Linux-Advocacy Digest #571, Volume #26 Thu, 18 May 00 01:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Gary Hallock)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (Marty)
Re: Here is the solution (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Haakmatbot... we should have the Bergmanbot. (Marty)
Re: Your office and Linux. (abraxas)
Re: Closed-mindedness and zeal... (was Re: Things Linux can't do!) ("Christopher
Smith")
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (Marty)
Re: Top 10 Reasons to use Linux (Jacques Guy)
Re: Here is the solution (joseph)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 03:44:42 GMT
In article <8fvlrs$qhp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : 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.
>
> Your point brings up issues of a seemingly inherent hypocrisy
concerning
> commercial UNIX variants. When they are pointed out to be lacking
> something for end users, their advocates state that the absence of
said
> something is necessary to allow for flexibility. Yet, UNIX advocates
> still seem to be in favor of using UNIX well outside the boundries of
the
> server room (ie: the desktop, in the hands of end users). ie: You
cannot
> have an OS for end users, that has nothing to offer end users.
Unix users do not need an insecure dancing paper clip to tell us how to
use a computer!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 23:51:28 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Craig Kelley wrote:
> Your printer configuration *is* stored in /etc; just the spool
> directories are in /var. If you use a good spooler (bsd print spooler
> doesn't count here, of course), it'll re-create them from
> /etc/printcap just fine. LPRng includes checkpc, which will create
> the spools using /etc/printcap.
>
Well, I keep learning new things about Linux. I had always looked in /var. Thanks.
Gary
------------------------------
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 03:56:48 GMT
Pascal Haakmat wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> Thu, 18 May 2000 02:11:46 GMT was when a million monkeys took over Marty's
> computer and wrote:
Still using made-up words, eh Pascal?
> | > Why don't you ask Eric "Master of Forgery" Bennett what Cornell University
> | > thinks of him posting under a false identity?
> |
> | I see you're posting from cable.a2000.nl again, Gerben.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I've posted from cable.a2000.nl
> before, Marty.
Not at all, Pascal.
> Reading comprehension problems?
Obviously not. How ironic of you to say so, however.
> | Interesting.
>
> Yes, your erroneous claims are quite interesting.
Non sequitur, as no erroneous claims were made by me.
------------------------------
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: 17 May 2000 22:54:02 -0500
In article <7bFU4.71336$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Either that or just admit that they are a monopoly and out
>> to take advantage of that status by forcing you into using
>> as many of their additional-cost items as possible. If the
>> federal government can continue to deal with them on those
>> terms I suppose everyone else will have to as well.
>
>Hmmm? Given a sufficiently permissive definition of a monopoly
>they certainly *are* such, but I don't care about that.
Why are you so willing to let a vendor take away your choices?
>And they do want to get you to use their products.
>
>That's a *good* thing; it keeps them improving their products.
I'd prefer that they improve the functionality instead of
the lack of interoperability.
>> They don't,
>
>Y'all keep telling me, but whenever I look it up
>a specific example, I find they *do* provide hooks
>to do the things you say you can't do.
But you said yourself that by design you can't participate in
a domain unless you authenticate to an MS product.
>> and I link them because the thing they have in
>> common is preventing competition.
>
>I do not agree with this view that competition is a fragile,
>delicate thing that must be nutured and protected lest
>MS demolish it with a hard gaze.
So, should IBM also have been exempt from antitrust laws,
and AT&T allowed to sell operating systems and not
broken up? These events put Microsoft where they are,
the rules should still be the same.
>> If you have already
>> purchased an OS, it generally doesn't make sense to replace
>> a component within it, but it also should not force you to
>> purchase another copy of that same OS for other machines
>> on the network in order to interoperate fully.
>
>Honestly, it seems pretty commonplace to me. MS is pretty
>good about not requiring that compared to most; from
>what I've seen. They don't just provide hooks to implement
>these clients; they provide the clients themselves for many
>popular network managers.
I want to replace the server, the clients can stay.
>> I think you are dreaming... I'd go for a multi-platform server
>> capable of replacing a win2k domain controller and active
>> directory server in a second if it didn't contain MS licensed
>> code and was sold by people competing on price.
>
>They perhaps you should make your wishes- and your
>pocketbook :D better known. It *is* possible to do this.
I don't want to change anything on the client side - I want
network interoperability.
>> For??? I have my reasons not to trust it, and even if I accept
>> vendor-lock on the software I don't want hardware-platform-lock
>> for my servers.
>
>If you don't trust it, don't use it. Don't expect everyone else to
>agree with you on that.
I don't intend to use it.
>> Doing otherwise gives them monopoly control over anyone using
>> one component.
>
>I get the feeling you use "monopoly" as an curse.
Only because it is illegal. The real problem is a lack of
interoperability which would be fine for a product we could
simply ignore. Microsoft has gone out of their way to
make sure we can't ignore them.
>No, my friend, there *is* life outside of Unix. Doing it the
>way Unix does it is *not* manadatory.
Network interoperability is the issue, not any specific OS.
>> Their
>> 'options' are clearly that they want the ability to break any
>> competing product while continuing to keep their own bad products
>> working.
>
>And not their good products? :D
Keep what good network products? It is fun to look at the checklists
of improvements in Win2k from the perspective that the NT side was
what they were pushing last year. Too bad they didn't use the same
chart then and earlier showing all the flaws.
>Look, if you *insist* on depending on the implementation details
>of Windows to interoperate with it, you've no-one to blame but
>yourself when you get burned.
I blame it on vendors that don't follow standards, and avoid
the products completely as much as possible.
>> The samba team had a working substitute for NT domain controller
>> authentication. It doesn't work with win2k clients. Does that
>> surprise you?
>
>No. They wrote their domain controller so that it depended on
>the internal implementation of NT authentication. It's not
>at all surprising that it broke.
And most likely not accidental either.
>> In other words no other product is supposed to interoperate with
>> a domain controller?
>
>I *think* that MS's domain controllers can drive Macs, Unix
>boxes, and so on. It uses their protocols to do this.
There is a simple name/password verification that anything
can access, but that doesn't let you participate in the
domain.
>> >Thus, you can supply your own domain controllers that use
>> >whatever protocol you like. But mixing MS domain controllers
>> >with your own is not supported this way.
>>
>> A bad thing indeed.
>
>Just because it isn't the way Unix does it, it doesn't make it
>Bad.
Not unix. Cross platform standards. Kerberos and LDAP demonstrate
that it can be done right.
>I think you are just being paranoid. You keep *saying* they do stuff,
>but there's no meat.
It isn't really my job to investigate them - others are doing that
and it is not hard to find the results. I only know about my
own experiences.
>I *know* your willing to believe anything that puts MS in a bad light,
>but some of us are much more charitable to them. Repeated
>accusation will not move those of us who feel that way.
Apparently the people doing the investigating have not been so
biased.
>> And before that, they were telling the Wordperfect (etc.) people to
>> develop for the OS/2 API up until the MS apps for windows were
>> ready.
>
>MS was officially behind OS/2 well *after* they had apps for
>Windows. They switched horses when Windows 3 took off.
>
>I'm suprised they didn't keep pushing WordPerfect towards
>OS/2 until then.
Weren't you saying earlier that MS apps division didn't take
advantage of interal knowledge of what the OS people were
doing?
>> Just wait until MS apps has something new to take advantage of
>> the new API that can make them a bundle in upgrade fees and
>> it will be deja vu all over again.
>
>What, in your view, would be needed for this to happen? A transition
>to 64-bits? A new line-drawing command? Something in between?
Networking things that start to require active directory to work right.
>Oh sure; *that* is par for the course. Want the cool new features,
>fork over the money. MS is no charity.
Client features should not depend on the brand of the server.
>But why would you expect them to be?
If they want to stay a monopoly, then we should have government
regulated pricing as in other fields.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 Haakmatbot... we should have the Bergmanbot.
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 04:00:51 GMT
Eric Haakmat wrote (using a green clover again):
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > [PS: On Netscape 4.61 w/ Java 1.1.8 for OS/2, there's no way to see a
> > list of choices or answer the question. I can only just keep hitting
> > the "PLAY/TRAIN" button to cycle through a few quotes.]
>
> Obviously you are not using the best tool for the job.
Incorrect.
> How predictable.
How predictable for you to expect me to jump to a conclusion about what "the
job" is. I'd prefer to stick to the facts.
> Prove that there must be fifty ways to leave your lover, if you think
> you can.
Haven't you been paying attention? Or have you been too busy making a new
plan, Stan?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: 18 May 2000 04:03:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*snip some badly wrapped lines*
Maybe if you used a newsreader that didnt suck ass to
post your message, your lines would have wrapped properly.
:)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Closed-mindedness and zeal... (was Re: Things Linux can't do!)
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 14:15:20 +1000
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fvddj$phq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Half true. The kernel is also partially based on the Carnegie Mellon MACH
> microkernel, as well as being based partially on FreeBSD v3.2.
No, the kernel is a straight Mach derivative. I believe it is even referred
to as Mach 3.0.
The BSD part comes in above that - I believe the Mach people refer to them
as "personalities" - like the Win32, POSIX and OS/2 layers on top of the NT
kernel.
> The name
> for the core running underneath MacOS X is known as "Darwin". It's going
> to be OpenSource software (at least, that was the situation when I last
> read about it), and it promises to be one heck of a kickass operating
> system for graphics applications. Let's hope Apple gets things like SMP
> right with this one.
SMP ain't easy to get right, even after many tries. My guess is the first
few versions won't be too hot.
> The WindowsNT kernel is similar, in that it too is partially derived from
> the MACH microkernel.
I don't think it's "derived" in any way except the conceptual design. Any
documentation to the contrary would be welcome.
> It's officially referred to a "modified
> microkernel" in Microsoftie terms. Microsoft has made its design a little
> more monolithic-like than they should have, IMHO, but I think the
> WindowsNT kernel is still very efficient, from what I have experienced
> using the OS.
It's kinda hard to tell, since the only thing you really ever see on NT is
Win32.
------------------------------
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 04:07:48 GMT
Gerban Bergmen wrote (using a misspelled pseudonym again):
>
> Marty wrote:
>
> >> >I see you've taken the liberty
> >>
> >> How does one "take liberty", Marty?
> >
> >It probably starts by blindfolding her, or wait... is that Justice?
>
> How predictable,
How predictable of you to jump to an erroneous conclusion.
> coming from someone who doesn't know the difference between context
> and digestification.
On what basis do you make this claim? Meanwhile, I see you've failed to
answer the question.
> >> >of removing more context.
> >>
> >> Non sequitur.
> >
> >How ironic.
>
> Incorrect.
Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
See above and below. Haven't you been paying attention?
> >> >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 see you're posting from cable.a2000.nl again, Gerben. Interesting.
>
> "again", Marty?
Reading comprehension problems?
> I see you're jumping to conclusions again.
How much libel do you think you can get away with?
> >> >I'll restore it for you:
> >>
> >> Having me jump into discussions again, Marty?
> >
> >Illogical.
>
> How ironic.
Irony makes a cameo appearance.
> >> <http://awacs.dhs.org/csmatest>
> >
> >[PS: On Netscape 4.61 w/ Java 1.1.8 for OS/2, there's no way to see a list
> > of choices or answer the question. I can only just keep hitting the
> > "PLAY/TRAIN" button to cycle through a few quotes.]
>
> That sucks.
Evidence, please.
> You don't have a pulldown menu with poster names?
Don't you know?
> Perhaps you could try a Java appletviewer.
Aren't you sure?
> [PS: Yes, the number of posters (in my .sig) has miraculously decreased.
How miraculously decreased is "miraculously decreased", Pascal?
> The previous value was simply incorrect.]
No surprise there. Do you make it a habit of posting incorrect information?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 04:08:02 -0700
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons to use Linux
Full Name (some say David Smyth) wrote:
[snip]
I thought about it, and I decided to recycle
them, especially the pineapple ("waste not,
want not")
Here, ten reasons not to use Linux:
10. You can't afford "Linux for Dummies".
9. You have no friends and no life, so spending all day pressing
the RESET button instead of your zits is actually a step up.
8. The Internet isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway, so who cares
if you can't connect to your ISP for longer than two minutes without
pressing the RESET button.
7. You have a weird sexual fetish for nerdy-looking guys with cream
pies on their faces.
6. You pushed your sadistic father out of the 15th-floor window
and the word "window" causes to think of how much better if feels not
to get a pineapple shoved up your arse daily.
5. You secretly hate your friends and family for not recognising your
obvious genius and recommending Windows to them is your way of
extracting revenge.
4. You hated your mother for taking you to the zoo to see the penguins
and you hated yourself as a child for walking like one.
3. Your pregnant girlfriend became infatuated with Bill Gates and
ran away to Redmond.
2. The female computer geek in your class who gave you a wedgy while you
were
trying to act the school bully is an avid Linux user.
And the number one reason for using Windows...
1. Perhaps this rich guy in Redmond will let you lick the cream
off his face.
------------------------------
From: joseph <[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: Thu, 18 May 2000 03:58:31 GMT
In article <ZBuU4.69987$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "josco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Tue, 16 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Then please quote the statement that MS innovates with undocumented
> > > API's.
> >
> > > The words "undocumented" and "API" do not appear in that statement.
> >
> > They didn't have to appear. I'm talking about SEMANTICS, not SYNTAX.
> >
> > Now you go find your quotes for me.
>
> I agree with 'josco'; that quote didn't say anything about APIs,
> documented or otherwise. Wanting it to won't help.
>
> > > > The concept of time confuses you. MS designs and uses a new API in
> the
> > > > OS, at a later date they document the API.
> > >
> > > 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?
>
> Very carefully? :D
>
> > A: It's part of the application.
>
> It's possible
....
It is possible but irrelvent being the issue are
OS APIs and not APIs in general.
> to have an API that isn't part of either, actually. Consider
> how Crystal Reports provides a bunch of DLLs that implement
> their API. You don't need their report-writer app to have them,
> but they are installed separately from the OS.
>
> MS does that *all the time*.
MS has the Apps divsion invent a service,
code for the service in all there apps and
then MS adds the sevice to the OS.
Only the owner the Os can decide
so the fact the Apps divison gets special treatment
is EVERYTHING.
> > MS's Apps group designs and implements the API and the OS group includes
> > it into Windows.
>
> There doesn't seem to be any evidence of this.
Oh Yes there is!!
MS even says they do it and they have a right to do
it. They call it innovation.
> > MS's advantage begins when the app programmer is told
> > he/she can add APIs to improve their product over the competitors.
>
> How does this help the app programmers product?
How would It not?
Better yet we'll take a test and prove I'm smarter
than you - I write the test.
> It would seem to me
> that exposing neat technologies to once competitors is not a good
> way to get an edge over them. Far better to implement whatever
> is in the API as part of the app, and not share it with outsiders.
It can suite MS's interests to share APIs
AFTER MS ues them to establish ther dominance.
OLE helped PPoint beat Harvard Graphics. later OLE
was opened up for ISVs like VISIO to wriwe add-ins
for Office.
> Seems like moving code from the apps to the OS *reduces* the
> apps advantage by letting *other* app vendors use that same
> code- even if belatedly.
>
> If this is happening, then it is reducing the advantage Office has
> over its competitors.
No, it can also let ms build a greater advantage by
ltting 3rd partis write helper aps for MS offie.
> > 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.
>
> These two things are not equivalent. MS is, not surpisingly, howling that
> breaking them up would be the End of the World as we Know it, but
> this claim does not necessarily have *any* basis in fact.
>
> Still less does it necessarily have the *particular* basis in fact
> you seem to suppose. Even if it is true, it's quite possible that the
> reason they couldn't innovate is that they couldn't pay for it without
> Office revenues, or something like that.
Your example is nuts being the data show MS makes huge profit
margins on the OS.
You also are saying that MS is subsidizng
OS developmet with office apps - that means they are
dumping software - illegal.
> > > 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.
>
> The chief things that distinguishes an API from A Bunch of Random
> Code it is that it is *stable*;
The apps division is assured the API is stable
being they are
allowed to decide within MS what is engineered into windows.
> the provider has undertaken to not change
> it in incompatible ways so that other developers can safely use it.
>
> This undertaking is, strictly speaking, merely a statement: "We will
> not change X, Y or Z in future versions." A paper promise.
>
> Yet it is very important; it is the difference between an API and
> an implementation detail.
>
> In this case, the Scarecrow really *doesn't* get his brain until
> he gets his diploma- because without the diploma, it is just
> so much straw.
names and word games with API don't change anything.
APIs are APIs by vitrute of what they do, not by
playing word games to redefine the term.
--
-- joseph
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 14:25:07 +1000
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fuipm$2cd4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bob Hauck <hauck[at]codem{dot}com> wrote:
> >
> >>I was a Linux user since kernel v0.92. I used Linux until
> >>late 1996. Do you still wish to debate with me?
> >
> >Linux has come a long way since 1996. Your knowledge is a bit dated.
>
> Yes, I was going to point this out too. Someone whose last
> contact with Linux was an old Slackware or RedHat 4.1 would
> be shocked to see a Mandrake 7.0 install.
My last experience of a Mandrake 7.0 install was uncomfortable. They really
need to work on their package selection UI.
> By contrast, installing
> Win NT is still just as bad because the distribution hasn't
> changed, the CD still doesn't boot, and you need a bigger service
> pack add-on now.
Er, NT CDs have been bootable since at *least* NT 4.0.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
