Linux-Advocacy Digest #326, Volume #31 Sun, 7 Jan 01 22:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com (.)
Re: Could only... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Would Linux be invented if? (Peter Hayes)
Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ? (Yatima)
Re: Could only... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why NT? (Donn Miller)
Re: RPM Hell (Charlie Ebert)
Re: RPM Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux vs Microsoft (Glitch)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:00:37 GMT
Got a point here, that was a pretty complicated explanation on how to set
"the perfect permission" under Windows NT.
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 10:09:42 +0200,
> Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:xPT56.56281$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:938o2v$q9j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > > Can you show me the virus for NT that can damage other people's
file
> >> on
> >> > > > NTFS?
> >> > >
> >> > > Sure, just use one of the many applications that require Everyone
> >> > > (Full Access) to a directory, save your file there, and you're
done.
> >> > > You could make this even easier by using Omnipage Pro, which
requires
> >> > > Administrator access to even run.
> >> >
> >> > This goes to every permission FS in the world, you know.
> >> > If you give Everyone full access to a directory, Everyone will be
able
> >to
> >> do
> >> > whatever they want with the files in that directory.
> >>
> >> It doesn't happen with the typical unix FS configuration that you
> >> see in /tmp or the mail spool. If you set the 'sticky' bit on the
> >> directory, you can allow anyone to create files (with file permissions
> >> being independent of the directory) but only the owner of the file is
> >> allowed to delete it.
> >
> >Let me see, how hard would it be on NT?
> >
> >On NTFS partition, create a directory, remove inheritable permissions,
clean
> >the permissions list and do the following steps.
> >
> >Give Everyone the following permissions:
> >-Create Files / Write Data
> >-Create Folders / Append Data
> >-List Folder / Read Data
> >Apply this to:
> >This folder only
> >
> >Give CREATOR OWNER:
> >-Full Control.
> >Apply this to:
> >Subdirectores and files only.
> >
>
> Gee, that is so much more intuitive and user friendly than
> a single command from a shell...
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
>
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:04:37 +1300
> > V. Two words: Blue LEDs.
>
> Bue LEDs are expensive.
> LShaping
>
So is the three-fan modem bundled with games, and the market it attracts
doesn't particularly care how much it costs Mommy and Daddy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:05:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JM wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 05:18:00 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)) wrote:
>
>>> It is illegal to discharge a weapon with the intent to murder
>>> another human being.
>
>>We could shorten this to it's illegal to murder.
>>But it is definitely not illegal to hose down a burglar, or intruder on
>>your own premises in over 1/2 the states of this nation.
>
>So if someone has invited you to their house, someone else in the
>house could just kill you?
>
Well, if you INVITED somebody over to your house then would THEY be
a burglar or intruder? Nope.
>>>All of those activities WERE ALREADY ILLEGAL....so, exactly *what*
>>>would another law do, exactly?
>
>>Nothing. I often MARVEL at our seatbelt laws. Or how about the
>>ones which force you to buckle up on an aircraft.
>
>And this is relavent how?
>
Absolutely. Our government has concerns about the weirdest of issues.
Case in point, we let go countless thousands of murders and rapist from
the 1960's thru the 1990's until they brought the death penalty back.
Despite the FACT there were dozens' of witness's who saw these people
KILL, the judicial system turned them out of prisons by the droves.
When I lived in Houston we were turning 12,000 inmates out on the streets
every 3 months and of those 60% were violent offenders.
So remember to BUCKLE UP so when they shoot you thru the glass for your
car keys your are more easily collectible.
Anything for a few bucks on a ticket,,, right...
>>We even have a new felony law which states if you travel more than
>>1/4 mile from the red lights of a police vehicle OR you turn off
>>on another street or exit a highway while being followed by a
>>police vehicle with it's red's on, you are automatically guilty
>>of a felony. Not seeing the lights is no excuse.
>
>And this is relavent how?
>
Well, if I have to explain this one to you chances are your a
total asshole anyway and couldn't possibly grasp some of the
more common elements of logic.
>>>Do you think it would have prevent those with criminal intent from
>>>getting weapons? If you believe that, you're insane.
>
>>You can buy almost any kind of pistol at your local truckstop for
>>under $300.
>
>Yes, anyone who feels like causing trouble can wander into their
>corner shop.
>
><irrelevent drug talk snipped>
I've noticed this isn't your usual "And this is relavent how? thing"
>>>> example, a person who owns a gun, must have it locked in a safe place to
>>>> ensure that it is out of the reach of kiddies and undesirable
>>>> characters.
>
>>>How many undesirable characters obey such laws?
>
>>None.
>
>And what about everyone else? What about people who just decide to
>leave it on the table, then some 10 year old comes and steals it
>before gunning down some people outside.
>
Am I really supposed to feel sorry because some MORON left a gun
on the table for their 6 year old to shoot their baby brother with?
I'm not.
That same 6 year old could have just as easily been run over by a
car in the street, swallowed a bottle of chemicles from under the
sink, swallowed some prescription medicine for momy, got the lawn
mower started and accidently cut their limb off, been mauled by a
doberman, reached up on a hot stove and knocked a pot of boiling
oil all over themselves.
My wife has been an ER nurse for a couple of decades. I've seen
and heard it all. Believe me.
It's totally YOUR fault if you leave a loaded gun on a table for
a child to grab. THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUE ENOUGH GRIEVANCE TO GO
ON SOME BRAINDEAD NATION WIDE CAMPAIGN AGAINST ALL FIREARMS.
What it does show is that your a brainless communist who's intent
on destroying what's RIGHT about America.
>
>>>How many undesirable characters obey such laws?
>
>>None.
>
>How can they decide not to be held liable for what happens with their
>own guns?
>
Easy, they are not in command of the weapon.
If a woman borrows your car and then get's drunk and kills someone,
you ARE NOT GUILTY OF MANSLATER.
Just because it was a gun doesn't make this ANY different.
>>>> We maybe a shitty little country in the south pacific and that 99% of
>>>> American youth don't know wheren the hell it is, but at least we have
>>>> out shit together.
>
>>>Well, you are turning away from Socialism...but, any man who is
>>>prohibited from carrying a weapon to defend himself is only a serf.
>
>>Anybody who lives in a nation which doesn't trust it's own citizens
>>to carry a firearm is living in a dictatorship or a communist country.
>
>Anyone who lives in a nation which allows its citizens easy access to
>tools designed to murder people is living in a anarchist country.
>
Any nation which bans instrumentalities is doomed to fail.
You and I could meet on a street and I could get pissed off
and just run you over with my truck. You would be just as
dead as if you were killed by a handgun. IN fact, automobiles
kill more people than guns or any other form of instrumental death.
I think what you are trying to say is we should BAN the automobile.
But that's an assinine idea as it uses logic.
>>You have no freedoms. Don't think you have freedoms if you can't
>>even carry a lousy pistol.
>
>Don't think you have freedoms if people are free to carry about
>weapons and could just shoot you if you happened to disagree with
>them.
>
Your getting to be a stupid ass here.
>>>Gun control laws are merely a re-establishment of the medieval class
>>>system: The elite get to arm themselves, while the un-washed masses
>>>are targets for crime.
>
>>I think it's merely a setup for a total police state where
>>"criminals" and "citizens" don't exist seperately.
>
>Or a society where those with guns get to bully and threaten those who
>don't.
>
Humm. More stupid ass. If you threaten somebody with a gun you
can go to jail. If you use it to save your own life you don't.
But I've never run into anybody who walks around with a gun just
threatening people. I've seen it on T.V. but never in person.
And I think it's a bad thing. And I think it's an equal bad
thing when a airplane loaded with 197 passengers slamms into
a field in iowa also.
These issues come more along the lines of BAD DAYS.
>>I am 100% in favor of banning all financial aid and military support
>>for countries which don't even support the right for their own
>>citizens to bear arms.
>
>I'm all in favour of banning all financial aid and military support
>for countries which don't even support the right for their own
>citizens to feel safe in their own country.
>
We must BAN financial aid toward any country which supports any
form of gun control.
You do not rule a nation by placing limits on various instrumentalities.
You rule it by the will of the people, not the whim of government.
>>If the government doesn't trust it's citizens to carry their own
>>arms then what kind of government do you have?
>
>An government that realises people can't be trusted to have casual
>access to guns.
Nope, you have a government which doesn't trust it's own people.
And that's all you have.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would Linux be invented if?
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:06:33 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 22:34:11 -0000, "Nigel Feltham"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >If God were truly interested, Bill Gates would have been born in Finland
> and
> >we'd have been blessed with Mr. Torvalds.
> >
>
>
> What did finland do to be cursed with bill gates - If god were really
> interested he
> would have died at birth.
Or what if in 1968 the officials at the Lakeside School in Seattle had
decided against installing a computer terminal? Gates would probably have
followed his father into the legal profession, and Apple would rule the
roost.
So we've really got a lot to thank the custodians of the Lakeside School
for :-)
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yatima)
Subject: Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ?
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:15:17 GMT
On 07 Jan 2001 16:36:30 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I hear ya. Mozilla is a PITA to get going. I'm still SOL when it comes
>> to secure browsing (yes I went to te iplanet site and tried to get the
>> PSM module but got a emtpy popup window instead).
>
>I've been running PSM for quite some time now. Currently, I'm running
>the nightly download from jan 3rd, 2001 -- works great.
Do the nightly builds come with PSM or do you need to download it from
iplanet? I can't get the download to work either as a regular user or as
root.
--
yatima
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:16:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JM wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 17:28:57 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>kiwiunixman wrote:
>
>>> Well, you're right, nothing will happen until a leader with a bit of
>>> backbone, grabs the US by the balls and drags it out of the gun crazed
>>> culture that has bred itself into the US citizens sub conscience.
>
>>Guns are freedom and safety.
>
>Yes, being shot at whenever you go outside is really "safe".
>
To read this it's appearent the author lives in a warring nation
over in Africa.
>>Look at Australia...they banned guns, and the murder rate TRIPLED.
>
>That's such a fallacy it's untrue.
>
Nope. It's statistics.
>>This indicates that private ownership of guns PREVENTS more murders
>>than it causes.
>
>Yes, your attacker having a gun PREVENTS him murdering you.
>
The idea is you shoot him before he shoots you.
>>> Unfortunately this will not happen until the the election system is
>>> overhalled so that scumbag organisations like Microsoft and the NRA keep
>>> out politics and that elections are based on policies, not, "oh, I'm not
>
>>Preserving the right to gun ownership *IS* a policy.
>
>The right to go outside without being armed to the teeth should be a
>policy.
>
>
You have that right if you want it.
I go outside all the time and I'm NOT armed to the teeth.
And whilst your out there, clean up that yard.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Date: 7 Jan 2001 20:24:18 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I agree that Unix/Linux is more of a religion. Most people have never
> used Unix/Linux since Microsoft has such a dominant position. Each side
> has something to learn from the other. Historically Microsoft has had
> stability problems (which they may have finally gotten right with W2K).
> Before Linux becomes popular it will need to take a chapter from
> Microsoft's book regarding ease of use for novice users who think their
> monitor is the computer.
Yep, it's a religious thing - it really is. I try to stick with unix as much
as possible, because, I don't know. I just like the command-line interface,
because I think I can get more done than with a GUI. Also, I like the
flexibility of a unix-type OS like Linux, where I can configure X to be as
command-line or GUI oriented as I like. With Windows, it's just pretty much
Explorer sitting on the table, take it or leave it. This takes a lot of
flexibility away from the user, but for the general public who don't really
care too much for computers, there's no confusion as to how you should
configure your video card, or which window manager is best, or which X toolkit
is best.
But, people like me who have been using PC's and unix workstations since say
'91 and '93, respectively, we take more of a religious attitude towards what we
run on our machines. Each operating system, like Windows and unix, has
their own philospies of how the operating system should be run. This tends
to segregate people into their own little religious cults.
Some people run Linux because it's simply an alternative to MS and Windows.
I run FreeBSD and Linux because I fell in love with unix on unix workstations
the first time I used it. Hence, Linux and FreeBSD give me the chance to
turn my PC at home into a unix workstation. Second, I also like the fact
that Linux and BSD are both Open Source software. As a programmer, I like to
see the source code for various parts of the OS, particularly the libc
functions, and the kernel functions, esp. the filesystem stuff. Also, I like
these two OSes because I can trust them, being open source. Plus, I find the
licenses more agreeable to what Microsoft puts on the table.
Of course, then there are some people who probably hate one unix and like
others. Like, for example, some folks may not like Solaris, because it is
the product of a "big company", and is closed source. I tend to dislike
Solaris because of these reasons, but I still feel I can learn something by
programming on / admin'ing Solaris nonetheless.
Sorry about my previous posting; it got mangled by the w3m browser and Deja.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:30:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
BradyBear wrote:
>Well, I decided to give KDE 2.0.1 a shot. So I downloaded all the
>relevent rpm,s. But before I can install my shiny new desktop, I need
>to install the latest version of QT. So, I go grab QT2.2.3. Great. Got
>the rpm, type rpm -i and I get failed dependancies... qt needs lib.so
>this and that etc. So I do a search on rpmfind and find three packages
>that I need. Package one needs me to upgrade rpm. So I go get the rpm
>update. Package one now installs. Package two still needs another
>lib.so.etc. Installing pakage three will break App A. So now I need
>to upgrade App A and the whole damn thing starts over (more failed
>dependencies, more broken app's) and the whole thing escalates
>exponentially until I've basically had to update the whole damn OS.
>The whole time I'm doing this, I keep thinking of the last line from
>the movie "The Bridge over the River Kwie" ... Madness...Madness.
>And it seems appropriate. Build a bridge so you can blow it up.
>That's Linux
That's why I use Debian. You just select kde base and it selects
all the dependencies, then downloads them for me, then installs
them, then sets them up, all automajically!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Date: 8 Jan 2001 02:32:07 GMT
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 01:04:46 +0000, Richard Thrippleton wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> The one patch limit is neither "superior" nor friendly. THe debian system
>> is great for end lusers but lousy for packagers.
>>
>
> I suppose packaging has it's advantages. I suppose it come a matter of
>personal taste really; I like to be in control, hence my DIY methods.
I don't know why you think that src.rpm doesn't permit you to "DIY" or
"be in control". Admittedly, it requires a more sophisticated user to
customise/roll their own spec files than to just type "make install",
haphazardly spray files everywhere and declare themselves a "hacker".
For people who like being "in control" RPM has a lot to offer. For people
who want to just blindly type "make install" and not pay any attention
to where the files go (which is certainly not "begin in control"), I suppose
it's a nuisance.
> Incidentally, does the RPM system automatically try to compile and install
>.src.rpms, or just extract them?
Depending on how you invoke it, it does either. rpm -i on a source rpm
extracts it.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 21:42:33 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs Microsoft
> > Getting fixes withen weeks of a release is a hell of a lot better than
> > waiting 6 months for a service pack from MS!
>
> During which time, Microshaft denies that the problems even exist...
>
after which more problems occur
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:37:01 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 6 Jan 2001
[...]
>> Denying evidence, on the other hand, of purposeful and repetitive
>> "malice" (intent to monopolize) in similar scenarios, is merely
>> soft-headed.
>
>No, you completely made up the story that MS didn't include a Word95 save
>feature in order to force users to upgrade, when in fact it was simply a
>cost saving measure. Whether or not MS changes their format to force
>upgrades is largely irrelevant to that fact.
Oh it is? Why, because you declare it is so that you don't have to
confront the fact that THERE WAS NO OTHER REASON? Show me a memo saying
it was "cost saving"; provide some numbers to indicate how much money
was 'saved' by 'encouraging' migration by leaving OUT a filter that the
consumers were CLEARLY interested in. Answer why they spent money
changing the rtf filter to save files with .doc extensions, if they were
under such a strict budget. TELL ME YOU'R REALLY STUPID ENOUGH TO BUY
THAT 'cost saving' HORSESHIT!
>Also, consider that the file format didn't change between Word 6.0 and Word
>95.
That's because, for all practical purposes, WORD didn't change between
6.0 and Word95. That was a "new version because its in a new box"
upgrade. Word95 *was* Word 6.0.
>Also consider that the format didn't change between Word 97 and 2000.
Exqueeze me? Send me a Word2000 document with a couple tables, a
graphic, and some page formatting. We'll see if Word97 can read it.
I've refused to upgrade since then. Make it quick; I'm losing this
computer this week. (Hello Linux!)
>Also consider that the Excel format hasn't change since Excel 5, 4 versions
>ago. If MS was so concerned, wouldn't they change the formats of all their
>programs every time?
This is horse-shit, for sure. My office had loads of problems with
"cannot open file" because the new version of Excel (97, again, IIRC)
saved files the old version couldn't read.
Microsoft's concern, of course, would naturally be much less these days.
Since they effectively destroyed competition in the Office Suite market
by monopolistically forcing OEMs to bundle Office with Windows, there
really isn't much need for this type of expense anymore. Microsoft
saves its time and money for only the most effective anti-competitive,
illegal activity.
[...]
>Yet they are able to successfully pull this off, time after time, even when
>they had no monopoly in Office software.
I really don't know what you mean; monopolization is for keeps. They
only did it once (twice if you include BASIC ROMs); once the DOS
per-processor lock-in was established, Windows, Office, IE, Outlook, NT;
these are all merely extensions gained by illegally "leveraging" the
existing monopoly. It isn't hard. Hell; Office was so easy, nobody
even noticed.
>> >In your rush to decry them, you are willing to
>> >latch onto any feeble rumor and present it as fact (for instance, the
>> >neverending stories of how NT contains DEC source code line for line, how
>> >Hotmail was converted to NT right away and it crashed, how MS uses secret
>> >API's in their apps to make them work better than their competition, and
>a
>> >ton of others).
>>
>> All simplifications of factual predatory activity.
>
>None of which are true, or at least proveably so. Nobody has provide any
>evidence, not even in the DOJ trials to suggest any of them.
You don't seem to understand the word "factual". No, the DOJ had no
need or desire to provide such evidence of monopolization in court;
simply demonstrating that MS had a dominant market share which they used
anti-competitively was enough. Every example of anti-competitive
activity doesn't need to be addressed, unless you're going for criminal
charges. Then, each instance would be, potentially, another three years
in prison.
>> >Fact is, MS got lucky in a few key areas, and their competition failed to
>> >compete.
>>
>> No, the facts are (http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm)
>
>None of the above rumors are in there.
Yet there is conclusive and overwhelming evidence that, despite your
dishonest claim, MS didn't "get lucky in a few key areas", but
purposefully and continuously monopolized, which is illegal.
>> that they break the law, and act anti-competitively. Of course "the
>> competition failed to compete" (did you know that was nonsensical?);
>> there is no way to compete against someone who is anti-competing.
>
>Funny how Intuit and AOL have managed to do so.
They have managed to avoid competing. You couldn't really say they
"compete", considering how pathetically bad Microsoft's alternative is.
So if there's anything that *doesn't* roll over and hand the market to
Microsoft, that means they can't be a monopolist, in your eye? Both may
well be far more anti-competitive than I am currently aware of. A red
herring, regardless.
>> Competing harder only loses money faster; your only possible strategy,
>> in fact, is to anti-compete. This "cascade effect" is something you'd
>> find even easier to hand-wave away. But the utter naivete (or
>> stupidity, lets be honest) of proposing that MS "got lucky in a few key
>> areas" is rather preposterous. I'm sure you'll find it comforting to
>> know, however, that it is now wise to attribute to intellectual
>> dishonesty what can be reasonably explained by ignorance.
>
>Anyone can compete against MS. You just have to be agressive.
Anybody can be anti-competitive, I think that's what you mean. 'Long as
you don't mind breaking the law.
>I've worked for 2 different companies that successfully fought off a MS
>entry into their market. I know it works.
Perhaps you merely "got lucky in a key area?" Guffaw.
You've worked for 2 companies, I would imagine, that 'partnered' with
MS, rather than competing with them. "Please don't destroy us, and
we'll be your sock-puppet," that kind of thing.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:37:02 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 7 Jan 2001
[...]
>> The failure of Hotmail under NT has been shown to be true repeatedly
>
>No, it hasn't. There was *ONE* article published on a site with zero
>credibility that referred to "unamed sources" as their evidence. Everyone
>else has merely been using the same article for their proof.
>
>Here is MS's official response to the article:
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/NTServer/web/news/msnw/Hotmail.asp
>
>"Long term, Hotmail is committed to moving to Windows NT Server. However,
>wholesale migration to Windows NT Server has not yet been attempted." Of
>course this was in 1998, and Hotmail has since moved to Win2k for it's web
>servers.
Well, if you didn't have your head in the sand, you'd notice that the
"wholesale migration to Windows NT Server has not yet been attempted".
Perhaps you're unwilling or unable to competently read press releases,
but this means that the reason they have not attempted the wholesale
migration is, indeed, because all of their pilot attempts to migrate
were massive disasters. Of course, even in 1998, they moved to NT *for
web servers*. The real work continues to this day to be done on Unix
boxes.
>> The "secret API's" have been admitted to in court. Who are you to
>> accuse Microsoft executives of perjury ?
>
>No, they have not been admitted in court. All the evidence is online,
>please post a link to this supposed evidence.
>
>> >Fact is, MS got lucky in a few key areas, and their competition failed to
>> >compete.
>> >
>> Fact is, M$ is a criminal organization.
>>
>> A little light reading for you:
>>
>>
>http://library.northernlight.com/SG19990714180000309.html?cb=13&sc=0#doc
>
>What's your point? These colorful interpretations by reporters are just
>that, interpretations.
Yes, interpretations of the researched facts by reasonable men. The
point is that your position is in conflict with that held by reasonable
men.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:37:04 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 6 Jan 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 06 Jan 2001 20:18:06
>> >[...]Even if the 97 CD did contain a filter, I don't
>> >see how that helps the people who have word95 and obviously don't
>> >have a copy of the 97 CD.
>>
>> Well, you can't very well put in on the 95 CD. ;-)
>>
>> And, as Erik is so anal about pointing out, it was available for
>> download.
>>
>> But I wonder why on earth Microsoft couldn't provide a filter for 95 to
>> allow it to save in 97 format, as well? Is it just that its
>> nonsensical? It does seem bizarre, doesn't it? Word97 could read 95
>> files, of course; it just couldn't write them (till people complained).
>> Still, that's premised on the notion that there was some beneficial
>> format change to begin with, which means wanting to save a 95 file in 97
>> format should make sense?
>
>The filter did allow it to save and read in 97 format. Yet again, you make
>an assumption which is incorrect.
Word95 has the ability to save a file in Word97 format? That doesn't
seem likely. Regardless, it is an idle musing, not an 'incorrect
assumption'.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
