Linux-Advocacy Digest #266, Volume #34 Sun, 6 May 01 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Yet another IIS security bug ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (James Philips)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Eugenio Mastroviti)
Re: Why 90% of CEO's are morons (mlw)
Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech on
OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good)) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Yet another IIS security bug ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Chad
Myers")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Chad
Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Yet another IIS security bug
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 21:13:25 GMT
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> For the record: I work for a bank. To be exact, I work for the ING
> >> Group. While I cannot speak for the server side of things, it is true
> >> that on the desktops we (at least my division) were an OS/2 shop for a
> >> long time. We're now slowly switching to NT. Despite being pleasantly
> >> surprised at its stability,
> >
> > Remember you are probably coming in at about sp6 or so. Any
> > assumptions about instability before that would have been for good
> > reasons.
> Nope,
>
> We're SP4 all the way. What does make a difference is that we have a very
> high quality IT staff (What'd you expect? We're a bank!), and I have the
> nagging feeling that we are running a custom install, because even for NT
> Workstation 4.0, it is *very* bare-bones.
I'm not sure how to reconcile those two statements. Sp5 and 6 do fix
additional bugs, although starting with sp3 you could keep a box
running for a while if you only ran one application or were very
careful about testing all the combinations.
> In the matter of window focus: I know I can use alt-tab to switch to a
> new window, but that is an extra keypress for someone who is by now used
> to OS/2's and IceWM's way of just handing focus to the next window on
> close, instead of to the desktop. That just seems cleaner and more
> logical to me.
In Linux I usually have a few dozen windows open so it is pretty unlikely
that I'd land in the right one by default anyway so I guess I've never even
thought about where the WM second-guess for focus.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 17:19:23 -0400
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <KIjI6.1140$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Se�n � Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Microsoft was convicted of having a monopoly on PC OSes. The
evidence
> >> >> provided in the prosecutions argument was their use of monopoly
power
> > in
> >> >> one market (PC OSes) to attempt to gain monopoly in another (web
> >> >> browsers), thereby proving they have a monopoly in PC OSes.
> >> >
> >> >No, psycho. Assuming what you're trying to prove doesn't work.
> >>
> >> I didn't assume what you're trying to prove;
> >>
> >
> > Of course not, Brainstein. You assumed what *YOU* are trying to prove -
that
> > Microsoft is a monopoly, and is therefore capable of using monopoly
power in
> > one market to gain monopoly in another.
>
> Microsoft is a monopoly. The findings of fact state that. Microsoft aren't
> fighting the FoF in their appeal but the remedy. If they win the appeal
> then the EU will proceed with haste their case against Microsoft. Assuming
> the EU come out against Microsoft, and it looks very likely to do so, then
> they could be hit for 10% of their worldwide turnover. I wouldn't like to
> hold Microsoft shares if that were to happen.
Here's an idea, read the transcript of the appeal hearings. They ARE
appealing the finding of fact, your information is coming from the usual
hand me down "telephone game" information that gets passed around by anti-ms
zealouts.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 23:50:02 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> >> 20:53:03 GMT;
> >> >I don't see that DR-DOS was superior as a platform
> >> >for Windows.
> >>
> >> Nice squirming, troll-boy.
> >
>
> [...]
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
No one has a finer command of language than the person who keeps his mouth
shut.
--Sam Rayburn (1882-1961), Lawrence Daily Journal-World
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 23:57:07 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001 16:32:37
> [...]
> >On user side, maybe, I really didn't deal with printing on linux on the
user
> >side.
> >I'm talking on the *developer*'s side here.
> >There is no abstraction on linux of the printer. [...]
>
> Yes there is. It is a very accurate, consistent, and practical
> abstraction, too. A printer (any device on Unix, with few exceptions)
> is a file. Deal with it. Its worked well for decades, and is far more
> consistent, reliable, and compatible than monopoly crapware.
Dude, you don't know what you are talking about, and you are letting your
emotions get the better of you.
*How* do I write to this *file*?
I can write text to a file in DOS too, that doesn't help me very much when I
want to draw graphics, now does it?
On Windows, if I want to draw graphics, I use the same code as I used to
draw on the screen to write to the printer.
On Linux, I would have to use two code bases, one for displaying on the
screen, the second to print, and that is assuming I use PS. If I want to
support non PS printer, than I have to support each printer *seperatedly*.
On Windows, all of this is abstracted away from me, meaning that I can get
it done easier, safer, and quicker.
I prefer tongue-tied knowledge to ignorant loquacity.
--Cicero
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 00:00:53 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001 12:15:23
> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:Pg3J6.9817$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> > >An API is not complete without the documentation of what its
function
> >> does.
> >> >
> >> > You mean the library won't work if a programmer makes a function call
> >> > unless the function is documented?
> >>
> >> He means that the program must be expected to break when you upgrade
> >> the library to the next version if you use anything beyond what is
> >> documented. If you link statically that might not be a problem.
> >
> >Not the library is expected to break if what is uses have been changed or
> >remove.
> >Otherwise, it can go on happily with any number of updates.
>
> "Can" != "will".
Can == Will in computer world.
This is a deterministic enviroment, T. Max.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 00:06:11 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:6AfJ6.10398$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9d34vt$sfl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > >An API is not complete without the documentation of what its
function
> > > does.
> > > >
> > > > You mean the library won't work if a programmer makes a function
call
> > > > unless the function is documented?
> > >
> > > He means that the program must be expected to break when you upgrade
> > > the library to the next version if you use anything beyond what is
> > > documented. If you link statically that might not be a problem.
> >
> > Not the library is expected to break if what is uses have been changed
or
> > remove.
> > Otherwise, it can go on happily with any number of updates.
>
> It becomes a matter of luck, rather than intent or agreement between
> parties that it works at all. This is precisely like a business deal
> where someone relies on behavior not specified in a contract. If
> you are lucky the other party may continue to do what you expected.
> If they don't, you are out of luck.
That is why you should get better contracts :)
Seriously, if you are not changing the APIs that this library implement, and
only expend them, then I don't see how you will break applications that
relies on this library.
Of course, backward compatability is *always* an ugly issue.
Makes you wonder about it, isn't it?
It is impossible to design a system so perfect that no one needs to be good.
--T. S. Eliot
Delay always breeds danger and to protract a great design is often to ruin
it.
--Miguel de Cervantes
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 00:09:18 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 03:10:39
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> >An API is not complete without the documentation of what its function
> >does.
> >>
> >> You mean the library won't work if a programmer makes a function call
> >> unless the function is documented?
> >
> >He means that the program must be expected to break when you upgrade
> >the library to the next version if you use anything beyond what is
> >documented. If you link statically that might not be a problem.
>
> No, he meant that the program must be expected to break unless you have
> complete documentation for the library to begin with. Have you been
> following the discussion?
No, it certainly isn't expected to break if I don't have a full
documentation of the library that it uses.
I only need documentation for the part that I use.
One of many examples, Accent Express, a word processor that allows you to
write in one of 30 languages no matter what your OS support.
I've a version that was built before 9x was invented.
It run perfectly well on ME.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Philips)
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 21:18:18 GMT
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <3af47ba7_2@newsfeeds>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Linux was/is and will continue to be a miserable failure as a consumer
>> desktop OS until it wakes up and starts offering an end result that is
>> superior instead of an inferior result based upon theoretical superior
>> technologies.
>
>Actually, Linux isn't necessarily for instant gratification. If you
>want that, go to se a whore. The computing equivalent of that whore is
>MS Windows. Linux is a great platform. The only advantage Windows has
>over it is application availability. That's it. The ease-of-use
>arguments are bogus.
Linux is a great OS in a lot of ways, but it's hard to see how you can
really claim that it's as easy to learn as Windows. Even most Linux
advocates realise that a total beginner can't use Linux without learning
quite a lot.
>The fact is that Windows is NOT easy to use, but rather, people have
>already learned it and are familiar with it, so that gives a false
>impression that it is easy to use.
That's true to a certain extent, but I know quite a few Windows users who
know next to nothing about Windows and don't want to learn, they know how
to install and launch apps and that's about it. If they had any problems
with Windows, such as hardware not plugging and playing correctly they
would call tech support before even reading the manual.
Most Windows users do have to learn a fair amount, because sooner or later
they will run into problems when upgrading hardware or installing new apps.
But in my experience there's a lot less in Windows that needs to be
learned. Even with the most easy to use Linux distributions most people
are going to have to learn about the system before they can successfully
set it up with all their hardware and software working.
James
------------------------------
From: Eugenio Mastroviti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 23:30:06 +0100
Michael wrote:
> know if that is correct, but hey if you can't trust the French, who can
> you trust?
>
> Michael
Oh, well, I live in the UK, so the correct reply should be "anybody but the
bloody Frogs" I believe :)))
(and we Italians still make better wine)
Thanks, I'll give it a try
Eugenio
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why 90% of CEO's are morons
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 17:36:21 -0400
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
[snipped]
Daring ideas do not always succeed.
Lotus has always been mismanaged.
Corel has always made crap.
The NetWinder was a cool idea, but a hard sell.
The list goes on.
The hit/miss ratio of new ideas is at least 100 to 1. A market driven company
will only produce improvements on existing successful products. A truly
innovative company will hit or miss based on luck and need with new products.
This is what venture capital is all about, "upside potential" and "downside
risk." A company will see a predictable return on an improvement. X + Y sales
of the new product. X being the number of old users who will upgrade and Y is
the normalized number of new users the company normally gets.
if (X + Y) * net is lower than the cost of developing the new version, they
don't do one.
Innovation is quite different. It has a huge upside potential. The downside
risk is that it wipes out the investment. High risk, potentially high return.
Neither is the perfect "win all the time strategy" but, innovation is what
keeps people employed and the economy moving.
By and large, most CEOs are worthless, I agree with you there, but the
simplistic enumeration of various corporate failures does not do the real
problem justice.
In the case of Lotus, they failed to get a Windows product to market soon
enough. They had a feud with Microsoft and Microsoft won because Lotus didn't
show up. Had Lotus introduced a good Windows version of 123, earlier rather
than later, maybe today MS Office would not be as big as it is today.
Word Perfect has almost the same story.
The story of Corel isn't about Corel, it is about Micrographics who make IMHO
always made a better product.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech
on OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good))
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 21:16:06 GMT
"Steve Sheldon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d41da$tcm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Because LoseDOS is a sinking ship.
>
> What the hell is LoseDOS and why is it sinking?
>
> Is this the name of Ellison's new Yacht?
No, no, no... everyone knows the name of his new Yacht is:
"I HAVE A BIGGER PENIS THAN BILL GATES"
-c
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Yet another IIS security bug
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 23:33:15 +0200
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
In article <V7jJ6.10465$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Les
Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> For the record: I work for a bank. To be exact, I work for the ING
>> >> Group. While I cannot speak for the server side of things, it is
>> >> true that on the desktops we (at least my division) were an OS/2
>> >> shop for a long time. We're now slowly switching to NT. Despite
>> >> being pleasantly surprised at its stability,
>> >
>> > Remember you are probably coming in at about sp6 or so. Any
>> > assumptions about instability before that would have been for good
>> > reasons.
>
>> Nope,
>>
>> We're SP4 all the way. What does make a difference is that we have a
>> very high quality IT staff (What'd you expect? We're a bank!), and I
>> have the nagging feeling that we are running a custom install, because
>> even for NT Workstation 4.0, it is *very* bare-bones.
>
> I'm not sure how to reconcile those two statements. Sp5 and 6 do fix
> additional bugs, although starting with sp3 you could keep a box running
> for a while if you only ran one application or were very careful about
> testing all the combinations.
Well, obviously our IT staff has decided that SP4 is good enough to work
with. Being typically paranoid about upgrades introducing new bugs, they
have decided not to upgrade to later SPs yet, or they are waiting for
Windows 2000 to mature. I do know that our very small insurance
department has just switched to W2k as a desktop. From what I've seen,
they are wasting all that power to run 4 IBM 3270 terminal emulators
connected to our mainframe simultaneously.
I don't know what comes standard on an NT4 WS install, it just seemed
that our workmachine didn't come with any applications at all, everything
was installed on demand by the IT staff.
>> In the matter of window focus: I know I can use alt-tab to switch to a
>> new window, but that is an extra keypress for someone who is by now
>> used to OS/2's and IceWM's way of just handing focus to the next window
>> on close, instead of to the desktop. That just seems cleaner and more
>> logical to me.
>
> In Linux I usually have a few dozen windows open so it is pretty
> unlikely that I'd land in the right one by default anyway so I guess
> I've never even thought about where the WM second-guess for focus.
That's why I use virtual desktops :) You're right, having the WM
second-guess you is bad as well. I generally have only 3 or 4 windows
open per desktop, sorted according to task (ie: newsreader and browser on
desktop 1, a terminal and Xemacs on desktop 2 etc.). It's just a matter
of taste, and the nice thing with a Linux desktop is that you can "season
to taste", so to speak.
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 21:19:37 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 06 May 2001 01:52:13 GMT, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What special configuration is required? Perhaps I would use it more if
> > it had some of this basic functionality.
>
> Caldera sets users up with this ".inputrc" file. Try putting it in
> your home directory:
>
> -------------------------8<-------------------------
> set meta-flag on
> set output-meta on
> set convert-meta off
> #set bell-style visible
> #set show-all-if-ambiguous on
>
> # Common standard keypad and cursor
> # (codes courtsey Werner Fink, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> "\C-?": delete-char
> "\C-h": backward-delete-char
> "\e[1~": history-search-backward
> "\e[2~": yank
> "\e[3~": delete-char
> "\e[4~": set-mark
> "\e[5~": history-search-backward
> "\e[6~": history-search-forward
> # Normal keypad and cursor of xterm
> "\e[F": end-of-line
> "\e[H": beginning-of-line
> # Application keypad and cursor of xterm
> "\eOA": previous-history
> "\eOC": forward-char
> "\eOB": next-history
> "\eOD": backward-char
> "\eOF": end-of-line
> "\eOH": beginning-of-line
> -------------------------8<-------------------------
>
>
> > Edit HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Command Processor\CompletionChar
>
> Yes, yes, I know about that. I was asking about hitting tab again and
> again to go through the matches. Never mind, I'll try it when I get to
> work next week.
Sorry. Well, someone else probably learned something by that.
As far as repeatedly hitting the TAB key to cycle through dirs and files
in a dir, it's quite handy. If you're sitting at a prompt, just hit TAB
and it'll select the first (alphabetically) file or dir.
If you know the file or dir starts with 'T', for example, hit T then hit
TAB as many times as it takes to cycle through all the T files and dirs
until your file shows up.
Likewise, you can use SHIFT-TAB to cycle backwards, in case you got
happy with the TAB key and went one too many.
> > Hmm, I don't recall ever having bashed on utilities although I usually only
> > end up ever using grep because most of the others are either
>
> No, you just bash on the command line in general. Oh, a pun!
I didn't "bash" on it, I was just merely saying that cmd.exe is better
in everything but scripting, it seems. Bash is ok, it's just not very
user friendly and in fact, gets the in the way most of the time.
-c
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 17:37:51 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> 20:53:03 GMT;
> >"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >> > MS-DOS and DR-DOS were *both* lousy things
> >> > to saddle Windows with. I'm not endorsing MS-DOS
> >> > over DR-DOS; I'm endorsing Windows with as little
> >> > of either as can be managed.
> >>
> >> Windows COULD NOT run without some DOS underneath. DR-DOS was superior.
> >> And Microsoft used it monoply power to push DR-DOS out of the market.
> >
> >I don't see that DR-DOS was superior as a platform
> >for Windows.
>
> Nice squirming, troll-boy.
>
> >The real trick was to supercede as much of DOS
> >as possible, not to use another DOS.
>
> No wonder you find it so easy to be clueless; you think there's a
> difference between something that is like DOS, and something that is
> "another DOS". Its a wonder you can even find the power switch.
Come on now!! Your pissing Max off!! The truth to him is like holy water on
a vampire. Max thinks - Microsoft was supposed to create Windows to be
compatible with DR DOS. He probably goes further into fantasyland to think
Microsoft Inc. was supposed provide support for every Tom, Dick and DOS
lookalike that came along.
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 17:42:14 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 12:58:41 -0400;
> [...]
> >Once again. what is it going to take with you? Internal memos have been
> >posted. Quotes from M$ execs have been posted. All describing a way to
> >sabotage DR-DOS. The code was active in the betas. It threw up bogus
> >error messages. The messages were meant to scare of beta testers, as
> >stated in the memos. But -YOU- dont believe it.
>
> Rick, you don't seem to understand how trolls work. Take a break, man;
> the only way to frustrate him is to fail to respond.
Max can't seem to follow his own advice. 43 posts since midnight last night
and counting......
That Windows95 box sure_is_productive!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 21:42:26 GMT
On Sun, 06 May 2001 20:43:59 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You think those distros are making huge profits? Yet some are collapsing.
I think SOME people involved with them are/have made fortunes off of
Linux.
IBM will be making a fortune off of Linux as well by boosting it's
hardware sales.
Is any of this money going back to the people working hard to make and
support Linux?
Flatfish
>When I chose recently to make the sources for my 3D scene editor "open
>source" (see http://mse.sourceforge.net/), I did it for a few simple
>reasons: (i) I'm realistic, I'm never going to make money out of this
>project and (ii) I'm getting stale and need the input from others on this
>thing.
>
>Previously, there have been around 5000 downloads of my scene editor. 10
>people contacted me, some offering to pay money for it. It's an interesting
>project (to me anyway) but it's not commercial. So why not open source?
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 21:32:26 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 6 May 2001 04:59:28 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > But not del, and it's annoying as hell. Anyway to fix it?
>
> Use Ctl-D, or see my post to Chad for a ".inputrc" file that works for
> me (on Linux in an xterm anyway). I use rxvt on NT with bash, and I
> _think_ the same setup works, but I don't remember now and the NT
> machine is at work.
>
>
> > > Up and down arrow keys scroll through the history. You can search the
> > > history with Ctrl-R.
> >
> > It's not the same as F7, with F7 on CMD, you get a list of all the recent
> > commands are displayed, so you can choose from them.
>
> Yeah, I know it isn't the same, but you get roughly the same
> functionality. Now they just need to make cmd windows resizeable like
> an xterm and they'll have something <g>.
Well, you can resize it down with the window. If you want to make it larger,
just set the screen size in the properties.
Right-click on the title bar of the window and choose properties.
Under layout, set the screen buffer to 120/3000
Set the window size to 120/60 (the later depending on how large of a
screen resolution you have).
-c
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
