Linux-Advocacy Digest #278
Linux-Advocacy Digest #278, Volume #35 Fri, 15 Jun 01 19:13:03 EDT Contents: Re: More microsoft innovation (macman) Re: More micro$oft customer service (macman) Re: More micro$oft customer service (macman) Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (GreyCloud) Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (GreyCloud) Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (Mart van de Wege) Re: netscape 6.1 - anyone? (Richard Thrippleton) Re: the world thinks there is only windows. yahoo sucks. (GreyCloud) Re: MSnbc calls MS on MS's FUD campain! (Rex Ballard) Re: the world thinks there is only windows. yahoo sucks. (Nigel Feltham) Re: netscape 6.1 - anyone? (GreyCloud) Re: the world thinks there is only windows. yahoo sucks. (Nigel Feltham) Re: Linux wins again (GreyCloud) Re: Linux Magic Filter Printing (GreyCloud) From: macman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 22:48:33 GMT In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Macman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No matter how you look at it (if you bother looking rationally), it is a big deal. From a creative author's standpoint, it's very negative since Microsoft is changing the content of the site. In fact, to the extent that the links are one element of the author's intent, Microsoft is even changing the intent of an author's site. From a practical standpoint, it's negative. Microsoft is now able to steer ALL INTERNET USERS to their site -- regardless of what the viewer wants. From a business standpoint, it's negative. It gives Microsoft the ability to usurp the web sites of their competitors -- or even companies they don't like much. From an advocacy standpoint, it's negative. Microsoft can effectively deface the pages of anyone supporting alternatives to the MS monopoly. It has a huge number of negatives and few, if any positives. Relax, Joe. Have you even seen it? You sound *extremely* paranoid here. I have seen it. Now. Instead of ad hominem attacks, what part of my objection is factually incorrect? NOTHING. -- From: macman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy Subject: Re: More micro$oft customer service Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 22:48:51 GMT In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Macman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Neither Google nor anonymizer changes the _content_ of pages. If they start changing the content, then they should be stopped. Smart Tags do not change the *content* of pages, either. It just presents more navigation options to the individual user. For a web page, hyperlinks are part of the content. -- From: macman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy Subject: Re: More micro$oft customer service Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 22:49:52 GMT In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ayende Rahien wrote: Macman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... You, as a user, have certain rights under the fair use doctrine. Presumably, looking at the text only, or changing fonts, or similar things would fall under fair use. Microsoft, as a third party, does not have the same rights. They do have the rights to fair use, but what they're doing would almost certainly not fall under that doctrine. Your analogy stinks. Don't I, as the user, have a right to *want* those smart tags? You do not have the right to change my intellectual property, unless I grant you that right. Really? So what if turn off your graphics and sounds? Have I changed your intellectual property? These are all user-level options. I can do whatever I want to the display of *your* intellectual property on *my* computer, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. That's absolutely true -- and falls under the Fair Use Doctrine I already described to you. But for Microsoft to create a piece of software that automatically makes changes to the content does not. What part of that don't you understand? -- From: GreyCloud [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:54:25 -0700 The Ghost In The Machine wrote: In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ayende Rahien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:26:22 +0200 9gce0s$1o7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]: GreyCloud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Your stock options are almost toilet paper
Linux-Advocacy Digest #278
Linux-Advocacy Digest #278, Volume #34Mon, 7 May 01 02:13:03 EDT Contents: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Tom Wilson) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Tom Wilson) Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Chad Everett) Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Chad Everett) Re: the Boom, Boom department (Matthew Gardiner) Re: Windows makes good coasters (Tom Wilson) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin) From: Tom Wilson [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 05:15:20 GMT Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... JS PL wrote: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Said JS PL hi everybody! in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 12:34:15 -0400; [...] I don't care what the problem is. I prefer an OS that works well without all the hours of configuration. I prefer an OS that works consistently without all the hours of reconfiguration. So do I, that's probably why I mainly use WINNT. And I assume it's why you ONLY use Win95. Because only a complete ass would use an OS that they *don't* prefer. No, NT is just as bad. Worse, in some ways. Sure it is, that's why everyone is running one or the other, and 3/1000 are running Linux. MOst people are running Windows becasue of Microsoft' predatory anti-competitive behavior. Or write for it because its' still very profitable to do so. -- From: Tom Wilson [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 05:15:32 GMT JS PL hi everybody! wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Rick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... JS PL wrote: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Said JS PL hi everybody! in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 12:34:15 -0400; [...] I don't care what the problem is. I prefer an OS that works well without all the hours of configuration. I prefer an OS that works consistently without all the hours of reconfiguration. So do I, that's probably why I mainly use WINNT. And I assume it's why you ONLY use Win95. Because only a complete ass would use an OS that they *don't* prefer. No, NT is just as bad. Worse, in some ways. Sure it is, that's why everyone is running one or the other, and 3/1000 are running Linux. MOst people are running Windows becasue of Microsoft' predatory anti-competitive behavior. Sure they are. You keep chanting that to yourself, while the rest of the world get their work done better, faster and easier on the Microsoft platform. Unintentional humor is the best kind ,no? g -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 6 May 2001 23:53:18 -0500 On Sun, 06 May 2001 13:25:57 GMT, Chad Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Dossett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Ayende Rahien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:9d1bcp$2pi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... JVercherIII [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:ADVI6.297$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Civility people! I use both Linux and Windows, and both have their places (IMHO). I make a living right now writing VB programs so I'm kind of living off the Microsoft gravy train. That being said, they do some things which are very unpleasing. My main complaint with Microsoft is that they stifle innovation. They never have come up with an original idea. Bullshit, and a big one. To name a few of the top of my head: COM COM+ MTS IE (No other browser can come even close, Mozilla can't render yahoo.com properly, and crash when you try to send a bug report) IE
Linux-Advocacy Digest #278
Linux-Advocacy Digest #278, Volume #33Mon, 2 Apr 01 09:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Communism ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Communism ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 08:40:04 -0400
Scott Erb wrote:
Dana wrote:
No Erb, you are the one that is wrong. We are a constitutional republic. We
are not a liberal democracy, that form of socialism
No, you're wrong. Liberal Democracy means a Democratic Republic based
on liberal principles.
No...a Liberal Democracy is a Democracy based on liberal principles.
A Democratic Republic is a Democratic Republic.
A Democratic Republic based on Liberal principles would be called
a Liberal Democratic Republic.
None of which changes the fact that the United States is a
CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED REPUBLIC, with absouletely ZERO democracy at
the state and federal levelat least not legally.
Ideological liberalism is a belief in limited
government and a claim that humans have the inherent right of life,
liberty and property, based on the work of among others, John Locke.
Liberalism is an ideological opponent of socialism.
^^^
That's the first intelligent thing you've written all week.
Now...what does that mean about those Democrats who claim to be
Liberals, while voting for all their happy socialist horseshit.
Classical liberalism saw a very, very limited government (Milton
Friedman considers himself a classical liberal), "new" liberalism
associated with developments in Britain and thinkers like John Stuart
Mill argues that to have real liberty and equal opportunity the state
must institute some kind of social welfare programs. Both are at base
Yeah...slavery is liberty, and theft is a contribution.
ideologically liberal, socialism is something else.
Government run charity is nothing more than enslavement of the workers
for the benefit of the parasites.
is found in Europe in
countries like Germany. And our federalism is not Germany's federalism.
Germany in some ways has a stronger federalism than ours, their states
choose who serves in their upper house, much like the US Senate was
chosen before direct popular vote to the Senate was ratified.
Said amendment which should be repealed, because as soon as it was passed,
the idiotic bullshit started.
Dana, your ignorance of the basics here shows that perhaps you need to
do some reading on this. I'll later on post a set of books you could
start with; at this point, you are in over your head.
For someone who claims to be have such a high degree of ejukayshun and
ackademic ackomplishment, you still can't write a single post IN YOUR
OWN FREAKING FIELD OF STUDY without it containing NUMEROUS false statements
and inane definitions.
This might be just one reason why you hide out in academia...because
outside the academic classes, the only job YOU can hold down is one where
you are required to ask, "Would you like fries with that?"
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from ne
Linux-Advocacy Digest #278
Linux-Advocacy Digest #278, Volume #32 Sun, 18 Feb 01 02:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: .NET is plain .NUTS (Charlie Ebert)
Re: M$ taking over linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (Charlie Ebert)
Re: My Win2k Network Nightmare!! ("Adam Warner")
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Interesting article ("Chad Myers")
Re: The Windows guy. (Brent R)
Pop Quiz: Who made this statement 15 months ago? ("Adam Warner")
Re: Interesting article (J Sloan)
Re: Interesting article (Steve Mading)
Re: .NET is plain .NUTS ("Jim Cason")
Re: .NET is plain .NUTS ("Jim Cason")
Re: Interesting article ("Tom Wilson")
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: .NET is plain .NUTS
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 04:24:46 GMT
In article 96nblj$pr8$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Bloody Viking wrote:
Charlie Ebert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Let's quit beating around the bush here.
: I'm not a traitor to any employer I've ever had.
: I'm not about to turn in an employer I've had.
While you might not ever "go postal" by turning in an employer by calling the
BSA, so long as any company ever uses payware, ANY disgruntled employee can.
Who needs to pack some heat when the Copyright Fine is $250K/pop? A bad warez
company can be _nuked_ by one disgruntled employee, and the "nuke attack" is
perfectly legal. Who needs guns? ANY company using warez is just a phone call
away from financial armageddon. We all know that nearly every company is using
warez. All you need is ONE disgruntled employee to pick up that damn phone to
nuke the company back to the stone age.
This is one fucking good reason to use Linux in the workplace. You protect
yourself from anyone "going postal" by attempts at calling the BSA.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
I totally agree. I agree that people have no business going postal
in the workplace. If you have a problem with somebody or are just
sick or your job or even wanting a change, turning your employer
into the software police is going postal!
And since Microsoft is going to DO THAT to everybody anyway, they
you could say *MICROSOFT IS GOING POSTAL*!
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN****GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: M$ taking over linux?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 04:28:41 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gareth Brereton wrote:
i was wondering... if M$ distrobuted linux running a proprietary gui,
installer/pakaging system, command line tools, etc (basically only the
kernel is GPL)... then they promoted it like they've done with the XBox
people would use it... wouldnt that give billy control to do what he
likes? sorry im paranoid, just wondering if anyone has had any
similar thoughts and why or why not microsoft could do something like this
I don't CARE if Microsoft wants to make money honestly!
If they came up with their own Linux distribution and released
the GUI via the GPL for a change, they would take Linux EVERYWHERE
for us and still manage to maintain their status as the software
king of the world. And WHY NOT?
Brand loyalty is everything to the customer. It truely is.
And if they offered their own Linux distribution, the OS would
actually be stable.
They couldn't manage to deviate from the Linux base as GPL'd code
would contain any stupid actions on their part. It would act like
a stupid filter.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN****GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 04:31:26 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Aaron Kulkis wrote:
Charlie Ebert wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Aaron Kulkis wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Flacco wrote:
It's interesting to note that the whole phenomenon of Microsoft vs. Open
Source most likely wouldn't exist had IBM not (albeit, unthinkingly)
'open-sourced' the PC architecture.
I don't buy that. It just wouldn't be taking place on IBM hardware with MS
software.
If IBM had not 'open-sourced' the PC architecture,
Linux-Advocacy Digest #278
Linux-Advocacy Digest #278, Volume #31Fri, 5 Jan 01 20:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft tentacles squirm deeper into software hosting ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows fails again (Glitch)
Re: Windows fails again (J Sloan)
Re: Windows 2000 (Shane Phelps)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Conclusion (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Need help with NT (J Sloan)
Re: Linux can be made unstable, too. (JM)
Re: Windows fails again (JM)
Re: Would Linux be invented if? (JM)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. ("kiwiunixman")
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (T. Max Devlin)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft tentacles squirm deeper into software hosting
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 00:04:33 GMT
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
"JSPL" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Apparently (in hindsight) the book "1984" was pretty much wrong.
snip
The whole point of a book like 1984 is to be "wrong" because
it's not merely a prediction but instead a persuasive piece.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
--
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 19:23:41 -0500
From: Glitch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows fails again
JM wrote:
If anyone was wondering why yesterdays posts came later than usual,
it's because Windows had to be re-installed AGAIN, thus making me stay
up till 6am setting it all up again.
Thanks a lot, Microsoft.
i redialed my ISP and during the 'loggin into network' step yahoo
messenger froze, netscape froze, and i tried to End task Messenger but
of course that didnt work and then i got a BSOD and had to reboot as the
keyboard locked up.
All b/c i wanted to redial my isp and get on the Net.
how pathetic.
people pay for this shit? (and no i didnt pay for my copy thank
goodness)
--
From: J Sloan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows fails again
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 00:25:41 GMT
Glitch wrote:
JM wrote:
If anyone was wondering why yesterdays posts came later than usual,
it's because Windows had to be re-installed AGAIN, thus making me stay
up till 6am setting it all up again.
Thanks a lot, Microsoft.
i redialed my ISP and during the 'loggin into network' step yahoo
messenger froze, netscape froze, and i tried to End task Messenger but
of course that didnt work and then i got a BSOD and had to reboot as the
keyboard locked up.
All b/c i wanted to redial my isp and get on the Net.
how pathetic.
people pay for this shit? (and no i didnt pay for my copy thank
goodness)
hmm, have you guys considered trying Linux instead?
I'm quite happy with it -
jjs
--
From: Shane Phelps [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 11:30:41 +1100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
"T. Max Devlin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[ snip ]
was no Word for Windows 5.0; it skipped from 2.0 to 6.0, in order to
match WordPerfect's version numbering. They then abandoned that, and
went to the Office numbering, with 97, 98, and 2000.
They skipped to 6 because Excel was at version 5 before, that's why Access
also went to 6. They wanted common numberings for all apps in the suite.
Word was at version 5 on the Mac, as was Excel. They actually went
to the Mac sequence. Ahh, those were the days.
I didn't pay much attention to Powerpoint or Access, though
From memory, the x86 Word numbering sequence went up to Word 5 on DOS,
Word for Windows 1 2, then 6. The Mac numbering started around Word
3, whereas Excel started at 1.0 on the Mac, because Excel was a Mac
product. The success of Excel on the Mac was probably one of the
reasons for persisting with Windows, since 1 2 were so limited.
Does anybody remember when MS used to bundle Windows with Excel?
[ snip ]
... not that any of this has much relevance to cola, really :-)
--
From: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 00:25:00 GMT
Said Todd in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 3 Jan 2001 18:07:24 +0800;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:92tuuv$vkf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
In article 92tmli$ojd$[EMAIL PROTECTED],
hackerbabe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A quote from http://microsoft.aynrand.org/hate.html, referring to why
Microsoft has been persecuted in the anti-trust trial:
"There is only one fundamental reason why great businessmen [like Bill
Gates]
...or Al Capone, or Manuel Noriega, or John Gotti...
or great companies [like Microsoft]
... or
Linux-Advocacy Digest #278
Linux-Advocacy Digest #278, Volume #30 Fri, 17 Nov 00 03:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: And it just goes on and on ("Les Mikesell")
From: "Les Mikesell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 07:20:59 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
What if you see different runtime behavior depending on the compiler
version?
I've never seen this before. If it happened, it'd be news to me.
All I know is what the developers here tell me. Several large projects
require specific and different service packs to build reliable versions
of certain things.
Are the strings really ones that need to grow or do you just
want the source to look pretty?
If the strings are created and modified dynamically or copied from other
strings, which covers most nontrivial examples, you really do want your
strings to be able to grow.
Philosophically yes, but for many things a fixed limit works as long as
you check the size of what you store there before letting a hacker cause
a buffer overflow by feeding you something huge. And it isn't
impossible to call realloc() in C if you want to grow gracefully.
There is no such thing as a "standards conforming" C++ compiler. As I've
already mentioned, for example, SGI's STL has at least one omission.
assume, then having to break it to match the defects of the
g++ dejour -
g++ is actually pretty good nowadays.
Well, I think the history may explain at least some of the phobia mentioned
in the subject. How recent is 'nowadays'?
Different run-time behavior of the same code.
Can't say I've had any problem with this. The only place I see it being
problematic is where code depends on implementation specific behaviour.
I'm inclined to believe that the service packs involved fix compiler bugs
and perhaps create some new ones - or breaks the workaround for the
earlier problem.
C++ doesn't just write half of your code for you.
I thought that was the point - with containers and the STL algorithms to
replace most of the things where you would have to write your
own loops.
To what are you referring to ? I don't think the iterators are terribly
error prone, if that's what you mean.
No, I don't think the STL algorithms are going to be broken themselves,
I just don't understand the debugging process when the running code
is mostly generated by compiler magic and does not have much relationship
to what you write. Suppose you forget to initialize something in a
constructor
and the only place the problem shows up is when you use one of the
sort algorithms. How do you find the real problem?
I think you're underrating C++ compilers.
Probably, but old experiences are not easily forgotten.
And how does that relate to c++ vs. c?
The fact that C is error prone because you have to manually manage memory
for things as trivial as using a string.
There are opportunities to make mistakes in C. I don't think that
means you have to do it wrong.
Using STL seems to me to be the whole point of c++ and I
No, it is not the "whole point". Support for generic programming is
nice, but the main reason to use C++ is the fact that it supports
run time polymorphism within an OO framework.
Do all problems map to that model? What is an example of something
that you couldn't do by passing structs (or arrays of structs) around?
(*) How do you write a destructor in C ?
You don't. You keep track of things yourself, generally by stuffing things
in arrays or lists of structs that you can clean up with your own
clean up pass.
(*) How do you implement a vtable ? Yes, I know it can be done, but it
isn't pretty.
What problem requires a vtable? Making run-time decisions about what
functions to call can be done with function pointers, or if you want one
function to handle an assortment of arguments you can pass a struct where
some elements may or may not be present or relevent with the function
making run-time decisions about how to handle them.
I don't understand how having to be aware of your own data types keeps
you from doing anything new.
Most of the arguments against C++ boil down to something like "We
shouldn't
use C++ because it's not a million years old". But there's a point where
it's advantageous to use something that's new and improved.
So far I haven't seen the arguments for C++ in ter
Linux-Advocacy Digest #278
Linux-Advocacy Digest #278, Volume #29 Sat, 23 Sep 00 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (The Ghost
In The Machine)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? (mark)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? (mark)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (mark)
Re: Why NT is shite (mark)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("James Stutts")
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft ("James Stutts")
Re: Why I hate Windows... ("James Stutts")
Re: Win2K (mark)
Re: GPL freedom ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Implications ("paul snow")
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? (Pete
Goodwin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (C Lund)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft (The Ghost In The Machine)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 20:14:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, The Ghost In The Machine
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Sat, 23 Sep 2000 19:22:33 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[snip]
20 seconds for that. (mkext2fs doesn't take that long to "format"
Correction: mke2fs, or mkfs.ext2. Sorry about that. :-)
[snip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 21:17:49 +0100
In article mYvx5.5510$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Greg Topf wrote:
Actually its not common, its not an indication of the default behavior of
win98 at all, you likely either have a hardware or software problem
^^^ ^^^
What exactly was the other option?
I've heard some stunning Microsoft turfing advice, but this is truly
magnificent. Possibly even sigworthy.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 21:15:10 +0100
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Pete Goodwin wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in 8q68e7$nrl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The easiest way to prevent Windows 98 SE from crashing/freezing is keep
reinstalling it ever so often. Don't let it go for 12 months or so
Nah - the easiest way is to install linux instead. What you don't
run, can't freeze.
otherwise you'll get the "creep" and registry problems.
Oh yeah - and you don't get creep and registry problems with Linux.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 21:26:04 +0100
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
dc wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:47:11 GMT, Timberwoof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
some of these standards. And because of the Macintosh's excellent
support for networking, Apple product users are well-connected.
This I don't quite understand. Not from a 1990's AppleTalk
perspective, but from a September 2000 perspective, how are Apple
product users "well-connected" compared to the rest of computerdom
(meaning, NT and ME)?
I'm having trouble with the phrase 'rest of computerdom' which I assumed
would mean what people actually use, not NT and ME.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
(Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Why NT is shite
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 21:33:36 +0100
In article 8pt4n8$39v$[EMAIL PROTECTED], MH wrote:
(b) technical skills,
which most of the regular contributors here *do* have, correlate very
poorly with verbal skills.
(b) The skills of the regular contributors are unsubstantiated, so that
shoots this theory from the get-go.
Also, may I see the reference(s) that lead you to state that [sic] "verbal",
I assume you mean 'writing' skills don't correlate to technical skills.
After all, 'writing' was the topic of the post, not verbal.
I've
Linux-Advocacy Digest #278
Linux-Advocacy Digest #278, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 13:13:05 EDT Contents: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK) Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK) Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs? Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill (Nathaniel Jay Lee) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK) Crossposted-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:07:13 GMT On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:40:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote: I quoted the text of the article. I don't have link, but you can find it on site of Reason magazine, http://www.reason.com. Went and read it. There's a lot to disagree with there. 1. The author starts with the premise that "social choice" is the correct economic theory to use to evaluate anti-trust laws. Public choice, IIRC. According to the article, this theory assumes that government action is driven by whichever interest groups have access to the government. Apparently it is not possible for the government to actually do anything on behalf of the public good and government power is "bad" while corporate power is at least "not bad". That seems as misrepresentation to me. First off, it assumes that everybody is for their own interest: ""We do it just for you!", per Ronald McDonald Well, not really. Politicians do not devote their lives for yours and my benefits anymore than McDonalds does. Strangely, however, many people think so -- including university professors that teach politics and philosophy. The most important contribution of Public Choice Theory is that it recognizes that politicians are motivated by self interest -- just like you and me. In fact, more so than you and me! If that is so, and it is, then our expectations of politicians changes dramatically. One point worth noting here is that the Founding Fathers of the U.S.A. understood that and they tried to organize government in such a way as to minimize the impact of self interest. They did a good job and the fact that we are having so much trouble with our government today results from our losing sight of the reality that politicians are self-interested. To summarize this most important aspect of Public Choice Theory, I will quote a paragraph from an essay by Paul Starr, "The Meaning of Privatization": "Public choice," ill-named because the only choices it recognizes are essentially private, is both a branch of microeconomics and an ideologically-laden view of democratic politics. Analysts of the school apply the logic of microeconomics to politics and generally find that whereas self-interest leads to benign results in the marketplace, it produces nothing but pathology in political decisions. These pathological patterns represent different kinds of "free-riding" and "rent-seeking" by voters, bureaucrats, politicians, and recipients of public funds. Coalitions of voters seeking special advantage from the state join together to get favorable legislation enacted. Rather than being particularly needy, these groups are likely to be those whose big stake in a benefit arouses them to more effective action than is taken by the taxpayers at large over whom the costs are spread. In general, individuals with "concentrated" interests in increased expenditure take a "free ride" on those with "diffuse" interests in lower taxes. Similarly, the managers of the "bureaucratic firms" seek to maximize budgets, and thereby to obtain greater power, larger salaries, and other perquisites. Budget maximization results in higher government spending overall, inefficient allocation among government agencies, and inefficient production within them. In addition, when government agencies give out grants, the potential grantees expend resources in lobbying up to the value of the grants--an instance of the more general "political dissipation of value" resulting from the scramble for political favors and jobs." It is not at all surprising then when he concludes that anti-trust actions are driven by the special interests that benefit from them. But that is standard. Read on what Mancur Olson had to say about this. In essence, society generates SIGs much faster than it gets rid of them. But the root problem is that the govt officials are in it not for public benefit, but for their own benefit first and foremost -- even if they superficially believe otherwise. Ergo, anti-trust will act not when it really is in public interest, but when it is in interest of anti-trust. IOW, the govt officials are not what public romantically assumes they are or should be. They're just as altruistic as McD
Linux-Advocacy Digest #278
Linux-Advocacy Digest #278, Volume #26 Wed, 26 Apr 00 23:13:06 EDT Contents: Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat (Mark S. Bilk) Re: IBM DUMPS REDHAT!!! WhY diD it TaKE them SO lung? (John Travis) Re: Government to break up Microsoft (petilon) Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel (Larry Ozarow) Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel (Achim Nolcken Lohse) Oh please (Chris Aakre) Re: Linux RUINED my PC LINUX SUCKS!!! (Streamer) Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Terry Porter) Re: Microsoft tries to scam its Insurance Company (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )) Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...) (mlw) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 01:46:28 GMT The code and has been examined by MANY people. Even I have looked and modified some of it. I am FAR MORE comfortable that there are no backdoors in my Linux code that I would be if I got my OS that NOBODY outside the company has access to AND is known to have had back doors deliberately placed in it. Never mind that you have to PAY for the backdoor you get from MS. Good deal your getting there otto! REAL SMART! SNICKER In article o3LN4.69091$[EMAIL PROTECTED], "Otto" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:8e5ocv$ppl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Ah, isn't the world of Linux wonderful?? I don't use Redhat so this is not an issue for me! This app is not a core Linux app and is only distributed by Redhat. If Redhat continues to ship insecure software, people will start using the more secure distributions. No retraining, no redesign, some time switching distributions but that's nothing compared to what it would take to break MS habit! I LOVE CHOICE! Were will MS users go if MS continues to insert back doors into it's product??? Except that you forgot to mention that the distro you are using might have a backdoor. Undiscovered at the moment,true, but might be known by hackers. Security companies tend to do testing on the well known platform and not on the flavor of the week. Did anyone tested Webmin, similar to LVS from Red Hat, from Caldera? Otto Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat Date: 27 Apr 2000 02:05:50 GMT In article 8e6u1m$qe1$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Stephen S. Edwards II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "Mark S. Bilk" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:8e6r7g$lqd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... In article ISBN4.438$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Chad Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/newsbursts/0,7407,2487559,00.html "IBM Corp. (NYSE: IBM), the No. 1 computer maker in the world, filed with regulators to sell about $14.37 million worth of shares in Red Hat Inc. ... So, this means that IBM exerts less (or no) control over Red Hat. Why is that a bad thing? Other investors It's not a bad thing at all. All it means is that we'll finally be spared from the evangelical rantings of people such as yourself very soon now. So, are you and CHUD claiming that because IBM sold some Red Hat stock, this means everyone is going to lose interest in Linux and stop using it? You two ought to get a better grade of Microsoft propaganda; the stuff you're using is pretty pathetic. bought that stock; Red Hat still has its capital. The local Costco has as big a display of Red Hat boxes as it does of Microsoft Windows. Costco does not have the corporate prescence of IBM, nor do they have the high-quality hardware to offer that IBM does. All they have are generic prefabbed PCs, which are generally of a lesser quality. Actually, by "boxes" I meant boxed sets of software. You know, $35 for Red Hat Linux 6.2, containing an extremely stable, multi-user, cross-vendor compatible OS, plus many development systems and thousands of applications, or $200 for Microsoft Windows 2000, containing a less stable, single-user, non-compatible OS, and nothing else. Costco also sells HP computers (with MS-Windows, which some people find useful as a game platform). Well, it was fun while it lasted. The fad's over, time to pull out. -Chad Chad, we're really not interested in the excuses you make to your wife in bed. I think Chad was referring to people like you, who need to pull their heads out of a certain oriface. The use of Linux all over the world is steadily increasing, with great success, while you and CHUD sit here and post stupid and nasty lies about it, all of which get torn apart instantly, making
