Linux-Advocacy Digest #576, Volume #26 Thu, 18 May 00 07:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Tim Koklas)
Re: Bill is a weenie (Tim Koklas)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451683 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
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: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost (Rob S. Wolfram)
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 my company will NOT use Linux (John Travis)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Koklas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 09:08:27 GMT
1) I don't understand why you didn't give any training to the team. How
are they supposed to be efficient without knowing the basics?
2) I can't believe that you were willing your co-workers spend company
time experimenting with Linux.
3) What did the consultants do? Just choose the distro and set it up? No
advice how to use it?
4) Why didn't you get involved in the consultant's work? Why didn't you
help them decide on the distro and the software coming with it? It would
be YOU using it, YOU would have problems if it didn't work the way you
wanted.
5) ...
6) ..
...
...
------------------------------
From: Tim Koklas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bill is a weenie
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 09:21:47 GMT
Donn Miller wrote:
> Whew! I feel much better, don't you? Also, what's up with Boris and
> "stinking"? Is he still trying to project his personal hygiene faults
> onto others? I'm starting to wonder -- I'll bet Boris is the one who
> stinks.
Why do you feel much better? What will the change in your life? I
thought all you Linux "geeks" didn't want Linux to become more popular
than what it is.
> Come to think of it, can you name ONE way in which Microsoft has made the
> world of computing better? I would say that he made the personal computer
> more accessible to the average dummy with his "easy to use" Windows 9X
> interface. That's one way. I really can't think of any other ways in
> which Microsoft has benefitted us.
1) It made you think you are something more than an average dummy.
2) and show off
> My personal opinion is that:
>
> 1.) Boris needs to take a bath and put on some deo. Also, some cologne
> wouldn't hurt. And dammit Boris, please stop projecting your personal
> hygiene onto everyone else!
>
> 2.) Microsoft hasn't done shit for the computer world, except lock out
> other competitors who produce OS and other software.
>
> 3.) Bill is a geek. Yes, Bill is one of us (Geek), but he is one of those
> asshole geeks.
>
> - Donn
Charlie, it seems you have followers !!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 09:57:05 GMT
TheKeyMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>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.
[...]
>We had severe network performance problems after installing Linux.
Interesting how the mere presence of Linux can cause "severe network
performance problems" in a network where everybody uses Windows all
the time.....
Bernie
--
Ah well! I am their leader, I really had to follow them!
A.A. Ledru-Rollin
French politician
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 09:57:06 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 17 May 2000 19:13:35 GMT
>>OK, so here is the slightly more generic version:
>>
>> grep "[:space:]/[:space:]" /etc/fstab | (read a b; cat /dev/zero >$a)
>Pedant point:
>grep "[[:space:]]/[[:space:]]" /etc/fstab
Argh --- you are right. Too bad I tried this out on a system with NFS-root,
mounted from a machine that had a name starting with 'p'. Worked perfectly ;-)
Bernie
--
Wherever books will be burned, men also, in the end, are burned
Heinrich Heine
German poet, 1797-1856
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451683
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 10:12:23 GMT
Today's Haakmat digest:
1> I already did that, Dave.
No you didn't. That's why you had to ask me what my question was.
1> I won't do it again.
You're erroneously presupposing that you did it previously.
1> Why should you indeed.
You should know, given that you're the one who wants me to admit to
something that isn't the truth.
1> I'm sorry, I'm afraid I confused you with someone else.
That's your problem.
1> Please don't be mad.
What makes you think I might be mad?
1> Sweet liar of mine.
Namely yourself.
1> I beg to differ,
On what basis do you beg to differ, Pascal?
1> daffodil of mine.
Non sequitur.
1> What claim?
The claim you made, Pascal. Having memory problems?
1> What claim?
The claim you made, Pascal. Having memory problems?
1> Don't you know, Dave?
No, I don't know when you disciplined me previously, Pascal; why do
you think I asked?
1> I'm not going to tell you until you admit you forgot to digest me.
Why would I admit to something that isn't the truth, Pascal?
1> That is how I am disciplining you.
Illogical, Pascal.
1> "again", Dave?
Yes, Pascal. Still having reading comprehension problems?
1> All of them.
Typical lack of specificity.
1> Don't you remember?
I can't remember that which hasn't been stated, Pascal.
1> Did I ever stop loving you?
Non sequitur.
1> Are you saying I am predictable?
I'm saying that your failure to start then was not a surprise, Pascal.
1> Love can do that to a person, Dave.
Love for entertainment.
1> Perhaps.
Non sequitur.
1> Perhaps.
On the contrary, for sure you did jump to a conclusion, Pascal.
1> Perhaps.
On the contrary, you did write "if", Pascal.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 18 May 2000 10:49:09 GMT
On 05/18/2000 at 03:13 AM,
"Erik Fuckingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > >> 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.
> >
> > Sure it is.
> No, it's not. For the n-teenth time. He states that Windows is a
> better OS because of the interaction with the Office teams, not that
> Office is a better Office suite because of it.
You are a fucking liar once again. It is EXACTLY what Bill Gates said on
CNBC and CNN.
--
==============================================================================================
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: Thu, 18 May 2000 10:54:33 GMT
On 05/17/2000 at 08:35 PM,
"Erik Fuckingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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.
Bullshit. Again you are proving to be a worthless fucking liar. It is
exactly what Gates said on CNN and CNBC.
> > > 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.
No matter how many times you repeat this lie, it is still a lie and you
are still a fuckingliar.
> > > 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.
Not if it is ordered by a court of competent jusisdiction. But then you
are too damn much of a fuckingliar to recognize facts.
--
==============================================================================================
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] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost
Date: 18 May 2000 08:15:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
Untrue. Most Unix mail clients use the mailcap mechanism. This is
independent of the mail client and similar between different Unix
implementations.
>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.
The mailcap mechanism does not take away functionality from computer
illiterate people besides being able to look at the fireworks from
Happy99.exe from within the mail client. You can still view .gif, .jpeg,
.avi or .mpeg and listen to .mp3, .wav etc, look at the content of .pl,
.txt or whatever.
And how does your statement relate to the patch that Microsoft issued to
disable the execution of email content but also disable any other access
to such email content? Isn't the computer illiterate person not important
anymore? The key here is differentiating between data and code.
>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.
Very true, but history has already shown us what's an acceplable risk
when interconnecting systems and what's not. Microsoft seems to
re-invent the wheel here.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost
Date: 18 May 2000 10:58:00 GMT
Reply-To: [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]...
>
>: > 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.
First remark, why do your limit the scope to commercial UNIX variants?
The advantage of most commercial Unices (high scalability etc) are of
little interest to the current end users. Non-commercial Unices have
quite a lot to offer end users.
>: If Unix wants to compete with windows, it has to start losing those
>: disparities, which will make such viruses inevitable.
>
>Exactly. The way that UNIX advocates seem to point fingers, and ridicule
>Windows and its userbase about viruses is analogous to deep-sea
>crustaceans [sp?] pointing fingers and laughing at sea lions for getting
>eaten by great whites. They aren't up there, and they have no clue how
>difficult it can be. But if they were up there, they'd be toasted even
>faster.
If you would reread the post that started this thread, you would witness
that I actually applauded Microsoft for issuing the patch.
12 years ago, Robert Morris Jr. painfully showed the Unix world that
allowing unchecked content to be executable remotely was a bad idea (the
infamous "DEBUG" command in Sendmail 5.x). The Unix world learned from
that. When MIME was proposed in rfc1341, this danger was explicitly
warned for. So this has nothing to do with pointing fingers or making
things easier for end users, and everything with protecting users from
obvious security issues.
>: 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.
>
>Again, I agree with you completely.
And I disagree. The environment expects the computer illiterate user to
distinguish between code and data when they use an email reader. Hell,
the environment even blurs this distinction by using the phrase "open"
abiguiously.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
The idea that people know what they want is wrong. They need to
be pulled through the Web.
-- Laura Jennings, Vice President, Microsoft Network
------------------------------
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: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:01:05 GMT
On 05/17/2000 at 08:29 PM,
"Erik Fuckingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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)).
You once again prove that you richly deserve to have your name properly
changed to Fuckingliar as I do with every quote of yours to which I reply.
Your mother must be mortified to see what she spawned.
A bugshield is not a significant cost vs. the cost of a new car. And fewer
than 1% of all new cars sold in the United States at retail (not fleet
cars with options not available in dealer showrooms) are sold without a
radio. In fact, only a very, very models do not offer a radio as standard
equipment. Source? Automotive News.
> I might need retraining from an automatic to a manual transmission as
> well.
YOU probably would. No one else under the age of 90 would.
> 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.
You have not given a single example which holds water. All you do is raise
red herrings trying to obfuscate the lies you continually tell.
> You're failing to consider all the costs involved with switching
> products, thus you're being deceptive.
The only one being deceptive is YOU. You are the Fuckingliar.
--
==============================================================================================
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: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:02:23 GMT
On 05/17/2000 at 08:21 PM,
"Erik Fuckingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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.
The HELL it did. I have them all. You are the one who changed it to spread
your fuckinglies.
Your father must be as mortified as your mother to see what he spawned.
I'll bet you were the last child in your family.
--
==============================================================================================
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: John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 06:08:06 -0500
TheKeyMan wrote:
>
> 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...
If any of this is really true then you are a complete idiot. Why don't
you just sit the next dumb ass down in front of a unix box with
everything in chinese? No shit they used the windows machines. Why
would they use something they have probably never even seen before let
alone worked with? I truly hope all of this was just a troll because if
not...you, your company execs, and those consultants are totally and
utterly morons.
jt
------------------------------
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: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:05:39 GMT
On 05/17/2000 at 07:40 PM,
Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In article <eAHU4.1644$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Fuckingliar"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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)).
> That's DIN, or Deutsche Industrie Norm. This is much like complaining
> that a full-size drive won't fit in a half-height bay or that a
> full-height PC card won't fit in a half-height PC card slot.
Of course. Erik Fuckingliar cannot stop trying to obfuscate the obvious.
He is a perverted, twisted, demented liar.
Moreover, 99% of American cars (and every foreign entry I've seen) come
with a radio as standard equipment. At least 3 aftermarket radio
manufacturers have closed up shop in the last 5 years due to this.
As an aside, I always thought DIN meant Deutschelander Industrie Normen.
--
==============================================================================================
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!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
