmartTags to all and sundry; it could prove quite a money spinner
as corporations try to out SmartTag each other.
So they'd need a mechanism for getting them to your browser.
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 17:23:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Terry Porter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 17 Jun 2001 23:53:51 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On 17 Jun 2001 14:03:12 -0700, ppeoe@m <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>Windows does not and will not *ever* equal 'car' or 'telephone'!
Windows already does. Admittedly, it's a sad situation.
But having ~ 90% of the market does that to a product.
[snip]
>The Unix crowd have had the features you think are
>'new and improved', for years, moron.
I'll agree with that; Unix never really did have "DLL Hell".
Nor did it have the security problems of Windows. Of course,
part of that is various design decisions by product teams
of Office that led to some really dumb presentations of .VBS scripts.
And part of those security problems may be related to its ubiquity.
(But not all of them.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 3d:17h:02m actually running Linux.
[ ] Check here to always compile your own software.
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 18:27:10 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 22:42:33 GMT, Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:17:25 GMT, Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 06:23:50 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > > I can't believe anyone could really try to defend such an
> > > > > > absurd position (that Smart Tags are not hyperlinks).
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps you don't understand what the Smart Tag is. The Smart
> > > > > Tag is *ONLY* the underlining of the word and the mechanism to
> > > > > provide a popup. You can put anything you like in the popup
> > > > > (with the SDK), and it need not be hyperlinks at all. It could
> > > > > just be a graphic image for instance.
> > > >
> > > > So when I hover over a link to Joe's Autos a SmartTag could pop
> > > > up and say "Joe's Autos are crap, you want to buy from Acme
> > > > Motors". Am I correct?
> > >
> > > Probably not.
> >
> > Why?
>
> SmartTags allow two people to deface web sites.
>
> 1. The person browsing the web, affecting only his own browser.
>
> 2. Microsoft, affecting all Microsoft SmartTag-enabled browsers with
> softfware update.
I'd add another category, the business owner who wants to deface his
competitor's web page, as in my example.
Microsoft will sell SmartTag space to anyone who'll pay. Acme Motors pay M$
a fee for them to transmit their tag (Joe's Autos... etc) to all tag-enabled
browsers.
Obviously M$ wouldn't transmit this example - it's probably libellous, but
you get the point.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Ian Pegel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Linux for me?
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 18:37:11 +0100
> Unless he's using crappy MS software to create the webpages which often
> replace standard ANSI character codes with MS's own codes which screwup on
> non-ms browsers. If you write webpages with MS crap it makes them only
> viewable on MS crap - if you write them with independent software they
work
> on all browsers.
In my defence, I have never used MS crap (unless you count the inoffensive
"notepad") to make web pages.
But...
Netscape is a lot more picky about what it will display - a misplaced tag
will often as not cause the whole page to bomb,
V4's DOM was a lot less well developed than IE,
Maybe things have changed with V6.... convince me - I am a recent Linux
convert - I just don't believe in bashing Bill for the sake of it. (Wrong
newsgroup, eh?)
Ian
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Street)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 17:35:59 GMT
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 07:42:11 -0700, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> LShaping wrote:
>> >
>> > GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >LShaping wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >> "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >> >so disable windows drivers for ACPI.
>> > >> >> >if it can't use them it can't control them.
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks for the lead. I disabled ACPI and APM in the BIOS. I do not
>> > >> use Windows power management since it is dysfunctional, always has
>> > >> been. In the most advanced consumer version of Windows (Millennium),
>> > >> it shuts off my monitor while I am watching Internet TV.
>> > >> :o/
>> > >> After doing the BIOS, Emmy redetected the system devices. Then I
>> > >> reinstalled the video card drivers and disabled the VIA ACPI device
>in
>> > >> Control Panel. That should do it. If not, I will take your lead
>> > >> farther.
>> > >> C ya,
>> > >> LShaping
>> > >
>> > >Ouch! There is your problem... VIA.
>> >
>> > You are clueless! Whether Windows unconditionally sends a shut down
>> > signal to the mainboard has nothing to do with the chipset maker.
>>
>> Not clueless but experienced. Via makes crappy chipsets and just about
>> anything can happen.
>
>I can testify to the truth of that statement. I have
>never seen Windows of any incarnation stay up for longer
>than a week at the most on VIA-based motherboards. IME,
>ASUS, Tyan, and genuine Intel are usually the best route
>for stability and performance.
>
>
My win2000 SQL and Exchange server, running on a lowly AMD K62/350 VIA
board shows an up time of 72 days at the moment.......
Tyan are better boards though - esp if running NT4
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
The other 42% are made up later on.
In Warwick - looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.
------------------------------
From: Mayor Of R'lyeh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 12:49:31 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 11:12:48 GMT, Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> chose to
bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>In article
><lYaX6.85755$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Daniel
>Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > I don't see it your way ... but you don't want me, a web site designer,
>> > the luxury of *not* having my web pages defaced by additional
>> > hyperlinks.
>> >
>> > Why do you have special privileges?
>>
>> It's a question of property rights. He owns
>> the computer; he can say what it displays.
>>
>> You can, because of intellectual property
>> rights, forbid him from obtaining a copy
>> of your web pages- though as a technical
>> matter that's hard to enforce.
>>
>> But if you do permit him to view the page,
>> you do not thereby gain any rights over his
>> computer.
>
>I don't pretend to be a lawyer. Nor do I pretend to understand how
>current copyright, intellectual property, or property law affect
>SmartTags.
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't these Smart Tags need to be
something the user installs on his own machine? I understand that
Microsoft is going to have a default set but are they going to be able
to add more via Windows Update or something similar?
>
>What I understand is this: SmartTags change the content of my web sites
>in ways I cannot control. I don't like that. I don't know what legal
>remedies I have or would want to exercise.
>From what I'm understanding of these things is that they're something
each user will add for himself. That seems more along the lines of
customization than any kind of wholesale defacement. You might have a
valid gripe if everybody would see a the same Smart Tag for the same
keywords.
------------------------------
From: Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: OT: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 17:55:37 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Rotten168 in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:02:16
> >"~¿~" wrote:
> >>
> >> "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:cSgW6.1273$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> > I've heard all of the arguments:
> >> >
> >> > "Pot isn't a drug, it's an herb!"
> >>
> >> It is an herb. It grows in the wild
> >> It requires no adulteration other than to cut it and let it dry.
> >
> >Marijuana requires that the plant (hemp) be sexed and separated, and
> >what makes the hemp be pot and not hemp is a female plant that is not
> >fertilized with the male seed. Remember that hemp used to be used for
> >all kinds of things and it was not smokable.
>
> I'm no expert, but I don't believe what you say is true. The difference
> between hemp and marijuana is the species of plant. Pot still counts as
> 'hemp', other than the fact that this species was outlawed because
> smoking it gets you high. Separation of female plants is a trick to
> increase the potency, but this does not constitute "adulteration", any
> more than the simple act of cultivation is. The point remains the same,
> pot is not a manufactured substance; even hemp itself qualifies more
> than marijauna does. Still, that has nothing to do with whether it is a
> drug. THC qualifies as a drug; the fact that marijuana is a natural
> delivery mechanism doesn't disqualify it (and/or any other substances
> found to contribute to the psychoactive properties) any more than the
> existence of tobacco disqualifies nicotine.
>
> According to a medical definition (the only one that counts IMHO), both
> are drugs. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Hmm, yes but as an herb it contains countless other substances.
Generally speaking, when man has separated a drug from the natural
delivery system, there have been many problems. I'm not going to make
any other claims than that.
I didn't know that coffee has about 200 other mood altering drugs
besides caffeine contained in it, for example.
--
- Brent
"General Veer, prepare your underpants for ground assault."
- Darth Vader
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 17:54:53 GMT
In article <4NoX6.5665$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article
> > <lYaX6.85755$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Daniel
> > Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > But if you do permit him to view the page,
> > > you do not thereby gain any rights over his
> > > computer.
> >
> > I don't pretend to be a lawyer. Nor do I pretend to understand how
> > current copyright, intellectual property, or property law affect
> > SmartTags.
> >
> > What I understand is this: SmartTags change the content of my web sites
> > in ways I cannot control. I don't like that. I don't know what legal
> > remedies I have or would want to exercise.
>
> You have a real easy one- you can refuse to serve
> your pages to IE 6 users. You have no rights over
> his computer, or mine, but you have rights over
> yours, and we do not have any right to be given
> your pages just because we want them.
This I agree with. (Interestingly, this last seems to fly in the face of
the free-software and free-music movements.)
> What you might like to do is make a case that
> *everyone* who serves web-pages should being
> doing this same thing. I don't think you've made
> that case yet, though.
No, and I can't make that case. Other web page authors may be fine with
web browsers defacing their web pages. All I can do is explain what's
happening, why I think it's a bad idea, and what can be done about it.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:52:08 +0200
Seán Ó Donnchadha wrote:
>
> Not only do you not know anything about Windows (see above), but you're
> also sadly mistaken to think that versioning solves the problem. It
> doesn't. It doesn't even come close. The simple example is as follows. You
> install libfoo-1.1. You install appfoo, which requires libfoo-1.1 and
> inadvertently relies on a bug therein. You then get appbar, which requires
> libfoo-1.2. You install libfoo-1.2, which fixes the aforementioned bug.
> You install appbar and everything seems fine. Then you run appfoo, and it
> breaks. Don't tell me it's appfoo's author's fault, because blame is
> irrelevant. This kind of shit happens in the real world. The point is that
> versioning is not a silver bullet by any stretch.
>
>
Why does appfoo break? Waht happened to libfoo-1.1 ?
Did it just vanish in a puff of smoke ? How come this problem you
are describing here does *not* happen that way on linux?
Peter
--
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge
------------------------------
From: Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 17:59:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:30:45 GMT, Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Sandman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Nowhere, these are all my logic assumptions. Perhaps I should have stated
> > > that more clearly. I know almost nothing about the Smart Tags technology,
> > > but I assume, and you have to agree with me I think, that my IE needs to
> > > connect to a MS server to get the information the Smart Tags provide,
> > > right? It's not logical to assume that all the information is already in
> > > the browser, right?
> >
> > Actually, you _seem_ to be wrong. As far as I've heard, the Smart Tags
> > are there when the browser has shipped. I haven't seen any reports that
> > the browser updates its smart tags.
>
> Surely the SmartTags would have to be updated on a regular basis, otherwise
> they pretty soon become out of date. Plus, of course, Microsoft will be
> marketing SmartTags to all and sundry; it could prove quite a money spinner
> as corporations try to out SmartTag each other.
>
> So they'd need a mechanism for getting them to your browser.
Presumably. But, as of today, no announcement has been made of such a
technology, so it's a bit premature to attack -- until details are known.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 19:09:26 +0100
On 18 Jun 2001 02:37:38 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(mike@ihdudy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew says...
>
>>Telephones and cars are task dedicated devices,
>
>so is the PC.
>
>people use the PC to do a task. send email. write a letter. call
>someone. draw a picture. etc..., all are tasks.
You've just contradicted yourself again. First you say a PC is used to
to A task, then you list many tasks that people use computers for. You
must be completely retarded.
>>hence, they are a less complex device.
>
>of course they are complex. But as a end-user tool should be, complexity
>is hidden inside as much as possible.
It's not that easy I'm afraid.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
