Linux-Advocacy Digest #441, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 12:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Salvador Peralta)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Linux will remain immune (Eric Leblanc)
CVS and Windows (Nico Coetzee)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Perry Pip)
Re: Linux will remain immune (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (abraxas)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (abraxas)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (abraxas)
Re: Here is the solution (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: news: Oracle $199 web device, runs on linux, not windows (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux will remain immune (Perry Pip)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Built in Virus Scanners! ("Mike")
Re: Linux will remain immune (JEDIDIAH)
Re: CVS and Windows (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Eric Bennett)
Re: Linux will remain immune (JEDIDIAH)
Re: CVS and Windows ("Mike")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (WickedDyno)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 08:19:04 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
He then goes on to explain how it is an unfair advantage. It allowed
them to build features on their office suite of products (as an example)
that were not open to their competitors, and enabled them to write code
that was deliberately harmful to the proper functioning of competitors
products on windows machines.
> Furthermore, he summarizes by saying "Their use of undocumented functions
> shows that Microsoft applications developers have access to information on
> Windows Internals. But is this really such an unfair advantage?"
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 17:15:43 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
"Rob S. Wolfram" wrote:
> Back in January there was a thread where I mentioned the possibility to
> automate processes in Unix via e-mail. As an example I noted a case
> where certain attachments were auto-printed. Back then the Winvocates
> labeled me "foolish" to auto-print email attachments (possibly triggered
> by their envy of lacking such functionality in Windows-based MTA's), so
> I had to make it explicit that OF COURSE one does sanity checking before
> autoprocessing email (see <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
> Now Microsoft Outlook offers you *auto-execution* of e-mail content
> *without sanity checking*, and Erik Funkenbusch tells us that until
> Linux offers this "user-friendlyness" it will never "play in the same
> game" as Windows? (<mJpQ4.4498$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) I think it's a
> good thing not to "play the same game" as Windows. Not for the next
> couple of decades.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
> --
> "Software is like sex; it's better when it's free."
> -- Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10/10 !
The fact is that Outlook is very far from user friendly - Too much menu's
and dialog boxes with a sloppy and sometimes to technical help (for the
average end user).
I don't miss Outlook at all...
Nico.
--
==============
The following signature was created automatically under Linux:
.
It is far more impressive when others discover your good qualities without
your help.
-- Miss Manners
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Leblanc)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux will remain immune
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:19:33 GMT
On Wed, 10 May 2000 13:57:40 GMT, Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ask any experienced programmer what their worst nightmare is and
>they'll tell you its debugging and maintaining someone else's code.
>This is why the "open source" argument fails.
Nice strawman. And you don't work on someone else's code when
working on a closed source project?
>Linux is a classic example of this. Been around for almost a decade
>and yet still cannot adequatly perform the functions that closed
>source UNIX has had for years.
What's your beef?
E.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 17:20:37 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: CVS and Windows
Q: Does Windows offer something like CVS?
I asked one M$ person at a Technet session which then ignored the
question and proceeded with other questions. After the session I went
to him and it then became clear he did not have a clue. So, now I'm
still wondering...
Nico.
--
==============
The following signature was created automatically under Linux:
.
It is far more impressive when others discover your good qualities without
your help.
-- Miss Manners
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:32:21 GMT
On Wed, 10 May 2000 07:34:55 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Here is how you do it:
>>
>> Add one field in the registry, under classes, for each entry with is
>> safe for e-mail. When outlook gets an extension or mime-type, you add 10
>> lines of code that looks up this information in the registry, and
>> decides whether or not to open the object in the e-mail. Simple.
>
>I guarantee you that someone will figure out a way to exploit this.
>
That's a cop-out. Your rationale is that we shouldn't bother to put
locks on doors becuase burglers will figure out how to pick
them. Bullshit. Build a better lock.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux will remain immune
Date: 10 May 2000 10:30:10 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> >> >So everyone invlolved with sendmail over the years must stupid then??
>
>You're very correct in your assertion.
>
>Mandrake NFS has been patched to death. And it still doesn't work.
But the beauty of open source is that there are alternate sources.
If you don't like one, don't use it. If you need H.J. Lu's
NFS patches already built into your kernel, grab the modified
RedHat distribution from:
ftp://ftp.valinux.com/pub/software/VALinux/
>Ask any experienced programmer what their worst nightmare is and
>they'll tell you its debugging and maintaining someone else's code.
>This is why the "open source" argument fails.
No, the worst nightmare is running into a showstopper bug and
then finding out the vendor has just been driven out of
business and not only won't fix it, but won't give you the
means to fix it yourself.
>Linux is a classic example of this. Been around for almost a decade
>and yet still cannot adequatly perform the functions that closed
>source UNIX has had for years.
Years? Hmmm, years ago I was running a Dell version of SysV
on one of their 486 machines that seemed to sort-of work and
had some nice Dell-added modifications compared to the
more hardware-specific AT&T release. But, it turned out
to have a fatal flaw in that a system call anyone could
make would crash the machine under certain circumstances, and
worse, an application I needed triggered it fairly often.
However, Dell suddenly abandoned the whole thing. Looking
back, I realize that the time was precisely when Microsoft
was demanding that every machine had to be shipped with
Windows.... Anyway, that closed source unix turned out
to be a dead end I don't plan to head down again.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 10 May 2000 15:40:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Poltorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In <8fa7e0$490$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >Since people run around chanting "show us Microsoft's innovation" but
>> >neglect to also chant "show us $SOMEOTHERCOMPANY's innovation".
>>
>> Here's a couple for starters:-
>>
>> IBM inventors of the IBM PC
>> IBM inventors of the Winchester disk drive
> Invention and innovation are two different things.
I hardly think that anyone who prefers windows would know.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 10 May 2000 15:42:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:amg39.REMOVE-THIS-
>> OK... but why a "Chinese" wall?
> It's a reference to the great wall of china, which was intended to stop the
> barbarian hordes from getting into china, but also stopped the chinese from
> getting out.
A classically simplistic and therefore (for this subject) entirely invalid
perception. Of course the chinese could get out, the ladders were on THEIR
SIDE.
Idiot.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 10 May 2000 15:45:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <39194b99$5$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 05/10/2000 at 04:31 AM,
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> > WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:amg39.REMOVE-THIS-
>>
>> > > OK... but why a "Chinese" wall?
>>
>> > It's a reference to the great wall of china, which was intended to stop
>> > the barbarian hordes from getting into china, but also stopped the
>> > chinese from getting out.
>>
>>
>> Once again you prove that you cannot tell the difference between a lie
>> and
>> fact. The Great Wall didn't prevent Chinese from leaving China. It only
>> went along the northern border. There was no wall on the west, south, or
>> east.
> ROTFLMAO.
> So all they had to do was walk 3,000 miles carrying a year's supply of
> food on their backs.......
Uhh..no.
All they had to do with be on the chinese side in the first place (and
therefore by sheer logic, chinese) and walk to one of the manned watch
towers which was usually under two miles from wherever one stood along
the wall.
Or they could simply hop the wall *anywhere* on the chinese side with
one of the tens of thousands of ladders that were kept handy for such
things.
Typical microsoftian historical revisionism and closed, retarded
thinking.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: 10 May 2000 10:47:10 -0500
In article <P0eS4.2252$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alberto Trillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Let's begin assuming that from Java one can program whatever
>one want, and since there are not only Windows JDK, but a lot
>of compilers (like IBM, Symantec or Inprise to say some) targeted
>to Windows, why should anyone want to use Windows undocummented
>API calls when Java can just be used to everything.
>
> If you do not think Java servers for all, well, don't you think that
>there
>are enough shared libraries and enough API calls to let you do whatever
>you want to do ? What can Microsoft use undocummented API's for ?
>Do you think there is a call start_word() ? Well, Microsoft does a lot
>of awful things, but why the hell does it need hidden API's ? Let's be
>serious, and if so, what advance can those hidden API's give to their
>applications ?
What I want is a non-Microsoft replacement for the Windows 2000
domain controller and active directory services that will provide
full client functionality without requiring the Microsoft server.
Is the protocol sufficentially documented to allow that?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: news: Oracle $199 web device, runs on linux, not windows
Date: 10 May 2000 10:40:02 -0500
In article <nM6S4.5212$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
whistler <blahblah> wrote:
>>>>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000508/tc/oracle_internet_3.html
>>>>
>>>>"The machine runs on a Linux operating system, has a
>>>>266-megahertz microprocessor, 64 megabytes of memory,
>>>>a 56K modem and 24-times CD-ROM drive."
>>>
>>>It's a failure already! Have to wonder if they ever do any research?
>>>Add a 10baseT NIC and a ZIP, JAZZ, or Superdisk and you have a
>>>potential winner.
>>
>>I'd consider the writable disk to be an _optional_ addition; part of
>>the merit of the exercise is in having _no_ writable media on the
>>unit.
>
>A removable writable disk is essential to any computer of this type, as a
>repository for emails etc..
>
>>Add the NIC, and bounce the price to $250, and it's a winner.
>>
>
>Closer, but that isn't what Oracle is offering.
Someone will get this right eventually. What is needed is a box
that can be a cheap extension of an existing network, whether
it is your own home system(s), and office, or dial-up to the
internet. The NIC is the critical part unless this is your
one and only box.
>>Even at $300-$350, a unit with some writable media would be a
>>winner...
Given a NIC, you can put media on the network if you don't
already have storage there.
>Add a $75 to $100 for the monitor whatever way you go.
Yes and hopefully the box would have a decently accelerated
video card since running the display is going to be its
main purpose.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: German Govt says Microsoft a security risk
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:54:50 GMT
On Wed, 10 May 2000 08:06:15 -0700, Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Unfortunately, the article had nothing to do with m$ being a security
>risk from the software standpoint and everything to do with m$
>incorporating some of scientology's philosophies into their corporate
>model. The german government has already given us enough intolerance
>for the next 2 centuries, IMHO. Let's not applaud them for giving us
...as if they are fundementally much different than other
governments that send stormtroopes into cult monasteries...
Scientology is quite distinct in several ways from any other
entity that claims to be a religion.
The abuse of courts and IP law would be the obvious parallels
with Microsoft.
>more.
>
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>
>> HEY! WAY TO GO GERMANY!
>>
>> They are a security risk and they should be delt with!
>>
>> I know.
>>
>> Charlie
>>
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux will remain immune
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:49:04 GMT
What do you exepect from a guy who can't even figure out how to change
Agent's defualt config of "Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
Perry
On Wed, 10 May 2000 15:19:33 GMT, Eric Leblanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 May 2000 13:57:40 GMT, Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Ask any experienced programmer what their worst nightmare is and
>>they'll tell you its debugging and maintaining someone else's code.
>>This is why the "open source" argument fails.
>
>Nice strawman. And you don't work on someone else's code when
>working on a closed source project?
>
>>Linux is a classic example of this. Been around for almost a decade
>>and yet still cannot adequatly perform the functions that closed
>>source UNIX has had for years.
>
>What's your beef?
>
> E.
--
Show the code....or hit the road.
Perry Piplani [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:52:49 GMT
On 05/10/2000 at 01:48 PM,
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> ROTFLMAO.
> So all they had to do was walk 3,000 miles carrying a year's supply of
> food on their backs.......
If they lived in Hong Kong, all they had to do was board a boat.
Even if they lived 3,000 miles from the nearest border without the wall,
why would they have to carry a year's supply of food? You sound like a
typical wintroll.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Built in Virus Scanners!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:56:23 GMT
"James Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8f98l0$bru$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I will merely point out that Boris is using Outlook Express.
> > (I am using SLRN). Is the above followup style confusing to
> > anyone not familiar with Outlook Express, or what? :-) In fact,
> > I think there (at least!) are two styles supported (?) by
> > Outlook Express:
> >
> > original message
> > [author] reply to message
> >
> > (the one exemplified above) and
> >
> > reply to message
> >
> > indented original message
> >
> > (the one which I usually see at work),
> > both of which are not (necessarily?) compatible with Usenet: [*]
> >
> > In <message-id>, Somebody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >original message
> >
> > reply to message
> >
> Boris appears to be off doing his own thing. I'm using an unadulterated
copy
> of OE, and this is how it behaves. You do usually get the middle
behaviour,
> as it just sticks the cursor at the top of the page, and some people
aren't
> bright enough to put it at the bottom and then start typing. I think Boris
> has turned off the option that puts indents in replied to text.
I'm not sure what the problem is, but when I replied to Charlie's messages,
I got no prepended '> ' on each line (the reason they showed up in my reply
is that I put them there manually). I am using Outlook, but Charlie's
messages are the _only_ ones I've ever responded to, in any newsgroup, where
my reply gets messed up.
It could be outlook, but I'd bet there's something screwy about Charlie's
newsreader...
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux will remain immune
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:00:16 GMT
On Wed, 10 May 2000 11:59:17 +1000, C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 10 May 2000 09:27:07 +1000, C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >So everyone invlolved with sendmail over the years must stupid then??
>> >Sendmail has had its fair share of remote root exploits, which should be
>> >impossible seeing its open source.
>>
>> So then, try to exploit some of them and get back to us.\
>
>Thats not the point. They are already well documented. They should not have
>been possible in the first place "because sendmail is open source."
Sendmail has been open source for far longer than there have been
a large number of eyeballs doing the looking (in Linux terms).
>(according to
>http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/05/09/linux.immune.idg/index.html)
This article doesn't add anything useful to the discussion. At best
it might be considered an appeal to authority. The fact remains that
you still can't tell someone what they might have needed to fear from
sendmail running on a Linux boxes from Slackware in 1995 to Redhat in
2000. Nor can you point out any incidents similar to Melissa (and
friends) that came about from those problems.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: CVS and Windows
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 15:57:43 GMT
On Wed, 10 May 2000 17:20:37 +0200, Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Q: Does Windows offer something like CVS?
Perforce is a commercial product that is like CVS. It is also likely that
CVS can be made to work under Cygwin.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:05:57 -0500
In article <79dS4.389$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Main Entry: in�no�va�tion
> Pronunciation: "i-n&-'vA-sh&n
> Function: noun
> Date: 15th century
> 1 : the introduction of something new
> 2 : a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY
> - in�no�va�tion�al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective
...which is a pointless definition to use, because under that
definition, anything new is an innovation, even if it is actually
*worse* than what came before. Clearly that is not how the word is
being used by Microsoft... the connotation is that innovation brings
things that are better.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take
into account Hofstadter's Law.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux will remain immune
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:06:01 GMT
On 10 May 2000 10:30:10 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>>Ask any experienced programmer what their worst nightmare is and
>>they'll tell you its debugging and maintaining someone else's code.
>>This is why the "open source" argument fails.
You're simply not going to get around that here in the real
world. It may be code from the guy in the next cubicle or
code from Finland. However, you are always going to need to
maintain someone else's code.
>
>No, the worst nightmare is running into a showstopper bug and
>then finding out the vendor has just been driven out of
>business and not only won't fix it, but won't give you the
>means to fix it yourself.
>
>>Linux is a classic example of this. Been around for almost a decade
>>and yet still cannot adequatly perform the functions that closed
>>source UNIX has had for years.
What functions would those be? Certainly not mail, since those
"closed source UNIX" would infact be running the same sendmail.
Infact, in general Linux and FreeBSD run the exact same apps that
the commercial Unixen do regardless of the pedigree of those apps.
Both open-source applications and operating systems have been and
are doing the production work you claim they are incapable. They
have been doing it so well that you have a forum to whine about it.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CVS and Windows
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 16:07:31 GMT
"Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Q: Does Windows offer something like CVS?
>
> I asked one M$ person at a Technet session which then ignored the
> question and proceeded with other questions. After the session I went
> to him and it then became clear he did not have a clue. So, now I'm
> still wondering...
But you don't really want to know, do you?
We use CVS on Windows and Unix. It's amazing that you didn't know it was
available, since the CVS web page lists Windows and Unix download sites (and
VMS too - isn't that terrible?) on the source distribution page.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:09:07 -0400
In article <VU9S4.370$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:amg39.REMOVE-THIS-
>
>> OK... but why a "Chinese" wall?
>
>It's a reference to the great wall of china, which was intended to stop the
>barbarian hordes from getting into china, but also stopped the chinese from
>getting out.
I suppose I should have guessed that...
--
| Andrew Glasgow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
