Linux-Advocacy Digest #433, Volume #32 Fri, 23 Feb 01 15:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Into the abyss... ("Masha Ku'Inanna")
Re: Interesting article (Steve Mading)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Steve Mading)
Re: State of linux distros ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: State of linux distros ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (The
Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The Windows guy. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Steve Mading)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Steve Mading)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Steve Mading)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Mark Bratcher)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Steve Mading)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Steve Mading)
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Peter Hayes)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Peter Hayes)
Re: Amusing Aaron Kulkis Anagrams (Peter Hayes)
Re: Who is the most heavily killfiled person on cola? (Steve Mading)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Interesting article (Bob Hauck)
Re: Hilter Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Into the abyss...
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 14:06:14 -0500
Reply-To: "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I have yet to see software on and of the UNIX environments I have
tinkered
> > with that automatically refused to let you do something. WinME would not
let
> > me update certain drivers because of their "driver signing" feature that
> > keeps one from installing "rogue applications" or whatever. I had to
wrestle
> > with WinME to install a perfectly fine driver for a Soundblaster card
from a
> > Win98 CDROM.
>
> Since I develop audio device drivers, I have to install them long before
> the "signed driver" feature is available. However, it can be overridden
> and it certainly isn't as hard as you make it out to be.
>
No, it is quite simple to do, I agree.
That it exists at all was quite jarring for someone who knew what he was
doing, and suddenly had his OS tell him, "Um.. no." That first, it needed to
be signed by Microsoft, BUT this "protection" feature could be disabled.
> > One of my friends at CompUSA, a tech whom I'd worked with many times
> > explained it simply that Windows does a great job at assuming it is
smarter
> > than the user. UNIX does exactly what you tell it. Windows does what it
> > thinks you wanted it to do.
>
> I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Windows ME and later have added
> features to prevent you trashing system files, but I don't see that "it
> assumes it knows more than you" and acts accordingly.
>
Those new "features" suddenly made it diffiucult to run certain versions of
Norton AV to clean up a "system" file that was infected. Even though the
virus was able to overwrite said system file, Norton was not allowed to
overwrite it and clean it because it was an incompatible version with ME's
system-protection feature.
So I had to get the updated version.
I simply do not see the merits to "value-added features" that force you to
have to "upgrade" your other software just to run on that new platform.
When you have to wrestle with an OS just to get an upgrade to work
correctly, when one application installs under Win2k Pro but refuses to
install on Win2k Server (Norton systemworks 2001) because it is incompatible
(Win2k Server will not run all of the software that Pro will run even though
they are of the same exact family of NT based Windows), when that same
application has considerably less features when installed on 2k Pro vs
WinME, when at a system-lock you cannot regain control of your system
without having to force a reboot, even on a "multi-user, miltitasking"
version of Windows, I'd say the OS is a lot less transparent that it needs
to be and is over-riding quite a bit of control from the user, and is
"acting accordingly."
> I think Windows does exactly the same as UNIX. In UNIX you can do rm *
> and delete everything. In Windows, you can use Explorer to wipe
> everything, just as easily.
rm * will not erase everything. The so-called "system protection" feature
for Windows was added long after UNIX had already had the same kind of
protection for years. Unless you were root/had root access you simply could
not completely hose a UNIX machine with a simple command or an accidental
mouse-click.
Under WinME, playing the part of a completely naive non-admin user for
shits and giggles, I right rubber-band selected a few folders in the C:
folder, right clicked and then clicked "delete".
It let me erase quite a bit of it, until those 'protected files' kicked in.
It did not matter. At the subsequent reboot, the system was incredibly
unstable. It protected 'key' windows files, but did nothing for Office,
Norton, Netscape or any other application, nor did it protect data that I'd
produced under those applications.
So, I tried the system-restore function.
No-go.
As a non-root user under a UNIX environment, I tried the same thing, both
under X and at the shell. I could delete the contents of my home directory
all I liked, but i simply could not touch the root directory, or any other
directory outside of /home/my-name. I even tried "rm *" as you'd suggested,
and tried it at the "/" directory. Nothing.
I simply cannot see why features that are available in a free OS are being
added as "features" to a proprietary OS for a fee, and when installing that
proprietary OS it renders a good portion of your software as incompatible,
or does not perform at those "features" as well as a free OS handles them.
I cannot see paying for software that cannot perform as well as free
software for my needs.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: 23 Feb 2001 19:00:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Les Mikesell wrote:
:>
:> "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:> news:973u4o$gks$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> >
:> > : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:> > : news:96v133$im8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> > :>
:> > :> It demonstrates exactly the opposite.
:> >
:> > : How do you get that? If it has to be done over it means it was done
:> wrong
:> > : the first time. Do you want to encourage users to make their own
:> > : mistakes with the security of their files?
:> >
:> > Some things have to be done over and over even if they are done right
:> > the first time, because circumstances change. In my example, you will
:> > note, I described a department with new people coming into it that
:> > weren't there when the groupd was first made.
:>
:> But when circumstances change, they change globally. Why would
:> you want every individual to apply ACL's and have to update them
:> on every file when the circumstances change as opposed to letting
:> the system administrator take care of updating the groups as
:> the groups change?
: Very well said.
It would have been had I actually been defending ACLs, which I
wasn't. I was defending the idea of letting someone other than
root create 'user-level' groups. I was not defending the idea
of doing seperate work on each file to define a list of users
for that one file. That's sheer hell, and I said as much earlier
in the thread.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: 23 Feb 2001 19:09:17 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <971fah$d8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
:> Correct. For some reason, best known to the GIMP developers, it ships
:> with many different printer drivers.
: So there are one set of drivers for CUPS and one set for The Gimp... any
: more applications that ship with drivers for printers? Does any of this
: sound _wrong_ to anyone?
Yup. It sounds like you got it wrong. The drivers GIMP is using are
the same drivers everyone else could use if they felt like it, they
just aren't dumb enough to want to. (hint, you can turn off all
driver work with a commandline option flag when you print something,
telling the print queue that what you have is a direct dump already
made in the printer's native codes (like what you would have in Windows
if you had previously done a "print to file".) The error is in Gimp
deciding to activate this flag. It is not a "set of drivers for Gimp",
it's, "Gimp choosing to bypass the drivers and not use any." This isn't
noticed on some other distributions (like mine) because they set up
their printers to filter *all* data, even that which is marked as 'raw'.
(Which is wrong, but it's a case of two wrongs making an accidental
right.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:14:32 +0000
Reefer wrote:
>
> > Oh in that case, I'll set Win2k up as a mail server on a 486...oh hold
> > on, that won't work will it? Maybe Linux lives on after all...
> > --
>
> A superior OS like Win2k wants to have SOMETHING to work with, not some
> leftover hw from your childhood...
This is where Linux is good. It is good enough not to *need* a whole
lot. It just gets better with more power.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: State of linux distros
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:15:45 +0000
Reefer wrote:
>
> "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:973qo7$7dg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > A superior OS can make do with whatever hardware platform it is installed
> > on, and can utilize every ounce of power from that hardware, and not just
> > run with mediocre performance on greater hardware requirements.
> >
> > Especially when a Linux/UNIX box at 133mhz can out-perform a P-II Win2k
> > server in terms of stability, uptime, and performance.
> >
> > Windows will never push hardware to its full potential. It is a superior
> > platform only when you want to bog down powerful hardware with incredible
> > bloat.
> >
> >
>
> ah, but C'MON.....like i said before; this is the year 2001, and anyone
> running a 'puter with less than a PII 300 (or compatible) and 128 MB RAM in
> it, need some serious reality check, u cant wip a dead horse like that for
> ever ...but then again; Win2kpro works just fine with a P133, just make sure
> to have 'nuff memory in it...
I could easily pick up a 486 box for twenty quid, and Linux is free, so
that is dirt cheap.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:14:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Edward Rosten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:31:08 +0000
<974b12$13h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "The Ghost
>In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Edward Rosten
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:23:13 +0000
>> <973ato$82k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>In article <uU8l6.56399$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> Windows XP is a whole OS which provides hundreds of new features.
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>you mis spelled `no'.
>>
>> No no, he's correct. Windows XP provides thousands of new features. The
>> catch is: they're undocumented. :-)
>
>
>And useless. Its only a matter of time until...
>
>the position of the drop shadow on the mouse depends on the time of day.
Ye gods.
Is there an award for "most useless GUI 'innovation'"? It's a good
thing this is only a supposition on your part. (It is a supposition --
isn't it? :-) )
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random drop shadow placement here
EAC code #191 18d:20h:45m actually running Linux.
It's a conspiracy of one.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 23 Feb 2001 19:19:58 GMT
On 23 Feb 2001 18:49:48 GMT, Steve Mading wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But what if the Lambourghini (sp?) was the first car ever made, and
>was not called "Lambourghini" but was in fact just called "car",
>because it started the whole idea of "car"? Then someone else comes
>along and makes a knockoff copy of it called "beetle", that appears to
>have the same features, if you don't examine it too carefully.
>
>Pipes on Unix came first.
Are you sating that UNIX was the first OS to have IPC ? (didn't
Multics have it for example ?)
>But what if a C compiler didn't support malloc(), or printf()? Those
If it didn't support those, it wouldn't be a C compiler. The ISO C
language definition clearly says that those are supposed to be supported.
>: Likewise, instead of using a reasonable definition of pipes, you are
>: mistakenly confusing a particular implementation and application with
>: what pipes actually are.
>
>Yeah, the first implementation, from which the generic idea was drawn.
Whether or not it's the first implementation is in dispute.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: 23 Feb 2001 19:10:22 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <975ouf$s43$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
:> > more applications that ship with drivers for printers? Does any of this
:> > sound _wrong_ to anyone?
:>
:> Depends what you consider wrong, but I don't bother with the gimp drivers.
: The idea of each application having its own driver to talk to a device is
: what I meant by "wrong". It's harking back to the bad old days when each
: application did its own thing.
Yes, it's wrong to do that, but it's also wrong that you think this
is what is happening.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: 23 Feb 2001 19:19:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Panzers go "blub blub blub" without a dock to land them on.
: Beachheads are not docks.
By that argument, the Normady landings never would have had any tanks
in them, and they DID.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: 23 Feb 2001 19:14:43 GMT
Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 23 Feb 2001 00:52:58 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: wrote:
:>
:> Edward Rosten pointed out something in another part of this
:> thread that clears things up. Gimp is apparently going out of
:> its way to *deliberately* turn off the the printer filter when
:> it tells the system to print, by mislabelling its job as "raw data",
:> when it is not. That's pretty silly. If it would just do things
:> the 'dumb' default way, they would actually have worked better.
:> I probably didn't see the problem because I'm not using CUPS. Here
:> my "raw" data is filtered just like everything else is. Everything
:> I print gets filtered on my setup, whether it is tagged as "raw"
:> or not.
: Yes, I think we've come to the conclusion that it's specifically the
: version of Gimp shipped with Mandrake 7.2 is broken in this respect.
Not really. It's a case of two wrongs making a right on other
distributions. Many other distributions don't allow raw data
to work correctly. They filter everything, raw or not, through
the postscript-to-native interpeter called "ghostscript". While
this makes Gimp work, this also means you can't use the intended
functionality of the "raw" flag to lpr. The intended functionality
of the 'raw' flag is to print a file that contains pre-processed
printer output already in the printer's own native control codes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Bratcher)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:25:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
>
>Mark Bratcher wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:39:51 GMT, Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> In comp.os.linux.misc Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>> In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>>> In comp.os.linux.misc Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>>>> In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >[deletia]
>> >>> conviction. It's a formal game at bottom - like winning at Gin Rummy.
>> >>
>> >>Well, I can respect that.
>> >>
>> >>It's how I look at the results of my 5 senses. I don't have an absolute
>> >>belief in anything I see or hear, but I've found that if I pay attention
>> >>it helps "win the game".
>> >>
>> >>However, maybe I'm strange. I feel that some studies like perhaps ethics
>> >>are somehow grounded in a "absolute" truth. Maybe because I fear the
>> >>alternative.
>> >
>> > Ethics is not infact based on "absolute" truth but acknowledging
>> > what your standards and objectives are. It is "absolute" truth
>> > that is scary for it is typically adhered to without any thought.
>> >
>>
>> "Relative" truth, OTOH, isn't scarey at all. Just ask Charles Mason. :-)
>
>Manson.
>
>Of course, Sharon Tate and her party guests would disagree.
>
Oops, right. Sticky "n" key. :-)
--
Mark Bratcher
To reply direct, remove both underscores (_) from my email name
===============================================================
Escape from Microsoft's proprietary tentacles: use Linux!
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: 23 Feb 2001 19:21:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:>
:> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> : If Germany had been in posession of proper landing craft in the spring
:> : of 1941, Britain would have fallen, and the Normandy landings would
:> : never have occurred.
:>
:> True, but the reason they *didn't* have proper landing craft was
:> because of air-superiority. The Germans didn't have any good
:> spot to build a flotilla along the channel that wasn't under the
:> threat of air attack.
:>
:> : The Home Guard was ill-armed because of the reactionary gun-control
:> : laws pushed through by the British elite around 1920.
:>
:> The guns donated to the home guard came from army surplus storage.
:> They were old rifles that had been packed in grease all those
:> years. I don't know where you are getting this story from of
:> personal guns being given.
: I first became aware of it when I saw circa 1940 posters pleading
: for American citizens to donate their firearms to the defence of the
: beleaguared British Isles.
This does nothing to back up the notion that this made any whit
of difference.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: 23 Feb 2001 19:27:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:>
:> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> : If Germany had been in posession of proper landing craft in the spring
:> : of 1941, Britain would have fallen, and the Normandy landings would
:> : never have occurred.
:>
:> True, but the reason they *didn't* have proper landing craft was
:> because of air-superiority. The Germans didn't have any good
:> spot to build a flotilla along the channel that wasn't under the
:> threat of air attack.
: The main reason they didn't have an invasion flotilla is because
: Hitler never wanted war with Britain in the first place. That's
: why Hess flew to England.
Really? So now you know that Hess was acting under orders from
Hitler, instead of on his own as he claimed?
: Hitler was incensed that Churchill
: wouldn't stand aside and keep the British Army out of continental
: Europe.
: Had Hitler *planned* to go to war against England, you can be sure
: that a proper invasion fleet consisting of proper landing craft
: would have been manufactured in the late 1930's.
You are implying that "planned" has to mean "Planned for a long
time, way prior to the breakout". Hitler DID want to invade
England after France fell, but Operation Sea Lion wasn't workable.
The main reason was the RAF and the RN. The British army sucked,
but they had a first-rate air force and navy, and so the Germans
didn't have a hope of getting their large, powerful armies across
the channel in one piece. Britain was saved by a geography that
favored its strengths while making its weaknesses less relevant,
not by NRA guns.
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:27:25 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:57:34 -0700, Mike Martinet
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Awe of Distance: I have no idea where you (mlw) are, what your setup
> consists of/looks like but your words appear. The same for the other
> hundreds of e-things I come across every day. Simply incredible. If I
> let my mind wander I could put you somehwere - behind a desk at a
> software company, in a loft in NY, a cyber-cafe in SF, etc. You are all
> out there with your separate realities, yet your words show up here
> (world-fucking-wide) and that lulls one into thinking that everyone is
> at the same venue - but experience says 'no'.
Apart from tinkering with electronics, that's the same concept that
attracted me to Ham Radio many years ago (in the days of WW2 surplus). I
could talk to anyone that propogation allowed, race, creed, colour were
eliminated. Great leveller.
Ham Radio disintegrated into the "hello-goodbye" contact, now the Internet
has replaced it, but hundreds of times better.
> I'm rambling. It is, indeed, awesome.
Me too :-)
--
Peter
55�25"N 4�44'W
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:27:26 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:34:47 +0000, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Correct. For some reason, best known to the GIMP developers, it ships
> >> with many different printer drivers.
> >
> > So there are one set of drivers for CUPS and one set for The Gimp...
> > any
>
> Incorrect. CUPS does not have any drivers. It uses GS.
>
> > more applications that ship with drivers for printers? Does any of this
> > sound _wrong_ to anyone?
>
>
> Depends what you consider wrong, but I don't bother with the gimp drivers.
Looking into it again, the GIMP drivers give you on the spot choices for
paper size, and type (glossy, photo-glossy, transparancy) so may have some
advantages.
--
Peter
55�25"N 4�44'W
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Amusing Aaron Kulkis Anagrams
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:27:27 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:44:35 GMT, Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> meow wrote:
<drivel>
> OK where's the joke? Those obviously aren't anagrams. Or is this thing 1
> mile above my head?
>
> I suspect that 'meow' is no older than 14 years old, and I'm totally
> serious about that.
14?
5.
Just started school and learnt some new words.
--
Peter
55�25"N 4�44'W
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who is the most heavily killfiled person on cola?
Date: 23 Feb 2001 19:39:25 GMT
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Only if you can think of a better way of getting the offenders
: to behave.
: My method works.
Do you honestly actually *believe* that, without your sig these
people would have not started to 'behave' as you put it? Threads
eventually die. People go on to other things. That's how usenet
is. Your .sig has nothing to do with it, other than perhaps making
people tired of reading your posts.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:48:25 GMT
On 23 Feb 2001 19:14:43 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Not really. It's a case of two wrongs making a right on other
>distributions. Many other distributions don't allow raw data
>to work correctly. They filter everything, raw or not, through
>the postscript-to-native interpeter called "ghostscript".
Some distributions use Appsfilter or Magicfilter. The filter attempts
to determine what kind of data it has been given and Do the Right Thing
(tm). With this, you can do things like "lpr somepic.jpg" and have it
print correctly. They also check for raw printer data and pass it
through.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:55:43 GMT
On 23 Feb 2001 19:00:16 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>It would have been had I actually been defending ACLs, which I
>wasn't. I was defending the idea of letting someone other than
>root create 'user-level' groups.
I would think that you could do that with sudo and a bit of programming
to make a custom group-editor app. It shouldn't be too hard to allow a
user to add others to his own group (assuming per-user groups like some
Linux systems have) or to other groups pre-created by the admin.
You'd probably not want to allow users to create new groups though,
unless you're willing to solve the various problems that would create.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,demon.local
Subject: Re: Hilter Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:04:49 GMT
In article <975gng$k69$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:> : You've said this before. What's wrong with Godwin? What did he ever do
>:> : to you? Are you under the mistaken apprehension that Godwin's Law is a
>:> : binding rule of netiquette?
>:>
>:>
>:> It isn't, but many uninformed people think that it is, which has the
>:> perverse effect of making it very difficult to discuss and therefore
>:> learn how to prevent the recurrence of crimes similar to Hitler's.
>
>: It's one thing to discuss how to prevent another holocaust ... it's
>: another to call someone a Nazi or compare his politics to Hitler's. This
>: was not a discussion of Nazism or the Holocaust, it was a discussion of
>: what people want to do with other people's information.
>
>
>There are obvious parallels between Hitler and his crimes, and other
>megalomaniacs and theirs. These don't get discussed, because of
>Godwin's Law, because of the naive belief that Hitler and his crimes
>were somehow unique, and because of the mistaken notion that comparing
>them trivializes the suffering of the victims of Hitler's holocaust.
>
>If you say "Never Again!" and mean it, you have to act like it. You
>have to be willing to remember, and study, and analyze, and sometimes
>set aside preconceived political or cultural notions of superiority or
>any "do them before they do us" mentality. You also have to recognize
>that the parts of human nature that Hitler, Stalin, and other
>practitioners of genocide exploited were not unique to prewar Germany
>or Russia, and could be exploited again under the right set of
>circumstances. And, finally, you have to recognize that in most cases
>genocide and other mass crimes have not been ends in themselves, but
>means to an end - world domination - that many others continue to seek
>to this day, through a variety of means, some of which are far more
>dangerous than others.
>
>
>Joe
Such as .NET.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
