Linux-Advocacy Digest #647, Volume #26 Tue, 23 May 00 09:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bill Altenberger)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Time to prove it's not just words (Damien)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Johan Kullstam)
Re: The Path Dependence (MK)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Germer)
Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (2:1)
Re: Linux fails - again (2:1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bill Altenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 06:25:13 -0500
In article <8gd076$2kf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Loren Petrich) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bill Altenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I wouldn't liken MS to the Nazi era of Germany. I think a more appropriate
> >example would be a state univerisity directly east of Illinois in Elam's
> >territory..
>
> I'm totally lost.
>
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
You have to be basketball fan to get it..
Bill
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 23 May 2000 11:15:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc s@- wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
:>What a load of crap. Alan Cox is the bug track system.
: haha, what a joke.
: a person is a bug tracking system? wow! so if this person gets sick,
: the bug tracking system goes down?
Yep. Just like if your bugtracking server develops a virus.
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 23 May 2000 11:58:10 GMT
On Mon, 22 May 2000 20:50:08 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
| Mmmm, of course this is a 3 step solution. But the problem wasn't
| very complex either. My problem with linux access permissions
| (aside from the fact that I do not know them enough), is that I think,
| with my limited knowledge of them, that we are more likely to reach the
| limits when the problem gets more complex, compared to the provisions
| of NT. (Which I know much better).
Of course if you really want NT-like permissions, then you should go
for ACL's. There are patches (for the kernel and file system utils)
at http://acl.bestbits.at/ for ACL support.
| In particular, there is the possibility to set in a directory which
| the exact permissions of the new files should be, whatever the owner
| of the file is, and wether or not those permissions should be
| inherited or not.
| Also, is there a way to deny access on linux such as you do on NT
| (ie access denial is prevalent on granted access) ? This can be
| useful. Imagine that you are in a school and that there are lots of
| resources available for "students". Among them is a printer, but
| there are lots of other resources. If you want to prevent one
| particular student from using it because he does not respect the
| rules about the printer.... In NT, all you have to do is deny him
| access to the printer, without changing the permissions of the
| students (for those that still want to use the printer), or deny the
| particular student the data about graph theory, because he needs
| them to work.
| Is there a way to do this on linux (this is just a question) ?
The easiest way is to create a group for each resource. Then you
could modify your new user scripts to add all new users to all the
groups. Then if you want to deny a paticular user a paticular
resource, just remove them from that group.
------------------------------
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: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:04:16 GMT
David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> ' Every time I've tried to install an RH rpm on SuSE, it's given me
> ' dependency nightmares. SuSE use a different rpm naming convention, and
> ' apparently that's the cause :-(
>
> R otten
> P ackage
> M anagement
>
> Then again, InstallSheild, possibly the best installer in Windows
> land, is even worse. Go figure.
>
> Do people really have trouble with ./configure, make, make install?
> It has _never_ been a problem for me. Maybe I am just lucky. Even
> though I changed my compiler, libc, and libtools.
the problem isn't with the install, it's when you go to remove or
upgrade. sometimes it's hard (or at least tedious) to figure out what
all things went where. then when you find a random file, you wonder
where it came from. rpm doesn't really solve the shared config
tweaks very well (like editing an init script to set something up
while leaving setup for other stuff). rpm is clunky and sometimes a
pain in the ass, but it's not completely useless to me.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To:
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.media,alt.journalism,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: The Path Dependence
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:14:37 GMT
On 22 May 2000 23:06:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 22 May 2000 02:17:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>
>>> A URL that MK will undoubtedly love:
>>>http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/Steve-Keen/DE/
>
> I'm sure that he's read that site in detail, and I'm sure that he
>enjoys the mathematics in it.
>
>>> Grow up.
>>You use the favorite phrase of immature quasi-thinkers all the time.
> Same to you.
Look. I'll speak slowly, so you could understand: using phrases
like "dr. Pangloss" or "grow up" in response to arguments of
merit is hallmark of immature and/or mediocre mind. It's evident
that it is you who is using expressions of this kind by anybody
who's able to find string in the Usenet posts. Ergo, your own
actions demonstrate you have immature and/or mediocre mind.
QED
>[computer vs. telephone numeric keypads...]
>>>Touch-typing learned for one will fail on the other.
>
>>This example might appeal only to imbeciles unable to
>>distinguish between alpha QWERTY keys and numeric
>>keyboard.
> Mr. MK shows his true colors of intellectual dogmatism here; he
>shows zero understanding of what QWERTY vs. Dvorak was all about, because
>if he did, he would have no trouble recognizing the similarity of
>situations. Going from computer keypad to phone keypad and back tends to
>result in confused fingers, and QWERTY - Dvorak switching is almost
>certainly worse.
LP shows deliberate and systematic attempts of ignoring factual evidence,
quoted at length in the "Typing Errors" article. Pretending evidence
doesn't exist does not make it vanish.
>>> And as to Beta vs. VHS, the problem here was that Beta was
>>>proprietary to Sony, while VHS was an open standard.
>>Yeah, go on with fantasizing -- most of customers don't really care
>>whether the product is proprietary or not as long as it's priced
>>attractively.
> Proprietary vs. open meant that VHS could become more widely
>available, enabling it to ultimately lock out Beta.
Sigh. Bth of the technologies were so similar bc even the VHS creators were
cooperating with the same people who created Beta. The proprietary
vs. open is just figment of your imagination. The picture quality was
the same for viewers. The issue was cassette playing time vs. size of cassette.
Customers went for longer playing time and did not care for smaller Beta
cassettes. Whether the standard was "open" matters only to mediocrities like
you, motivated by pure ideology and no facts.
---
MK
Socialism is another name for self-destruction.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:28:37 GMT
On 05/22/2000 at 08:56 AM,
"Erik Fuckingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> MS does act like OLE 1 never existed for the most part. Yes, they
> acknowledge it for backwards compatibility, but the mere fact that no
> documentation that refers to OLE without a verion number shows this.
Doesn't change the fact that you were caught in a flat out lie.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19ze Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:30:09 GMT
On 05/22/2000 at 11:49 AM,
josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Windows cannot run without DOS, thus Windows and DOS are joined.
> Windows was an environment - other 3rd parties had the opportunity to
> add their own environments on DOS in competition with MS windows.
> At a later date MS turned Windows into an OS...and Caldera sued them.
> DR DOS was an alternative technoology to MS DOS for running windows
> 4.0/Win95.
Josco, you are quite correct. I have decided to no longer respond to
Fuckingliar's crap. It is arguing with a creature which sheds his skin and
swallows small animals whole.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19ze Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-to: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:38:40 GMT
On 05/23/2000 at 11:53 AM,
Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I guess you haven't yet considered that a possibility, your own writing
> skills (or worse) being the/a problem...
The problem is Illya that Erik Fuckingliar writes in MicroSpeak.
MicroSpeak is written by the same folks who produce such meaningful words
as General Protection Fault Error, Start to mean shut down, etc.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19ze Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
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: Tue, 23 May 2000 07:56:28 -0500
Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Which doesn't change the fact that MS uses the term OLE to refer to OLE
2,
>
> OLE, version 2.
>
> >and not OLE 1.
>
> OLE, version 1.
> Nobody is denying that version 2 is meant when MS nowadays speaks of
"OLE".
Not just "nowadays", but has since 1994.
And in fact, Joseph is claiming that MS doesn't mean version 2 when they say
"OLE" in this quote:
"The Acronym OLE refers to an API that includes V1.0 and V2.0. References
to the origin of OLE refer to Version 1.0, not Version 2.0."
> >MS does act like OLE 1 never existed for the most part. Yes, they
> >acknowledge it for backwards compatibility, but the mere fact that no
> >documentation that refers to OLE without a verion number shows this.
>
> Ah! Now I get it. They ignore it ... except for the part where they
don't...
Yes, there's documentation still on MS's website about OLE 1, but I'd
challenge you to find any documentation on it written after 1993.
Do you know what the definition of ignore is?
Main Entry: ig�nore
1 : to refuse to take notice of
2 : to reject (a bill of indictment) as ungrounded
synonym see NEGLECT
In other words, something that exists, but is neglected and no longer
noticed.
> >It says exactly what I'm saying. OLE without a version number means OLE
2.
>
> You said it shows they ignore version 1.
No, I didn't. I said Microsoft ACTS AS IF OLE 1 doesn't exist. I didn't
say it showed anything other than OLE means OLE 2.
> The quote shows them specifically *mentioning* version 1, and telling you
and
> us they won't be having a version 3.
> Sounds different too me...
That does not contradict what I said. After the quote from the book, I made
the comment:
"Note how MS dropped the 2 moniker, prefering to act like OLE1 never
existed."
> >There is no imagined hidden meaning. All I said was that MS pretends
that
> >OLE 1 doesn't exist when they refer to OLE. That's not a hidden meaning,
> >that's a statement about how they act. That's my opinion.
>
> You can have an opinion, and so could Joseph BTW (but ofcourse it's fine
for
> people to demand 'proof' for his opinion while they themselves can opine
> everything they want when any proof runs out).
Joseph wasn't claiming it was opinion, he claimed it as fact.
> But *you* tried to "prove" your opinion "they ignore version 1" as fact by
> producing a quote that specifically *mentions* version 1 and explicitly
states
> that they won't be using the _version_ number 2 anymore because it falsely
> implies there will be a version 3.
No, I was making a comment on the statement when I said they *ACT* as if
version 1 did not exist. I chose that word carefully. I didn't say they
completely ignore it, I said they act as if it doesn't exist by removing the
versioning from the name.
> It's not our fault if you come up with pertinently wrong evidence.
What do you call removing the versioning from the name? And how does it
disambiguate the versions?
> >The fact is that MS when MS says OLE, they mean OLE 2.
>
> Which isn't what was being contested...
Yes, Actually it is.
> We could just as well say "when MS says 'Word', they mean 'Word 2000 for
> Windows'". So what.
Actually, when MS says "Word" they refer to the product known as word in
general, and they use specific version numbers when referring to specific
implementations. This is different from what they do with OLE, which is to
use the term OLE without version number specifically to mean OLE 2.
> >Didn't you notice the statement above where it says "One must read
> >statements in context", which states that he I didn't say what he says I
> >did, but rather that he's implying it based on his idea of the "context".
> >I can't control what other people want to see.
>
> I already agreed with that. I'm just saying that there must come a point
where
> one has to wonder whether or not constant 'misunderstandings' or
> 'misinterpretations' of what one meant to write is because the writer puts
it
> the way he puts it.
I usually phrase my words very carefully. I mean them as I say them. I
used the term OLE in the same way that Microsoft does, to refer to OLE 2. I
develop under OLE on a daily basis. OLE simply is OLE 2 to anyone in the
industry for the last 6 or more years. I have proven that MS uses the term
OLE in reference to OLE 2, and not in reference to both OLE 1 and OLE 2,
which was the original argument by Joseph.
> I guess you haven't yet considered that a possibility, your own writing
skills
> (or worse) being the/a problem...
Even you choose to ignore very obviously chosen words such as "Act" in a
sentance. Saying that someone "Acts as if it doesn't exist" doesn't mean it
doesn't exist or that nobody recognizes it. It means that for all intents
and purposes, in every day activities, the behavior is to ignore it. By
choosing to take the extremist view of the phrase of "always ingores it",
you have changed the meaning of the sentance as it was written. That is
your fault, not mine. I wasn't ambiguous, nor did the sentance lack
clarity.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:44:32 GMT
On 05/22/2000 at 01:41 PM,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Appealate courts usually don't play politics and get down to law and
> justice, which is why MS is holding out for the appeal, because they
> know they'll win.
Just like AT&T did right?
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19ze Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:52:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Lurch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Mon, 22 May 2000 21:42:42 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Well that got your attention !
Well, this *is* an advocacy newsgroup. :-)
>
>Honestly, I get a little worried when I see 300 - 400 replies to
>a Post on the lines of Linux Sucks etc and most of the posts
>seem to be by only 2 or 3 people, oh well everyone needs a
>hobby, but I digress...
>
>I'm evaluating a move to Linux & I wold like to learn more about
>the memory architecture and workings of the kernel etc. Anyone
>know where I can find this. I had a quick look in kernel.org but
>this is mostly (? all) just posts between the developers about
>what they are doing.
Well, if you want, you can Use The Source, Luke(tm). :-)
This probably doesn't answer one's question if one can't read
C code, though -- but it is one of many options (and it is the option
that NT simply does not have :-) ). But it does leave one wondering
what the forest looks like from the standpoint of a briar thicket. :-)
The short answer is that the memory architecture is quite flat (32-bit
flat, in fact); this contrasts with e.g. Xenix, and of course DOS and
Windows. I'm not up on the rest of the kernel workings.
You might try http://www.linux.org as well; this might be a more useful
site for general information about Linux. It also contains a
number of links.
Sorry I can't be more helpful, but I've been steeped in this stuff for
so long I'm not quite sure where to start with a totally new person. :-)
>
>Thanks in advance!
>
>[ I have my asbestos mouse glove on & the blast shield is in
>place on the monitor ;-) ]
>
>* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 13:53:53 +0100
CAguy wrote:
>
> On 22 May 2000 19:23:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>
> Well, with billions of dollars now riding on the success of linux...I
> think it's about time they kicked the kiddies off kernal development,
> and start using a more professional development process.
who is 'they'?
-Ed
> James
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux fails - again
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 13:56:47 +0100
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The other machine to fail to come up was, of course, the Linux box.
>
> Ummm, "of course"? What does that mean?
It means that he's a troll and it probably didn't happen.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
