Linux-Advocacy Digest #545, Volume #26 Tue, 16 May 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: An honest attempt (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software (Craig Kelley)
Re: Here is the solution (Craig Kelley)
Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software (Craig Kelley)
Re: An honest attempt (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software (JEDIDIAH)
RE: If you don't like Linux then just leave! ("Raul Valero")
Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: If you don't like Linux then just leave! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
RE: Desktop use, office apps ("Raul Valero")
Internet Ala Microsoft~ (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Desktop use, office apps (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Here is the solution ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Here is the solution ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Here is the solution ("Daniel Johnson")
RE: Linux lacks ("Raul Valero")
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Leslie Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An honest attempt
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:15:23 GMT
On Tue, 16 May 2000 21:04:25 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> Howso exactly? PCI,SCSI or USB autodetection is much the same under
>> any OS that supports any of these buses. In terms of immediate
>> driver availablity, Linux and FreeBSD will nearly always be ahead
>> because of the infrequent release schedules of commercial products.
>> In terms of actual 3rd party support, Win2K will be subject to the
>> problem of 'not being DOS' and NT and WinDOS will still both have
>> driver quality issues.
>>
>> Just ask any NT advocate that likes to use bad hardware to excuse
>> all of NT's percieved instabilities.
>
>Never heard of ISA?
I try to avoid it whenever necessary. This is especially easy
considering how few ISA peripherals are on sale these days an
how few ISA slots are in machines manufactured within the last
3 years. Although, sometimes you'll need to use that last slot
because the board manufacturer didn't bother to make it a shared
one.
Beyond that, replacements for most common ISA cards one might
encounter are quite inexpensive.
>
>>>I must have missed these on Linux Mandrake. I tried one of these 'shiny
>>>happy gui' tools and it dropped me into a console prompt with a menu
>>>based configuration. Hardly 'happy shiny gui'.
>>
>> You obviously aren't very motivated to look.
>
>How would you know that, mind reader are we? I looked in the obvious
>places.
An actual user.
>
>>>> Yet, despite that, Linux continues to grow by leaps and bounds
>>>> even undermining some of Microsoft's paying buisiness.
>>>
>>>I'd agree it's growing, I'm less sure about the leaps and bounds.
>>
>> Those that actually collect these statistics disagree with you.
>
>Hmmm... there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
That is more problematic for the Microsoft Liar.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 May 2000 16:15:41 -0600
John Unekis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For those of you who don't believe in "backdoors" in windows,
> here's another one for you to explain away...
>
>
> Right on the heels of the "Love bug", which took advantage of the swiss cheese
> security of Windows
> to cripple Micr*soft based email systems at thousands of companies, there is a
> new Backdoor reported
> in Micr*soft software.
>
> CNN is reporting that javascripts opened with Internet Expl*rer can read
> "cookie" files stored on your
> workstation and supply your passwords and credit card information to hackers.
While this is a serious bug, any web developer that stores your credit
card information in the cookie should be shot.
[snip]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 May 2000 16:13:09 -0600
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Oh, so because I ask you to corroborate your statements, suddenly I
> don't
> > > want to have a discussion.
> >
> > You *honestly* don't know about Office 2000 IIS server extensions? I
> > find that very hard to believe.
>
> No, I didn't. I have looked this up now, but even so. It's just a client
> application, it's not an OS extension.
>
> Office is extending IIS, not IIS offering API's for Office.
Mea culpa, then. IIS is part of NT Server (at least the last time I
installed it).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 May 2000 16:16:11 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Unekis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >The safest solution would, of course, be to permanently replace your
> >windows software with Linux, which has not been
> > succeptible to these viruses and hacks.
>
> If you think UNIX is safe from viruses and hacks, think again. Or has the
> sendmail virus been forgotten already?
Sendmail is available on NT now...
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An honest attempt
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:19:14 GMT
On Tue, 16 May 2000 21:06:19 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mig Mig) wrote in <8fpq8p$189$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> I might have agreed with you with earlier Windows but its improved a
>>> lot. Linux is still playing catchup here.
>>
>>Nope.. Windows is doing the catchup here.. You try a bare install of
>>any Windows and lets see.
>
>On what, say? Got any ISA cards?
As with all things of this kind, it's the particular peripheral
that matters moreso than what the bus technology is.
>
>>> I'd agree it's growing, I'm less sure about the leaps and bounds.
>>
>>Its growing very very fast.. users are just tired of MS and other
>>unfreed software platforms.
>
>I doubt it has anything to do with 'free', just alternate.
It certainly has to do with free. Not having to pay $90 or
$300 just to try the thing makes it quite a bit easier on
the consumer.
--
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] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:25:26 GMT
On Tue, 16 May 2000 21:09:26 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Unekis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>The safest solution would, of course, be to permanently replace your
>>windows software with Linux, which has not been
>> succeptible to these viruses and hacks.
>
>If you think UNIX is safe from viruses and hacks, think again. Or has the
>sendmail virus been forgotten already?
12 years is certainly long enough to. <snicker>
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Raul Valero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: If you don't like Linux then just leave!
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:29:03 GMT
The same goes for winhaters; this is an OS discussion group, and
telling advantages and disadvantages of its use I think is the purpose
of it. I find as (if no more) stupid that Linux advocates laugh about
Microsoft or talk about Windows, as that Microsoft lovers come here
to say that Linux is shit. Anyway, what is an advocacy group supposed
to be for ? I think that it is to talk about strengths and weakness of the
OS, isn't it ?
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:32:24 GMT
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> John Unekis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > For those of you who don't believe in "backdoors" in windows,
> > here's another one for you to explain away...
> >
> >
> > Right on the heels of the "Love bug", which took advantage of the swiss cheese
> > security of Windows
> > to cripple Micr*soft based email systems at thousands of companies, there is a
> > new Backdoor reported
> > in Micr*soft software.
> >
> > CNN is reporting that javascripts opened with Internet Expl*rer can read
> > "cookie" files stored on your
> > workstation and supply your passwords and credit card information to hackers.
>
> While this is a serious bug, any web developer that stores your credit
> card information in the cookie should be shot.
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
And if you love their Microsoft E-mail system,
you'll love their Microsoft web pages!
Especially with VB.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:35:03 GMT
Perry Pip wrote:
> =
> On Tue, 16 May 2000 22:30:58 +0200,
> Paul 'Z' Ewande=A9 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a =E9crit dans le message :
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On Tue, 16 May 2000 20:42:36 +0200, Paul 'Z' Ewande=A9
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a =E9crit dans le message :
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >
> >> ><SNIP> A lot of stuff </SNIP>
> >> >
> >> >> >Still expecting Charlie's documented evidence.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> AFAIK, Charlie never claimed to have any evidence. It's his own
> >> >> personal experience, and you haven't proven him wrong.
> >> >
> >> >No. He said that WinNT/2k is a blue screening mess that can't handl=
e a
> >heavy
> >> >load. I don't recall him saying that it was his opinion or experien=
ce,
> >he,
> >> >IIRC, passed it as a fact.
> >>
> >> Go back and read his posts. He said it was his experience.
> >
> >http://x38.deja.com/[ST_rn=3Dps]/getdoc.xp?AN=3D623812631&CONTEXT=3D95=
8508246.1730
> >936833&hitnum=3D10
> >
> >Charlie wrote:
> >
> >"Okay. Microsoft is a blue screening mess which can't handle a load.
> >
> >IN FACT, the only time you can associate the word load and Microsoft
> >together is when you say 'PANTLOAD'. Because you'll have a pantload w=
hen
> >you found
> >out YOUR server just blue screened about 650 users during month end."
> >
> >Draw your conclusions from there.
> =
> I am not defending Charlie's temperment. But if you go back and read
> his other posts you will see he says he has experienced BSOD's under
> Win2k. You even resonded to one of his posts aknowledging that you
> don't doubt his claim:
> =
> http://x37.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=3D624036331
> =
> >> >I said that some corporations disagree, and wether they have ties w=
ith
> >> >microsoft is irrelevant to me.
> >>
> >> Availability of server farms do *not* prove non-existance of BSOD's
> >
> >I didn't say that there were no BSODs. I say that these corporations
> >believed that NT/2K can handle the load, hence, their use in their big=
/high
> >availability sites.
> =
> And what is "the load"?? Some people, maybe Charlie, have applications
> that require single machines to handle heavy loads. In those cases,
> BSOD's are not acceptable.
> =
> >> within the farm. Finiancial ties to Microsoft give these companies
> >> reason to put up with BSOD's. So IMHO, those sites prove nothing.
> >
> >Well, they apparently succesfully use WinNT/2K to host big/high availa=
bility
> >sites.
> =
> Sucessful in the context that at an extra cost they appeased Bill
> Gates, and hope to get a return on that investment.
> =
> >You are free to think otherwise.
> >
> >Can we call it quits now ?
> >
> =
> As soon as you realize all you have proven is that W2K can be used in
> a Web farm, where stability of single machines is not that much of an
> issue. You haven't proven or disproven anything in regards to the
> stability of W2K on single machines under heavy load.
> =
> Perry
It seems Microsoft has thrown in their hat with HOTMAIL, once again
attempting
to replace FreeBSD servers with W2K.
If you recall, the last attempt was made just a couple of years ago with
NT and it failed due to blue screens, and the need for MASSIVE HARDWARE!
Since W2K is actually slower than NT, we can assume some special
hardware
has been put in place for this test.
Also, keep in mind that during the last test, they had NT up for several
weeks
before they decided to pull the plug.
OH, if only roadrunner cable could be so intelligent!
Charlie
------------------------------
Subject: Re: If you don't like Linux then just leave!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:36:08 GMT
"Raul Valero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The same goes for winhaters; this is an OS discussion group, and
Actually, no, it is not. It is a Linux discussion group.
>
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
From: "Raul Valero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:45:36 GMT
K6-2/350MHz, 256MB SDRAM PC-100, UDMA66 8GB HD, kernel 2.2.15 with VIA Bus
Master
XFree86 4.0, any window manager or desktop environment (often iceWMm,
Enlightenment or KDE)
The whole Staroffice and an open document under the word processor takes
less than 1 minute by far.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Internet Ala Microsoft~
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:48:58 GMT
We can all remember that VB ILOVEYOU script which ran around last week.
Here are the NEW corporate impacts for the Microsoft offices!
These are REASON'S FOR TERMINATION!
#1. You may not open ANY E-MAIL WITH AN ATTACHMENT FROM NOW ON!
If you have an attachment you take it to {IS} and let them do
it.
#2. NO MORE PERSONAL E-MAIL'S! NO FORWARDING OF JOKES! NO
COMMUNICATIONS
WITH YOUR AUNT OR WIFE!
#3. NO GIVING OUT YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS TO BUSINESS CUSTOMERS.
If asked you will attempt to NOT GIVE IT OUT.
#4. NO MORE DOWNLOAD FROM THE NET FROM WEB OR FTP SITES.
Contact your IS if you need something downloaded.
#5. NO FLOPPIES ALLOWED. Employee's caught carrying floppies are
finished!
IN a nutshell, we are now NO LONGER allowed to use our internet
connection
for anything BUT, internal e-mails with no attachments.
Conducting BUSINESS over the internet if frowned upon severely.
In essence, our Microsoft based nightmare has led us to a policy
where-by
our .COM company is CUT OFF from the world and I thank MICROSOFT for
making that possible.
Now, whilst this is going on, our WEB sites are still working,,,, I
think....
This is not my dream for the internet.
In fact, this is crazy. Why are we doing this now.
Charlie
LINUX NOW!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: 16 May 2000 17:43:43 -0500
In article <8fsfbf$58s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
R. Christopher Harshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> the same shared library X widget set for the window manager,
>> browser, or just spend the money we save on software on
>> more RAM and faster drives (which pays off anyway because these
>> speed up other things as well). What kind of throughput are you
>
>Spending more money also defeats one of the primary reasons we're using
>Linux - cost. If I can wring suitable performance out of these
>workstations, we'll deploy Linux across more than a hundred computers;
>upgrading them all with RAM and faster drives will be excessive. (Isn't
>this one of the key complaints against Windows 2000, and Microsoft
>bloatware in general?)
Yes, it is a complaint you hear, but I don't take it that seriously.
If you want bare bones, you can always use the DOS WordPerfect 5.1.
In fact I'd expect it to run nicely under dosemu. But, I
remember when a 5 Meg hard drive cost $3,000 so I don't mind
buying something reasonable today.
>> getting with those IDE drives? On a PII450 with LVD SCSI the
>> main staroffice screen comes up in about 5 seconds and it is
>> about two seconds to open a new text document from there (but
>> this isn't the first time it has been loaded).
>
>About 4.5MB/sec sustained, according to benchmarks.
So in the minute you claim it takes to load SO, you could
scarf 270 megs into memory. Must be some other problem...
>If we had enough
>RAM to cache these huge apps I could probably just load (and quit) them
>as a part of the boot sequence, but most of our workstations have 32MB,
>so we're back to the cost issue.
I think you would be happier with 128M long after you forgot about
the cost. I'm surprised you like MS office on 32M. You must
never run Netscape at the same time - or anything else.
>> In areas where it is possible to do at least part of your
>> work with text mode commands and combinations of small traditional
>> unix programs you will come out ahead naturally, but for GUI
>> work you need enough power to accomodate the duplicate library
>> code.
>
>This is the first I've heard of duplicate library code, but it does
>indeed make sense now that I think about it. Thank you for providing an
>explanation, at least, if not a solution.
If everyone had been able to use shared-lib motif for free from
the beginning we would have a different situation. Now you've
probably got things using gtk, qt, and whatever SO uses and
a static copy or two of motif all loaded up at once. And
people who have reason to dislike Microsoft own motif...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:51:35 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) writes:
> |On Tue, 16 May 2000 02:00:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> |wrote:
[snip]
> |You have _got_ to be kidding. If you really believe that VMS is the right
> |system for someone coming from OS/2, then you are a lunatic.
> |
> | -| Bob Hauck
>
> Oddly enough, VMS is one of a short list of major OS's I haven't had
> a chance to play with; although, some folks I respect from the VM days
> thought that VMS was pretty good stuff...
>
> Isn't VMS a batch OS underneath, like MVS? I suppose you might replace
> some OS/2 server usage with that; but, what about the interactive stuff.
> I don't imagine VMS is exactly overflowing with word processors and
> stuff... Doesn't seem a likely choice to me.
I used VMS way back in high school. 'Twasn't a batch system;
it was a lot like Unix: command line mostly, but interactive. Thing had
a few rather nifty multiplayer games.
(Had real VT100s too. Ah, those were the days. :D )
I hate to say it, but imagine what Unix would be like if it were
designed for a production environment from the start on
hardware that wasn't completely pathetic. That's VMS.
It's not half bad, as command-line systems go, really. Vastly
nicer than Unix, in my view.
Not exactly a replacement for your PlayStation, though.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:51:36 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fs9tg$2p0k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8frtd2$u4l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Leslie, you have a completely valid point.
> >
> >However, given the richness of the Win32 API today, is there any
application
> >that you can think of that you couldn't do with today's Win32 API? I
> >personally can not, given that you could even write a system level driver
to
> >do the stuff that the Win32 API can't (the DDK is also freely available
for
> >download on MS' site).
>
> By 'application' I assume you mean any product that Microsoft themselves
> could write.
That clearly includes OS components, for *any* definition of OS
that includes any part of Windows. After all, Microsoft makes
*all* of Windows.
If you way Microsoft must make it possible to rewrite any
part of Windows, then you are demanding they open source
the fool thing, and thereafter not make changes (except additions).
> I don't think you can write a domain controller from
> the existing specs.
But you can. You just can't replace *part* of Microsoft's domain
controller software, and keep part. If you want to provide your own
domain controllers, you must provide the client side as well- but
Windows provides the hooks to do this.
> I don't think you can do client software that
> is capable of the 'one signon' trick on NT by transparently handling
> passwords for multiple services.
You can. Look up "Security Support Interface", if I recall my
acronym correctly.
> I don't think Microsoft should
> be able to pick and choose what products a competitor is allowed
> to write that will interoperate correctly.
Why not? They seem *very* open-minded about it. They
provides hooks for all sorts of things. Does, say, Linux provide
a similar way to plug your own security authentication system,
so that the standard security APIs all use it?
> >Same valid point as above, but again, most of the Win32 API has been
around
> >for years. I believe there are some recent calls added for Windows 2000
> >added functionality, but then again, if you used those, your app.
wouldn't
> >run on 95/98/NT.
>
> Somewhere in recent history 'i/o completition ports' became the
> preferred way to handle network events instead of the older async
> i/o interface. Did MS release this API to others at the same
> time the SQL server group got it? (I don't know enough about
> this to discuss it intelligently, but an in-house project here
> is using the API and had problems earlier - I think due to a
> lack of documentation).
I'm inclined to suspect they did. It's possible they didn't, they
are after all only human. But I've yet to find a *verifiable*
case were MS did without documentation from otuside developers,
and gave access to their own guys.
> >Also, the beta of W2k was out more than a *year* before the official
> >release, and MS released the SDK at the time the beta came out. So
> >developers had more than a year to see the new additions to the API.
>
> How many developers want to write programs that only run on W2k?
If that's a problem then MS's withholding new APIs *isn't*- it takes
some time for a new API to filter out and become widespread.
> Of course MS can just quit supporting the others any time they
> want, so it's fine for them. After they develop to the new
> api they can just push the customers there. Nobody else can
> consider that option.
They can consider it; but like Microsoft they face the fact that it
is real hard to get users to switch like that. There is reason why
Microsoft bends over backwards for backwards compatibility, and
it is that they are afraid their users will not come along on the upgrade
ride if they don't.
That argument applies to other developers as well, of course.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:51:36 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fs6t4$2lke$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8frj5g$t48$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> Why does MS think it would be a bad idea to separate the apps division
> from the OS if they don't think they need the unfair advantage?
Money. Big huge pots of money.
Office is one of MS's best cash cows.
Besdies, how can you RULE THE WORLD if you only
sell OSes?
(Cue: The same thing we do every night, Pinky..)
> What else do they have to lose by working openly with other
> companies? If they claim that the OS has gained something from
> suggestions from the apps group, why wouldn't it be even better
> to let other apps developers have the same input?
You suppose they don't? That they turn down ideas from other
developers? For heavens sake, why?
------------------------------
From: "Raul Valero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Linux lacks
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 22:51:32 GMT
> It runs perfectly under VMware with Linux as host, any flavor of
> windows as guest, and displaying even on a remote Xwindow. Some
> people are also running it under WINE.
To be honest, Windows 2000 and NT runs perfectly whole GNU/Linux
systems, SCO, Solaris, FreeBSD, etc ... this is not a proof :-)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 18:04:46 -0500
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > No, I didn't. I have looked this up now, but even so. It's just a
client
> > application, it's not an OS extension.
> >
> > Office is extending IIS, not IIS offering API's for Office.
>
> Mea culpa, then. IIS is part of NT Server (at least the last time I
> installed it).
Yes, it is part of NT Server. But OSE is a daemon run on the NT Server to
expose IIS features to Office. There is no evidence which suggests that
it's using undocumented API's to do this.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: 16 May 2000 17:57:42 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> He said he didn't want scaled fonts, although I don't understand
>> why. The postscript and truetype fonts are going to be scaled
>> unless you convert them.
>
>the reason i do not want scaled fonts is that they generally suffer
>from severe raster damage. diagonal lines do not look like lines but
>instead resemble sawblades or lightning bolts. i don't want a crappy
>looking font.
This isn't true in general for postscript or truetype scalable
fonts. You either have poor quality outlines, low video resolution
or you are thinking of rescaling bitmap fonts. They should
rasterize to match whatever pixel size you have. You do have
to throw some extra resolution at X to make the fonts as nice
as MS windows with antialiasing but the scaling works fine.
I haven't fiddled with it much but it looks like the RH 6.2
distribution font server rebuilds its list automatically at
startup so you should be able to just drop new fonts in the
directory and restart it.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
