Linux-Advocacy Digest #568, Volume #26 Wed, 17 May 00 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Why my company will NOT use Linux (TheKeyMan)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (Marty)
Re: Desktop use, office apps (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Desktop use, office apps (JEDIDIAH)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re: The
"outlook" for kooks) (Pascal Haakmat)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Woofbert)
Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Top 10 Reasons to Use Windows NT ("Bracy")
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Desktop use, office apps (Torsten Evers)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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, 17 May 2000 20:18:54 -0500
Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Now, it's true that Win95 and NT didn't exist back then, and MacOS did-
> > but it is the year 2000 now, and MacOS *still* doesn't have a VM
> > implementation adequate to Photoshop's needs.
>
> Windows VM doesn't meet many applications' needs. Smartheap is a set of
> libraries that takes care of all sorts of memory allocaiton and
> deallocation details for you that Windows dows not do that the Mac OS
> does.
Uhh.. Smartheap is a *COMPILER* heap management library, not an OS one.
It's mostly targeted at multiprocessor applications, since the VC++ heap
manager is single threaded.
When it boils down to it, SmartHeap uses the same OS memory allocation
routines, it just uses them more efficiently that most compilers do.
------------------------------
From: TheKeyMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 01:12:51 GMT
First off, Linux is a good system when it is used in the proper
setting and under the guidance of people who actually understand the
system. With that point considered, my company, a small real estate
company with 10 offices in the northeast USA began a study late last
year to try and consolodate our network and quite frankly save some
money.
We hired several consultants as well as a manager whose job it was to
oversee the study and identify, religious affiliations, obvious bias
and just plain FUD.
Initially our plan was to jump to Linux hook line and sinker because
it seemed to offer, on the surface, most of what we needed in a
typical office setting. We understood that we would have to maintain
NT to serve our somewhat vertical applications. The initial plan was
to setup Linux in the office as a secondary system that the personal
could utilize at will. Sort of a duplicate system if you will.
This failed terribly because nobody seemed interested in using Linux
which puzzled the staff. They went for Windows every time despite
having dual boot computers.
Upon quizzing the staff we discovered many things amongst them the
reasons why Linux was not liked.
To put it bluntly, Linux Looks like shit. The fonts are jagged and
boxy. Staroffice is a complete bloated mess of a joke compared to
Office.
Netscape looks like crap and performs like crap also.
Our imported Word/Excel doc's did not transfer well at all into
StarOffice.
We had severe network performance problems after installing Linux.
People, meaning end users generally hated Linux big time. Funny thing
was they were so willing to talk about why they hated it so much.
I could go on and on but there is really no need. Linux is an
operating system that needs a lot of work. We tried and could not make
it work.
I have talked to others in my industry that have had similar
experiences with Linux so I know it is not my company..
Linux needs a lot of help...
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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, 17 May 2000 20:21:22 -0500
Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>Bummer dude because "The FEDS" began their MS anti-trust investigation
in
> >That was not the DOJ. That was the FTC.
>
> FTC == _Fed_eral Trade Commission, isn't it??
> You stoop to new lows in your quest of denial, "Erik"...
The original statement, which you conveniently cut, stated specifically the
DOJ. Joseph said "the feds", in response to that, also referring to the
DOJ.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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, 17 May 2000 20:29:29 -0500
Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>>Name a single non-consumable product that you can jump to a competor
> >>>without a significant cost.
> >If you buy a ford car, you can move to a Chevy, but it will still cost
you
> >a lot of money.
>
> You know *very well* that the "significant cost" is (always) meant to be
> associated costs _above and beyond_ the price of the product you're
switching
> to itself, "Mr." "Funkenbusch".
> Nobody complains that switching from one OS to another forces you to
actually
> *buy* the second OS (apart from the usual "I-copy-every-program-in- sight"
> type of people so prevalent in the MS world), it's about having to retrain
> every user, buying new "incompatible" applications and other nuisances
caused
> mostly by planned obsolence and lock-in strategies of MS.
If I buy a new car, I sell my old car and all of it's accessories, since the
majority of them will be specific to the vehicle. (for instance, a
bugshield is typically designed for a specific car or similar cars, or many
radios will not fit from one vehicle to another (full sized din radios found
in most japanese cars won't fit in most half-din sized american cars)).
I might need retraining from an automatic to a manual transmission as well.
The point is, it's not simply a case of "plug compatibility". There are
always significant costs involved in switching between most major products.
And those costs can be offset by selling your old product to help pay for
the new one.
> As was _literally_ said by Craig Kelley, who you were "responding" to with
the
> first line.
> Taking your car response: you don't have to retrain everybody and
relicense
> them at hefty fees to drive the Chevy you bought instead of the Ford, and
you
> can fill'er up with the same gas at the same gas station.
I thought Linux was so easy to use that people wouldn't need retraining.
> You've lost your touch, this wasn't even remotely believable...
You're failing to consider all the costs involved with switching products,
thus you're being deceptive.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot.
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 01:22:44 GMT
Lucky wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Myrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Eric Templetonbot wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
>
> Having more attribution problems, Myrat?
Not at all. Typical of your paranoia, however, considering how often you
declare that everyone is after your "Lucky Charms".
> > > In article <3922db3e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Brian Lewis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "tholenbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article <8fk3j9$8g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S.
> > > > > > > Edwards
> > > > > > > II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If anyone on USENET ever wishes to emulate Templeton, as
> > > > > > > > some seem take great pride and joy in emulating Dave Tholen
> > > > > > > > (whom I know nothing of, outside of the opinions of others),
> > > > > > > > just simply follow these steps:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Illogical. The true home of the tholenbot is
> > > > > > > comp.os.os2.advocacy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Incorrect. How typical.
> > > > >
> > > > > Evidence, please.
> > > >
> > > > $19.95 please (shipping and handling fees.)
> > >
> > > Jumping into a discussion, again, Brian?
> >
> > See what he means?
>
> How predictable, coming from someone having attribution problems.
See what I mean?
I see you've taken the liberty of removing more context. Taking more context
removal lessons from Dave "Watergate" Tholen? I'll restore it for you:
> > > > > Tholenbot always picks the right newsgroup for the
> > > > > job. Sometimes that is COOA.
> > > >
> > > > The right "newsgroup"? How rich!
> > >
> > > On what basis do you claim that the "newsgroup" is "rich"?
> >
> > Taking jumping into discussion lessons from Curtis Bass again, Brian?
Note: no response.
> > I see you failed to answer the question.
>
> Incorrect.
Glad you agree.
> > > How predictable.
> >
> > How ironic.
>
> Balderdash.
I see you're still too busy tending Chris Pott's Balderdash garden to form a
logical argument. No surprise there.
> > > > > > At least you made no attempt to conceal your own misinformation.
> > > > >
> > > > > What alleged "misinformation"?
> > > >
> > > > Why, don't you know?
> > >
> > > I see that,
> >
> > What you see is irrelevant, especially given your dirty glasses.
>
> "Your dirty glasses" are not a given.
Non sequitur.
> > > in typical Brian "I Don't Answer the Question" Lewis
> > > fashion, you didn't answer the question.
> >
> > How ironic, coming from someone who, in a typical Brian "I Don't Answer
> > the Question" Lewis fashion, failed to answer the question.
>
> Illogical.
Not at all, Lucky.
> > > > > > > On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ask your grasshopper
> > > > >
> > > > > The grasshopper is in my head.
> > > >
> > > > What alleged "head"?
> > >
> > > If you hadn't jumped into the discussion,
> >
> > The key word is "if".
>
> What is "key" about that word?
Ask your red balloons.
> > > you would have recognized the correct head.
> >
> > You are presupposing that he has "jumped into the discussion".
>
> I see you fail to dispute that he jumped into the discussion.
Illogical, as I have not attempted to dispute that he jumped into the
discussion. Yet more evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
> > > > > On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
> > > >
> > > > Illogical.
> > >
> > > Yet again you fail to answer the question.
> >
> > How ironic, coming from someone who yet again failed to answer the
> > question.
>
> Impossible.
On what basis do you make this ridiculous newgroup?
> > > Of course, that is to be expected, coming from you.
> >
> > As your illogic is to be expected, coming from you.
>
> Illogical.
See what I mean?
> > > Prove that there must be fifty ways to leave your lover, if you think
> > > you can.
> >
> > How ironic, coming from someone who just "slipped out the back, Jack".
>
> I see you continue to hop on the illogic bus.
Seeing things that aren't there again, Lucky? Not surprising, considering
your failure to drop off the key, Lucky.
> Prove that there must be fifty ways to leave your lover, if you think you can.
Yet more evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 01:25:29 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 20:12:48 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 17 May 2000 14:18:49 GMT, Tim Koklas
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Now, that's the first time I hear someone claim that Word is crap. But
>> >again ... equal alternatives?
>>
>> Star Office. It lets me share files in a microsoft dominated world, does
>> everything office does and isn't a second guessing abomination.
>
>Maybe but their are limitations in Star Office.
>Besides less than stellar filters, having to run everything to do
Actually, their filters are relatively stellar.
[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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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, 17 May 2000 20:35:41 -0500
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > What makes you think Office developers have access to OS code?
>
> Because Gates said as much.
No, he didn't. You (and others) interpreted it as such because that's what
you wanted to hear.
> > > 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.
I'm not saying that gates is right in what he says. I am, however pointing
out that what you claim is not what gates is saying.
It simply is true that lots of Windows' new features were first introduced
in Office and other apps. It's also true that those implementations in the
apps are seperate from the OS ones.
> > 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.
Oh, one person gives the entire application team (for Office, that's like
200 developers) orders of magnitudes of extra leverage. Right.
> > 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.
No, that's not what he said at all.
> > 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
Where did I say that? I said an action as large as breaking up the company
is a shareholder approval event.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 01:28:01 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 20:26:10 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 17 May 2000 20:06:05 GMT, R. Christopher Harshman
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >I suppose I should have been more clear initially. Our requirements:
>> >* Microsoft Office compatibility, import and export.
>> >* Runs and loads with a reasonable amount of performance across a wide
>> >variety of workstation hardware, from a 32MB 486DX2/66 to a 64MB Celeron
>>
>> A current version of Windows isn't going to run very well on a 486
>> nevermind Windows+MS Office. Whereas a 486 would do quite nicely as
>> an xterminal.
>
>I think people have rejected this idea Jedi years ago.
They would pretty much have to unless they wanted to admit
that they were chumps. It's not a very pleasant notion that
you've let some vendor make you eat shit, or that your
particular pet platform may infact be quite flawed.
>People want the stuff local and it should be damn fast.
3 vs. 10 isn't 'damn fast'.
>
>Until most networking is 1Gbps and clustering is commonplace,
>running everything remotely will cause loss of uptime and performance.
>People have said no to this so many times it should be understood.
I doubt if you are really in a good position to comment on that.
[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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pascal Haakmat)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for kooks)
Date: 18 May 2000 01:33:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Marty wrote:
>I see you've taken the liberty
How does one "take liberty", Marty?
>of removing more context.
Non sequitur.
>Taking more context removal lessons from Dave "Watergate" Tholen?
Why don't you ask Eric "Master of Forgery" Bennett what Cornell University
thinks of him posting under a false identity?
>I'll restore it for you:
Having me jump into discussions again, Marty?
--
Rate your CSMA savvy by identifying the writing styles of
ancient and recent, transient and perdurable CSMA inhabitants:
(46 posters, 252 quotes)
<http://awacs.dhs.org/csmatest>
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 03:30:45 +0200
Roger wrote:
>
> >>>So even though they can read the file, and the extension is the
> >>>same, any program other than the Operating System that tries to launch a file
> >>>as an embedded object and the like will fail.
>
> >>Also wrong.
>
> >Oh really?
>
> Yes.
>
> >>>I would guess that this is
> >>>excused with claims that it allows alternate applications to support older
> >>>file types, but that doesn't wash, as none of Microsoft's applications are
> >>>capable of co-existing with older versions very well in any other way.
>
> >>And you would guess wrong, since your guess is based on something
> >>incorrect to begin with.
>
> >Whatever.
> >
> >***ZZZZZZZZZ***
>
> So being flat-out, demonstrably wrong doesn't bother Max.
>
> Since he has no problem lying either, our regular readers should not
> be surprized.
At the end of this long thread this leaves me with the following conclusion:
Roger has won the argument.
There is just one difficulty: we happen to have uninstalled Office 97 because it was
too buggy to be used (our secretary had become almost hysteric). Reinstalling the
previous Office was quite hard because of the usual registry mess of Microsoft.
Documents produced with Word 97 where completely unreadable with Word 96. The only
way we could recover all our documents was to use StarOffice which reads both Word
96 and Word 97 documents, properly recognizes the different formats, and doesn't
crash after you've been typing for two hours. Maybe there was a MS way too, but we
had to work, not to experiment MS way. Our cost of ownership of Office 97 was a
little bit too high for my taste.
If you're clever enough you can prove that crap is bread and win the argument.
Well Roger, you won: now eat that bread you have demonstrated.
========
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Via del Fonditore 3/E
40139 Bologna (Italy)
------------------------------
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: Wed, 17 May 2000 20:48:01 -0500
josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The words "undocumented" and "API" do not appear in that statement.
>
> They didn't have to appear. I'm talking about SEMANTICS, not SYNTAX.
In other words, it's YOUR INTERPRETATION. That's subjective opinion, not
fact.
> > How can MS use the API before they've written it? The SDK's are
available
> > to the public long before the API is complete.
>
> Q: How can a programmer use an API before it is part of the OS? A: It's
> part of the application.
>
> MS's Apps group designs and implements the API and the OS group includes
> it into Windows. MS's advantage begins when the app programmer is told
> he/she can add APIs to improve their product over the competitors.
The Apps group isn't doing anything that any other developer couldn't do.
They're using the documented API to write controls for the application.
Just because MS also takes them and puts them in the OS is an advantage for
3rd party developers, not an advantage for Office, since the code would work
with or without it being part of the OS. In fact, as I've mentioned. The
code in the Office suites doesn't even USE the OS code when it's put in
there.
> Its so simple a child can understand the advantage. OLE is a good example
> but MS says there ar emany others - they scream they cannot be split least
> innovation be ruined.
OLE is 8 years old.
> > It's not an API when they design it, it's simply a function of their
app.
>
> And the Scarecrow didn't have a brain until he got his diploma.
Is that what happened to you?
------------------------------
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: Wed, 17 May 2000 20:51:03 -0500
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> You cannot prove it doesn't use hidden APIs and MS insists they have a
> right to build and use them exclusively.
And you haven't proven that it does. This is a no-brainer.
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[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, 17 May 2000 18:47:04 -0700
In article <QZuU4.70010$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If they aren't complaining, it's probably because they don't think the
> > > Mac will survive, and so feel its not worth bellyaching about.
> >
> > This simply shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Both
> > Macromedia and Adobe get about half of their income from Macintosh
> > applications.
>
> Then perhaps they do not complain because they do not think
> Apple will listen. Apple has *not* been good about supporting
> their developers; it has been bait-and-switch with them for *years*.
>
> > (And which major software company did you work for as a
> > software engineer?)
>
> No major one; I work for a little one.
>
> Absolut Solutions, out of Newton, MA.
>
> We make a business management and accounting system
> for Windows.
>
> Which major software company do *you* work for as a
> software engineer? :D
Macromedia. I was a QA Engineer on Director and Shockwave for four
years.
--
Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
Datadroid
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation.
http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert/index.html
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 20:58:39 -0500
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Actually, Erik is right. The UNIX community had problems with
> >people downloading binary files that had what we now call viruses
> >in them, and executing them. In some cases, the shar script would
> >even remove all traces of itself.
>
> The difference is that Erik uses this as an excuse, which is misplaced.
> Executing email content seems to be possible with non-Windows MUAs (I've
> been told that dtmail can execute shell scripts) but it certainly is not
> common practice in Unix. Using the mailcap facility is. On Windows this
> behaviour /is/ common practice (at least for Outlook Express, Pegasus
> and Eudora).
It's not commonplace on Unix because of the huge disparity in Unix
implementations.
If Unix wants to compete with windows, it has to start losing those
disparities, which will make such viruses inevitable.
It's not a fault of the environment, it's a side-effect of making an OS
capable of being used by computer illiterate people.
There are always tradeoffs of security versus ease of use. Allowing *ANY*
kind of connection to the internet is, in and of itself, a security risk.
Even if you've got the best security on the planet, it can still be
compromised. The *ONLY* way to prevent people gaining access is to lock it
in a room with armed guards and no external network access.
------------------------------
From: "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Top 10 Reasons to Use Windows NT
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 01:52:01 GMT
10. You were given the job of "Network Administrator"
because you know how to copy a file from your hard drive
to a floppy disk, and therefore know more about
computers than anyone else in your office.
9. Money is no object, you can afford to spend thousands
and thousands of dollars in client licenses for your operating
system and applications.
8. Security is not important to you because you have no
sensitive information.
7. "Troubleshooting" means calling Technical Support to
solve your problems because you can't do it on your own.
6. "Loss of Data" is not an issue with you because you do not
have any critical data.
5. "Crashing" is really just an excuse to turn your work in late.
4. Every now and then, you secretly run the "3D Pipes" screensaver
in order to slow down your network just so that you can come in "fix
the problem" so that your office thinks you're a hero.
3. You think that "Everyone - Full Control" is the proper default
permissions setting for everything on your network.
2. You don't know how to install or uninstall anything unless you have
an "installation wizard" to walk you through it.
1. You actually *believe* everything you read in Microsoft press releases.
Bracy
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 01:28:49 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> i tried the microsoft windows truetype fonts.
>
> andale and courier new look ok per se. both leave little specs after
> them. somehow X doesn't clean up after the fonts. courier new was
> worse in this regard than andale.
In my case (Matrox MilleniumII 8Mb/AGP) all works perfectly. Check
the settings for your server.
--
Stefaan
--
--PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
------------------------------
From: Torsten Evers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:56:00 +0200
Reply-To: Torsten Evers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Raul Valero wrote:
>
> 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.
Here the same. Loading StarOffice takes 16 secs. With document loading
<20 secs.
K6/2-450, 96 MB PC100-SDRAM, NCR8xx U2W with IBM DNES 9,1 GB U2W.
Before this I had an P233MMX with 64 MB and UDMA/33 6,4 GB Fujitsu
drive. This one loades SO in 20 secs.
Bye,
Torsten
--
Torsten Evers Tel.: ++49-39322-9015
EBH-interdata GbR Fax : ++49-39322-9016
August-Bebel-Str. 6 EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
D-39590 Tangermuende
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
