Linux-Advocacy Digest #181, Volume #29 Mon, 18 Sep 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Chad Irby)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Mike Byrns)
Re: Unix more secure, huh? (Mike Byrns)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Jason Bowen)
Re: GPL & freedom ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (dc)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:30:29 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know that the name change was announced on or around October 98, it
> doesn't change the fact that references made to NT5 are false.
> When the Windows 2000 final release code was compiled Dec. 1999 it was not
> known as NT 5, it was known as Windows 2000.
So by renaming it, it's a whole new product?
What a great idea! Nobody ever has to change anything! They just have
to alter the name, and it's a whole new thing!
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:35:40 -0500
C Lund wrote:
>
> In article <8q2ts5$jbq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "James Stutts"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I mean - you guys haven't managed to tell me about *one* single new thing
> > > in W2K.
> > Active Directory? Game support combined with SMP? Why don't you look it up
> > yourself?
>
> Why should I? I'm never going to use that OS anyway.
So why the fuck are you asking?
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:39:03 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Otto wrote:
> >
> > "A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > : On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:33:58 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > : : And that suppose to diminish the validity of the actual news how? Maybe
> > you
> > : : should look at the following link, CERT released the warning about Linux
> > and
> > : : DDoS on Friday:
> > : :
> > : : http://www.cert.org/incident_notes/IN-2000-10.html
> > :
> > : Oh wow. It cites two vulnerabilities that have had patches available for
> > : quite some time, all within 24-48 hours after being found.
> >
> > Oh wow, hundreds of systems are compromised on the daily basis with old
> > exploits. Availability means nothing, applying the patch might. It doesn't
>
> Are you implying that patches should automatically seek out un-patched
> systems, and automagically install themselves?
That's essentially how it works on Windows 2000. When there's a new
patch, the OS tells you and offers to install it after it lets you read
about it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: 18 Sep 2000 16:35:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I only RESPOND to hostility WITH hostility.
A lie. You and Bob started the cussing in name calling in our thread. If
you can prove that I started the hostility with you feel free to prove it.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:58:57 -0500
"Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8q54dd$riu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If the majority of the authors agree to change the license, the minority
> code can be replaced by new code in order to make the new work not
> derived from theirs, and thus not copyrighted by them, and thus no
> longer bound by the GPL.
And just exactly how are you going to tell which code is copyright by whom?
It's fine if each module is copyright by a single person. But after each
file has been modified by dozens of people, hudreds of times it will be
virtually impossible to track this, even with version control.
> Spare me the hypocrisy. You want to be free to release your
> precious code in any way you choose, but those with code you want
> to take apparently shouldn't have the same freedoms because
> you need their code so badly. Well that's tough shit for you
> because if you want to use GPL'd code, you'd better be prepared
> to abide by it. And if not, quit being lazy and code it yourself.
No. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the GPL *OTHER* than the fact
that it claims to enforce some kind of freedom which it doesn't. The issue
here is the hypocrisy of the GPL, not whether the authors have the right to
demand others return their changes to the community.
> More like: The GPL strips away your freedom to steal GPL'd code without
> having to worry about those pesky copyrights of the original authors
> whose work you'd very much like to use in any way you please.
No. Any other license will give copyright enforcement as well. Hell, you
don't even need a license to copyright something. The GPL doesn't enforce
copyright.
> And the notion that the GPL is a FSF world-domination plot is even
> more laughable, given the fact that escaping the oh-so-terrible
> GPL is as easy as coding something from scratch and using a new
> license.
And how "free" would it be to tell someone "Oh, you can say whatever you
like, you just have to go to another country to do so".
> Of course the GPL is about freedom. It's about the original author
> making sure you don't have the freedom to make *HIS* code less
> free to everyone else than when it was first released. And it's
> about your freedom to not use his code if you don't like that
> arrangement.
This is the fallacy that the hipocrisy is founded on. No matter what I do
with my copy of *HIS* code, that doesn't change the fact that he can still
offer it free to anyone and everyone. Once i've changed his code, the parts
that I have changed are now my own copyright, even under the GPL. That
makes *ME* the owner. The unmodified portions are still *HIS* code and
still exist in his original release.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy,comp.ms.windows-nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:00:16 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8q4dcn$ha7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:1Ecx5.2423$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > The IDE card probably has BIOS hooks to install itself into DOS (int
13h).
> > Since Windows ME doesn't use the BIOS to control hardware, it needs to
> have
> > a specific protected mode driver to access the hardware. This is the
same
> > as NT as well.
> >
> > You are implying way too much. Since the IDE controller was built to
> wedge
> > itself into DOS, the fact that it doesn't wedge itself into Windows (if
> that
> > were even possible) says nothing about Windows. DOS doesn't have
drivers
> > for the card. The card simply plays bios tricks to pretend that it's a
> > native device.
>
> Then how can you explain Linux using eight IDE harddrives or other IDE
> devices on a computer with a BIOS that only knows about two drives? Linux
> can handle up to sixteen harddrives on one computer. What is the Windows
ME
> upper limit for the same situation?
Linux can only handle IDE controllers that it has drivers for. Same with
Windows.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy,comp.ms.windows-nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:01:37 -0500
"Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > They don't bitch about legacy support in itself being gone, they
complain
> > about
> > the support for their hardware being removed -
>
> Exactly. So my video card is obsolete because MS says so? Fuck
> that. That is the sort of arrogance that is driving a lot of
> people to try linux.
Just because MS doesn't provide a driver in the distribution doesn't mean
you can't install one yourself. Geez. I guess that means any hardware not
supported by Linux out of the box should be thrown away as well.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:05:29 -0500
"Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Almost no one complains about linux being hard to install, not
> even the schizo steve-heather-keys88 guy that posts here. Even
> he thinks linux is easy to install. Most Linux distros also take
> less time to install, and is set up so that you fill out all the
> info first, then go about whatever else you wanted to do (with
> windows you need to sit at attention during the entire install
> process).
Linux *IS* difficult to set up if you have anything that's unsupported, just
like Windows.
> Consider: a full RH6.2 install takes about 20 minutes, and that
> is about half the time it takes to install Win98 and yet is about
> five times as much software.
Apples to oranges. Windows must detect all it's hardware, Linux is free to
only detect what it wants to. Windows supports thousands more devices than
Linux does, and probes must be done for each of them. This takes much
longer.
> Windows is NOT easy to install. Windows installers (from 95 to
> NT) have always been poorly written, klunky, futzy and weird.
Please justify this statement with *SOME* kind of evidence. Even if it's
just anectdotal.
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:47:39 -0500
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:00:23 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(C Lund) wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >Go read Paul 'Z' Ewande's reply to my post and maybe you'll
>> >learn a thing or two yourself.
>> Why? It's common knowledge.
>
>Then why didn't you give a few examples?
Why didn't you know?
>> >One might think you didn't know any more
>> >than I do on W2K.
>> Why? Because you aren't paying me to educate you?
>
>Why should I pay you? You obviously don't have a clue.
How so?
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:54:59 GMT
FM wrote:
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Your idea is sensible in principle, but it remains that the
> >>standard Unix system presents a more consistent interface
> >>than what I can infer from your posts the system you have in
> >>mind. Then there's all those compatibility problems.
>
> >I haven't put anything about serious OS design into my
> >posts,
>
> I'm talking about the interface, of course.
Now you're just showing your utter, utter ignorance;
WHICH interface? Not that the answer matters since
I haven't put anything about serious design in my posts.
You "infer" from nothing.
> >and Denis Ritchie himself acknowledges that Unix
> >is wildly inconsistent (a fact which anyone who knows
> >anything about OS design would never dispute).
>
> All systems are somewhat inconsistent at some level.
> Unix is NOT inconsistent at the level you criticized.
Unix is wildly inconsistent at ALL levels. But I don't
think you even know what level I was talking about.
But then, I don't think you know anything at all; hell,
you're having to take my word about Ritchie's opinion
of Unix. Give up you cretin. You've lost completely
and utterly.
As for who is being the asshole; you presume to pass
judgement over *me*?? Just what the fuck have /you/
done you little shite?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy,comp.ms.windows-nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:45:30 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8q5cnh$491$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> MS has precisely fuck all to do with whether your video card is supported.
> Your hardware manufacturer decides whether to write the driver, not MS.
MS
> may bundle the driver, but they certainly don't write them...
Who writes the VGA 640x480 16 color driver?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 16:51:36 GMT
Lets play 'Spot the Fruitcake!'
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charles Kooy wrote:
> >
> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Charles Kooy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Charles Kooy wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Charles Kooy wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > Left-wing social causes (global warming
> > > > > > > > > propaganda)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Uhm, what precisely is 'left wing' about global warming?
I think the
> > > > > > > > majority of people would refer to it as an issue that
concerns
> > > everyone.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "global warming" is a NON-event that the Left is trying to
use to
> > > > > > > weaken the economies of capitalist economies.
> > > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > > > Why would the Left want to weaken the economies of
non-capitalist
> > > > > > countries?
> > > > >
> > > > > Spot the deliberate mis-quote.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ever notice who the non-capitalist countries which sign onto
> > > > > idiot-pacts like the Kyoto Accords are never called on to
> > > > > change THEIR production techniques (even though these same
> > > > > countries put FAR more C02 into the air than western countries
> > > > > for the same number of goods produced.)
> > > > >
> > > > The Kyoto accord was/is fatally flawed in many different ways.
Many
> > > > third world countries consider it unfair that they, who are just
> > > > developing their industrial infrastructure, should be subject to
the
> > > > same emmission controls that rich countries have set, especially
when
> > > > those rich countries have spent the last 150 years chucking
every kind
> > > > of crap about. That pisses them off because their development
may be
> > > > stifled, as they may not be able to afford the cleaner
equipment.
> > > >
> > > > Nevertheless, this does not mean that global warming does not
exist
> > >
> > > Whether global warming exists or not (and the only data that
supports
> > > the conjecture is from weather stations that existed before
> > > industrialization which are now buried in the middle of local
> > > concrete-jungle hot-spots.
> > >
> > > Temperature data from RURAL weather stations shows ***NO CHANGE***
> > > for the last 100 years.
> >
> > Yet temperatures at the Poles is rising, and there is also a still
> > growing hole in the Ozone layer (though the latter may, admittedly,
be a
> > natural fluctuation - difficult to judge with the very limited
amount of
>
> Natural fluctuation...In other words, a NON-ISSUE.
>
> Do you know *WHY* the ozone-layer thins over the south pole during
> the southern-hemisphere winter?
>
> 1) Ozone is produced by ultraviolet rays interacting with oxygen
> atoms in the upper atmosphere
> 2) Ozone breaks down over time
> 3) Any airmasss which doesn't get exposed to ultraviolet light
> experiences a decrease in ozone levels
> 4) Each polar region experiences a 90-day "night" during that
> hemisphere's winter.
>
> QED.
>
> > historical data available on that particular issue). There is a lot
of
> > ice at the poles. What do you think will happen when that ice starts
> > melting. Nothing?
>
> No such thing is happening. A 2-mile hole in the cap was cleared by
> ice-breakers as a PUBLICITY STUNT. If this were a GENUINE process,
> then the whole ice cap would have been broken up....not PACKED LIKE
> A GLACIER as shown in the publicity-stunt photograph.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Global warming is all about providing an excuse for removing
personal
> > > freedoms, and implementing more socialism as an attempt to keep
those
> > > who are rich and powerful (Kennedys, Rockefellers, Rothchilds,
etc.)
> >
> > Aha - I see you feel it necessary to single out a Catholic family
and
> > two Jewish ones.
>
> Fuck you, racist pig. Religion has nothing to do with
it...Plutocratic
> behavior does.
>
> > Do you have a problem with them, or were they just the
> > first to come to mind?
>
> They are the best known wealthy-assholes in these parts. They are
> all known for pandering to the poor by promoting legislation that
> is harmful to anybody trying to improve their own personal economic
> situation.
>
> Socialism is merely a way for the "kings of the mountain" to
> a) install underground refrigeration to freeze the mountain side, and
> b) hose down the mountain side with water until it's covered with
> a sheet of ice...
>
> All at the expense of those on the bottom
>
> The quicker you and your friends figure this out, the sooner you
> will be allowed to KEEP YOUR OWN MONEY.
>
> >
> > > at the top by utterly destroying the means for anybody else to
> > > rise withing the socio-economic structure.
> >
> > Really? How do you explain the increase in the number of
> > multi-millionaires over the last 40 or so years? They seem to have
done
> > pretty well... Not to mention the substantial growth in the size of
the
> > middle classes since the 1950's, and particularly since the early
> > 1980's. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^
>
> That corresponds QUITE WELL with Reagan's initiatives to reduce
> socialism
>
> >
> > ck
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Marxist bullshit deleted]
> > > >
> > > > Tell me, Aaron, do you call everything you don't agree with
bullshit?
> > > > That really is terrribly, well, Marxist of you.
> > > >
> > > > ck
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
>
> C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
> sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
> that she doesn't like.
>
> D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
>
> E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
> F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
> response until their behavior improves.
>
> G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues
against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> H: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
