Linux-Advocacy Digest #261, Volume #35 Fri, 15 Jun 01 11:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Macman)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Macman)
Re: OT: The point of all of this... (was Re: Where is American pride?) (Stephen
Cornell)
Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" ("Jon Johansan")
Re: More microsoft innovation (Sandman)
Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and ignorance...) (Nick
Condon)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Sandman)
Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and
ignorance...) (Nick Condon)
Re: MSnbc calls MS on MS's FUD campain! ("Ian Pegel")
Re: What does XP stands for ??? (Richard Thrippleton)
Re: netscape 6.1 - anyone? (Richard Thrippleton)
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (Charles Lyttle)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) ("David Brown")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:16:44 GMT
In article <9gd42g$3bj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > You, as a user, have certain rights under the fair use doctrine.
> > Presumably, looking at the text only, or changing fonts, or similar
> > things would fall under fair use.
> >
> > Microsoft, as a third party, does not have the same rights. They do have
> > the rights to fair use, but what they're doing would almost certainly
> > not fall under that doctrine.
> >
> > Your analogy stinks.
>
> Don't I, as the user, have a right to *want* those smart tags?
>
>
Sure. It should be something that you can _choose_ to install. It should
not be installed by default.
AND, it should not be something that a monopoly controls. Even if you
choose to install it, it's unethical (at best) for Microsoft to be able
to create the smart links where they could create a link to their own
site every time the word "Macintosh" appears or a link to the American
Cancer Society every time Linux appears or other shenanigans.
Microsoft is a monopoly and should not have the ability to control the
entire world's web use.
------------------------------
From: Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:17:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > It figures you would cchampoion micro$ofts changing the appearnce of
> > other people's pages. Micro$of has no right to change the prsentation of
> > someone else's page. NONE.
>
> Microsoft isn't changing anything. *I* changed the appearance on *my*
> computer. I can also turn off graphics, sounds, videos, change fonts
> and sizes, background colors, etc.
You as the user have the right to do that under fair use doctrine.
Microsoft does not have the right to do that for millions of users.
>
> Why is this any different?
Read up on fair use some time.
>
> Frankly, after turning it on (I have Windows XP here) I like it. I
> think you folks complaining about it simply haven't seen it in action
> and/or don't understand how it works and what it does.
Or maybe we're concerned to have a clearly unethical monopoly creating
links on independent web site.
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: The point of all of this... (was Re: Where is American pride?)
Date: 15 Jun 2001 15:28:26 +0100
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And for the record, I would consider anyone who
> was actually in the fighting to be brave.
Agreed (soldiers on both sides of the conflict). It took a lot of
bravery on the part of the civilian population too.
> > "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Why does everyone keep talking about how the
> > > Soviets defeated the Nazis? That's utter
> > > bullshit. The Soviets spent more time shooting
> > > their own people for cowardess and treason than
> > > they did killing Nazis.
> >
> "Stephen Cornell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > No-one is claiming that. What they're saying is that the Soviets
> > managed to occupy a significant fraction of the Axis's resources, and
> > this weakened the enemy.
>
> Not nearly enough to stop them. That is my point.
Others would disagree with you. But I'll let that one pass, since I'm
no expert on that point.
> I'm not trying to brag about something I had nothing
> to do with. What I'm pointing out is how the apathy
> of the European nations got them into deep caca.
No, not apathy, but terror at the prospect of another `War to end all
wars'. The memory of WWI was still very fresh, and European countries
were keen to avoid a repeat of that carnage at (almost) all costs. But,
yes, with hindsight the foreign policy of Britain and other European
countries in the 1930s was disastrous.
> > > But too many Euros have far too much ego
> > > to admit that someone else actually saved
> > > their asses.
> >
> > No, most `Euros' are very well aware of the major role played by the
> > US in rescuing us in WWII. What pisses us off is the revisionist
> > picture you paint that somehow you did it all yourselves.
>
> And exactly where did I state that?
Right here:
> > > They were in quite poor shape once
> > > we got into the game. From that point, we
> > > called the shots, and kicked 3rd Reich ass.
And here:
> > > But too many Euros have far too much ego
> > > to admit that someone else actually saved
> > > their asses.
And, more recently, here:
> Since the Brits were demolished, it was left up to us.
[...]
> > Finally: don't get me wrong - I don't hate Americans or the US. There
> > are many things about the US and about Americans that I admire. It's
> > just absurd when Americans accuse Europeans of being clueless about
> > the rest of the world.
>
> I wasn't accusing anyone of being clueless about anything.
True, I apologize - That was someone else. Remember, though, that
`European ignorance and arrogance' was the title of this thread.
> In fact, IIRC, you accused me of being clueless, simply
> because you misunderstood what I said.
You may well have meant something different from what I understood,
but this is what you actually wrote:
> > > The fact is, if Europe hadn't dragged us into
> > > their little conflict, they would have been
> > > overrun. They were in quite poor shape once
> > > we got into the game. From that point, we
> > > called the shots, and kicked 3rd Reich ass.
If you will assent to the following statements:
(1) WWII was not a `little conflict' whose sole cause was incompetence
and apathy on the part of `the Europeans'
(2) The US was not dragged into WWII by Europe, but entered because of
its own national interest and in response to aggression by Japan
(3) The US was only one of several major factors in the Allies' victory
then I will withdraw my accusation that you are clueless.
> This whole thing was started, because some worthless
> flunkie by the name of drsquare stated that patriotism
> is worthless.
Actually, even before that it was caused by someone (probably the same
clueless flunkie) making some pointless and snide remarks about
British vs. American slang, then someone accused a New Zealander of
being a typical clueless European. The argument then escalated into the
classic US vs. Europe+rest-of-world slanging match - which always
leads up to some American saying `well, we saved your asses in WWII'.
For the record, I don't believe that patriotism is worthless. It's
important to have a sense of one's identity, to know where one is
coming from, and what are the strengths of one's heritage. However,
when patriotism expresses itself as a belief in national superiority,
it becomes very dangerous.
> If the European nations were patriotic
> at all, and banded together as one land of continents,
> they would have stopped the Nazis and the Japanese
> without any help from us easily.
What you don't seem to understand is that Europe is made up of a large
number of culturally heterogeneous states, with separate national
interests. How exactly can such a group function as a single land
with a single set of ideals?
Look at the situation in Northern Ireland. There, you have two
separate groups, both absolutely set on pursuing mutually incompatible
ideals. In other words, it is extreme patriotism that is sustaining the
conflict there.
The degree of European cooperation we have now was not easy to come
by, and the biggest barrier to further European cooperation is a form
of patriotism - a lack of willingness for one's national identity to
come second to European unity.
> IOW, it was a lack of patriotism (ie: the love for one's
> country and its ideals) that put Europe in the shitter.
My main beef with you is this: why is the behaviour of European
countries before 1939 apathetic and unpatriotic, when it is completely
acceptable and consistent with American ideals for the US to sit by
and ignore what was going on in the world? Why was Hitler a purely
European problem, when the situation arose as a result of a peace
treaty signed by, among others, an American president? Why was Japan
a European problem at all?
In fact, the Americans did exactly what European states did - they
avoided getting involved until they absolutely had no alternative.
> I never said I hated Euros, or that I don't value them.
> I just hate their apathy, and their seeming lack of
> patriotism for themselves and their sister continents.
By definition, it is not possible to be patriotic for another country.
As to European apathy and lack of patriotism: do you support the
European `rapid reaction force', which has been criticised by the US
because it it separate from NATO? Have you ever actually spoken to a
German, an Irishman, or a Finn about what it means to be European?
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: 15 Jun 2001 09:35:02 -0500
Well, "DLL Hell" is no longer a valid concept or issue in Windows 2000 or
XP. Looks like that legacy has been taken up by linux - taken from the front
page of Linux Weekly News (http://www.lwn.net/):
"gnucash 1.6 and the dependency nightmare
gnucash is perhaps the prime example of shared library dependency hell. The
executable requires no less than 60 different shared libraries, all, of
course, with the right version."
I'm sorry but... har! har! har!
"Upgrading to GNOME 1.4 addresses many of those dependencies, but not all of
them."
Sure, just upgrade
"Dealing with the rest has proved tricky, even for people who are accustomed
to this sort of problem. "
------------------------------
From: Sandman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:36:28 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
> > Becasuse I want to control the links on my page MY PAGE. The page -I
> > wrote-. I dont want micro$oft deciding where peole should go from my
> > page.
>
> Why? Do you want to control the fonts on YOUR PAGE? The colors? The
> graphics? The sounds? The videos? The regular hyperlinks?
>
> I can change/turn off all of these just as easily. Why aren't you
> complaining about these?
Surely you see the difference in a browser implementation where you build
in the function of setting colors and fonts and changing the content.
Netscape has this "What's related", it's basicvally the same thing as NS is
pulling, but it's -awa- from the webpage. Changing colors and fonts are for
some a neccesity in order to read your page. Autodetecting words and
linking them to MS sites falls into the "bad sport" arena, and they should
have made a different implementation of that idea.
--
Sandman[.net]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and ignorance...)
Date: 15 Jun 2001 14:44:31 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Yeah, when Americans say "liberal" they mean something like
>> "socialist". They can't say "socialist" because they've already warped
>> that to mean "communist", which of course has been twisted to mean
>> "unamerican".
>>
>> Unfortunately, it leaves no word for them to describe what we would
>> call liberals. Libertarians are almost there, but have some illiberal
>> kinks.
>
>What? Libertarians are as far from liberals/communists as you can get.
I'm really at loss how to respond to this post. My first thought was it was
joke, and I laughed. Then I saw it was Chad and we all know that level of
subtlety is well beyond him. Then I tried to frame a careful and
thoughtful response, but only got about halfway through it before I thought
"Fuck it - just ploink him", but if I did that I'd miss out his other
entertaining comments. What a dilemma.
So what do you all think? How should I reply to him?
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: Sandman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:43:17 +0200
In article <9gd42g$3bj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You, as a user, have certain rights under the fair use doctrine.
> > Presumably, looking at the text only, or changing fonts, or similar
> > things would fall under fair use.
> >
> > Microsoft, as a third party, does not have the same rights. They do have
> > the rights to fair use, but what they're doing would almost certainly
> > not fall under that doctrine.
> >
> > Your analogy stinks.
>
> Don't I, as the user, have a right to *want* those smart tags?
Do you think it is an option you have to turn ON or turn OFF? :) If it is,
indeed, an option you can turn ON, you as a user, have the "right" to want
to turn it on and it is fine. However, if it is an option ON from the
beginning, MS has choosen the default behaviour of the browser and only the
minority will turn it off, or even will know how. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and
ignorance...)
Date: 15 Jun 2001 14:56:58 GMT
Thaddius Maximus wrote:
>Nick Condon wrote:
>>
>> Thaddius Maximus wrote:
>>
>> >We (USA) do NOT have a representative democracy.
>>
>> Really? Better go and tell the occupants of the House of Representives
>> to go home then.
>>
>This just tickles me to no end. Why is it that just because the
>US has represenatives that people assume it to mean "representative
>democracy?"
Sorry, elected representatives means representative democracy.
>Why not, "representative republic," or "representative representation?"
Sure, if you like.
>I can assure you good folks who are reading this post that the
>politicians in the House of Representives are NOT bestowing upon
>their electors the exercise of sovereign power.
No. That would create a direct or participatory democracy, like ancient
Athens. Not a model to aspire to.
> And until they
>do, the US will not be a "representative democracy."
What, in your opinion, are the priciple differences between a
representative and a participatory democracy?
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: "Ian Pegel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MSnbc calls MS on MS's FUD campain!
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:48:56 +0100
> MSnbc (remember what the MS stands for) shines a light on MS FUD!
God I'm stupid! But what does FUD mean?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Thrippleton)
Subject: Re: What does XP stands for ???
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:37:56 +0000
In article <9gcrct$1hgo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stuart Fox wrote:
>
>"Matthew Gardiner (BOFH)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>>
>> With the inclusion of raw sockets, its now known as eXPloitation
>>
>You really are dense aren't you Matt? One guy complains because MS
>completes it's sockets implementation to make it standards compliant, and
>now it's a security hole? It's a security hole in most *nixes then as
>well.
It's a security hole because Windows is a whore; any old scrypt
kiddie can break in and 0wnz j00. With the previous days of Windows being
used for DDoS it was like selling kitchen knives to kids, but now it's gonna
be like leaving the gun cabinet unlocked. Unices on the other hand don't
tend to run arbitrary VB code that they're given, are run by non-lusers, and
are constructed in such a way that even a compromised service cannot r00t
you (running servers as other users).
That said, it is a little unfair to blame MS for actually going
standards compliant; it is fair to blame them for making Windows machines
into public root boxes.
Richard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Thrippleton)
Subject: Re: netscape 6.1 - anyone?
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:40:06 +0000
In article <9gce0q$1o7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:50:05 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > "Burkhard W�lfel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Did anyone of you try out ns6.1 preview yet?
>> >>
>> >> I wonder if it is "advocable"...
>> >
>> > No, it isn't.
>> > If you want to advocate something, advoacte Mozilla.
>>
>> Yep, and Mozilla is fantastic these days!
>>
>> > Advocating NS is about as hopeless as advocating Win3.0 as a server
>platform
>>
>> Exactlyseing as Netscape is now ownedby AOL!
>
>You *are* aware that a large precentage of the work on Mozilla is done by
>paid AOL employee's, are you?
I certainly wasn't.... thanks for the info. This explains a hell of
a lot.... like the 60 second startup time, the expansion to fill all
available RAM.... *shudder*.
I converted to Links a few months ago, and have never looked back
since.
Richard
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 14:59:46 GMT
"Matthew Gardiner (BOFH)" wrote:
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "Matthew Gardiner (BOFH)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >>>Yes, but at the same time, it's not clear what it will be running. The thing
> >>>we really need to see is a survey of what operating systems businesses are
> >>>running today. The survey would have to include companies of different size
> >>>and different markets (etc, etc.) so that variations could be factored in.
> >>>As you point out, just looking at what OS machines were shipped with isn't
> >>>necessarily valid, especially in the case of server shipments.
> >>>
> >>>-- Mike --
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Also, most Linux users are DYI people who build their own computers so
> >>that they have absolute control over what goes into it, and when the
> >>shit hits the fan, how to fix it. Hence, one cannot always get the
> >>correct figures when counting the number of Linux "shipments" vs. the
> >>number of Windows "shipments".
> >>
> >
> > Oh yes, this "Enterprise Linux" running on a bunch of home-grown
> > boxes. I'm glad I'm not an employee of one of those companies. I'd
> > have to use my stock options as toilet paper because it'd be cheaper.
> >
> > -c
>
> Whats the difference between a dell machine assembled in Malysia by a
>
> chinese person vs. a machine assembled by the system admin? Nothing.
>
Quality is the difference. The machine assembled by the system admin
will be of much higher quality. For example, the sys admin will probably
actually connect the wires to the power switch, the HDD led will
probably be checked to insure it works, the motherboard will be properly
secured to the cabinet, and the sys admin will probably remove most of
he loose screws from the case. These are all problems I had with the
last out-of-the-box system I bought (Wednesday). Yes, I know I voided
the warrantee when I opened the case. But that was much easier than
carrying the system back to the store only to be told that the warrantee
didn't cover the problem and I would have to pay a fee to have them look
at it.
Before someone starts some racist junk, the problem isn't that the
worker is Chinese. Its that the workers, of whatever background, are
being exploited and neither they nor the corporations care. The workers
make the junk they are forced to make, and Americans buy the junk they
are told to buy.
> Also, if you were to use it for enterprise, you would get a prioprietry
> solution from SUN or IBM, REAL hardware with a REAL os.
>
Depends on the situation. Sun or IBM would be the choice for most very
large systems. But there are a number of reasons neither they nor MS
would not be choosen: Economy, special security, physical limitations
(size, temperature, location).
> Matthew Gardiner
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:01:48 +0200
Thaddius Maximus wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>David Brown wrote:
>>
>
>Would have, should have, could have... yadda, yadda, yadda...
>
>The USA kicked the 3rd Reich's butt and kicked it hard and we
>blew the Pacific theater to smithereens. What more could
>you possibly ask for???
>
>
All I ask for is that you recognize that the US entered the war in Europe
for its own good, not because of some sort of charity. And while we
Europeans should be glad that the US helped out, the US should be equally
glad that Europe fought tooth and claw to keep Germany out and weaken it as
much as we did. Because if the UK had surrendered, you would be speaking
German today. Just remember to thank *us* before boasting and expecting
gratitude.
You greatly exagerate the US's success - remember, you won by quantity, not
quality. You have a big country with a lot of people and a lot of
resources, and you did not join the war in Europe until the other
participants were running low on everything.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
