Linux-Advocacy Digest #317
Linux-Advocacy Digest #317, Volume #35 Sat, 16 Jun 01 22:13:05 EDT Contents: Re: Linux inheriting DLL Hell (Shane Phelps) Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64? (Dave Martel) Re: More micro$oft customer service (Daniel Johnson) Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Lars Poulsen) Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows (LShaping) Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows (LShaping) Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows (LShaping) Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows (Chris Street) Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) (Chris Street) Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows (LShaping) ZD Net -Win user comments. (Charlie Ebert) Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows (flatfish+++) Re: PC power switch wont shut down Windows (Chris Street) Re: More microsoft innovation (macman) Re: More micro$oft customer service (Woofbert) Re: More micro$oft customer service (macman) From: Shane Phelps [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Linux inheriting DLL Hell Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:13:05 +1100 Ayende Rahien wrote: Shane Phelps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Both points apply to *any* libraries. The real advantage of runtime linking (DLL or .so) is that changes are reflected (more-or-less) immediately in the applications which use those libraries. It can also be a fatal flaw, of course. I can see the point of judiciously used versioning, but there doesn't seem to be much benefit of versions beyond a major release level.Any deeper versioning seems to negate the main advantage of runtime linking, so you might as well use static libraries. Versioning makes a lot of sense with static libraries. No, another advantage of shared libraries is that they *save* memory. Doing every static has sever affects on your RAM consumtion. Not always. A good static linker will discard all the objects which aren't referenced so you can actually get a quite small memory footprint. One of the worst things I've seen is a library which was generated by a CASE tool and had horrendous amounts of unitialised data. This was used by an average of 3 instances each of 50 applications, so needless to say it blew the memory requirements right out. We relinked everything statically and brought the memory requirements right down. Poor design and implementation can make a mess of most things. The problem with foolproof systems is that fools are so ingenious :-( -- From: Dave Martel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64? Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:08:12 -0600 On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:09:19 +0200, Ayende Rahien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Martel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... MS better start cracking the whip if they want to keep up with linux. A Most of windows applications would work on IA-64 without even a recompile. They will be slow as hell, probably, but they will work. Kind of like linux users running Windows apps on VMWare? g B All that it need, in nearly all cases, is a recompile of the application to IA-64 to get it to work on it in reasonable speed. That application, of course, wouldn't take advantage of what IA-64 has to offer, though. But I don't think that many of SuSe's application does it either. Hard to know since I don't have an IA-64 or the 64-bit version of SuSE. However, given the linux tradition of portability it should be an easy port. If SuSE hasn't already done it, somebody else will bery soon. -- From: Daniel Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy Subject: Re: More micro$oft customer service Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:14:36 GMT drsquare [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:05:08 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy, (Daniel Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: [snip] The PFD file is opened with a PDF reader application. different animals. No. Adobe Acrobat reader for Windows opens them in the same browser window you used to navigate there- just like a web page. How come all the PDF readers seem to be made by Adobe? They aren't. But Adobe's is a nice one, and it is free. [snip] So show me a PDF web page that display in MY browser! I am not responsible for the deficiencies of your browser. Is your browser deficient because it doesn't show other private formats? PDF is not a private format; it's used for making things publically available. Perhaps you meant proprietary? In any case, my browser may well be deficient in some format; I am not aware of it if it is, btu there are surely a lot of formats out there. -- Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:16:40
Linux-Advocacy Digest #317
Linux-Advocacy Digest #317, Volume #34Tue, 8 May 01 08:13:03 EDT Contents: Re: Microsoft's move away from perpetual licensing proves that the closed source model doesn't work! (Adam Warner) Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Donn Miller) Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP. (Stuart Krivis) Re: Windows makes good coasters (Chris Ahlstrom) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Edward Rosten) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JamesW) Re: Yet another IIS security bug (Giuliano Colla) Re: Microsoft's move away from perpetual licensing proves that the (jtnews) Re: Microsoft's move away from perpetual licensing proves that the (jtnews) From: Adam Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Microsoft's move away from perpetual licensing proves that the closed source model doesn't work! Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 22:48:04 +1200 Hi jtnews, Microsoft's move away from perpetual licensing proves that the closed source model doesn't work! Read this article on CNET! http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-5851009.html Yeah it's a fascinating news story. I don't think it shows that the closed source model doesn't work though. Just that the market is saturated with products that provide enough functionality for people to not need to upgrade. Instead of providing compelling reasons for large corporations to upgrade it appears Microsoft wants to force upgrades by never allowing a lifetime license in the first place. The inherent problem with the closed source model, is that any company that provides such software must come up with revised versions to generate a profit even if no further revisions are warranted or even desired by the people using the software. That's just a problem with never being satisfied with a very profitable business that is already fully servicing the market. Microsoft's wants to keep growing and growing. With the open source software model, the public has the ability to fork off the code, keep their own versions, and hence retain the functionality and carry it to newer operating systems and other computing environments indefinitely as they see fit. Certainly. So you see even Microsoft is admitting that the closed source model doesn't work. Sorry I really don't think it follows. For example you can have closed source subscription only software. What it may show is that Microsoft's traditional business plan is in serious trouble. If Microsoft isn't able to successfully transition to subscription-based services then we may already be at the peak of Microsoft's dominance. Regards, Adam -- Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 06:55:39 -0400 From: Donn Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS Edward Rosten wrote: centipedes? At one point in time, arthropods (of which the centipede is one) and vertibrates diverged from one point and gained their various skeletons. I doubt they split from centipedes since centipedes are land based arthropods and vertibrates started off as sea based life forms. I'm not an expert on this, and this is about the limit of my knowedge. I'd sugest you consult a paeleontologist. Actually, centipedes all prefer very damp environments (except maybe the house centipede, but even those prefer some dampness), so it's not unreasonable to suspect that at one point in their evolution they were water inhabiting. == Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News == http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! === Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! == -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis) Subject: Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP. Date: 8 May 2001 07:06:29 -0500 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 20:28:28 GMT, Michael Marion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian Rourke wrote: If Apple and Microsoft can make installation easier, why not emulate that? Wouldn't you agree that easy installation is better than hard installation? You should try a Solaris install onto a Sparc then. I've _never_ seen one fail (short of a hardware failure of course). The installation for Solaris 8 is extremely simple, and you can even browse the net in a hotjava window while it's installing. :) Sun has a known set of hardware to work with. Apple almost has it as easy. MS probably has more people working on the install routines than the total employees at RH, Mandrake, and SuSE put together. It's a miracle that installs of Linux (and Windows) are as easy as they are. The enormous variety of hardware used for PCs makes for an interesting time. :-) One good example is the NE2000 NIC chipset. Manufacturers seem to all do weird things when they implement cards with these. They _should_ all be the same, but they're not. -- Stuart Krivis
Linux-Advocacy Digest #317
Linux-Advocacy Digest #317, Volume #33Tue, 3 Apr 01 11:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("Scott D.
Erb")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: Baseball ("David Brown")
Re: Something like Install Shield for Linux? (Andreas Spengler)
Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows? ("Cat")
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Re: Communism confession
Re: AMD is to Intel as "What OS" is to Windows? ("Cat")
From: "Scott D. Erb" [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: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 09:37:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Alex Chaihorsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:9ab35s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Erb,
You have to be honest. We know you have problems with honesty.
But "Is" is "Is".
In the middle of the discussion you suddenly remembered that the original
meaning of Liberalism, which has nothing to do with contemporary
Liberalism.
Actually, it does! Not only that, but in all countries in Europe the term
"liberal" is used to refer to the pro-business parties who desire less
government regulation (the FDP in Germany is an example). Thobaben and
Funderburk, in their book "Political Ideologies" trace how classical liberalism
moved to "new" liberalism with people like John Stuart Mill and liberal
reformers recognizing that you need government action to have the type of equal
opportunity for all that liberalism assumes; that otherwise powerful actors can
use their power to exploit others. The goal of new liberalism was not to create
socialism -- they still believed in the fundamental importance of liberty and
the basic idea of the rights of life, liberty and property. American "liberals"
are, for the most part, in that tradition. In fact, the vast majority of both
democrats and republicans owe their ideological roots to liberalism, it is the
fundamental American ideology for both parties. The so-called "right" tends
towards more classical liberalism, and the so-called "left" accepts the premises
of "new" liberalism and has expanded them. Some American "liberals" drift
towards Social Democracy, but they are the exception in American politics rather
than the rule.
Smart move. But may be it is me, who is dishonest here? let the readers
decide.
As you know, words, do not really mean anything on its own. Like many
words
that describe groups and events on the political landscape, "Liberalism"
means different things at different times.
Liberalism in its original 18th century British form sought individual
liberties and was opposed to the growing power of the governments. The
American Constitution is the crescendo of Western Liberalism ideology.
Contemporary liberalism has nothing to do with it. Actually, it is almost
the exact opposite: - a collectivist ideology.
I disagree strongly there. American liberalism is not collectivist, compared to
real Socialism or European Social Democracy, most American liberals tend to be
seen as very individualist. Look at their policies and positions. Take awy the
more social democratic of American liberals (say Wellstone, Kennedy, Jackson),
and look at the mainstream of the Democratic party, and you see people who would
be in conservative or free market parties in Europe.
But do not take my word for
it.
The Encyclopedia Britannica (1998 edition) defines the relation between
the
two the best:
"The expansion of government power and responsibility sought by liberals
today is clearly opposed to the contraction of government power and
responsibility sought by liberals yesterday."
Please, everyone, re-read this passage again! Da ist der Hund begraben!
Eigentlich nicht. Again, I'd refer you to the Thobaben and Funderburk book, or
a book by Leon Baradat called "Political Ideologies" as well. The fact that
liberalism veered between classical liberals, who dominated early in the 19th
century in Britain, and an expanse of the new liberalism which emerged mid-19th
century in Britain doesn't deny the ideological link. The premises of the
ideology remain the same, even if the policies advanced are very different.
Socialism underwent similar splits. Social Democrats trace their roots back to
Marx, as do some anarcho-socialists. These groups are totally opposed to the
kind of totalitarianism of Stalin and the Communists, whose ideas also emerged
from early soci
Linux-Advocacy Digest #317
Linux-Advocacy Digest #317, Volume #32 Mon, 19 Feb 01 13:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Markus Friedl)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (ZnU)
Re: Which Linux? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: SSH1 (Janne Sinkkonen)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Markus Friedl)
Re: Another Pete Goodwin "Oopsie"! (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Donald R. McGregor)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The Windows guy. ("Karel Jansens")
Re: Who is the most heavily killfiled person on cola? ("Karel Jansens")
Re: Politics (was Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else) (Bloody Viking)
Re: Politics (was Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else) (Bloody Viking)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Andrew J. Brehm)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (ZnU)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus Friedl)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 19 Feb 2001 16:46:52 GMT
In Ry9k6.55424$[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Chad Myers"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Really, how do you answer to all these exploits and vulnerabilities?
could you please name every single 'exploits' you are talking about?
could you please name every single 'vulnerabilities' you are talking about?
otherwise it's impossible to take your claims for serious.
Perhaps you should start calling it Not so secure shell (NSSSH).
perhaps you should stop spreading FUD.
perhaps you should stop confusing people.
-m
--
From: ZnU [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 16:50:24 GMT
In article 96rh0v$mcr$[EMAIL PROTECTED], John Jensen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ZnU [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Or unless the author of the code you used placed it in the public
: domain or under a license that's _really_ free, like BSD.
I guess we're way past the "un-American" phase of the discussion.
Anyway, I think you need to step back. Neither license is without
restrictions. Even in binary form BSD places restrictions:
Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the
distribution.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html
When you call those restrictions "_really_ free" you are making a
value judgement. You may find freedom within the BSD license, just
as other people may find freedom in the GPL.
You're free to do essentially anything you want with BSD code. Putting a
copyright notice in small print on the last page of the manual isn't a
serious restriction. Certainly nothing compared with GPLing your entire
project.
As it happens, I've used more or less the BSD license on my own
projects. Starting from a blank page I might choose that again. The
BSD license might match my goals, but the GPL wouldn't stop me from
contributing to an existing project I find useful. Just because I
spend a few hours on GPL code, or a few hundred, it doesn't make me
GPL for life. It's just the way I spent a little time.
I have no problem with this sort of thing. I have a problem with the
people who scream that all software should be free, by which they mean
all software should be GPL. GPL isn't totally free, and authors have a
right to release their software under whatever license they want.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: "Edward Rosten" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Which Linux?
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 16:50:56 +
I'm interested to learn a few more things about this Monkey Linux:
What kernel is it based on?
2.0.x (.3 I hink)
The info says it runs on a UMSDOS "partition". Not knowing much about
Esentially, UMSDOS mungs the file names in some way to fit them in to 8.3
files. There is also a lookup file in the directory which contains
information such as perms and the real file name and nodes or pipes. This
file is not visible to anything except the kernel once Linux is loaded,
but it is an ordinary DOS file. If a directory does not have this file,
it will behave like a directory mounted on a plain FAT system.
It's a it slower than FAT, but works much better than MS' solution (fat32).
this: if your DOS runs from a PCMCIA flash card, will Monkey Linux
automatically recognise it, or do I need to find drivers fo
Linux-Advocacy Digest #317
Linux-Advocacy Digest #317, Volume #31Sun, 7 Jan 01 05:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Need help with NT ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: RPM Hell ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Typical Linsux..They can't even view their own movie!!! (Ralph Miguel Hansen)
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Need help with NT
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 19:12:02 -0600
"Peter Köhlmann" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:9388h3$da1$04$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
I couldn't search the newsgroups because the network adapters weren't
working.
What, network adapters weren't working?
Under NT? or even W2K
Well, that really is grave. You've got my whole sympathy.
You can't seem to follow a discussion very well. The 2 3COM 3c905b network
adapaters I had in the Linux firewall I was trying to configure. I had no
idea it was because they happened to be the same exact card, or I would have
pulled one out. It was just these random problems. One minute the card
would work, the next it wouldn't.
Installing FreeBSD cured the problem.
--
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 19:29:22 -0600
"J Sloan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Thanks Alan,
I knew I wasn't imagining it
Erik, your thoughts?
First, you claimed the NT server crashed 13 times in a year. The article
says the NT server crashed on average once every 6 weeks over 10 months, not
a year(that's crashes, not 13) and it was "since January" and the article
was published on November 1st. Giving standard publishing deadlines for
weekly magazines, that means the article was probably submitted September
1st. Even if we give the author credit for having written the article in
only 1 day, that means that at most the test period was over 9 months or 39
weeks. 39 / 6 = 6.5. So the server crashed 6 times, not 13.
Second, This took place over 2 years ago. Using NT4 SP3, which was not all
that stable for some tasks. SP4 was much more stable.
Third, Despite your grossly overexagerated claims, a 45 day uptime is quite
good for NT4 SP3. Windows 2000 has no such problems.
jjs
Alan Boyd wrote:
OK, I'll back him up. I saw that article too.
In fact...look here:
http://www.zdnet.com/sp/stories/issue/0,4537,2387282,00.html
Conventional wisdom says Linux is incredibly stable.
Always skeptical, we decided to put that claim to the
test over a 10-month period. In our test, we ran Caldera
Systems OpenLinux, Red Hat Linux, and Windows NT
Server 4.0 with Service Pack 3 on duplicate 100MHz
Pentium systems with 64MB of memory. Ever since we
first booted up our test systems in January, network
requests have been sent to each server in parallel for
standard Internet, file and print services. The results
were quite revealing. Our NT server crashed an average
of once every six weeks. Each failure took roughly 30
minutes to fix. That's not so bad, until you consider that
neither Linux server ever went down. This test, coupled
with our technical staff's extensive Linux and NT
experience, leads us to believe that Linux truly is more
stable than NT on uniprocessor servers.
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
--
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 19:43:36 -0600
"Les Mikesell" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:24L56.56134$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
"Erik Funkenbusch" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:1_q56.9004$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Note that Microsoft did not offer these until AFTER forcing
all competing WYSIWYG editors out of the market.
What are you talking about? When Office 97 was released (in 1996) it
included the filter so that Word 95 could read Office 97 documents on
the
CD
(as well as a free download).
I don't remember that as being the case in the original release and I know
the download either wasn't available or wasn't publicized until many
months after it was needed because everyone I know was literally forced
to upgrade from word95 for no reason other than to be able to read
the attachments being sent by people who bought new PC's with
Word97 pre-installed.Even if the
Linux-Advocacy Digest #317
Linux-Advocacy Digest #317, Volume #29 Tue, 26 Sep 00 15:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: New Linux Install
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary?
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary?
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary?
Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! ("2 + 2")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: How low can they go...? (Roberto Alsina)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 26 Sep 2000 18:19:32 GMT
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 14:08:49 -0300, Roberto Alsina wrote:
El mar, 26 sep 2000, Richard escribió:
I didn't say I didn't nead it you stupid fuck, I said that I
never expected it from this newsgroup.
Oh, so now we are at the "stupid fuck" level of discussion?
Allow me o remind you: "it's not that I [Richard] am slow, it's
that I don't have a full lab [helping]".
If you don't need the full lab, the lack of the full lab is not an excuse.
Thus your venting your frustration here is just hot air.
See my post about "Chief seeks indians". The problem is that he wants to
appoint himself as "chief", but he doesn't want to earn the title.
He needs the full lab, because he lacks the competency to implement anything
himself.
The problem is that to get venture capital, research grants, or "indians",
you need to show your worth. And he seems unwilling or unable to do this.
Basically, he's a frustrated loser. If I was a loser, I'd probably be
frustrated too. It's understandable.
--
Donovan
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 18:29:52 -
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 09:28:22 -0300, Roberto Alsina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
El lun, 25 sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:14:28 -0300, Roberto Alsina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
El lun, 25 sep 2000, Simon Cooke escribió:
"Roberto Alsina" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:00092518190902.22210@pc03...
El lun, 25 sep 2000, The Ghost In The Machine escribió:
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Mon, 25 Sep 2000 16:09:57 -
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:48:15 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
on Fri, 22 Sep 2000 23:17:30 -
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[snip for brevity]
What's this "we" stuff? ttt!
Well, if you've never bought a computer with preinstalled MS software
ever
in your lifetime, then I suppose it would be just "we minus jedi". :-)
(It's possible!)
The last prebuilt computer I bought was an Atari 520STe.
Ah ha! Well, my apologies then; I was not aware of this. :-)
Why? The Atari 520STe had MS software preinstalled, didn't it?
No - it had GEM, which was Digital's GUI.
Didn't it come with a basic interpreter?
...among other things. I paid more attention to the
paint program and word processor...
Wasn't the basic interpreter, by chance, a MS basic interpreter?
They had almost a monopoly in basics for that kind of computers.
I never paid any attention. I never needed too.
[deletia]
Choice is good this way.
I might have used that disc as a coaster or frisbee.
--
UNIX enhancements aren't.
All things being equal, you are bound to lose.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: New Linux Install
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 18:31:54 -
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 21:47:20 +1000, Chris Sherlock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From what I understand, the new LBA32 extensions in LILO will circumvent
this problem. I don't know much more about this as I haven't had to
worry about hitting the 1024 cylinder ceiling yet.
Would someone care to comment?
Paranoia doesn't incurr that much overhead.
Chris
"James M. Luongo" wrote:
I plan on installing Linux Mandrake 7.1 for the first time. I need some
help. How big should the partitions be? And, I heard something about
LiLo not recognizing a Linux partition after a certain disk cylinder (or
sector, whatever). I think it wa
Linux-Advocacy Digest #317
Linux-Advocacy Digest #317, Volume #28Tue, 8 Aug 00 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Pascal Haakmat)
Re: Changing LILO in Mandrake? (Jerry L Kreps)
Re: Paging BIG DON ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pascal Haakmat)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: 9 Aug 2000 01:14:16 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Only kidding :)
I ask to be in a fight with you and this is how you respond?
--
Rate your CSMA savvy by identifying the writing styles of
ancient and recent, transient and perdurable CSMA inhabitants:
(35 posters, 259 quotes)
http://awacs.dhs.org/csmatest
--
From: Jerry L Kreps [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Changing LILO in Mandrake?
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2000 20:14:40 -0500
On Mon, 07 Aug 2000, Tim Palmer wrote:
Jim Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 31 Jul 2000 07:44:55 -0500,
Tim Palmer, in the persona of [EMAIL PROTECTED],
brought forth the following words...:
Cap'n [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll admit I'm somewhat of a newbie to Mandrake Linux,
and this is probably a stupid question...but, I need the
answer.
I just installed Mandrake 7.1 on my system in a dual boot with
Win98. My hard drive is in four partitions:
Partition 1: Win98 system files (1.5 GB) - hdc1
Partition 2: Win98 programs (8 GB) - hdc2
Partition 3: Linux Swap (133 MB) - hdc6
Partition 4: Linux Native: Mandrake Distro (2.3 GB) - hdc7
After I installed Mandrake and LILO, Linux is the first
boot option and loads Mandrake after 10 seconds,
unless I type Windows. I want to set it up so that Windows
boots after 10 seconds, unless I type Linux.
What's the easiest way to change this in Mandrake? Or
if someone could point me to a Mandrake HOWTO Web link
for this, I would appreciate it.
Thanks!
*** The Cap'n
Eddit a text fial and recompial kernal.
Despite Tim's (poorly spelt) hyperbole, you can change the boot order in
one of 3 ways.
Edit /etc/lilo.conf to put the entry you want first in line and rerun lilo
Edit /etc/lilo.conf to add the line default=windows (or whatever the windows
entry is called) at the top of the file in the global variables section,
and rerun lilo.
Or IIRC using Drake, the mandrake config tool, you can do this, but I don't
use mandrake so I can't be sure there.
Note that Tim was either incorrect, or simply lying about recompiling the
kernel.
One out of too aint bad. And you half to restart LILO. So mutch for never having to
reboot.
Actually, you mean 'have', not 'half'. And, you don't *have* to reboot. You
can continue running until such time as you need to reboot: lightening, hardware
failure, or for grins. So you are zero out of two.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
--
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,soc.culture.african.american,sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: Paging BIG DON
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 21:17:09 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Aaron R. Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Loren Petrich wrote:
[Mr. Kulkis on the depravity of American women...]
Evidence for such sweeping claims? {}
Simple observation of what is happening all around me,
no matter what part of the country I happen to be in.
Are you sure it's not your personality?
I'm talking about what I see happening to OTHER MEN in the US.
I'm merely an observer, not a participant.
And better watch out for those Russian women you love so much --
they may be trying to hitch a ride on some wonderfully gullible American
so they can immigrate into the US.
According to the US Government, 80% of marriages between American men
and women from Eastern Europe and Russia are still intact after 5 years.
The US National average is only 50%
My sister had once gone to Sarajevo, and someone tried to
introduce her to some nice young man, but she suspected that this was the
same sort of immigration scam.
Of course. American women have a worldwide reputation for being
the most exasperating people on the world to deal with. Compared
to what is available to him locally, An American woman has *NOTHING*
to offer a foreign man other than improving his prospects for getting
a visa to the US. In all other aspects of marriage, he is better off
marrying a local girl.
I was describing the welfare bureaucracy, which has a whole lot
of work imposed on it in the name of preventing cheating and stuff l
Linux-Advocacy Digest #317
Linux-Advocacy Digest #317, Volume #27 Sat, 24 Jun 00 21:13:03 EDT Contents: Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages) (mark) Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages) (mark) Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages) (mark) Re: What UNIX is good for. (Aaron Kulkis) Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages) (mark) Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Processing data is bad! (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Processing data is bad! (Aaron Kulkis) Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich) Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich) Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) Subject: Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:58:55 +0100 In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Pete Goodwin wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Yantz) wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: For your needs, perhaps. If you actually need detailed information, man pages are extremely useful. If you don't want to think, you have a relatively common problem and need a guided troubleshooting walk-through, then the Windows help system rocks. But man pages lack one thing - the ability to link to other man pages. You can't hyperlink to other topics, you have to start from scratch at the command prompt. HTML offers that, so why has Linux remained with its antiquated man system, when there are at least better alternatives? Interesting - my dwww system does exactly that - the great power of unix is that because of the standard interfaces, the man-html gateway was written, someone else wrote the web front-end, someone else glimpse. I have fully cross-linked completely searchable man /usr/doc pages on my linux system using standard debian packages. 'course, I don't have that in Windows. -- Mark - remove any ham to reply. "A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) Subject: Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:56:58 +0100 In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Pete Goodwin wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson) wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Perhaps he is saying that linux is better for _him_ than windows. I know I do. Perhaps windows is better for you, if so, you should consider sticking with windows. Not to discourage you from trying linux, but you don't post this stuff to any of the linux help newsgroups, just to advocacy, why is that? I'm trying to point out to Linux bigots (i.e. not you as you're being fairly reasonable in the style of conversation) that the rants and raves they make is simply hot air! Nah, Linux is definitely better for me. 'Course I'm not paid by microsoft to say anything different. And yet you didn't know much about man pages or cut and paste in X? I know enough about man pages to know it's an inferior help system. As for cut and paste on X it seems to be a precursor of what I've seen on better systems - by that I mean Windows. The man pages are very superior in my opinion. The windows help system is as near to useless as it's possible to get, in that it has no actual information in it. I recall it also has a significant security hole in it as well. The reputation of the windows help system is so bad that there have been jokes written about it.. Pilot to building - where am i? Building to pilot - you're in an aeroplane Pilot to co-pilot - set a course for Dulles from Redmond - that must have been microsoft's help. -- Mark - remove any ham to reply. "A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) Subject: Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages) Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:53:19 +0100 In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Pete Goodwin wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mig Mig) wrote in 8hh4s4$5jl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Pete Goodwin wrote: Pete nobody is saying that Linux is perfect! If it was then there would be no nead to improve it... i find many annoying things in Linux but i allways come around them by doing a minimum of research. But you are saying Linux is better than Windows, and that is where I beg to differ. Linux is better for me. As abraxas pointed out.. .in order to get the best out of a operating system - no matter wich one - you have to do an effort its really not very hard to find the relevant information. You even have access to the Internet and dont even try to search for info on deja.com or websites. Inte
Linux-Advocacy Digest #317
Linux-Advocacy Digest #317, Volume #26 Sun, 30 Apr 00 08:13:07 EDT Contents: TYPING ERRORS (MK) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK) Subject: TYPING ERRORS Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 12:00:09 GMT The standard typewriter keyboard is Exhibit A in the hottest new case against markets. But the evidence has been cooked. By Stan Liebowitz and Stephen E. Margolis Like a modern horror movie villain who keeps coming back from the dead, a false story can take on a life of its own: Eskimos have hundreds of words for snow, Millard Fillmore ordered the first bathtub for the White House, that sort of thing. Even after they are shown to be false, some stories are repeated, embellished, and occasionally built into entire belief systems. These fictions may ordinarily be little more than curiosities or mere affronts to our concern for the truth. But our concern here is with one such story that is put forward as part of a case against the effectiveness of free markets and individual choice. This story has consequences. Our story concerns the history of the standard typewriter keyboard, commonly known as QWERTY, and its more recent rival, the Dvorak keyboard. Pick up the February 19 edition of Newsweek and there is Steve Wozniak, the engineering wunderkind largely responsible for Apple's early success, explaining that Apple's recent failures were just another example of a better product losing out to an inferior alternative: "Like the Dvorak keyboard, Apple's superior operating system lost the market-share war." Ignoring for the moment the fact that just about all computer users now use sleek graphical operating systems much like the Mac's graphical interface (itself taken from Xerox), Wozniak cannot be blamed for repeating the keyboard story. It is commonly reported as fact in newspapers, magazines, and academic journals. An article in the January 1996 Harvard Law Review, for example, invokes the typewriter keyboard as support for a thesis that pure luck is responsible for winners and losers, and that our expectation of survival of the fittest should be replaced by survival of the luckiest. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. In the Los Angeles Times, Steve Steinburg writes, regarding the adoption of an Internet standard, "[I]t's all too likely to be the wrong standard. From Qwerty vs. Dvorak keyboards, to Beta vs. VHS cassettes, history shows that market share and technical superiority are rarely related." In The Independent, Hamish McRae discusses the likelihood of "lock-in" to inferior standards. He notes the Beta and VHS competition as well as some others, then adds, "Another example is MS-DOS, but perhaps the best of all is the QWERTY keyboard. This was designed to slow down typists" In Fortune, Tim Smith repeats the claim that QWERTY was intended to slow down typists, and then notes, "Perhaps the stern test of the marketplace produces results more capricious than we like to think." In a feature series, Steven Pearlstein of The Washington Post presents at great length the argument that modern markets, particularly those linked to networks, are likely to be dominated by just a few firms. After introducing readers to Brian Arthur, one of the leading academic advocates of the view that lock-in is a problem, he states, "The Arthurian discussion of networks usually begins at the typewriter keyboard." Other prominent appearances of the QWERTY story are found in TheNew York Times, The Sunday Observer, The Boston Globe, and broadcast on PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer. It can even be found in the Encyclopaedia Britannica as evidence of how human inertia can result in the choice of an inferior product. The story can be found in two very successful economics books written for laymen: Robert Frank and Philip Cook's The Winner-Take-All Society and Paul Krugman's Peddling Prosperity, where an entire chapter is devoted to the "economics of QWERTY." Why is the keyboard story receiving so much attention from such a variety of sources? The answer is that it is the centerpiece of a theory that argues that market winners will only by the sheerest of coincidences be the best of the available alternatives. By this theory, the first technology that attracts development, the first standard that attracts adopters, or the first product that attracts consumers will tend to have an insurmountable advantage, even over superior rivals that happen to come along later. Because first on the scene is not necessarily the best, a logical conclusion would seem to be that market choices aren't necessarily good ones. So, for example, proponents of this view argue that although the Beta video recording format was better than VHS, Beta lost out because of bad luck
