Linux-Advocacy Digest #573, Volume #25 Thu, 9 Mar 00 15:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: Notebook Computer & Linux - Advice Needed (Brian Langenberger)
hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! (bob@bospam)
Re: Linux vs. NT as a webserver ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ... ("Raymond Swaim")
Re: BSD & Linux (5X3)
Re: Open Software Reliability (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: BSD & Linux (dbt)
Re: BSD & Linux (Staf Wagemakers)
Re: Open Software Reliability (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (nohow)
Re: BSD & Linux (Marc Espie)
Motif: Not Invented Here? (was: The Windows GUI vs. X) (William Adderholdt)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
("Charles W. Swiger")
Re: What the cross-posters need to grok
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Notebook Computer & Linux - Advice Needed
Date: 9 Mar 2000 18:11:39 GMT
ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I plan to buy a notebook computer to run Linux.
: But I am not sure which notebook computer
: will be the best choice. Can someone tell me
: which brand of the notebook computers work
: the best with which brands of Linux?
I've had great luck with IBM ThinkPads.
The advantages I found are:
*) 3-button trackpoint - X Windows works best with 3 buttons
*) large-sized keyboard
*) no Windows keys - which means more room for other keys
*) strong NeoMagic graphics card support (support out-of-box with RedHat
in any case)
*) floppy/CD combo bay (also standard with the 390s)
with only a few disadvantages:
*) I needed the OSS drivers to run the ESS-SOLO sound chip, which
set me back ~$20. Haven't had trouble since, however.
*) Winmodem - nuff said
*) The abovementioned NeoMagic chip runs pretty slow at 24bpp
(and a lot of X apps don't like 24bpp), so I stick with 16bpp
and get great performance at 1024x768 (on a 14.1" screen)
I've looked at a *lot* of laptops, but none seem to offer any
major improvement over my 390E. I've considered a G3 Powerbook,
but since they've removed the built-in SCSI and the caps lock
key cannot be rebound to another control key (from what I've read -
if someone can correct me on this I'd be happy. I can live with
an external mouse, but the caps lock key drives me crazy) have made
me reconsider them.
So, I recommend IBM ThinkPads. At present, there's no other
laptop for me to consider...
------------------------------
From: bob@bospam
Subject: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: 9 Mar 2000 09:19:21 -0800
folks, this is big, big news. greate news for Linux !!!
"Ottawa -- Corel Corp. is in talks with Intel Corp. and at
least one major computer maker to launch a line of cheap
personal computers that takes direct aim at Microsoft Corp.'s
near-monopoly in desktop PC operating systems."
http://www.globeandmail.com/gam/TopBusiness/20000309/RCORE.html
http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?s=b69a18f42b44d5aefdde7b4cac8ba194&T=marketsquote99_news.ht
go Linux, go Debian, go Corel !!
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs. NT as a webserver
Date: 9 Mar 2000 18:35:43 GMT
Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: No they probably would not regret using Linux and Apache, but then neither
: would they regret using NT and IIS. It's all a case of what you are able to
: support. If you have a room full of NT boxen and experienced NT sysadmins,
: why would you want to make things more difficult by introducing a linux box?
: Conversely, if you had a room full of Linux boxes, introuducing a NT box
: would also be just as questionable.
If you build solutions using modern, cross-platform tools such as
Apache, PHP, mod_perl, and MySQL, then you can build and deploy on
whatever you have, and easily scale it up to something bigger when and
if the need arises.
Even in an NT shop, there is seldom any good reason to use legacy
technologies such as ASP or IIS or (shudder) VBScript.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Raymond Swaim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ...
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 12:36:53 -0600
Well, let's see....
I assume you must be referring to comp.os.linux.help in which you posted
*one* question (count it: one) and not the "several" you claim. You
received a reply from someone who was trying to help you, and who asked you
for more information about your problem, but you never replied.
RSS
"James McLaren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Well if my own experiences are representative then Linux is doomed. I got
> the impression that the Linux community would descent on a nubi en masse
if
> they requested help. Well after several ignored questions on .help I'm
> calling it a day.
>
> How you can expect first time computer recruits to embrace Linux I just
> don't know. Not with the current level of support that's for dammed sure
:)
>
> James <- Asbestos jox in situ
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 9 Mar 2000 18:42:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Marc Espie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8a7cqm$bmv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The fact that it CAN be installed on laptops doesnt mean that its been
>>written with workstation applications specifically in mind. I can run linux
>>on an S/390, but that doesnt mean that linux was written with mainframe
>>applications specifically in mind.
> No, but it's a general OS. Why shouldn't I be able to use it to run
> desktop applications ? (as a matter of fact I can).
I didnt say you couldnt. You're missing the point.
>>> Of course, you can always buy one laptop per OS.
>>> Want to buy me a second laptop, so that I can stop having Linux, OpenBSD,
>>> Windows all on the same hard-drive ?
>>> --
>>
>>I dont know why you have openbsd on a laptop when you also have linux and
>>windows; it seems to me that youre doing it more for kicks than for actual
>>use---which is fine. But openbsd isnt a "workstation" operating system
>>either.
> Define `actual use'.
> - linux: teaching (showing another OS at work), looking at competition (grab
> some of the modules idea, see how linux is implementing locale support), quake.
I can understand the teaching aspect, but there are actual unices that were
developed for this specific purpose. The modules ideas are shared by a number
of other operating systems. Quake runs better on windows98 with directX.
> - windows: games
Me too. I can understand that.
> - OpenBSD: all the rest: programming, developping, writing papers, listening
> to mp3, playing with pictures...A
You're using a server operating system for light workstation duties. Theres
nothing WRONG with that, but there are better decisions to be made.
> I really don't see the point in shoe-horning people into OSes... I have
> legitimate uses for Linux, for OpenBSD, and even for Windows. More often
> than not, it comes down to practicality issues (I don't have the time to
> install everything so it works on OpenBSD, nor the hd room to get a full
> wine install, and even then it's doubtful Alpha Centauri, Tomb raider, nor
> Arcanes would work), and likes (OpenBSD...).
> --
I think that its much more likely that you just like saying that you
run a bunch of different operating systems because it makes you feel
31337.
Theres nothing wrong with that either.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: 9 Mar 2000 19:15:14 GMT
In article <8a8oa9$hhk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mike Kenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Christopher Browne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
>> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when mlw would say:
>>>> "Frank Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>>
>>>Lastly, the idea that one can "institute and enforce" demanding quality
>>>standards is a joke. It can't happen. One has to be a good software
>>>engineer to recognize bad code, it had NOTHING to do with coding
>>>standards or any other non-sense that passes for management, it has to
>>>do with how you construct your algorithms, how you access data in a
>>>loop, etc. For instance:
>>
>> Indeed. This is the aspect of things like ISO-9000 that is a "lie."
>>
>> The claim is that if you use "quality procedures," a "quality result"
>> is guaranteed.
>
>I think the goal of ISO-9000 is a consistant result, not nessesarily the
>best result. The goal is to have the company survive when the hotshot
>developer decides to leave.
That it could do. The really creative, productive developer
would be so aggravated by having to fulfill all the ISO-9000
requirements, especially [*gag*] going to all the horribly
boring *meetings* [Dilbert symbol: skull popping out of head],
that they wouldn't get very much work done and would leave
the company as soon as possible.
So the company would never benefit much from their ability,
and would therefore function about the same after they left
as it had before. If it had been surviving before, it would
probably continue to lurch along, relying on hype, gullibil-
ity, and vendor-lock to sell its uninspired, dysfunctional
products.
Meanwhile, the creative person would look for, or create,
a situation where they can work like this:
>> Reality lies elsewhere. A truly high-quality result will have the
>> somewhat ineffable quality of "elegance." And *that* requires having
>> someone involved that has:
>>
>> - Freedom of action, to design things the way *they* wish,
>> - Clarity of vision, to know what it is that they wish to design,
>> - The "intelligence" (for lack of a better term) to be able to make
>> this result "elegant."
>> --
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dbt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 9 Mar 2000 11:12:59 -0800
5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>> - OpenBSD: all the rest: programming, developping, writing papers, listening
>> to mp3, playing with pictures...A
>
>You're using a server operating system for light workstation duties. Theres
>nothing WRONG with that, but there are better decisions to be made.
Unix is a general purpose operating system. The fact that it's an
excellent server OS doesn't preclude the fact that it's also an
excellent workstation OS.
--
David Terrell | "Instead of plodding through the equivalent of
Prime Minister, NebCorp | literary Xanax, the pregeeks go for sci-fi and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | fantasy: LSD in book form." - Benjy Feen,
http://wwn.nebcorp.com | http://www.monkeybagel.com/ "Origins of Sysadmins"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Staf Wagemakers)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 9 Mar 2000 19:27:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tore Lund wrote:
>LEBLANC ERIC wrote:
>>
>> Tore Lund ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> :
>> : I thought Debian was about to adopt HURD, correct me if I am wrong.
>>
>> No, you're not. Actually some Debian developpers are working on the HURD
>> while some others are working on making a FreeBSD Debian. It's all about
>> choice.
>
>That's good, but the FreeBSD variety is not so easy to find on the
>Debian web site. Maybe someone could give me a pointer? Thank you in
>advance.
This "new" Debian distribution was mentioned in the Debian Weekly news,
so you can look at the weekly news session at the Debian webpage.
Tip: I think it was in oct or nov 1999.
cheers,
--
Staf Wagemakers
email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
homepage : http://www.digibel.org/~staf
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: 9 Mar 2000 19:30:34 GMT
On 9 Mar 2000 19:15:14 GMT, Mark S. Bilk wrote:
>In article <8a8oa9$hhk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Mike Kenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The claim is that if you use "quality procedures," a "quality result"
>>> is guaranteed.
>>
>>I think the goal of ISO-9000 is a consistant result, not nessesarily the
>>best result. The goal is to have the company survive when the hotshot
>>developer decides to leave.
>
>That it could do. The really creative, productive developer
>would be so aggravated by having to fulfill all the ISO-9000
>requirements, especially [*gag*] going to all the horribly
>boring *meetings* [Dilbert symbol: skull popping out of head],
IIRC, this does pop up in Dilbert. The PHB has no idea what it means but
says it will look good on their promo materials (-;
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ...
Date: 9 Mar 2000 19:34:03 GMT
On Thu, 9 Mar 2000 00:13:29 +0200, James McLaren wrote:
>Well if my own experiences are representative then Linux is doomed. I got
>the impression that the Linux community would descent on a nubi en masse if
>they requested help. Well after several ignored questions on .help I'm
>calling it a day.
Sorry that you had a hard time getting it working, but Linux won't fail just
because you had trouble.
I don't know what ".help" is, the best groups for getting help are
comp.os.linux.setup
comp.os.linux.hardware
comp.os.linux.misc
The first one is the best newbie group. .hardware is the best place to ask
about hardware compaibility and advice on buying hardware. .misc is usually
a good place to post tougher questions ( though it's not strictly a support
group )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: nohow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 11:41:26 -0800
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 13:37:17 GMT, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"nohow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 04:01:26 GMT, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> ><sigh> Do you even have any clue?
>> >
>>
>> More of a clue than you.
>
>Apparently not. You're debating a well known fact.
It appears that we are both wrong. I with confusing Orange book with
Red book and you with what level of C2 certification NT products have
obtained.
Orange book =
"The Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria (TCSEC) is a
collection of criteria that was previously used to grade or rate the
security offered by a computer system product. No new evaluations are
being conducted using the TCSEC although there are some still ongoing
at this time. The TCSEC is sometimes referred to as "the Orange Book"
because of its orange cover. "
Red book =
"The Trusted Network Interpretation (TNI) of the TCSEC, also referred
to as "The Red Book," is a restating of the requirements of the TCSEC
in a network context."
Ref. http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/process/faq.html
>
>> >NT 4.0 was C2 Red book for quite some time. Since 1996 or 7.
>>
>> No it wasn't. See below.
>
>> Here's a news story from last spring which talks a bit about it:
>>
>> http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1014704,00.html
>
>This is talking about the lead up to _FULL_ C2 compliance, both
>red book and orange book.
>
>NT _WAS_ redbook shortly after it was released. Why do you even
>try to debate it, it was, there's no arguing about it!
>
>NT did not obtain full C2 compliance until 1999. However, it's
>had Redbook all along.
To be Red book certified you must first have Orange book
certification. TCSEC before TNI. NT 4.0 didn't obtain *any* C2
certification until November 1999 as stated on MS's website.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >NT 3.5 had Red and Orange.
>>
>> No it didn't - only Red.
>
><sigh> It had both. It's on their frickin' web site!
>
>>
>> Here's a Microsoft website dated May12 1999 that shows the C2 levels
>> at that time: NT 4.0 - not C2 certified, 3.5 - only red book.
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/NTServer/security/exec/feature/c2_security.asp
>
>It (4.0) wasn't fully C2 certified, which means means it hadn't passed
>both tests (Red and Orange) but it's been Red all along. Of course,
>water is wet, but you probably don't believe that, either.
No it wasn't Red book all along. See above.
>
>Where are you getting this nonsense about 3.5 only being red book?
>
>FROM THE SAME LINK YOU POSTED, it says "NT 3.5 has been successfully
>evaluated....at C2 level" It's fully Red and Orange book.
>
>http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/epl/entries/CSC-EPL-95-003.html
>
>Right there, that's from the lions mouth.
>
Yes it is stated right there. NT 3.5 passed TCSEC and obtained Orange
book C2 certification. From the report:
"The security protection provided by the Microsoft Windows NT platform
when configured according to the Windows NT Trusted Facility Manual,
has been evaluated by the NSA. The security features of the Windows NT
platform have been examined against the requirements specified by the
Department of Defense TCSEC dated December 1985. "
NT 3.5 was not evaluated for TNI and did not obtain Red book C2
certification. From the report:
"Because the evaluated configuration does not include a network
environment, both products are considered stand-alone workstations."
>NT 3.5 - fully C2
Orange book - 1995.
>NT 4.0 Was Red book, now (1999) is fully C2 Orange and Red
Orange and Red book - 1999.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc Espie)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 9 Mar 2000 19:40:21 GMT
In article <8a8rba$12gl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think that its much more likely that you just like saying that you
>run a bunch of different operating systems because it makes you feel
>31337.
No, this is just not true.
I gave you my reasons why I run those OSes.
There are probably some facts you're missing, like, I happen to be an
OpenBSD developper. I am more or less in charge of a few details in that OS.
Running several OSes on one machine to appear like `eleet' to doodz like you
is really the least of my preoccupations...
I happen to have genuine vested interests into running OpenBSD. I also
really happen to be teaching a system administration course, in which I
show what's going on with a variety of OSes.
Since you chose not to believe a word of what I'm saying anyway, I'll stop
here. This is fast becoming completely pointless anyway.
Oh, btw:
`Finally, how much disk space do you have anyway ? Do you really need to
cram that many OSes on the same disk ? Put them on separate disks rather.
If you reach that stage, you'd better be ready to hack at the linux kernel
to recognize several disklabels, for instance, or generally know what
you're doing.'
(quoted from the INSTALL.linux document in the OpenBSD distribution...
a small piece I happened to write about a year ago :) )
--
Marc Espie
|anime, sf, juggling, unicycle, acrobatics, comics...
|AmigaOS, OpenBSD, C++, perl, Icon, PostScript...
| `real programmers don't die, they just get out of beta'
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Adderholdt)
Subject: Motif: Not Invented Here? (was: The Windows GUI vs. X)
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 19:48:12 GMT
[Header trimmed. I don't think comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy cares
much for Motif. Quit the promiscuous cross-posting, people!]
Donn Miller wrote:
[snip]
> Guys, it's OK to like Motif. Remember, us unix people were the ones
> trumpeting about how great X is because it allows for any GUI we
> wish. We should also note that it's possible to create any widget set
> for Windows that we wish; we don't have to use the Windows GUI/widget
> sets if we don't like. Hello people, Lesstif IS Motif comaptible!
> Knock knock, Lesstif? Ever hear of Lesstif? It's - I SAID, LESSTIF
> IS FREE! YES, THAT'S RIGHT. IT'S FREE, AS IN FREE BEER.
Not only that, but if you want to do commercial development, Qt is much
more expensive than Motif.
>From http://www.troll.no/pricing.html --
Price List Qt/Unix
Number of Developers: Quantity Discount: Qt/Unix, per developer:
(incl. 1 year Support & Upgrades)
1 - $ 1,550
2 - 3 10% $ 1,395
4 - 6 20% $ 1,240
7 - 9 30% $ 1,085
You can get a license for OSF/Motif from companies like Metrolink for
only about $150. And the commercial Unices include Motif, so an
application written for Motif is very portable.
I wish Linux developers would quit looking down on Motif so much, and be
more tolerant of other toolkits. For an example of a developer having
to defend himself from toolkit bigots, here's a quote from the XEphem
homepage (http://www.clearskyinstitute.com/xephem/xephem.html):
===========================================================================
From the author:
Thank you for your interest in XEphem. Your comments and
suggestions are welcome.
BTW, I am frequently asked, often with stunning rudeness, why I use
Motif and not some other GUI toolkit such as tcl/tk or gtk. Here
are my reasons:
1. Motif is robust, stable, very well documented and still looks
fine. Remember XEphem was begun around 1990 and Motif was the best
choice at that time in my opinion. As long as it remains widely
available I feel it is only prudent to capitalize on this maturity
since it contributes significantly towards a more robust
application.
2. I glaze over just thinking of the effort to change. The GUI
portion of XEphem is roughly 40K lines of C and is not worth
changing without a compelling reason.
3. Rumors of Motif's death are exaggerated. It is alive and well in
commercial UNIX platforms as part of the CDE. Even on Linux or
FreeBSD, Motif is not all that expensive: about $150 from
Metrolink or free thanks to Lesstif. Motif applications are even
portable to NT, albeit at a price, using tools from Datafocus,
Hummingbird and Cygnus.
4. And finally, I am proficient with Motif and enjoy using it. Doing
so allows me to maintain my focus on that next great feature.
'Nuf said.
===========================================================================
William Adderholdt
(Sorry about using Lynx for this. The comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
cross-posting got this message deleted from my server.)
------------------------------
From: "Charles W. Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 19:54:43 GMT
In comp.sys.next.advocacy John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charles W. Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>: Apple want to provide a integrated, user-friendly computing solution. They
>: sell both hardware and software which is closed tied together, and that
>: combination is the Mac platform. I don't think Apple wants to provide a
>: "alternate platform", I'm sure they'd rather be the primary desktop
>: computing environment.
>
> The integration and user-friendlyness is easy to see. I agree that their
> hardware and software integration gives them a unique advantage in
> building a friendly computer.
>
> But how would they become the primary desktop computing environment?
I frankly doubt they can given their current lack of interest in pursuing new
markets rather than trying to shore up their current userbase. Apple has been
executing reasonably well for the purely consumer end-market, which is why
they have moved from being a rapidly declining niche into a fairly healthy
"alternative platform" again.
> Could they make enough computers under their own name for everyone, or
> does this require cloning?
Agreed. But for Apple to live with clones, they'd have to ensure that both
their hardware and their software aspects are competitive, and they'd have to
cut their margins, particularly on generic items like peripherals and memory
and so forth. I don't see that happening.
-Chuck
Chuck 'Sisyphus' Swiger | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Bad cop! No Donut.
------------------------+-------------------+--------------------
I know that you are an optimist if you think I am a pessimist....
------------------------------
Subject: Re: What the cross-posters need to grok
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 20:07:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > William Adderholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Time to start killfiling entire newsgroups...
> >
> > Try a killfile rule for the group in question that nukes all messages
> > with a comma in the newsgroups line. Sure it's an aggressive way to
> > tackle cross-posts, but highly justifiable in *.advocacy...
I actually tried that once, but there was pretty much nothing left of
the newsgroup afterward. :-)
The solution I found was to just put this in the leafnode filter file:
^Newsgroups:.*comp\.os\.ms-windows\.nt\.advocacy
The signal-to-noise ratio has improved quite a bit since then. It seems
like all the people who abuse cross-posting are from just that one group.
All the other advocacy newsgroups are relatively well behaved. It must
be because the Windows NT advocates see Linux as their number one
threat.
[Interestingly enough, I never would have seen the above post if 2:1
hadn't made an empty reply to it, due to the filter. I wonder what
happened there...]
William Adderholdt
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
