Linux-Advocacy Digest #313, Volume #35 Sat, 16 Jun 01 18:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Is Linux for me? (Jack Tripper)
Re: The Win/userbase! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: More microsoft innovation ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: More microsoft innovation ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: More microsoft innovation ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: More microsoft innovation ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: What does XP stands for ??? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Tripper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Linux for me?
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:09:12 -0500
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:11:52 +0100, "David Dorward"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It seems that on Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:28:07 +0100, someone claiming to be
>"Jack Tripper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed this:
>
>> I've read quite a bit about Linux, it seems to be quite a bit more
>> stable, and the applications look configurable (to me). I mostly like to
>> use my computer for internet stuff - writing web pages, random surfing,
>> email, stuff like that. I also use it for mp3s.
>
>Linux Office applications are not as strong as Windows, but from what you
>say it sounds like what there is will do you nicely.
>
>> A few quick questions if anyone wishes to answer: How big are the
>> varieties of Linux? (again, I'm thinking maybe redhat)
>
>It depends! A full install of Red Hat 7.1 takes up about a gig and a half
>(I think) but you don't need all of that.
>
>> Is there a nice
>> GUI HTML interface program available for Linux?
>
>I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean a web based administarion system
>to set up use accounts, configure mail/web servers and lots of other
>things along those lines? If so then there is webmin which is excellent. I
>don't think its included with Red Hat, but it isn't a very large download.
>On the other hand if you mean a WYSIWYG HTML editor, then no there isn't
>- but there isn't one for Windows either. What people call WYSIWYG is
>really (in an HTML context) just WYSIWY-nearly-G and the only editor I
>would even consider using is Dreamweaver which is very expensive. I find
>it easier to code by hand, and there are lots of tools to make it easy to
>write raw HTML.
I should of put 'editor' in there. I like to use crappy
WYSIWY(almost)G stuff like Netscape Composer for the basic layout and
then I go to notepad to put in all the fancy javascript stuff....I
know netscape makes it's browsers, news readers, and email clients for
Linux do they also make the N.Composer for Linux?
I realize I may be offensive to some of you, I'm saying "I'm ignorant
with web page writing and I want to stay that way", obviously if I
have to sit down, bite the bullet and code by hand I will do that, and
probably make better web pages for it. But I maintain so many that
Netscape Composer is really useful for all the crappy stuff, putting
in some links, taking out some links...
>> I know some people have
>> both Windows AND Linux on their hard drives, using a partition. My hard
>> drive is all but 8.4 megs.
>> Should I even bother trying to keep Windows?
>
>It would be a very tight squeeze, you can get away with less disk space
>for Linux then Windows but I'd still give it about 6gig - which wouldn't
>leave much for Windows at all.
>
>If you plan to switch its probably a good idea to keep Windows to hand
>for an emergancy, so if you can afford it I would invest in a second hard
>disk to install Linux to.
I think I will get another disc drive, an external one.
Thank you for your help! This has been a really helpful NG.
=====================================================
www.benalto.com
www.mp3.com/benalto
"Kids start smoking!"
-Paul Westerberg
"Alcohol Rules!"
-graffiti in downtown, Des Moines, Iowa
"Dont tell me how to waste my time"
-The Fuses
www.geocities.com/the_zep_files
www.granthart.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
As always, CDR trading is cool shit -
http://cdrtrades.benalto.com/
Vive le Gortician!
www.mp3.com/gortician
www.benalto.com/songoftheday.html
This sig file brought to you by the letter 'R'
"Oh yeah grandma, I'll come and visit
But I won't be coming alone
I'll bring a whore
And you can watch me fuck her"
-Dirty Pete
ROCK!
=====================================================
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:39:09 +0200
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9gge34$r02$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > > Um, double clicking on a JPEG runs the associated viewer, not the JPEG
> > > itself.
> >
> > And if that viewer is NS, it *could* cause damage.
>
> How so?
There is a buffer overflow in NS JPEG viewing code up to 4.73.
This allows you to execute arbitry code by using the comment field.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:51:58 +0200
"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 23:35:21 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Maybe even a list built from your browsing history.
> >
> > No.
>
> Sure?
Quite, it's pretty hard to do so without transmitting large amounts of data
to Microsoft.
That is quite easily noticable.
> > > Your fiddling round with Babylon doesn't deface a site because you
aren't
> > > publishing your fiddlings.
> >
> > http://www.babylon.com/gloss/
>
> Bookmarked for later.
It's really a wonderful application.
I'm a little pissed off by them, because I *called* them, and *asked* to
purchase the program, I given CC#, and they:
A> Never billed me.
B> Never sent me the pro version.
C> Got a more annoying ads.
I wouldn't mind A if they did B, which would get rid of C.
Just read the above sentence, Yuck!
The above is a first, btw.
> > > 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.
>
> You have the control AIUI if you employ the SDK. So how many people will
do
> that? A tiny fraction of 1%
AIUI?
You can get other implementations from other people.
Frex, Britanica.com could create one, which would link to their site, etc.
They do this with Babylon.
(Although it would get pretty annoying if dictonary.com did it :-} )
How many people can write software? A tiniest fraction of 1%, by your
defination (writing Smart Tags (using XML, there are other method) is
infinitely easier than writing code).
How many use software?
> > You give MS too much credit for what it can get away.
>
> If you mean I think MS are more devious than they really are, I hope
you're
> right but I seriously doubt it. History doesn't support your hypothesis.
No, I meant that MS can't just get away with everything.
If Ms would try to do half the things that you & others suggested, there
would be too much uproar for them to continue.
And they know it.
> Not having MS's source code I can't provide proof as such, but there are
> plenty of apps that offer to get the latest updates for you and ask your
> permission, GoZilla, ZoneLabs, Bink Video Tools (this very evening, which
is
> why I remembered about it), and so on. Remove the request for permission,
> QED.
Firewalls logs need no code.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was something like "Automatically check for
Smart Tags list updates" (IE already has it for itself, btw. It's off on my
computer, and I don't think that I touched it.).
But it would be pretty easy to find out if they were trying to do it without
informing the user somehow.
> Or maybe we'll 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"?
That I've no problem with, btw. If it asks the user's permission, that is
fine.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:55:09 +0200
"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9gfuhj$4nu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but this isn't defacing the site. 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?
> >
> > 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. B> Can be removed/changed/replaced.
>
> From your description, I gather that Babylon is a program that
> automatically generates hyperlinks by consulting independent search
> engines which you select. That's pretty neat.
No, it's screen-OCR translation utility, its value really can't be
underestimated.
> SmartTags, on the other hand, are selected by some other agency over
> which you the user have no control. How do you know what content
> Microsoft will supply? You don't.
No, they aren't. You can choose whose definations you will use. MS provide
such a defination, you can get someone else's, or write your own.
The user has control on whose defination s/he is using.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:56:10 +0200
"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> The informed user can change it. What about the uninformed user? What
> about when Microsoft decides that since everyone uses SmartTags, they
> decide to make the default be On?
The uninfromed user wouldn't be aware of this feature.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:00:51 +0200
"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9gfgnd$e45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dan
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If I wanted links to send people to differnt places in my page,
> > > > > I would provide them. IF I dont, I dont want some third party
> > > > > sending people to places I have no control over.
> > > >
> > > > But it's not about you. It's about the *user*. We don't
> > > > expect you to anticipate *every* thing that I might be interested
> > > > in.
> > >
> > > Yes, it is about the web page author. There's no reason for all the
> > > words in a web site to be linked to dictionary definitions,
> > > thesaurus redefinitions, related news items, insider stock
> > > information, weather reports ...
> >
> > Yes there is. I often encounter words that I don't understand, or
> > find something of interest that I would like to check. Why do you
> > think that you have the right to prevent me from doing it?
>
> You could write a browser that lets you do some alternate thing to any
> word and bring up, say, a dictionary definition. That would be
> marginally cool.
Well, you could do that with smart tags, I believe.
I prefer to use babylon, as it's not limited to text in browser, though.
I don't know if you can have the maroon line removed, if not, that would be
way uncool.
If so, you would need some sort of a key combination to activate it.
Example like Shift+Right click to have Britanica's smart tags offer you
information from its database on whatever topic you want.
That is how Babylon (well, I use middle button for this) works on my system.
> > > And there's even less reason for these links to be controlled by
> > > one company.
> >
> > But they aren't, anyone can add SmartTags.
>
> Any individual user can add his own SmartTags to his own web browser.
> Big deal.
>
> But who supplies the initial list of tags? Microsoft?
Yes.
It also provides the user with the default homepage, bookmarks, settings,
etc.
Your point?
>Does the browser
> ever connect to a Microsoft file server to get updates to that list?
Not to my knowledge.
And no, I can't prove a negative.
> Or do you mean that there is no initial list of tags? And do you mean
> that the browser never ever calls up Microsoft for updates?
The browser has a setting which lets you choose if you wants it to check
with MS ( I think it's every week or so) for updates.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does XP stands for ???
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:02:26 +0200
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9ggh5t$ca3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "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).
I know of a friend who set up a script to scan for hackable Linux machines,
and email root@ip to inform them about it.
But that is about the extent that this is used.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:03:28 +0200
"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:17:40 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > ("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >
> > >"Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >> > Even if it's off by default and the user can turn it on, there's
> > >> > still the potential for vast abuse by Microsoft -- since they
> > >> > are the ones who set the default smart tags. To me, that's a
> > >> > much larger issue than whether it's on or off
> > >>
> > >> That is the most important issue, as far as I'm concerned. Who is
> > >> in control of these additional hyperlinks? Not the web page
> > >> publishers.
> > >
> > >The user. The web page author can add some XML to have his/her own
> > >SmartTags displayed, though.
> >
> > Like users are going to know how to do that
>
> To be fair, that's not a user thing but a web page author thing. But
> it's still amazing to me that someone would believe that web page
> deisgners would want to have features only visible to a small fraction
> of their site's visitors.
You aren't familiar with the history of web-trends, are you?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:59:45 -0500
"Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <lzyW6.15611$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch
wrote:
> >"Zsolt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:16:44 -0500
> >presented us with the wisdom:
> >>
> >> > "Zsolt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > I see you still don't get it...
> >> > > In Linux (and Unix in general) the version number is part of the
name
> >and
> >> > it has
> >> > > always been like that - Windows just copied that in XP lagging
behind
> >a
> >> > few
> >> > > decades as usual. So, installing the required specific versions
does
> >_NOT_
> >> > > impact other applications (that require other specific versions) at
> >all!
> >> > > So, _you_ in XP might be just past that, but _we_ in Unix world
have
> >never
> >> > > been there (in DLL hell)... sorry to disappoint you!
> >> >
> >> > That only goes so far.
> >> >
> >> > When dealing with common libraries this can cause many problems.
> >> >
> >> > Consider an application which uses 3 libraries. liba, libb, and
libc.
> >The
> >> > application and libb require liba version 3, but libc requires liba
> >version
> >> > 2. When you link the libraries together, only one version of liba
will
> >be
> >>
> >> Major logic violation... core dumped!
> >
> >You seem to have a bad ALU.
> >
> >> I'm sorry, but your example is flawed at its very base.
> >> How could an aplication require liba version 3 while it requires libc
> >which
> >> itself requires liba version 2 - that means you can _never_ compile and
> >run
> >> this application on any system in the world - so your example is very
nice
> >> but it has a simple problem: it is impossible - never could happen....
> >
> >My point is that the dependancies also have dependancies, and since the
> >dependancies are resolved based upon the application, if there is a
> >conflict, it will only use one of the versions of the library. How
exactly
> >is an app supposed to know that the call to foo() in version 2 is not the
> >same as the call to foo() in version 3?
>
> This is why you have package management, where the dependencies are coded
> into the .deb (or presumably .rpm).
>
> When you install your new library, apt will also upgrade any packages
> which need doing at the same time.
And what happens when you upgrade to a new minor revision of a shared
library and that minor revision breaks an old app? Sure, you could keep
bother versions and create a new symlink specifically for the application to
use, but then you can just copy the right versioned DLL into the apps
directory under Win2k+ as well.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
