Linux-Advocacy Digest #271, Volume #34 Sun, 6 May 01 20:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS ("Edward Rosten")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Charles Lyttle)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Chad
Myers")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Giuliano Colla)
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: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Steve
Sheldon")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Linux disgusts me ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? ("Edward Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 01:31:39 +0100
> 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.
I'll agree with that.
> 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.
I'd say that there is a lot less to learn, not a lot less 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.
Not true. Since RH5, all you had to know was the hardware you had (in
case it wasn't autodetected). Not with 7.0 (I haven't tried 7.1) 99% of
things are autodetected. Esentially, stick in a CD and everything is set
up for you and 1/2 hour later you have a fully working system. Linux
setup and installation has been easier than Windows for quite a while
now.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 23:34:14 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > In article <Ny7I6.22197$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I guess it depends on what you mean by "secure". If someone
> doesn't
> > > > > know
> > > > > > > the decode algorithm, 4-bit encryption could be quite secure
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What crap. If you don't understand something don't make pathetic
> > > > > > attempts to show that you do. ANY 4-bit encryption algorithm could
> be
> > > > > > cracked by brute force in less time than it took you to write such
> > > > > > rubbish. The best known encryption algorithms are known and open
> to
> > > > > > peer review. If you invent a new encryption algorithm but won't
> make
> > > > > > it open to peer review then it just will not be accepted. Security
> > > > > > through obscurity just doesn't cut it at any time.
> > > > >
> > > > > What's crap is your understanding.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can only brute force it if you know the decode algorithm. You
> can
> > > > > guess, and analyze and do lots of things, but it could be things
> like
> > > XORing
> > > > > the data against a pets name, while rotating 3 bits and compressing
> it
> > > using
> > > > > 10 different compression algorithms. The number of possible
> > > combinations of
> > > > > decode algorithms is limitless.
> > > > >
> > > > You aren't required to know the algorithm to crack encryption. You
> don't
> > > > care about the algorithm, you care about recovering the message. So
> the
> > > > attack has to create an algorithm that decodes the message. It doesn't
> > > > matter if the algorithm is the "correct" algorithm or not. In fact,
> > > > doing things such as you suggest often make a code easier to crack.
> When
> > > > you apply multiple compression algorithms, or multiple xor, the
> attacker
> > > > doesn't have to know how many times you compressed, he just has to
> find
> > > > one scheme to go from encrypted message to plain text.
> > >
> > > Ahh, but that's just it. Such a scheme typically needs to have a
> "rosetta
> > > stone" or some way to identify at least one character or word in the
> data.
> > > Suppose the encrypted data isn't plain text at all, but something that
> is
> > > based on a random character set chosen for the day it was encrypted?
> You
> > > need a point of reference, and without having that, you might as well
> have
> > > monkeys banging on keyboards.
> > >
> > No, you don't typically need a "rosetta stone". If you have such, then
> > you can apply a "known plain text attack". But that isn't the only
> > attack.
>
> I said a "rosetta stone" *OR* some way to identify at least one character or
> word in the data.
>
If the message is in a Latin or Germanic language the probability is ~1
that it contains the letters "A" and "O". If it is in Greek, it will
almost certainly contain the letters "A" and "O". But if it is in
Cyrillic, then one would check for the letters "A" and "O". There are
corresponding checks for languages such as Hebrew, Japanese ( "A" and
"O" in their telegraph codes), Thai, Chinese, and Korean.
Normally, the attacker would start not making any assumptions about
language, but would look for indicators of key length, and try to deduce
the alphabet size. After establishing some statistics, these would be
bounced off a program that would check for probable language. Then
probable words would be located, and unknown words deduced. I don't
recall where I saw the memo quoted, but it went something like "Does
anyone know of someone whose name contains the letter 'K' who went
somewhere last week. He may have been German or Romanian." Apparently,
from statistics, the mathematician had deduced the above with no
knowledge of the message contents or language. Today, we would have just
done a regex search of a data base to see if there was someone who met
the requirements.
> > > Typically, when trying to break encryption without knowing the
> algorithm,
> > > you either look for common algorithms, or you look for patterns that
> match
> > > known language patterns.
> > You look for clues. Compression algorithms for example, will add
> > information to the file that permits deduction of the compression
> > scheme. So applying (by computer) tests for compression will very
> > rapidly "back out" the compressions.
>
> You're assuming that someone just ran a file through zip. That's not what
> i'm talking about. There are many compression algorithms that you can apply
> without creating file information. The output of the algorithm should
> appear random if you don't know that it is compressed data.
>
No, I didn't assume that you just ran the file through zip. To be useful
for this purpose, the compression scheme has to be both reversible and
lossless. Otherwise you would never be able to decode the uncompressed
version of the compressed file (
Decrypt(Uncompress(Compress(Encrypt(text))) != text). So all usable
compression routines add information to the file. They just do it in a
way that takes up less space than the original file. As someone else
pointed out, you are better off compressing first then encrypting. That
would obscure the compression marks.
> > >If you disguise the language patterns by making
> > > sure that even the same phrase doesn't create the same series of bytes,
> then
> > > you remove the ability to deduce a new algorithm.
> > >
> > But you can't do that with a 4 bit key. A 4 bit key means a cycle length
> > of 16. So every 16 letters, or words, you can get repeats. These repeats
> > will have spacing with a factor of 16. If 16 is the smallest factor,
> > then I need only to test for key lenghts of 2 and 4, which totals out to
> > 4 +16 = 20 keys.
>
> No, a 4 bit key simply means that the key is 4 bits. The key may not use
> factors at all, it might be the value that is XOR'd for example, or any of a
> billion other ways those 4 bits might be used to encode the data. You're
> making the critical error of assuming the use of a known algorithm, which is
> exactly my point.
>
A Caesar Cypher on an extended alphabet is a 5 bit key. It is a simple
add or xor the 5 bit key to each letter. This is easily read as the
cycle would be immediately recognized as one byte. A 4 bit key applied
thus to each nibble would also be recognized as one byte, with upper and
lower nibbles equal. Another possibility would be to use the 4 bit key
as the seed for a random number generator. But then there are only 16
possible random number sequences. Any random number generator with a 4
bit seed will have a short cycle length easily identified. Even if you
expand the 4 bits to int length, all your messages would be encrypted
with one of only 16 sequences. Repetition would be noticed across
messages if not along messages. Even if you did something as complex as
using the 4 bit key as the key for triple DES, it would be a give away.
Only 20 (max) tries, about 3 uSec, needed to decode.
> > Enigma was originally cracked without any knowledge of the algorithm,
> > and it had a key length of 26^7 IIRC.
>
> If that were the case, they wouldn't have needed to capture the enigma
> machines.
Correct. Capturing the machines only made it easier to decrypt if the
wheels changed. In fact there was, AFIK, no concerted effort made to
capture the machines. One was handed over by a Polish patriot, and some
were captured by chance from German Subs. Having the machines certainly
made life easier and saved lots of lives, as the messages could now be
read in real-time. But even without the machines, the codes were being
read. The guys capturing the machines were heroes, no doubt about it.
And so were the cryptoanalysts reading the codes *before* the machines
were captured.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 23:36:19 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Charles Lyttle in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 06 May 2001
> [...]
> >IE still looks like a hacked up mosaic.
>
> IE *is* still a hacked up mosaic.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Thus, no innovation, wouldn't you say?
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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, 06 May 2001 23:20:49 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS PL wrote:
> >
> > "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.
>
> NO, but then they should have put code into Windows to specifcally check
> if it was running on another DOS, then throw up error messages to scare
> off customers.
I think you meant "should not have put code...", right?
If so, then you are wrong. This only occurred in the beta because there
were known bugs with DR DOS and the beta version of Windows.
Basically MS said that it just plain won't work.
Near the end of the beta cycle, they fixed whatever bugs there were
on their side and when Windows finally shipped, everything worked.
There was no error message in the shipping product.
However, DR DOS made a big stink out of it and it spooked every one.
They later brought it up in the trial because they're sore losers.
It was only in the beta.
-c
------------------------------
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 23:26:36 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d4man$3c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001 04:59:28
> > >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> On Fri, 04 May 2001 02:39:20 GMT, Chad Myers
> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Sure, the scripting is good, I'll give it that. But as far as just a
> > >> > basic shell, it's really not that great. Simple editing on the
> command
> > >> > line for long commands isn't terribly easy. HOME and END don't work,
> > >>
> > >> They work for me.
> > >
> > >But not del, and it's annoying as hell. Anyway to fix it?
> >
> > It isn't broken. I told you; call your OEM. If you don't have one, go
> > hit a non-advocacy group.
>
> It's more fun asking here.
>
> > >> > It doesn't have a pop-up command history like cmd.exe (the F7 key)
> > >>
> > >> 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.
> >
> > Choose how? With the *mouse*? <*snicker*>
>
> There is something called arrow keys, T. Max, you know.
Hmm... my bet is that he doesn't. Remember, he's a Win98 user. He doesn't
know much about the keyboard. In fact, he probably uses one of the new
Apple USB mice with not even a single button.
> > Nobody cares if it's "not the same" as Microsoft's broken shell
> > substitute. Write a GPL command.com for Linux, if you love their
> > disfunctional hacks so much. Bash is a clearly superior shell to
> > anything that Microsoft is even capable of producing.
>
> A> I don't like string handling in C any better than the next guy.
> B> Even if I would write it, it wouldn't be GPL.
C> command.com sucks. cmd.exe is much better.
(not to mention that Bash isn't really superior to cmd.exe except in
scripting, but then, WSH seems better at that)
-c
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 23:44:35 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > > Actually, I think that the reverse is true.
> > > I know a little of Pascal, and the pointers that Pascal have can stump
> you
> > > if you are transferring your Pascal knowledge to C/C++.
> > > Pointers aren't an easy concept in the first place, and C & C++ way of
> doing
> > > it are nearly identical to the way the machine does it, so it's easier
> to
> > > learn the C's way, and then learn Pascal, which limits your ability to
> use
> > > them.
> > > As a note, a good C++ programmer shouldn't have much use for raw
> pointers.
> > > The standard library provides for nearly everything that you need to use
> a
> > > pointer for, and it does it much better than the average programmer can
> hope
> > > to do. More safely, too.
> > > The big plus of C++ is that you don't have to pay for things that you
> don't
> > > need.
> >
> > That's exactly my point. Pascal properly hides what shouldn't be
> > normally used by an application developer (i.e. dirty tricks with
> > pointers). You can do in Pascal anything you can do in C, but you must
> > state very explicitly, so that you're made aware of what you're doing.
> > Once you've learned, you may start playing with C++, if you feel like,
> > but your background will make you avoid all the trivial errors you can
> > do with C++, without the compiler telling you, and learning only at run
> > time.
>
> I don't think so, I think that it's better to know *how* it's done, and
> except assembler, C is the best way to learn how it's done, and then move to
> the restrictions of Pascal.
> And I'm talking as someone who did Pascal first.
My teaching experience tells me differently, but I'm not willing to
start a holy war on this subject.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 02:23:17 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:LwfJ6.10397$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Yes, you have FINALLY gotten to the BEGINNING of the argument you jumped
> > in trolling on. The point of the discussion, ultimately, is the fact
> > that the courts have not made any decisions either way, and so under
> > current law, the FSF's interpretation of the GPL stands, until someone
> > has the balls enough to refute it in front of a judge.
>
> More accurately, their unreasonable threat stands until disproven in
> court. The fact that no one has taken on the challenge says more about
> the value of the covered works than the validity of the threat.
I wouldn't call stuff like the GCC value-less, there are cetainly good
software that is covered under the GPL.
Hell, most of C# IDE are GPLed.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten.
--Seneca, 65 AD
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 02:28:11 +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 17:06:51
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> Yes, you have FINALLY gotten to the BEGINNING of the argument you
jumped
> >> in trolling on. The point of the discussion, ultimately, is the fact
> >> that the courts have not made any decisions either way, and so under
> >> current law, the FSF's interpretation of the GPL stands, until someone
> >> has the balls enough to refute it in front of a judge.
> >
> >More accurately, their unreasonable threat stands until disproven in
> >court.
>
> How could it POSSIBLY be unreasonable? It does not prevent you from
> using the code in any way, it only prevents you from making a profit on
> it through profiteering. How is it a threat for them to point out in
> advance that they refuse to grant license to commercial exploitation of
> their code. Its THEIR code! You now are expecting to be able to STEAL
> it from them and claim their defense is unreasonable threats?
One good test of a law is that it stand the reverse test.
IE, switch position, now is it fair & just?
If MS demanded that any program that use *any* API that they have
implemented, (and there have been *many*) to be a closed source, would you
consider it fair?
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
------------------------------
From: "Steve Sheldon" <[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, 6 May 2001 18:45:00 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001 04:59:28
> >
> >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.
>
> Choose how? With the *mouse*? <*snicker*>
Well actually the keyboard, which sort of makes sense, since we're talking a
command line interface here.
> Nobody cares if it's "not the same" as Microsoft's broken shell
> substitute. Write a GPL command.com for Linux, if you love their
> disfunctional hacks so much. Bash is a clearly superior shell to
> anything that Microsoft is even capable of producing.
I'm not quite clear why you regard Microsoft's shell either broken, or a
substitute.
I've always been a tcsh user myself, never cared for bash.
> >Get TweakUI, it handles it quite nicely.
> >I *think* that it's the same as 2000 on NT.
>
> Who knows? With Microsoft's legendary lack of consistency, there's no
> telling, really, and then it might well change again with each version
> of XP, or maybe depending on whether you've installed some other
> Microsoft crapware. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
What lack of consistency?
The only lack of consistency I'm seeing is your arguments.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 02:42:25 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:WRiJ6.10460$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >To complete the meal, you need to obtain the cookbook(s)
> > >containing the recipes; to play the playlist you must obtain the
> > >songs; to run the program you must obtain the referenced libraries
> > >and the right to use them.
> >
> > Obviously, this mirrors the FSF's position, as I've corrected above. It
> > is the application of the analogy, not its validity, which is suspect.
>
> No, it is the opposite of the FSF's position but it mirrors every other
> library
> providers' postions. Having the library and the right to use it has
nothing
> to
> do with the calling code. The FSF claim is that calling code written by
> others is covered by their copyright even though it only references the
> documented interfaces. If this were true, it would give Microsoft
> ownership of all their competitors works that use system DLLs.
To make it clear to T. Max, this mean *every* program that run on windows,
dos, Xenix (MS' unix), and all their deriatives.
This mean that about 70 - 90% of the software in the world.
> > >The catch here for the FSF position is that GPL'd libraries are freely
> > >obtainable and explicitly permit unrestricted use once you have them.
> >
> > I don't understand why that's a "catch". Because you can read a
> > copyrighted work it is no longer protected?
>
> The GPL explicitly states that it does not restrict use. Thus it cannot
> claim that there are restrictions against third party code calling it.
That
> is why they have to pursue the bizzare concept that code which merely
> references the library is derived from it.
A good point, I've not thought about it.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 01:45:18 +0100
>> Oh sure. And everybody knows that NCSA Mosaic was inspired by IE. Why,
>> if it weren't for Microsoft's innovation there wouldn't even an
>> internet today. But perhaps their biggest contributions have been in
>> the areas of reliability and openess.
> Are you saying that Microsoft created the internet or am I
He's not.
> misunderstanding? If not, can you please explain?
In a word: sarcasm.
> Regards Jonas
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 23:45:44 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > That's exactly my point. Pascal properly hides what shouldn't be
> > normally used by an application developer (i.e. dirty tricks with
> > pointers). You can do in Pascal anything you can do in C, but you must
> > state very explicitly, so that you're made aware of what you're doing.
> > Once you've learned, you may start playing with C++, if you feel like,
> > but your background will make you avoid all the trivial errors you can
> > do with C++, without the compiler telling you, and learning only at run
> > time.
>
> Not true. You can't do anything can do with C++. You can't write device
> drivers, for instance.
I don't see why. Do I miss a point?
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 01:48:19 +0100
>> It is a trivial fix, with practically zero risk.
>
> Curious. If it is so trivial, why is not the default on various distros?
It is a trivial fix. My netscape is now using the Monotype Times New
Roman truetype font and it looks fine.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 01:48:29 +0100
>> I haven't tried (the home computer has a winmodem) but I have heard
>> plenty of success stories.
>
> I have to say I was very disappointed with SuSE 7.1 I used 6.4 with a
> company notebook and a PCMCIA modem, and in about 2 minutes I could
> dial my ISP. With my desktop PC and ADSL, and SuSE 7.1, it took me all
> of 5 minutes and I had (horror!) to edit a config file by hand because
> I was annoyed by a DHCP warning at boot time A horrible experience. I
> had to call in a couple of neighbours and my cat to help me type "vi
> /etc/dhcpcd.conf"... lucky thing my cat is skilled at typing...
Hmm. I only have a goldfish, and he's usually too busy rearranging the
stoned at the bottom of his tank to help me. Never mind, I can always
borrow my sister's gerbil.
>>> They should be working on this issue night and day because nobody is
>>> going to use Linux is they cannot connect to the Internet.
>>
>> I'm not on the internet at home on my computer, yet I still use Linux.
>> My life consists of more than just surfing.
>
> Well, it's true that most people nowadays use their computers to surf
> the Net. It's also true that with any one of the recent distros, the
> only ways
I think a lot of people use them to do accounts, letter writing etc as
well.
> you can have problems with it are:
>
> 1) having a Winmodem
Gak. If only I knew better at the time.
> 2) Having a DSL connection and a fa311 card (I HATE the wretched thing)
> 3) being brain dead
This seems to be a very common probelm these days.
"I've got this BOX that says Press OK to continue. What do I do?"
"...!"
>>> Is there a plan to address this issue?
>>
>> I hope not. the advantages of plain text config files have clearly
>> shown their advantages compared to binary databases for configuration.
>> Note that most of the files are not read very often.
>
> Simple example:
>
> a *very* moronic programmer in my company, who acquired the root
> password from one of our junior sysadmins (she's still being flogged on
> a daily basis), screws up a number of files in the /etc directory. We
> restore them
> from backups. 20 minutes.
Yep, the plain text files have proven their worth tima and time again
against the registry.
> Something (the most interesting explanation came from Micro$oft support:
>
> "age of the registry file", whatever that means) fucks up the registry
> file on the only NT server in the company. You guessed it, 4 hours
> downtime, disks reformatted, clean install, restore from backups.
>
> Eugenio
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
