Linux-Advocacy Digest #563, Volume #26 Wed, 17 May 00 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (JEDIDIAH)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Geo)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Craig Kelley)
Re: Desktop use, office apps (David Goldstein)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Mongoose)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Perry Pip)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: How to properly process e-mail ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Perry Pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 20:44:25 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 20:13:31 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )) wrote in <8fucab$92l$1
>@nnrp1.deja.com>:
[deletia]
>>(friendly GUI interfaces for applications and administration, helps,
>> wizards, and hints). Linux also agreessively went after the
>>configurability of the PC in terms of hardware and software. There
>>are some peripherals that aren't supported, but more and more
>>OEMs and After-market vendors are discovering that Linux support
>>sells hardware. Even if users don't use Linux full-time, they
>>are insisting on the ability to run Linux at least some of the time.
>
>I must have missed something here - Linux still seemed to have
>configuration spread all over the place.
Only if you consider /etc and $HOME 'all over the place'.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Geo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 13:57:26 -0700
"Keith T. Williams" wrote:
>
> IOW, I don't remember which magazines were around then. Certainly not PC
> ones. The discussion at the time was centered around if software was
> patentable, then any algorithms which included in the software were also
> patented, which meant that no one else could use them without at least
> paying a royalty fee. And since an algorithm is a technique, which may be
> independantly discovered that would have been an inappropriate venue.
BYTE magazine is the only one I recall. It was a treasure-trove of the
significant advancements in programming with emerging languages.
Geo
[clip]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 21:10:43 GMT
Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 17 May 2000 15:01:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >The way I see it, Linux needs the following, at minimum, before it can
> >be a legitimate competitor to Windows:
> >1. A streamlined, easy install process;
> Theres distros that have that now. Caldera I think? You can play
> tetris while linux is installing on your machine.
Dunno. I've just heard very bad things about some of the installers,
namely that they either work perfectly or not at all. And, of course,
we should be able to turn off the easy-to-use installer and get our
hands dirty.
> >2. An office suite roughly as functional as Office, and at least as
> > easy to use;
> Staroffice which is basically a clone of MSoffice, and Corel Office
> Suite. Both very good office suites for linux.
I've used StarOffice (not Corel Office), and it's not roughly as
functional as Office. Also, it's not GPLed. I have hopes that
GNOME's office suite will come through (and it's very nice, though
crash-intensive, so far).
> >3. A GUI package installation mechanism that's as easy to use as
> > InstallShield (trivial if we get a file manager for GNOME or KDE); and
> Maybe, theres a few out there but no one uses them except commercial
> companies. Most programs use the standard configure; make; make
> install line
Yeah. And that's a serious problem. Do you realize how fucking
annoying it is to have to install 150MB of source, dedicate 1.5 hours
to configuring and building, and then find out that there's some God
forsaken shared library I need to install before it will work? Not
that I have gone through this several times with XEmacs on RedHat
boxes, or anything.
I want to click on a damn button and have the program install. I want
the option to do it by hand if I have to, but installing anything on
Linux is a nightmare if you have to build it from the source. Note
also that "make install" will occasionally break, depending on your
distribution. And they all seem to be going in tangential directions
on this one.
There's just no excuse for not having an adequate installer. We have
two excellent package-management tools, dpkg (and apt) and rpm. All
we have to do is put a shiny new GUI front-end on them.
Not that I am bitter.
[...]
> It seems that there are alot of linux programs out there that do
> these things people need, its just that its hard to find them all.
Yeah. Because there are 573,283 Linux packages, 572,911 of which do
exactly the same thing, and 290 of which are cutesy man pages.
We need some Machiavellian masochist to sift through all the packages
for Linux, pick the best ones, and throw out the rest. I think
anything that hasn't been changed for 5 years should go; we might have
to make an exception for e2fsck, but as a rule, it would probably
eliminate half the packages.
> As for ease of use, most linux users are intellegent computer users
> and don't need guis to configure and install stuff.
This is a lie.
I'm an intelligent computer user. I have manually, painstakingly
configured my Debian system by hand, because there are either no
usable GUIs to do it or they don't get put on my X menu (so I install
them and forget them). I hate doing it, and I have to refer back to
the man pages - which, by the way, are indecipherable even if you know
what you're doing - roughly every two seconds. And then we have the
fact that UNIX folks just love to abbreviate, and apparently consider
it a matter of personal style and creativity. I use "fn" for
"function," God help me, but I'm not so big a moron that I'd do it in
a configuration file. Most of the otherwise-intelligent people who
write the programs we use every day are guilty of that and worse
crimes, though.
I much, much, much prefer being able to right-click on something and
hit "Properties." I also like being able to press F1 when the mouse
is over a confusing field and get an explanation of it. (The
explanation often isn't a help, and I expect that would carry over to
Linux, but at least there's no flipping around between screens.)
Please excuse the rant. But Linux has been a pain in the ass to
configure since I started using it in the early 90's, and it's
improved not at all since then.
> This is the problem though, they don't care enough to create
> programs to help newbies install and use linux and so linux is being
> held back.
I care enough. I'm just no good at GUI programming.
> I don't see linux taking off any time soon either but the more help
> it gets, the more popular it will be.
I don't think we should squander this opportunity. The reason I get
so locquatious when it comes to Linux is that I really like some parts
of it, and really hate others. Same thing for Windows, but the really
funny part is that the two are, for me, almost perfectly complementary.
I see an opportunity for us to improve Linux so that it can be like it
is now, or like Windows, or like anything at all, and change between
the two with only about five minutes' effort.
It's just that there's such a huge opportunity here, and it seems like
so few people are willing to take advantage of it. Myself included,
but I, unfortunately, don't have a separate computer available to do
Linux development. (Is there a Linux for SGI boxes yet?)
There I go, ranting again. Please excuse this one too.
--
Eric P. McCoy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 21:14:27 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (eyez) writes:
> quoting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >In order to beat Windows, client-side, we need:
> >1. A GUI interface to *all* configuration files;
> Ugh. that's why i LEFT windows.
I'm not saying that you should *have* to go through the GUI, just that
you can if you want to.
I concur, though, that for some applications (recovery and
auto-configs/-installs, to name two) it's a really bad idea. And it's
a trap that Windows has never managed to get out of. (It's why the
"Windows Resource Kit" includes a bunch of UNIX utilities.)
> maybe the whole world SHOULDN'T run linux. It's not a system that's
> made to be like windows.
Perhaps it wasn't made to have a GUI (and I'm not saying "Windows," I'm
saying "a GUI"), but it's certainly become a part of it over time.
--
Eric P. McCoy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
------------------------------
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
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 May 2000 15:12:52 -0600
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip to the crux of the argument]
> > And if they wanted to add a system call, or even use the sourcecode to
> > Windows while developing for it?
>
> What makes you think Office developers have access to OS code?
Because Gates said as much.
> MS guards it's OS code tightly. If anyone in any division could
> just peek at the code whenever they wanted, it would be all over the
> net.
Apparently not. Perhaps only a very few do.
> > > > > The Office developers seem to have much more leeway in writing new
> > > features
> > > > > than the OS division does.
> > > >
> > > > Writing new OS features, that is.
> > >
> > > Writing features which eventually become OS features. Yes.
> > >
> > > Things like Personalized Menu's, which originally showed up in Office
> 2000
> > > and were later added to Windows 2000 (and probably Millennium).
> > >
> > > It's clear that these features are not OS features in Office, since when
> you
> > > turn them off in Windows 2000, Office is not effected. You have to turn
> > > them off there as well. Office does it's own thing UI wise, similar to
> > > writing complete custom widgets for X rather than using Motif or other
> > > standard widgets.
> >
> > So Microsoft does have an advantage by allowing their application
> > group access to the Windows group. That's all were saying here.
>
> You keep reversing things.
You do.
You want Microsoft to have zero applicaiton (IE, Word, Excel, etc.)
advantage as opposed to their opponents, and yet mourn the notion of
the company splitting up. You can't have it both ways: Either they
don't use their desktop monopoly to better their applications (and
vice-versa), or they *do* and splitting them up would ruin them.
> The Windows group has access to Application source code. MS guards
> the Windows source very tightly, they're not going to just let
> anyone in the company have access to it.
It only takes one person; not the entire team.
> If the Apps division had access to Windows source, they wouldn't
> need to have a completely seperate implementation in their apps.
> (And in reality, I highly doubt that the OS division uses much
> source code from the Apps anyways, more than likely that code is
> highly application specific. They would need to rewrite it to be
> generic for an OS. Basicly the Apps division floats the concept to
> users in the office apps, if it gets good feedback, they write
> something similar for the OS).
And yet, Gates' rational for *not* splitting them up along those lines
contradicts what you claim.
> > > > Read "Barbarians led by Bill Gates" and come back.
> > >
> > > Neither Gates or Balmer have the kind of shareholder clout they used to.
> > > They've both sold off a great deal of stock. Unlike 10 years ago.
> Gates
> > > still has a significant amount, but the boardmembers no longer have a
> > > combined controlling interest.
> >
> > Regardless, they still run the company.
>
> And would open themselves up to shareholder lawsuits if they did anything
> like split up the company without shareholder approval.
I conceed. Bill obviously has no power or sway at Microsoft. I was
stupid to think he did. :p
[snip onto Kerberos]
> > Here's the RFC:
> >
> > http://info.internet.isi.edu:80/in-notes/rfc/files/rfc1510.txt
>
> That document is dated September of 1993. I believe there is a newer
> version.
So go get it.
> > Why don't you show me where it guarantees that you'll have a standard
> > implementation even if you play around with the local fields. Why
> > can't Windows 2000 authenticate against a virgin v5 kerberos machine
> > if "Microsoft Authorization Data Specification" is kerberos-standard
> > (rfc1510) compliant?
>
> There are plenty of compliant ways to make a kerberos server incompatible
> with other implementations. For instance, kerberos allows the use of a
> custom encryption algorithm. If both sides do not support the same
> algorithm, then authentication can fail.
Strawman. Kerberos is just as any encryption negotiation (like NT
lanman, for example).
Please answer the question.
> > How come dozens of other companies have implemented Kerberos without
> > any problems?
>
> Perhaps those dozens of other companies didn't have NT domain information to
> deal with.
They implemented doamin information in other ways and left kerberos
along (ie, netinfo, yp).
> > How come this is _exactly_ the practice described in the Halloween
> > documents?
>
> How come MS worked with the standards committee to allow Kerberos to be
> extended?
Read the Halloween documents. The idea is to take a *standard* and
make a Microsoft-only version of it.
[snip]
> > > Most of MS's competitors fell behind because they took "wait and see"
> > > approaches to new technology, such as going GUI based (Lotus 123 and
> > > WordPerfects downfall) or going 32 bit (Lotus again with WordPro and
> pushing
> > > 123 even farther back, Borland (for instance, Delphi did not go 32 bit
> until
> > > 1996), etc.
> >
> > This is ancient history, but since you brought it up:
> >
> > The Commodore Amiga ran circles around DOS, had cheaper hardware and
> > at least as many applications at it's peak. People didn't buy it
> > because IBM/Microsoft was the "safe" bet. The Amiga was better than
> > DOS, Windows, GeOS and any other x86 GUI that I had seen in *every*
> > category.
> >
> > Microsoft isn't in it's position today because of excellent software.
> >
> > > Many other companies took the stand of "Let's wait until the OS ships,
> so we
> > > don't have to follow a moving target", while MS was more than happy to
> > > follow the moving target with their apps.
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > Yes, that's exactly what Commodore did... *sigh*
--
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: David Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 08:43:42 +0200
Dave Rolfe wrote:
<snipped>
> You could take a look at Adobe FrameMaker. It takes about 7 sec to load on
> my 450 MHZ machine. It is a free download until the end of the year. Right
> now there are no import filters, but in the pay for version there will be.
> But as far as I know, there are no office apps for linux that handle true
> type fonts without a lot of fooling around. I was hoping Abiword would be
> an exception, but no dice. Someone should fix the font problem in Linux.
> This is actually a very serious problem because as e business get bigger,
> and web pages look terrible on Linux, people are going to say, why bother?
> Even now when I want to work on a web page, it is off to Windoze (gag) as I
> cannot tell how the page will look running on Linux. Too bad.
Okay, I do not do much word processing, but I do have xfstt
installed. The fonts that I use I _borrowed_ from Corel 7 :) I do not
understand where the problem lies in producing web pages under Linux.
When I design and implement sites, I do not use fonts that would not
normally be found on a user's desktop. I have only found sites that try
to hard to be cute to be a problem under Linux/Netscape. It is
painfully obvious that theses sites are windowcentric. As a matter of
fact, a very large mail order company here in Germany has so totally
fscked their site that it is only possible under win running IE to view
their catalogue!
If people would go back to writing code based on HTML 3.2 standards
and keep the flash/real audio crap to a minimum, there is no reason that
e-sites could not be succesful. This is true for all OS platforms, by
the way. I detest shocked site under Win as much as I do under Linux.
Yes, I have Flash 4 plug-in for Linux installed and it works great, as
does my real audio plug-in, but I find that very little useful
information is added to sites that rely heavily on these technologies.
> Dave
David Goldstein
------------------------------
From: Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 21:32:09 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 21:10:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >3. A GUI package installation mechanism that's as easy to use as
>> > InstallShield (trivial if we get a file manager for GNOME or KDE); and
>
>> Maybe, theres a few out there but no one uses them except commercial
>> companies. Most programs use the standard configure; make; make
>> install line
>
>Yeah. And that's a serious problem. Do you realize how fucking
>annoying it is to have to install 150MB of source, dedicate 1.5 hours
>to configuring and building, and then find out that there's some God
>forsaken shared library I need to install before it will work? Not
>that I have gone through this several times with XEmacs on RedHat
>boxes, or anything.
Well you could just download a binary that has all the libraries it
needs statically compiled into it. The problem here is that if a new
version of the library comes out your screwed because your stuck with
the library thats compiled in the binary. So if your compiled to Mesa
and a new version of Mesa comes out thats twice as fast as the
original, you could install it and upgrade your game or whatever uses
it if you dynamically link to the library.
>> It seems that there are alot of linux programs out there that do
>> these things people need, its just that its hard to find them all.
>
>Yeah. Because there are 573,283 Linux packages, 572,911 of which do
>exactly the same thing, and 290 of which are cutesy man pages.
>
>We need some Machiavellian masochist to sift through all the packages
>for Linux, pick the best ones, and throw out the rest. I think
>anything that hasn't been changed for 5 years should go; we might have
>to make an exception for e2fsck, but as a rule, it would probably
>eliminate half the packages.
Ya this is true, freshmeat needs some better organization, or a
voting system. Since everyone can make applications for free, that
leads to so much crap being made.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 21:28:07 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 10:35:27 +0200,
Paul 'Z' Ewande� <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
><SNIP> Load definition </SNIP>
>
>> >with documented example,
>>
>> Huh? I'm not going to document anything. You are the one who wants to
>> prove something.
>
>Back to my statement. I said certain corporation think that WinNT/2K can
>handle the load of their big, high availability sites by rolling it out for
>their business.
>
>You complain that they use farms, have ties with Microsoft and whatnot to
>dismiss my evidence. So I would like to see a documented high load example
>to see if I can find a matching one.
>
>Is it clearer that way. ?
Yes, I think I do. However, 'heavy load', as hard as it is to define,
can be even harder to document. It's hard to prove that site xyz had
such and such load. I can give you plenty of anecdotal reports from
where I work, but I can't document that either. Plus, I am a
developer, not a sysadmin, so I'm not that close to it.
There is ftp.cdrom.com, which has already be mentioned, but they sell
a FreeBSD distribution,
http://www.cdrom.com/titles/freebsd/bsdpow.phtml, at a hefty
price. Similarily, connexion.com was originally contracted by MS to
provide IE4 downloads for them. So in neither case is truly
independent, by my own criteria.
If you want to see some interesting highly scaled systems you can look
the list at http://www.top500.org/. Most are running IRIX or
Solaris. But some, inlcuding all of the Linux ones, are clusters.
>> >and if I can
>> >I'll try to find something that matches your definition.
>>
>> If you have any cases of single W2K machines (not farms) running under
>> the circumstances above I would like to hear them. A W2K machine may
>> be stable under one type of heavy load but not others.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> >What do you think ?
>>
>> Or you can call a truce.
>
>Didn't I suggested previously to just call it quits ? :)
>
>Anyway, it's been a pleasure arguing with you, no silly name calling, no
>condescending attitude...
>
Yes, I've enjoyed it as well. I have to say you actually forced me to
think a little bit.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 17 May 2000 16:57:07 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Staroffice which is basically a clone of MSoffice, and Corel Office
>> Suite. Both very good office suites for linux.
>
>I've used StarOffice (not Corel Office), and it's not roughly as
>functional as Office.
Is there something specific that you couldn't do with it?
>> >3. A GUI package installation mechanism that's as easy to use as
>> > InstallShield (trivial if we get a file manager for GNOME or KDE); and
>
>> Maybe, theres a few out there but no one uses them except commercial
>> companies. Most programs use the standard configure; make; make
>> install line
>
>Yeah. And that's a serious problem. Do you realize how fucking
>annoying it is to have to install 150MB of source, dedicate 1.5 hours
>to configuring and building, and then find out that there's some God
>forsaken shared library I need to install before it will work? Not
>that I have gone through this several times with XEmacs on RedHat
>boxes, or anything.
Odd, I've got an xemacs from the default install...
>I want to click on a damn button and have the program install. I want
>the option to do it by hand if I have to, but installing anything on
>Linux is a nightmare if you have to build it from the source. Note
>also that "make install" will occasionally break, depending on your
>distribution. And they all seem to be going in tangential directions
>on this one.
Have you found something you wanted where you couldn't find a
recent source rpm already tuned for your base installation
that you could tweak and rebuild with a couple of rpm commands?
>
>There's just no excuse for not having an adequate installer. We have
>two excellent package-management tools, dpkg (and apt) and rpm. All
>we have to do is put a shiny new GUI front-end on them.
What is wrong with clicking on an rpm file with the kde
file manager/browser? It will automatically start kpackage
so you can click the install button. Toss in the powertools
CD and go wild.
>Not that I am bitter.
Have you been doing it the hard way?
>> It seems that there are alot of linux programs out there that do
>> these things people need, its just that its hard to find them all.
>
>Yeah. Because there are 573,283 Linux packages, 572,911 of which do
>exactly the same thing, and 290 of which are cutesy man pages.
>
>We need some Machiavellian masochist to sift through all the packages
>for Linux, pick the best ones, and throw out the rest. I think
>anything that hasn't been changed for 5 years should go; we might have
>to make an exception for e2fsck, but as a rule, it would probably
>eliminate half the packages.
If it is free and useful you'll probably find it in either the
RedHat or Mandrake base RPMs or on the powertools CD. Or
the VALinux variation - all pretty much binary-rpm compatible.
>I much, much, much prefer being able to right-click on something and
>hit "Properties." I also like being able to press F1 when the mouse
>is over a confusing field and get an explanation of it. (The
>explanation often isn't a help, and I expect that would carry over to
>Linux, but at least there's no flipping around between screens.)
So what is the problem with doing this in the KDE desktop?
>Please excuse the rant. But Linux has been a pain in the ass to
>configure since I started using it in the early 90's, and it's
>improved not at all since then.
Huh? A recent Mandrake/RedHat does most of what you say
is missing right out of the box.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 21:50:12 GMT
In article <8ftp61$r1o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
> 8ftarj$3hq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > > I've since disabled activeX content, better safe than sorry. :)
> >
> > Funny how every one must disable all the "inovations" from MS to get
a
> > secure OS.
>
> Isn't it ? What is even funnier is that you just admitted that an MS
OS
> could be secured. :)
Yeah, but you have to turn of every thing, even the computer to get it
secure!
>
> If you want functionality, you may have to compromise security. May be
> Linux/UNIX is a magic OS which doesn't abide by such principles ?
Sorry, I have more than enough fuctionality with linux with security.
>
> How is it different than disabling a potentially and unused dangerous
daemon
> or service on UNIX/Linux ? Could you elaborate ?
Symple, when I load my Mandrake with HIGH security all the insecure and
dangerous daemons are OFF BY DEFAULT! Not so with ANY MS OS.
>
> BTW, I can set it on enable, ask, or disable.
weeee, But can the average windows user??? does the average windows user
even know what needs to be shut off??? Best to install a system like
Mandrake at high secrity and let them enable what they need rather than
give them an OS with a Welcome mat.
>
> Paul 'Z' Ewande
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 21:55:42 GMT
On Thu, 18 May 2000 02:03:23 +1000,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623637730
>> http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623940112
>
>I'm afraid I can't see any lies there. Perhaps you'd care to post the
>specific parts you're referring to ?
I already did at
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=624137505
To which he never responded.
>> >Your lack of English comprehension validates no reasons to call me a
>liar.
>>
>> Now you're stooping to insults.
>
>You call _that_ an insult ? Sheesh, how did you get through school ? :)
You are defending his insult with another insult. Do you guys play tag team??
>> >: You have also shown yourself to be somewhat unreasonably prejudicial:
>> >
>> >: http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=624188730
>> >
>> >Perhaps. I can easily say the exact same thing about you.
>>
>> Show me where. Give a reference to one of my posts were I act in such
>> an arrogant way as you act towards all users of an OS.
>
>One does not need to act in an arrogant manner towards "all users of an OS"
>to be prejudiced.
Well then show me where I'm prejudiced. Specifically reference some of
my posts as your proof.
>However, I do not see Stephen condeming all Linux users, merely the zealots
Anyone he disagrees with enough he labels a zealot.
>(whom are, unfortunately, the most commonly noticed). Indeed, some of us
>can even remember when Stephen *was* a Linux zealot :).
Zealotry is an aspect of one's personality, not whatever one cause one
follows. So when a zealot of one cause changes to another cause, or
even the exact opposite cause, he tends to remain a zealot.
Perry
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
