Linux-Advocacy Digest #310, Volume #35 Sat, 16 Jun 01 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64? (Bob Hauck)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Peter Hayes)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" ("Stuart Fox")
Re: More microsoft innovation ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Will MS get away with this one? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Win/userbase! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
Re: What does XP stands for ??? ("Stuart Fox")
Re: The Win/userbase! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: What does XP stands for ??? ("Stuart Fox")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (macman)
Re: Is Linux for me? (Mig)
Re: The Win/userbase! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: netscape 6.1 - anyone? (Richard Thrippleton)
Re: The Win/userbase! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Woofbert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64?
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:44:07 GMT
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:09:19 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> B> All that it need, in nearly all cases, is a recompile of the application
> to IA-64 to get it to work on it in reasonable speed.
So they aren't going to change API's, create new API's, and obsolete old
API's like they did going from Win16 to Win32? Hell, they introduced
the whole "message cracking" business in order to paper over the changes
in the way message parameters were packed, which by itself made sure
that you had to go through all of your code and fix things.
My point is that "just a recompile" was also promised for Win16->Win32,
but it turned out to be a lot more work than that because they API's
were not designed with portability or growth in mind. Many Linux apps,
OTOH, are _already_ running on 64-bit CPU's and have been for years.
The problems are already solved, IOW.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:40:19 GMT
In article <9gfgpe$e45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>
> > > It's *my* computer. How I choose to display your web page is none of
> > > your business. You supply the defaults, I supply the customization.
> >
> > I'm fine with that, as long as it's really you doing it. What I object
> > to is Microsoft (or anyone else) supplying new informational content in
> > the form of additional hyperlinks on my web site.
>
> By they aren't!
> They are supply a mechanism for the user to do it. And also supply a stock
> of smart tags, there is nothing wrong with this.
I don't know how you got this far in this conversation without reading
and thinking about the objections we've been making to the idea of
someone other than the author adding hyperlinks to a displayed web page.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:41:22 GMT
In article <9gfkm2$jm7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:21:07 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > ("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >
> > >"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >> > It's *my* computer. How I choose to display your web page is
> > >> > none of your business. You supply the defaults, I supply the
> > >> > customization.
> > >>
> > >> I'm fine with that, as long as it's really you doing it. What I
> > >> object to is Microsoft (or anyone else) supplying new
> > >> informational content in the form of additional hyperlinks on my
> > >> web site.
> > >
> > >By they aren't! They are supply a mechanism for the user to do it.
> > >And also supply a stock of smart tags, there is nothing wrong with
> > >this.
> >
> > How is the user going to know how to do this?
>
> He can *read* about it in the smart tags SDK.
I won't know houw you can expect an end-user to read documentation
intended for developers (what does SDK stand for?).
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:42:17 GMT
In article <9gfk7p$j1h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MS provides a mechanism to add smart tags to the page. It also
> provides a sotck implementation. The user can choose to use it or
> not, as well as to use MS' implementation, Mr. X's or his own.
>
> What is your problem here? That MS provides a stock implementation?
Have you been following thus argument at tall? That's what we've been
complaining about since the start!
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:45:00 GMT
In article <9gfgp8$e45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > That's absolutely true -- and falls under the Fair Use Doctrine I
> > already described to you.
> >
> > But for Microsoft to create a piece of software that automatically makes
> > changes to the content does not.
>
> So it's not all-right for MS to create a browser where you can shut-down
> sound/javascript/images/ etc?
I've been saying all along that different browsers display content in
different means, and that web site developers have always been aware of
this. (And some people are deaf and others are blind; some simply choose
not to hear or see those media.) The possibilith of using a browser that
does not show some part of the web site has always been a part of the
web and is not in question here.
What is in question here is a central authority (in this case Microsoft)
adding hyperlinks to a web page.
How can you have participated in this discussion for so long without
understanding this objection?
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:47:31 GMT
In article <9gfkls$jm7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:19:23 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > ("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >
> > >"macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >> That's absolutely true -- and falls under the Fair Use Doctrine I
> > >> already described to you.
> > >>
> > >> But for Microsoft to create a piece of software that automatically
> makes
> > >> changes to the content does not.
> > >
> > >So it's not all-right for MS to create a browser where you can
> > >shut-down
> > >sound/javascript/images/ etc?
> >
> > That's not adding or changing content to the site.
>
> Try to tell it to the web designer.
> It's certainly changing content.
I am a web designer. I know that different browsers have different
capabilites.
Macromedia knows this, too. They even have a utility that writes custom
Javascripts that automatically substitute the correct media depending on
what the user has installed.
Different browser capabilities, if anything, *decline to display*
content, which it is entirely beyond me how you can confuse with someone
else *adding* content.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:49:52 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:07:47 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark)
wrote:
> In article <9gfgpr$e45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> Who controls the content of these added links?
> >
> >The user.
> >
>
> The base content is provided by Microsoft. Future versions are
> likely to go to an external database, and are also likely to result
> in carefully selected material from Microsoft's associate companies
> finding it's way to the user's desktop.
How?
Ayende has stated categorically that XP doesn't phone home.
Or will we get a message like "To provide a more personalized browsing
experience will you allow Internet Explorer to accept valuable browsing
information from www.microsoft.com"?
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 08:49:55 +1200
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:%nLW6.41035$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > Hmm, does Linux has something like a repharse point?
> > That would allow all applications to link to foo.so.1 and get the minor
> > version that they are expecting.
>
> You mean reparse point, not repharse. And yes, it's called a symbolic
link.
As I understand the reparse points, they're a bit more complicated than
symlinks. I understood that with a reparse point, you could insert a data
filter and modify the data as it goes through the reparse point?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 23:35:21 +0200
"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 18:37:41 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've Babylon running, and this let me run a search on every word that it
> > has. This include searching in a search engine, and can easily be
extended
> > to stock options.
> > Now, they allow users to have write their own dictonaries. And include
> > hyperlinks in the dictonary.
> > I can create a dictonary that links the world Linux to cancer research,
and
> > GPL to virus.com, does Babylon somehow deface sites?
>
> I don't know Babylon, but I guess that you, and only you, have control
over
> what it does. You also have control over what SmartTags does (as I
> understand the way it's supposed to work), but Microsoft *also* has
control.
> Don't you suppose for one minute that Microsoft won't have a mechanism for
> updating the word list to their specification?
I would be surprised if they didn't.
> Maybe even a list built from
> your browsing history.
No.
> Your fiddling round with Babylon doesn't deface a site because you aren't
> publishing your fiddlings.
http://www.babylon.com/gloss/
> Microsoft are publishing alterations to a web
> site every time someone uses SmartTags, because Microsoft is a third party
> intercepting the web page and modifying it before you see it.
No, they aren't.
They are giving a list of words, and action on those words.
I can change, add, replace & remove those definations.
I have the control, not MS.
> > IE6 does what Babylon does, but with a different aim, it doesn't aim at
> > translations, it aim at giving the user more information.
> > How come it's so bad? It's the user's choice to use it or not, and it's
the
> > user's choice what smart tags s/he wants.
> > Yes, MS provides a stock of smart tags, they:
> > A> Have no *hint* to all the concpiracy theories that I've seen.
>
> Are you privvy to the inner workings of Gates and the others at Microsoft?
> You, I, and everyone else bar a very few have no idea what Microsoft's
> motives are. And from past history we're not likely to give them the
benefit
> of the doubt, well, I'm not anyway - you can if you like...
You give MS too much credit for what it can get away.
> > B> Can be removed/changed/replaced.
>
> By you *AND* Microsoft - and who knows what other third parties who wish
to
> control the internet.
No, MS can replace those definations only if I run some software of them
that does that.
They can't just wave a magic wand and replace it. If you think that they
can, please present proof.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Will MS get away with this one?
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 23:45:55 +0200
"Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Apple are like the playground bully whereas Microsoft are like the Mafia.
> They are most certainly not 'just as bad as'. I don't recall Apple
> having a monopoly of anything.
>
They have a monopoly on PPC based desktop computers.
Can you buy a Mac without MacOS?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:52:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>[more rhetoric snipped]
>
>--
>Pete
You missed the point all together.
You NEED a safe OS to run on the internet.
Windows IS NOT a safe OS as you've spoken of.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:50:18 GMT
In article <9gfk7k$j1h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <9gfgp8$e45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > > That's absolutely true -- and falls under the Fair Use Doctrine I
> > > > already described to you.
> > > >
> > > > But for Microsoft to create a piece of software that automatically
> makes
> > > > changes to the content does not.
> > >
> > > So it's not all-right for MS to create a browser where you can
> > > shut-down
> > > sound/javascript/images/ etc?
> >
> > Not showing all of the content is different than adding content.
>
> Really? Not showing all the content is often worse than adding content.
>
> "Not showing all of the content is adding content."
>
> See?
I don't know how you can mistake a conscious personal choice of using
Lynx instead of Netscape for the non-choice of using Microsofft's
default browser.
I'm baffled about why you would defend some central authority (in this
case Microsoft) in its quest to add content to other people's web sites.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:51:47 GMT
In article <9gfgp3$e45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Neither Google nor anonymizer changes the _content_ of pages. If
> > > > they
> > > > start changing the content, then they should be stopped.
> > >
> > > Smart Tags do not change the *content* of pages, either. It just
> > > presents more navigation options to the individual user.
> > >
> >
> > For a web page, hyperlinks are part of the content.
>
> But it doesn't add hyperlinks.
It adds features on a displayed web site which, when appropriately
manupilated, take you to other web sites. It completely baffles me why
you think that they are not hyperlinks.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:52:44 GMT
In article <9gfklm$jm7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:18:31 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > ("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >
> > >"macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >> > Smart Tags do not change the *content* of pages, either. It just
> > >> > presents more navigation options to the individual user.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> For a web page, hyperlinks are part of the content.
> > >
> > >But it doesn't add hyperlinks.
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> Already did, when I posted the screen shot.
You must be using the concept "prove" in some new and unusual fashion.
It's amazing thatyou think that thingies on the screen which take you to
other web sites when clicked are not hyperlinks.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:54:11 GMT
In article <9gfgou$e45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > 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. :)
> > >
> > > There's another issue, though.
> > >
> > > Even if it's off by default and the user can turn it on, there's
> > > still the potential for vast abuse by Microsoft -- since they are
> > > the ones who set the default smart tags. To me, that's a much
> > > larger issue than whether it's on or off
> >
> > That is the most important issue, as far as I'm concerned. Who is
> > in control of these additional hyperlinks? Not the web page
> > publishers.
>
> The user. The web page author can add some XML to have his/her own
> SmartTags displayed, though.
Oh, whoopee. I can add smart tags that only users of MS's latest and
greatest web browser can see. What kind of idiot believes that it is in
a web page designer's interest to add content that only Microsoft
customers can use?
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does XP stands for ???
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 08:54:51 +1200
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Stuart Fox wrote:
> >
> > I can think of a few. Just the other day I had to explain to a Unix
admin
> > what an MX record was.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Please explain oh wise one, what is a MX record, because some people may
> have different names to what you are talking about.
>
An MX record is a Mail eXchanger record, used in DNS to indicate the
location of your mail server. If there's not one for your domain, you don't
get mail (well usually, you can do mailaddress@ipaddress, but not many
people do that). This particular person was responsible for running *nix
systems for several customers (including their DNS), and was trying to blame
the DNS I set up for a problem he was having (which turned out to be
something wrong with Lotus Notes)
I can't think of any different names that people might have for it. Anyone?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:57:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> Better than this, perhaps you might as well tell us all what we
>> can do to make Windows safer. Show me what I should have said
>> to this USER.
>
>Simple:
>
>1) Never run any untrusted EXE or ActiveX control.
>
>2) Don't use Microsoft's EMail client - use one that doesn't support VB
>scripts.
>
>> I'll give you 1,000 sheets of paper and the next 10 years to
>> come up with something.
>
>I just came up with two simple rules, Charlie. They work very well for
>me.
>
>--
>Pete
BUT PETE! ONCE AGAIN! ONCE AGAIN! GOD DAMMIT!
If you run an OS on the internet it needs to be
a SAFE OS. What are computers becomming if you
have to RELY on people to make THEM WORK?
Computers were supposed to be assisting mankind!
Not enslaving him like some kind of PSYC experiment
where mice run thru mazes looking for cheese!
Computers are NOT supposed to be just FILING cabinets
where people store information for later difficult
retrival!
And Computers are NOT supposed to force MAN to do things
to help protect them from things the common man doesn't
even understand!
So here IS my simple rule! There is only ONE Pete!
#1. Computers should be of assistance to mankind and
if there not then we need to change them.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does XP stands for ???
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 08:56:03 +1200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ome.com...
> >
> >Please explain oh wise one, what is a MX record, because some people may
> >have different names to what you are talking about.
> >
>
> Some of us might not know wtf an mx record is, yet be capable of looking
it up.
>
>
http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/glossary/lookup?term=Mail%20exchange
%20record%20(MX%20record)
When you're already responsible for running several customers DNS, I would
expect you to know what an MX record is.
------------------------------
From: macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:57:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <9gfgpr$e45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Who controls the content of these added links?
> >
> > The user.
>
> I was under the impression that once you turn the feature on, certain
> words already have links supplied by Microsoft.
They do -- many of them directing the user to msn or other Microsoft
sites.
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Linux for me?
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 22:58:33 +0200
Jack Tripper wrote:
>>Please shorten your sig.
>>4 lines is considered the maximum polite limit.
>>
>
> Everytime someone complains about my sig, I add a line.
Why would you insist on beying annoying ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:59:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
pip wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> pip wrote:
>> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >Hmmmm. Interesting but a few points.
>> >1) Virus scanners now should use heuristics rather than just "known
>> >patterns"
>>
>> Well that's fine. So after the virus has infected the machine,
>> you will get a warning from the 'heuristics' device then?
>
>The point is that the virus scanner will look at the exe and "guess" if
>it looks like a virus and will alert you. In other words it will still
>intercept the virus before it "infects" your system.
>
>
>> Still, I fail to see what good this does.
>
>The same as a simple "pattern matching" algo
>
>
>> Further, you include the words 'now should use'
>>
>> This sort of leaves a blanket taste in my mouth with the meaning,
>> it doesn't yet.
>
>I have yet to find one that does not. That does not mean that they don't
>exist.
I think your a sensible man.
And I'm not going to chew on you here but I ask you this.
All these virus scanners do is hopefully alert you of the
presence of a virus AFTER you've been infected.
AFTER is the key word here. The damage is done.
So therefore they are just simply worthless CPU wasting piles
of crap. AFTER is no good!
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Thrippleton)
Subject: Re: netscape 6.1 - anyone?
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:32:57 +0000
In article <9gfgni$e45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Richard Thrippleton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <9gdhd5$p6f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >Links? You hear about all sorts of software here, but this is new.
>> Really? OK, here goes advocacy. It's a text mode browser similar to
>> Lynx, but with some major, major advantages. GPM support for mouse
>operation
>> (maybe Lynx has this, not last time I checked though), frame rendering,
>> table support, generally better HTML layout, pseudo-threaded to allow
>> background downloads, multiple instances use pipes to share cookies and
>> other data. Once I got one-click image loading (click the image, loads
>> viewer based on mime-type) I didn't really need to look for a decent
>> graphical browser any more.
>> It may seem stone age to use text mode stuff, but I've yet to find a
>> better browser on any platform, with the exception of iCab for MacOS. In
>> short, very happy with it.
>>
>
>Where can I download a windows version?
http://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~mikulas/links/download/
Binaries. But it might be worth checking out the source code, as only 0.83
has been compiled for Windows. It will likely require Cygwin as well, for
that wholesome Unix goodness.
Richard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:59:57 GMT
In article <AEKW6.105157$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Cain wrote:
>
>Charlie Ebert wrote in message ...
>>
>[snip "War and Peace"]
>>
>
>To summarise:
>
>The user is a buffoon, and you are a proselytizing bore.
>
Appearently not boring enought to drowse you off to la-la land
however!
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:55:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:17:40 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> > Even if it's off by default and the user can turn it on, there's
> >> > still the potential for vast abuse by Microsoft -- since they
> >> > are the ones who set the default smart tags. To me, that's a
> >> > much larger issue than whether it's on or off
> >>
> >> That is the most important issue, as far as I'm concerned. Who is
> >> in control of these additional hyperlinks? Not the web page
> >> publishers.
> >
> >The user. The web page author can add some XML to have his/her own
> >SmartTags displayed, though.
>
> Like users are going to know how to do that
To be fair, that's not a user thing but a web page author thing. But
it's still amazing to me that someone would believe that web page
deisgners would want to have features only visible to a small fraction
of their site's visitors.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
