Linux-Advocacy Digest #730, Volume #34 Wed, 23 May 01 14:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("DanM")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed (quux111)
Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP (Dave Martel)
Re: What is the licence aggreement for REDHAD professional server? (Dave Martel)
Re: XP 'Loctivation' was: Wintroll nonsense (Dave Martel)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Dave Martel)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Roberto Alsina)
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! (chrisv)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! (chrisv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 19:52:33 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:2xHO6.4761$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > The easiest way to do it is to define the values that you will accept,
and
> > throwing away all the rest.
>
> We accept string values.
They you should verify that they are URL.
> > Yes, it's boring and slow the code, but so is checking a pointer's value
> > after malloc().
>
> One string value should mean the same as another to malloc().
Yeah, compilation error.
> It is what the documentation for the dll uses for the examples, and there
> is next to nothing but creating an object and using it's methods so I
> don't see why the calling language would make much difference. I
> started to use perlscript for parts of the pages but found that ASP
> doesn't render the page in the order it is written if you mix languages.
That was on a more general note.
> > Why are you doing it this way?
>
> I want to embed things from my old/reliable servers inside the asp
> generated pages. Some things would just be just too painful to
> rewrite in vbscript... This method allows several chunks to be
> pulled from other servers and place in the same page.
Okay, how fast those pages change? It would be more efficent if you put it
in an application variable and update it every few minutes.
> Usually I've found that if a solution hasn't been posted already it
> doesn't exist.
*Try*, it won't cost you anything, would it?
> Besides, I don't really know how to describe the
> problem other than having a 'memory cannot be read' dialog box
> pop up. The system doesn't give the slightest hint about what
> caused it or what it really means. I'm just guessing that the xml
> dll is involved at all.
That seems likely.
Why don't you try the age old method of logging what you are doing?
Something like this:
(Sorry, can't remember FSO methods anymore.)
Function transformXML (XSLSource, XMLSource)
' Open text file here
' Write to file openning 2 msxml objects at current time
Set XMLFile = Server.CreateObject("Msxml2.FreeThreadedDOMDocument")
Set XSLFile = Server.CreateObject("Msxml2.FreeThreadedDOMDocument")
'Write to file Feeding the XML objects with XmlSource & XSLSource
XMLFile.async = False
XMLFile.load(XMLSource)
XSLFile.async = False
XSLFile.load(XSLSource)
'Write to file trasform Node
transformXML = XMLFile.transformNode(XSLFile)
set XMLFile = nothing
set XSLFile = nothing
'Write to file Success!
' Close file
End Function
This way, next time you have a failure, you have:
A> The input that cause the failure.
B> The place where it failed.
Should be a great step forward.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 19:55:45 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 23 May 2001 05:56:33 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Your prediction is wrong, it's already flooding the warez groups.
>
>
> That's the beta, I said the gold copy. You can legally buy the beta
> (ain't that a trip!) for $10.00 or so.
Yeah, then I have to add shipping, which is twice or so of the price of the
software... :D
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 20:02:54 +0200
"Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> GreyCloud wrote:
>
> > Much better argument. How many intelligent life forms could survive
> > long enough to generate strong enough EM waves to be detected here?
> > Don't know. But then SETI presumes that ET uses EM waves. Could it not
> > be possible to use another form of communications other than EM waves?
> > Don't know, but I don't think it is impossible either.
> > I believe that there are intelligent life forms out on other planets,
> > but it is US that cannot find out if they exist. Especially if these
> > life forms are in a "dark ages" like we used to be in.
> >
>
> I am quite sure that, if there were indeed advanced civilisations 'out
> there', they would most likely have come up with much more efficient ways
> of communicating over interstellar distances. Gravitational waves spring
to
> mind, or zero-point energy modulation, or magic...
>
> Nevertheless, EM radiation is easy to detect by retards like us and can be
> generated relatively cheaply. Any civilisation that wanted to make its
> existence known to the rest of the universe could do a lot worse than
> choose EM radiation.
>
> And finally, we only have the scientific background to search for EM
> radiation, so ...
The other question is, of course, do they *want* to be found?
It doesn't take a lot of thinking to understand that there is a good chance
that they don't.
Brin's Earth is a story about ETs finding humanity.
Paranoia is a survival trait, after all.
It would be intellectually nice to know that we aren't alone in the
universe, would it be practically wise?
------------------------------
From: "DanM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:01:09 -0400
"JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> snip
> Internet connection stays when switching users! And get this - Applications
> even stay open and are there (still open) when returning to that user.
> That's just the tip of the iceberg.
It's called session management and a lot of window managers for
GNU/Linux have had it for quite some time.
Cheers
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 19:12:44 +0100
>>Other words, attenuation and also radial dispersion of the photons.
>>Also a lot of time would be needed to get that photon from there to
>>here. Even EM waves attenuate over the inverse square of the distance.
>>How would it be that there is infinite energy to propel that photon from
>>the farthest distances then?
>
> This seems very similar, to my amateur eye, to the 'black body' problem
> which first indicated the flaws in Maxwell's equations which would later
> fell Einstein's as well.
>
> According to Maxwell's equations, a 'black body' (an object which cannot
> radiate energy; considered a 'perfectly insulated oven' in most thought
> experiments) *must* have an infinite amount of energy.
You are very confused. Black bodies happily radiate. In fact, a black
body has a higher emissivity than any other body.
The only thing that doesn't radiate is an object that is at 0K. getting
to 0K violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics which has never been shown
to be violated on a large scale.
Maxwells (electromagentic) equations say nothing about bodies radiating.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 19:14:00 +0100
>>>>In free space, radio waves travel at *exactly* the speed of light.
>>>
>>> Just how many other people here are unaware that Maxwell's equations
>>> are no more correct in all cases than Newton's are, Bohr's, or
>>> Einstein's are?
>>
>>Which cases are they not correct in. They are true under all
>>relativistic transforms and fit in nicely with quantum mechanics.
>
> "Fitting in nicely" is not the issue.
So, where aren't thay true.
>>> Claiming that light travels at the speed of light *because* you can't
>>> solve Maxwell's equations any other way is just the kind of gibberish
>>> you've accused GreyCloud of.
>>
>>...?
>
> !!!
..
>>> In fact, IIRC, wasn't it the failure of Maxwell's equations to solve
>>> the
>>> 'black body' problem correctly that caused quantum physics to first be
>>> considered?
>>
>>No. That is wrong.
>
> Gee, aren't you helpful.
you said, IIRC..., well you recalled incorrectly. I can't remember which
one was wrong but it wasn't Maxwel's equations.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 19:19:04 +0100
>> Yep plenty. Just do a search for
>> "Another Linux OOPSIE"
>>
>> it's filled with prime examples.
>
> Fine, quote one.
I can't be bothered. I know you snipped my posts in your responses to
alter what I meant. I pointed it out at the time and gave showed where
you did it. I don't have time to repeat this process.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 19:21:51 +0100
>>>All electromagnetic waves travel at the same speed, which is the speed
>>>of light in a given medium. Radio waves are electromagnetic waves end
>>>will therefore never be slower than light.
>>
>> Not true. Most medium exhibit a frequency dependance on the speed of
>> light. Shine a light through a glass prism and you get a rainbow -
>> this is because the speed of light is different for the different
>> wavelengths of light.
>
> ?????????
Different speeds -> different refractive index->different
angles->frequencies seperate spatially.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (quux111)
Subject: Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed
Date: 23 May 2001 16:36:14 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pidcock) wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On 23 May 2001 14:19:08 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (quux111) wrote:
>>The general office computer user is not, as a rule, a guru. They tend
>>to use one or two apps all day long -- usually word-processors and
>>spreadsheets (and increasingly web-browsers). To claim that Windows
>>performs these functions so much easier or more intutively than
>>anything else is just false: load up StarOffice and the average user
>>would be happy as a clam after a couple of days adjustment. I know
>>because I migrated fifty users to Applix Office from Microsoft Office
>>not long ago. The first couple of days were filled with complaints and
>>questions, but by the end of the week everything was humming along
>>smoothly again. The people adapted and made use of what they had.
>>When the rationale for the move was explained to them, and when we
>>involved them in their own retraining, their buy-in helped the move to
>>succeed.
>
> Surprising. My experience of users is that they have difficulty doing
> anything outside the standard (e.g. linking an inserted picture in
> word rather than embedding it). They also have difficulty
> understanding what goes on in the machine. Confusion as to what
> memory is: RAM/HD is a big one. I just used the desktop/filing
> cabinet metaphor recently and that seemed understood, unless they were
> pretending just to humour me :-)
> None of this is any easier/more difficult with Linux tho.
> What was your rationale for moving that convinced users? I can't
> imagine "saving the company money" is good enough: most people would
> say "tightfisted company..."
>
Actually, it was a combination of cost savings, a dissatisfaction with the
support policies of Microsoft, and a general need not to be bound to a
single vendor for our software needs. We made a decision not to use
proprietary formats for any of our documentation -- everything had to be in
"open formats" (e.g, word-processing documents are saved either as RTF or
plain text). Our facility must archive documentation for a number of
years, and I don't want any of it to be in a weird format that may be
changed or discontinued in a couple of years. I want to be sure that, if I
ever need to pull up a document in five or ten years, I can be sure that I
can preserve both the content and formatting of the original.
We got the users to buy in simply by addressing their concerns about
performance -- we set up a demo machine in their area and let them see for
themselves how much faster and more capable Linux was on their machines
than WinNT. Most of them really didn't care one way or the other, as long
as they could do their jobs with a minimum of fuss. Once they saw that
their jobs would change little, if at all, they shrugged and went on with
things. It was all pretty smooth. I even turned one of our tech-writers
into a LaTeX convert simply by showing her some of the advanced layout and
typography stuff you can do with LaTeX as opposed to Word.
Another motivating force was that our fleet of computers is aging -- the
most common type of machine is a P100 with 32MB of RAM. Windows NT/2K
chokes on these machines, and Win98 is too unstable for everyday use. We
found that standardizing a Linux install with Applix (we use IceWm as the
windowmanager and stick the Applix icon right on the menubar) gave us a
fast, stable, and familiar environment that the users could adapt to quite
easily. We simply set up a single drive-image with all our software, and
then we burn that image to a CD. That CD is then used to install all new
machines. Users do not have privileges to install new software on the
system, so our computer system has remained amazingly stable for over six
months. Our support person said she has only had to go down there once, to
replace a toner cartridge in the laser printer!
>
> I still think Linux has to look as much like windows as possible when
> you first do the switch though, to keep retraining costs down.
>
> Dan
> remove .hatespam to reply
>
I think you're overestimating the retraining issue. My experience has
shown that, after the initial "where is this button, where is that button"
stage passes, the users adapt very quickly. You can help this process by
keeping the desktop configuration as clean as possible -- put icons right
on the desktop or in the menu bar. Don't clutter things up or
overcomplicate matters.
It may require some time to retrain them on particular pieces of custom
software or templates, but this needs to be done anyway -- periodic
training sessions keeps our users sharp and lets them grow their own
skills. It's not that big an expense, really, and it pays off handsomely
in increased productivity and worker satisfaction.
Regards,
quux111
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:22:47 -0600
On Wed, 23 May 2001 19:55:45 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 23 May 2001 05:56:33 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Your prediction is wrong, it's already flooding the warez groups.
>>
>>
>> That's the beta, I said the gold copy. You can legally buy the beta
>> (ain't that a trip!) for $10.00 or so.
>
>Yeah, then I have to add shipping, which is twice or so of the price of the
>software... :D
If past history is any indication, you'll be able to get the (cracked)
retail version of XP on the pirate groups two months before it becomes
available in the stores.
Not that I know why anybody would want either one.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is the licence aggreement for REDHAD professional server?
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:24:17 -0600
On 23 May 2001 14:56:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>KerryHB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I am thinking of using many cheap Intel PC as SERVERS.
>
>> Can I buy one copy Redhat Professional Server and install it on 50 PCs?
>
>Why would you *buy* it?
>
To support the company?
I got Slackware for free but eventually sent them a little
contribution. Might contribute some more if that Windriver deal leaves
the effort too strapped, even though it looks like I'll be switching
to FreeBSD.
BTW WindRiver has FreeBSD 4.3 on backorder. If anyone's in a hurry, I
found the install CD at <http://www.cheapbytes.com> for $10 including
S&H.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XP 'Loctivation' was: Wintroll nonsense
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:24:37 -0600
On 23 May 2001 12:03:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
wrote:
>On Wed, 23 May 2001 02:27:17 -0600,
> Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 23 May 2001 07:26:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 May 2001 00:38:46 -0600,
>>> Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> One thing I was wondering here is, will making it harder to steal just
>> turn casual pirates into serious pirates?
>
>Why steal when there is a free alternative ?
People are strange. There's a group I lurk in now and then,
alt.comp.freeware, where everyone gets all excited over silly little
Windows freeware programs. I told them once that if they want the
ultimate in freeware, they ought to switch to linux. But nobody
listened. :(
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 11:25:32 -0600
On 23 May 2001 13:02:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (quux111) wrote:
>I do a lot of work in C++ Builder, and it's always aggravated me that
>Borland chose to write the VCL in Pascal rather than C/C++. Having a
>Pascal-native framework means that VCL classes are pretty stupid: they
>can't be created off the heap but must always be taken from the free-store;
>the AnsiString type has no mapping to std::string (*really* lame IMHO); you
>can't override the copy constructor; and VCL classes often behave badly
>when used with the STL or IOStreams. On top of all that, the VCL is butt-
>slow compared even to MFC-based apps. As a high-level application API the
>VCL is at best okay. It's meant for the corporate-developer RAD folks, so
>I suppose it does the job for them. For myself, I find it quite limiting
>and in some cases badly-designed from a C++ perspective.
I gave up on C++ Builder for just those reasons. It's great for
prototyping a program's look-and-feel, though.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 23 May 2001 17:42:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert W Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina) wrote:
>
><> assume you say this from a religious perspective. In that case,
><>if you are a literalist, his behaviour doesn't matter all that
><>much, since already the desire is a sin.
>
>I am not saying it from a religious standpoint at all. I was stating a fact.
"You can change your behaviour" is not a fact, if he can't.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 17:51:45 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "chrisv"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah, Intel doesn't make a RISC processor. They think RISC stinks.
>>>
>>>Nice try EF. Thanks for playing.
>>
>> Does not Intel own and manufacture the ARM processor?
>
>They own the company that makes ARM. The people employed to make the ARM
>are not directly employed by intel.
Okay, so Intel manufactures the ARM, and they own the company that
designs the ARM, so I'd say that Intel does indeed "make a RISC
processor."
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 18:52:16 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >Microsoft would probably with to be everywhere - shudder!
>
> Oddly enough, this is the reaction that most reasonable people have. I
> suppose you're just feigning, Pete? It would be out of character for
> you to be smart enough to understand why this is a frightful
> possibility.
"Out of character"? Why so?
> >Now we're sliding into the server market, where Linux is scoring.
>
> Linux is scoring all over. More Linux desktops come on line every day
> than W2K desktops. MS is having a hell of a time getting people to buy
> monopoly crapware for hundreds of dollars when they can have a
> technically superior product for practically nothing.
Yet the predominant desktop is still Windows.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 18:53:24 +0100
In article <E66C8A945D5EA5F5.3590ABD846647B1F.BF8BC7D93EE5E430
@lp.airnews.net>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> The Cancer Research... (???)
> Elucidate please.
It's mentioned on Intel's website.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 18:05:40 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Whatever happened to the ++++?
>
>
>Linux users were complaining that I was putting their el-cheapo Hayes
>Modems circa 1995 into escape (command?) mode :)
There was a guy back in the Citadel days that went by the handle
"+++ATH0" which of course will make you modem hang up.
He was a troll (or "ruggie", as we said back then).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
