Linux-Advocacy Digest #225, Volume #32 Fri, 16 Feb 01 00:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("Lloyd Llewellyn")
Re: Joke of the day - from Microsoft ("Lloyd Llewellyn")
Re: Joke of the day - from Microsoft (mlw)
Re: Interesting article (Dave Martel)
ReiserFS (mlw)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: ReiserFS ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Windows guy. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux Uptime (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux Uptime (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Lloyd Llewellyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 03:11:19 GMT
Basically Microsoft is trying to use the government to OUTLAW competition
from open source.
Wrapping himself in the American flag, Microsoft's Allchin says: ''I'm an
American, I believe in the American Way,'' he said. ''I worry if the
government encourages open source, and I don't think we've done enough
education of policy makers to understand the threat.''
What in the WORLD is that supposed to mean?
SOMEONE NEEDS TO WATCH VERY CLOSELY THAT THIS "EDUCATION" DOES NOT COME IN
THE FORM OF MASSIVE POLITICAL DONATIONS.
IS THERE ANY DOUBT LEFT IN ANYONE'S MIND that Microsoft will stop at
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to keep its power?
This is not just PATHETIC - it's UTTERLY UNACCEPTABLE and a SHAMELESS
ASSAULT on our rights.
This is just sickening.
------------------------------
From: "Lloyd Llewellyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Joke of the day - from Microsoft
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 03:26:27 GMT
> ``Free software is evil'' sez Microsoft.
>
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4833927.html?tag=mn_hd
Excuse me, is there anyone out there who thinks this is *funny*?
Microsoft trying to get the government to view open source software as a
threat the the American way?
Gee, I just can't stop laughing.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Joke of the day - from Microsoft
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:42:30 -0500
Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:
>
> > ``Free software is evil'' sez Microsoft.
> >
> > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4833927.html?tag=mn_hd
>
> Excuse me, is there anyone out there who thinks this is *funny*?
>
> Microsoft trying to get the government to view open source software as a
> threat the the American way?
>
> Gee, I just can't stop laughing.
If I thought for a moment that our elected officials would let something as
important as common sense keep them from accepting "educational" contributions
from Microsoft, I would allow myself to laugh.
Unfortunately, GW (idiot son of a bad president) proves that our entire system
is for sale. Fix a few elections, buy a few people, appoint Ashcroft, it is a
sad period in my counties history. I think we have hit rock bottom,
unfortunately, they are looking for shovels.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:33:03 -0700
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 02:06:25 GMT, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:10:15 GMT, "Chad Myers"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Mike Byrns wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Such weighty content Aaron ;-) UNIX doesn't really "develop".
>> >>
>> >> What is this I've been imagining the last 8 years then?
>> >>
>> >> The Unix systems I've used - Linux, Solaris, BSD - keep
>> >> gaining new features and refinements, and contrary to the
>> >> assertions of the misinformed, are still alive and well.
>> >>
>> >> > It's an old
>> >> > picture from the 60s that was done developing long ago.
>> >>
>> >> Sounds like you've sat through one too many windows pep
>> >> rallies there bubba -
>> >
>> >No, really, what has changed dramatically in Unix in the
>> >last 10 years?
>> >
>> >We still use telnet
>> >We still use crappy old XWindows
>>
>> You know, guys, I think we're all being had. Have you ever carried on
>> a conversation with that ELIZA program that pretends to be a
>> psychologist? Well, Chad kind of reminds me of that. I think we've all
>> been suckered in by someone's AUI* experiment.
>>
>> *AUI= Artificial Un-Intelligence
>
>
>Yet another post by the Penguinistas attacking the poster, rather
>than the merits of the post.
Merits?
>By your ignoring the post, I assume you are in complete agreement.
Who cares what a silly program thinks?
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ReiserFS
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:49:12 -0500
Well, I tried it. It is interesting, but no thanks. It seems slower than ext2
for most everything I do.
Back to ext2, waiting for xfs.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:22:57 -0600
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > This time? I didn't agree with Windows 3.x (I was an Amiga and OS/2
> > user until Win95). I didn't agree with MS Bob. I prefer Quicken over
> > MS Money.
>
> I think .NET is more akin to "Cairo" than to MS Bob or Money. In terms
> of it's intended scope and effect on the market.
Perhaps, however pieces of .NET are appearing all the time, whereas Cairo
was mostly vapor for a long time, waiting for the one big release.
> >I haven't agreed with a lot of what MS does,
>
> You couldn't prove it by your posts here. Since I became aware of your
> existence on comp.os.os2.advocacy four or five years ago, I cannot think
> of any post of yours where you admitted that MS had made a mistake or
> done anything less than ethical. It is certainly not a common thing.
Well, I used to use OS/2 as my primary OS before Win95. OS/2 had some of
the same problems that Linux has, particularly that "bolted on" feel to the
shell and GPI.
I believe in capitalism, and while I know MS has done many things wrong, I
also know that most of MS's competitors have done equally wrong things. For
instance, the comment about "cutting off Netscape's air supply" is waved
around, however an equally bad comment made by Sun goes unnoticed. Sun's
Chief Lawyer is quoted as saying "We've got our boots on their throats. The
right thing to do is to press until they stop breathing. If you're going to
strike at the king, you better cut his head off." in regards to MS.
The shit that MS gets acused of is simply stupid in so many cases.
> > and I recognize that only about half of what they hype ever comes to
> > be (mainly because they start hyping it way before they even have a
> > solid implementation and figure out later that it doesn't work well
> > the way they intended).
>
> Until now...write it down. Funkenbush acknowledges that MS hypes things
> before they have an implementation. You're making progress.
When someone decides to have a civil conversation, you might be amazed at
what my opinions are. But, your already starting to wade into the
inflammatory.
> What you just wrote is exactly why I am so skeptical of .NET. Even MS
> executives can't clearly articulate what it is, and what they have
> articulated sounds incompletely thought through.
Well, it's already out there. We're using Beta's of it. People are already
implementing sites in it. Companies are beginning development of new
projects in it. It's out there, it's just not finished yet.
> >The market will speak on this. MS can't force people.
>
> Indeed. If they aren't careful, they could blow off the whole foot this
> time too. The market has changed and MS doesn't have the developer
> mindshare they used to have. They've always relied on that to pull them
> through when they announce these initiatives but they've managed to use
> up nearly all of their credibility this time around. Making statements
> about using .NET to enforce licensing and content restrictions isn't
> doing them any good either. That's the kind of thing an company that's
> out of touch with their customers does, because it will please some of
> their business partners and satisfy internal goals. It is almost worthy
> of the "old" IBM.
Indeed. That's MS's biggest fear, becoming IBM.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ReiserFS
Date: 16 Feb 2001 04:19:43 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, I tried it. It is interesting, but no thanks. It seems slower than ext2
> for most everything I do.
Really? Thats very strange. In my own calculations, I've noticed that with
reiserfs, my drives actually live up to their advertised throughput and seek
times, while with ext2 they hit *maybe* 80% max.
I have an ATA/66 and an ATA/100 interface, one HD on the 66, two on the 100.
Whats your setup like?
=====.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:20:51 -0500
Mike wrote:
>
> "Nigel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:eJCi6.2046$uY2.42094@news2-hme0...
> >
> > > REAL soft links
> > > REAL memory protected multi-tasking
> > > REAL pipes
> > > REAL multi-user capabilities
> > > REAL remote usage
> > >
> >
> > Wow - didn't think of all of these. Bet the windows clones of unix tools
> > can't use the output of one command as commandline parameters for next
> > command.
>
> Huh? xargs works fine on my W2k machine. Were you thinking of something
> else?
>
> The stuff Aaron mentioned is more realistic. The NTFS file system supports
> links, but not in a way that most Unix users would find useful. I'm not sure
> what he means by "memory protected" multi-tasking, but I suspect he's
> referring to Win95/98, not NT/2k. Pipes have been supported for years in
> DOS - I'm not sure when they were first implemented, but I'm sure I remember
> using pipes in DOS 2.0. Pipes are a pretty simple construct, so it's hard to
> think of why they wouldn't be supported (is there some other pipe, Aaron?).
M$ pipes are VERY poorly implemented.
procA | proc B
SHOULD mean procA feeds directly into procB, both of which run
simultaneously.
In M$ land,
ProcA | Proc B
is actually implemented as
procA > tmpfile ; procB < tmpfile
ProcB does NOT begin to execute until procA has completed.
> My Win2k box supports multiple users (but those familiar with W2k will
> realize that "multiple" means 2). As far as remote usage goes, that's the
> one point I'd acknowledge straight away, but it's not one that I find that I
> miss.
>
> -- Mike --
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "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"
I: 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
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:24:40 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:28:17
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> >I tried installing it once. My machine hung.
>>
>> Well, it doesn't sound like your very serious about your quest for a
>> better OS, then. If everybody rejected anything they had a single
>> problem with, nobody would be using Windows.
>
>When a product hangs your system, then what else is there to do? Especially
>since the hang occured during installation.
Well, I'd have to admit, the only time that's ever happened to me was
with Windows, and it was a 'phantom gripe', cured by trying again, a
couple times, but of course only Windows is that unreliable. If your
system hung with Linux, I'd expect it would do it repeatedly. So, of
course, the answer to your question would be "figure out how to fix your
system".
>I suppose I could have gone a-hunting on the Internet, or sought some
>advice, but it was mere curiousity that made me try it, and when it didn't
>work, I moved on.
Yea, sure. Like I said; sounds like you aren't very serious about your
quest for a better OS, then.
>Oh yeah, I tried OS-Warp, not OS2.
BTW, they're the same thing.
>> >I don't think it had anything to do with being "open". After all, what
>> >took over wasn't open, but a closed propietary system called Windows.
>>
>> No, what "took over" was a criminal monopoly. Pretending that it was
>> the Windows product which was responsible for that monopoly is
>> brain-dead.
>
>Which Windows product? Windows 95 and beyond have been reasonable.
"Reasonable" is what people are. Win95 and beyond are monopoly
crapware. They can neither be reasonable nor rational. They could be
competitive, but they're not; that's the 'monopoly' part of 'crapware'.
>> So apparently stability is not your goal, either, then. Is *anything*
>> you say to be trusted?
>
>Twisting everything as usual. Is that your goal, to tweak until it bends
>out of all recognition?
No, my goal is to point out that your passive-aggressive FUD bullshit is
annoying. Must I make it that plain for you?
--
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: Linux Uptime
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:25:09 GMT
Said Stuart Krivis in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 13 Feb 2001 04:26:06
>On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 20:29:01 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>I am still running the same install of Win 2K Pro that I put on last February. It
>>>was an upgrade of NT 4 Workstation. And I certainly don't always reboot every few
>>>days.
>>
>>So? What's your point?
>
>That your assertion about Windows needing to be re-installed every few
>months is not always true.
It doesn't matter at all that it isn't *always* true, if you can't tell
me precisely when it will be, and when it won't be, true.
>>>On the other hand, Windows machines aren't as reliable as a Sun running Solaris,
>>>even on server-grade hardware.
>>
>>On the gripping hand, Windows machines aren't as reliable as Linux
>>machines, on any hardware.
>
>Your point?
That your point that Windows isn't as reliable as Solaris on special
hardware is an overstatement; Windows isn't as reliable as Linux on
commodity hardware, either.
>No, I won't be an ass and use that as a retort like some people.
Oops. My mistake.
>My
>point was that there are levels of reliability. Some people may not need
>the utmost in reliability. If you don't need to have your computer
>performing work when you're not there, then it is best to shut it off
>and conserve energy. Especially in some states in the US...
Your comment presumes that the system can't handle going to sleep and
resuming well, which is true of Windows only, AFAIK, though I also know
that most Unix boxes are simply left on 24x7, without a thought,
routinely, and they don't crash by themselves, as a Windows box
occasionally will, on its own. That you don't *always*, or possibly
even *ever*, come in to work in the morning to find your Windows box has
crashed during the night is, as before, useless information unless you
can specify exactly when it will or won't occur.
>>>As usual, things aren't as bad as some detractors make them out, nor are they as
>>>good as some advocates claim.
>>
>>And as always, a rationalistic response to the problem of illegal
>>behavior is both frustrating and annoying. There aren't 'detractors'
>>and 'advocates', as typically occurs in a technical 'holy war'.
>>Instead, there are those who want free markets, and those who like being
>>locked into an illegal monopoly.
>
>Ah, so now we get into ideology. I see. You run Linux because it
>enhances your karma.
Quite the opposite. I will resist the urge to insult you by remarking
on your reading skills. There is nothing 'ideological' about being
locked into an illegal monopoly, and it is not 'karma', but knowledge,
which enables me to try to avoid it with Linux. Had I not had a decade
of experience using Unix boxes professionally, I would most probably not
even bother to try. As it is, it is still an uphill battle, given the
infinite number of small barriers to migration Microsoft has built, most
too subtle for you to be aware of, or even appreciate.
>>>I have 2 PCs running Linux (Debian), an Ultra 1 with Solaris 8, 2 Win 2K Pro
>>>boxes, a Mac, a Palm, and a Psion. I guess I'm pretty platform-agnostic. :-) (I
>>>had an Alphastation 400 and an HP 9000 for a while too, so I'm a bit of an
>>>oddball. hehe)
>>
>>And you can't tell that Windows is a complete piece of crap? Perhaps
>>you might not give it enough 'air time', then.
>
>No, it isn't a complete piece of crap. It's really frustrating at times,
>and they could have done so much better, but it isn't totally worthless.
What a feeble excuse for a product endorsement. And you wonder why we
consider it ludicrous that Microsoft dominates the PC industry. This is
their FLAGSHIP PRODUCT.
>>And what's up with this "Stuart Krivis" shit, Charlie? Surely you're
>>not wasting our time inventing artificial discussions in place of honest
>>ones?
>
>Charlie? Charlie is my cat. I don't think she can operate slrn. Hmmm....
>that _would_ tend to explain some things.
I was confused by your "X-realname: Charlie Ebert" header. But now I
see that apparently it indicates who you're responding to, as your last
post had X-realname: T. Max Devlin.
--
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: Linux Uptime
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:25:10 GMT
Said Fred K Ollinger in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 15 Feb 2001 05:22:21
>>Ah, so now we get into ideology. I see. You run Linux because it
>>enhances your karma.
>
>I run it b/c I'm cool. I like to run an OS where I get to type in obscure
>commands. Things like cp are really tough for my co-workers so it makes me
>look smart.
>
>To paraphrase Stallman, "what's wrong with ideology?" He says that people just
>want to talk about technical merits, they don't wish to talk about philosophy,
>but he says we have to talk about philosophy. I agree b/c if you don't then
>you will be ruled by someone else's philosophy. If that's how you want to live
>then great, but I feel that I'm better off and the others who don't care are
>really missing out.
T. Max Devlin's Ideology:
* Never buy the cheapest of anything.
* Never agree to any "conditions".
* Never second-guess anyone, including yourself.
* Always double-check yourself.
* There is no do, only try.
* Failure is the goal; if you haven't failed yet, you need to keep
trying.
* All software should be completely open source.
* No copyright is an excuse for monopolizing.
* The "fair" in "fair use" applies to the consumer, not the producer.
Producers don't get treated "fairly"; they get to make a profit.
[...]
>What you want is a tool that's fast, stable, and easy to use (as opposed to
>easy to learn without reading anything). The former is linux, the later is all
>the oses that need a company to pay people to try to get people to use them.
That last isn't true; the Mac developed that sort of thing, and they
never had to force anyone to use their product. Microsoft's version
isn't even really that good, but its still used as the 'main reason
people don't use Linux' by people who haven't a clue why people don't
use Linux.
--
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: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:25:11 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:19:55
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> >That's in direct contradiction to everything else I've seen posted here
>> >about the majority of computer users. I see, you adjust your stance
>> >accordinging. Not very convincing, I must say.
>>
>> Bullshit; you made it up, to support your prejudice.
>
>No I didn't. Go read a few articles here and see what the prevailing
>attitute towards the majority of desktop users is.
I would expect that the attitude towards "the majority of users" is what
it has always been in any technical environment: they're considered
idiots. The fact that they are is what makes it appropriate, despite
how easy it may be for you to posture in a condescending way. The
majority of any group are idiots. This is a well-known principle. Mark
Twain said, "When ones opinions are shared by the majority, it is time
to change ones opinions." Groucho Marx quipped, "I'd never belong to
any club that would have me as a member."
--
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: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:25:13 GMT
Said J Sloan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 13 Feb 2001 04:22:04 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> I have hear a box in my hand of RedHat 7.0 Deluxe it does not have
>> kernel 2.4, but says its "2.4 ready". It does have XFree86 4.0.1. I
>> haven't opened the box yet, so I don't know if its got ReiserFS, but I
>> kind of doubt it.
>
>Nope, RH 7 has no resierfs and no lvm.
What's lvm?
--
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: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:27:51 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:31:58
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> I "got it right". As a mindless Windows idiot, you didn't look at the
>> dialog you were clicking OK in, and realize that Gimp uses raw mode by
>> default.
>
>Like I said, as a reasonable person, I assumed the default would be to use
>the system wide settings.
That is not a reasonable assumption to make when you're dealing with a
graphics application. Any experience at all with PCs of any make using
OSes of any type should have taught you that, presuming you have some.
>Nothing on the dialog indicates what printer
>you're about to use _unless_ you click on the button marked Setup - which,
>as a reasonably minded person, I thought had already been done.
And as a mindless Windows idiot, apparently you hadn't.
>Sorry, but you can't twist this one to fit the way you want it to appear.
I don't have to do any twisting, I'm afraid. You're complaining because
you didn't understand your computer and your software well enough.
Boo-hoo.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:27:44 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > > Such weighty content Aaron ;-) UNIX doesn't really "develop".
> >
> > What is this I've been imagining the last 8 years then?
> >
> > The Unix systems I've used - Linux, Solaris, BSD - keep
> > gaining new features and refinements, and contrary to the
> > assertions of the misinformed, are still alive and well.
> >
> > > It's an old
> > > picture from the 60s that was done developing long ago.
> >
> > Sounds like you've sat through one too many windows pep
> > rallies there bubba -
>
> No, really, what has changed dramatically in Unix in the
> last 10 years?
>
> We still use telnet
> We still use crappy old XWindows
> Unix still has the brain-dead permission bits security.
> Even though many Unix vendors have implemented DAC, many
> people still insist on using permission bits.
The reason we "insist" on using permission bits is because DAC
is overly cumbersome for any work outside of NSA, CIA, and
State Department and armed services Intelligence organizations.
Traditional unix permission bits are more than satisfactory
for private, educational, and commercial use.
>
> Nothing's really changed.
>
> -Chad
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "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"
I: 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
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 04:36:01 GMT
Said Karel Jansens in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 13 Feb 2001
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>
>> > I "got it right". As a mindless Windows idiot, you didn't look at the
>> > dialog you were clicking OK in, and realize that Gimp uses raw mode by
>> > default.
>>
>> Like I said, as a reasonable person, I assumed the default would be to use
>> the system wide settings. Nothing on the dialog indicates what printer
>> you're about to use _unless_ you click on the button marked Setup - which,
>> as a reasonably minded person, I thought had already been done.
>>
>> Sorry, but you can't twist this one to fit the way you want it to appear.
>
>It seems to me that by "reasonable" you actually mean: "reasonable for
>someone accustomed to the Windows paradigm".
This is where things break down. Because even in "the Windows
paradigm", it is possible and at least historically common that graphics
or other specialized applications might use something other than the
'bog-standard defaults'. Some putz who might have learned Windows
exclusively in the last three years might not be aware of this, but even
that is somewhat dubious.
>Like I said before, in a
>*nix environment you should not assume that the printer which was set
>up for the system the program runs on will be the printer you are
>going to print to (it might even be located on a different continent).
What is ironic is that the 'common printer facility' implemented by
Macintosh (an emulation of which is what Pete is crowing about re:
Windows) is really much more than just 'every application prints
postscript' as a general rule, and lpd as a queuing facility.
But such conventions are new to the Unix world, and it will take
capital, sorely lacking in a market where the least productive company
enforces a tax by way of proving its monopoly power.
>But I agree with this: *nix (and i.c. linux) requires more conscious
>attention from the user.
[...]
As soon as the market has the facilities (and freedom) to demand a
"Chooser-based printer facility", I'm quite confident that Linux will
provide several worthwhile competitive alternatives. For now, since
printing actually works fine, Pete's whining about not having
brain-dead-proof Windows-isms is just so much hot air.
--
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
******************************
