f



best OS ?

Do you know why linux is definitely not the best OS?
Check this www.spatula.net/proc/linux/index.src

Out of curiosity, I have installed two linux distributions, in the past :
red-hat and mandrake. I spent some time discovering what that linux hype was
all about, what the GUI was like, what "cool" options KDE (or any other
desktop manager) had to offer, the general look-and-feel of those so-called
better alternatives to windows.

Well, getting past the thrills of installation, my experience went down to
disappointment and frustration. Things so trivial as changing the screen
resolution seemed deeply obscure, and the help system downright cryptic.
Plus I got a strange feeling that beyond those windows-like
bells-and-whistles, the linux OS uncovers its real nature and betrays its
unixish origins : an unfriendly piece of software with obscure rules and a
complex architecture, with little or no general consistency (like a
patchwork). Linux is aimed at the geek, the "leet"-wannabe, all those people
who are so childishly narrow-minded and intolerant that they can't stand the
name of microsoft, and they can't admit windows is doing a great job as a
family desktop OS.

So I switched back to windows. Everything is so smooth, under windows. No
need to be a technical expert or an IT engineer to get the system work the
way you want.

Unlike *nix fanatics, I don't mean to boast about any sort of
computer-related knowledge. Let it only be said that I'd not define myself
as a lambda user. I know DOS 6.22, batch coding, and I know my way into the
registry. I've also installed FreeBSD on another hard-drive, so as to get a
taste of what was aside from the microsoft world.

Well from all that experience, I can tell you I love Windows.

Recently I was in need of a good word processor, for professional use. I
decided to make my own review of what was available, and downloaded the
following products:
602PCsuite, abi-word, easy-office, and, inevitably, open-office.

I found them to suffer from either a crippled interface, a plague of bugs
(especially abi-word), or an unprofessional look (some apps are apparently
configured for use in a 1024*768 screen resolution...). Plus I noticed some
of them don't uninstall properly (602 PC suite leaves unwanted
file-associations in the registry).

So I bought MS-Word. Yes, that's right, unlike most of those who trash
windows, I took the trouble of *buying* Word. None of my MS software is a
pirated copy. If you guys hate microsoft so much then ditch windows, office,
IE, etc... and go away! It's not as if anybody wanted to force you to use
something against your will.

As to security, I don't understand all that fuss around MS products. As an
avid web-user, I (think that I) have taken the appropriate steps to ensure
my system is secured enough, and I have never had any sort of trouble in
years. Have all those people kvetching about windows security really taken
the trouble of reviewing the tools and options available before laying the
blame on microsoft? A restrictive configuration of the internet zone in IE
(disable anything that is not marked as "safe", set other options to
"prompt"), the association of Outlook with the restricted-sites zone, the
acquisition of a firewall, an antivirus and an antispyware sound good to me.
Keep your system up-to-date, and, since the SMT protocol allows anybody to
impersonate an innocent e-mail user, never trust e-mail attachments, even if
they appear to come from a friend of yours.

The bottom line : that hate campaign against microsoft makes me sick.
Keep thinking you are intellectually superior and that "windoze lusers" are
pathetic wimps that need to get a life, it makes your "culture" sound
immature and unwelcoming.
As to me, I will definitely not waste a cent on any linux/unix/sun related
software... and you know money is the name of the game.




0
B
4/26/2005 9:31:17 PM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 124139 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

223 Replies
1522 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 57

In article <d4mc7d0gl7@enews4.newsguy.com>, bl@h.net says...
> Do you know why linux is definitely not the best OS?

Yes.  The answer is because the best OS has not yet been written.

-- 
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"Making it hard to do stupid things often makes it hard
 to do smart ones too." -- Andrew Koenig
0
randyhoward (4848)
4/26/2005 10:24:28 PM
On Tuesday 26 April 2005 22:31 B wrote:

> Well, getting past the thrills of installation, my experience went
> down to disappointment and frustration. Things so trivial as
> changing the screen resolution seemed deeply obscure

True, true.

I have to press CTRL+ALT+keypad+/- to cycle round my screen
resolutions.

I guess it's easier in Windows?  Could you just go through the Windows
sequence for me?

I looked at your website, btw.
First thing that struck me was that "linux can't handle partitions >
2GB"
That one made me smile, because when I built this machine I wanted to
set it up as dual-boot.  That meant Windows first.  It seemed logical
to partition it using Windows apps.  Disks were 160GB.  The Windows
apps only saw them as 128GB (sigh).  Used Linux to partition, then
installed Windows, then linux......

> So I bought MS-Word. Yes, that's right, unlike most of those who
> trash windows, I took the trouble of buying Word. None of my MS
> software is a pirated copy. If you guys hate microsoft so much then
> ditch windows, office, IE, etc... and go away! 

Now:-

Windows - ditched
MS Office - ditched
I.E. LONG since ditched!

- but why the bloody hell should *I* go away you stupid sod - have you
noticed the name of the group you are writing to?

> It's not as if 
> anybody wanted to force you to use something against your will.

Not any more, sunshine:-)
 
> The bottom line : that hate campaign against microsoft makes me
> sick. Keep thinking you are intellectually superior and that
> "windoze lusers" are pathetic wimps that need to get a life, it
> makes your "culture" sound immature and unwelcoming.

In your case - good!

Sorry I can't help more - I'm just a linux newbie.
I dare say others CAN help more........
...... but I'm betting they won't:-)

Bill

0
bbgruff (6628)
4/26/2005 10:33:11 PM
In article <3d7tqkF6thgtrU1@individual.net>, bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk 
says...
> On Tuesday 26 April 2005 22:31 B wrote:
> 
> > Well, getting past the thrills of installation, my experience went
> > down to disappointment and frustration. Things so trivial as
> > changing the screen resolution seemed deeply obscure
> 
> True, true.
> 
> I have to press CTRL+ALT+keypad+/- to cycle round my screen
> resolutions.

Yeah, but it's not exactly obvious to the noob, is it?  :-)

> I looked at your website, btw.
> First thing that struck me was that "linux can't handle partitions >
> 2GB"

Perhaps it's a typo.  :-)  Some distributions (about the time of 
RedHat ES 2.1) had problems with 2TB (T, not G) filesystems.  I 
suspect that with 64-bit distros that problem is long gone, but I 
hadn't had that much storage in one place in a while to try it out.

> > So I bought MS-Word. Yes, that's right, unlike most of those who
> > trash windows, I took the trouble of buying Word. None of my MS
> > software is a pirated copy. If you guys hate microsoft so much then
> > ditch windows, office, IE, etc... and go away! 

Strange, OpenOffice works great on Windows and Linux and reads/writes 
word .doc files just fine, and costs nothing (apart from d/l time).

-- 
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"Making it hard to do stupid things often makes it hard
 to do smart ones too." -- Andrew Koenig
0
randyhoward (4848)
4/26/2005 10:44:55 PM
On Tuesday 26 April 2005 23:44 Randy Howard wrote:

>> I have to press CTRL+ALT+keypad+/- to cycle round my screen
>> resolutions.
> 
> Yeah, but it's not exactly obvious to the noob, is it?��:-)

It certainly isn't - and in truth I don't really know how I'm supposed
to find these things out!
Tell you what though - things like that sure impress visiting Windows
users!  Another favourite is the multiple desktops - and the session
restore:-)

Bill
0
bbgruff (6628)
4/26/2005 11:05:35 PM
B poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> Check this www.spatula.net/proc/linux/index.src

No thanks.

> Well, getting past the thrills of installation, my experience went down to
> disappointment and frustration. Things so trivial as changing the screen
> resolution seemed deeply obscure, and the help system downright cryptic.

There are many help systems, none of them "cryptic".

> Plus I got a strange feeling that beyond those windows-like
> bells-and-whistles, the linux OS uncovers its real nature and betrays its
> unixish origins : an unfriendly piece of software with obscure rules and a
> complex architecture, with little or no general consistency (like a
> patchwork).

True, to some extent.

> Linux is aimed at the geek, the "leet"-wannabe, all those people
> who are so childishly narrow-minded and intolerant that they can't stand the
> name of microsoft, and they can't admit windows is doing a great job as a
> family desktop OS.

It is not.   Why?  Because the family has to share its CPU with countless
others.

> So I switched back to windows. Everything is so smooth, under windows. No
> need to be a technical expert or an IT engineer to get the system work the
> way you want.

Depends what you are doing.  

> Unlike *nix fanatics, I don't mean to boast about any sort of
> computer-related knowledge. Let it only be said that I'd not define myself
> as a lambda user.

We don't boast (like you did).  We simply get the stuff to work.

> Well from all that experience, I can tell you I love Windows.

Cool.  We don't.

> The bottom line : that hate campaign against microsoft makes me sick.

Good.  Choke on your own barf.

> As to me, I will definitely not waste a cent on any linux/unix/sun related
> software... and you know money is the name of the game.

Microsoft shill.

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
4/26/2005 11:18:04 PM
begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:31:17 +0200, that B was
seen to write:

> Do you know why linux is definitely not the best OS? Check this
> www.spatula.net/proc/linux/index.src

No thanks.

> Out of curiosity, I have installed two linux distributions, in the past :

Oh yes, & how long ago was that?

<snip> 
YAWN.

> So I switched back to windows. Everything is so smooth, under windows. No
> need to be a technical expert or an IT engineer to get the system work the
> way you want.

Neither do you in a modern linux distro.
 
> Unlike *nix fanatics, I don't mean to boast about any sort of
> computer-related knowledge. Let it only be said that I'd not define myself
> as a lambda user. I know DOS 6.22, batch coding, and I know my way into
> the registry. I've also installed FreeBSD on another hard-drive, so as to
> get a taste of what was aside from the microsoft world.

Well bully for you.

> Well from all that experience, I can tell you I love Windows.

Probably because you couldn't install the OSs properly.
 
> Recently I was in need of a good word processor, for professional use. I
> decided to make my own review of what was available, and downloaded the
> following products:
> 602PCsuite, abi-word, easy-office, and, inevitably, open-office.

Here we go, wanna bet he opts for M$ Word?

> I found them to suffer from either a crippled interface, a plague of bugs
> (especially abi-word), or an unprofessional look (some apps are apparently
> configured for use in a 1024*768 screen resolution...). Plus I noticed
> some of them don't uninstall properly (602 PC suite leaves unwanted
> file-associations in the registry).

Yeah, yeah, yeah....

> So I bought MS-Word. 

BINGO!!

> Yes, that's right, unlike most of those who trash windows, I took the
> trouble of *buying* Word. None of my MS software is a pirated copy. If
> you guys hate microsoft so much then ditch windows, office, IE, etc...
> and go away! It's not as if anybody wanted to force you to use something
> against your will.

I did dump M$haft, years ago!

> As to security, I don't understand all that fuss around MS products. As
> an avid web-user, I (think that I) have taken the appropriate steps to
> ensure my system is secured enough, and I have never had any sort of
> trouble in years. Have all those people kvetching about windows security
> really taken the trouble of reviewing the tools and options available
> before laying the blame on microsoft? 

Why not ask M$ users? 
'Americans 'misjudge online risks'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3708260.stm
 
Have hackers recruited your PC?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4354109.stm


> A restrictive configuration of the internet zone in IE (disable anything
> that is not marked as "safe", set other options to "prompt"), the
> association of Outlook with the restricted-sites zone, the acquisition
> of a firewall, an antivirus and an antispyware sound good to me. Keep
> your system up-to-date, and, since the SMT protocol allows anybody to
> impersonate an innocent e-mail user, never trust e-mail attachments,
> even if they appear to come from a friend of yours.

You are posting this to the wrong group, You should hav eposted this in a
M$ group. THEY are the ones that need telling this.

> The bottom line : that hate campaign against microsoft makes me sick.

The bottom line is, I dislike Winshills posting in a linux group.

> Keep thinking you are intellectually superior and that "windoze lusers"
> are pathetic wimps that need to get a life, it makes your "culture"

Oh, linux users are a "culture" now!

> sound immature and unwelcoming. As to me, I will definitely not waste a
> cent on any linux/unix/sun related software... and you know money is the
> name of the game.

Good, now piss-off back into your windows world. 

Hic puer est stultissimus omnium!

-- 
As an Outlook Express user, your silly
little opinion has been noted. 
Ascendo tuum.
0
willpoast (5106)
4/27/2005 12:09:54 AM
begin  Error log for Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:31:17 +0200 - B caused a page
fault at address <d4mc7d0gl7@enews4.newsguy.com>, details as follows      
                      .vbs

> So I bought MS-Word. Yes, that's right, unlike most of those who trash
> windows, I took the trouble of *buying* Word. None of my MS software is a
> pirated copy. If you guys hate microsoft so much then ditch windows, office,
> IE, etc... and go away! It's not as if anybody wanted to force you to use
> something against your will.

Hey, dude...maybe you should look around where you're posting.  This is a
LINUX group, we are not the ones that are the oddballs here, *you* are.

You want to use Windows, fine.  Nobody is saying otherwise, use what
works for you.  You should learn to just let people use what they want and
not lambast them because we happen to like and use something different
than what you like & use.

Linux works AWESOMELY for me, far better than anything from Redmond, WA
way ever did.  Besides, the ball-and-chain licensing that is tied to use
of that platform doesn't apply with Linux and OSS.  Nobody ever went to
jail for installing a single copy of Linux on more than one computer.  My
platform doesn't report back to it's creators what I'm doing, nor does it
give complete control of my system to a 3rd party.

So, if that's how you like it, good for you.  I hear many people like
being in prison as well.

-- 
rapskat -  20:18:20 up 3 days,  4:55,  6 users,  load average: 2.55, 1.70, 0.83
	Like the ad says, at 300 dpi you can tell she's wearing a
swimsuit. At 600 dpi you can tell it's wet. At 1200 dpi you can tell it's
painted on. I suppose at 2400 dpi you can tell if the paint is giving her
a rash. (So says Joshua R. Poulson) 

0
rapskat2 (2033)
4/27/2005 12:28:23 AM
begin  KillFileMe.vbs

On 2005-04-26, quoth B <bl@h.net>:

Huh? Did you say something?

-- 
Randex - Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
0
sinister2419 (3164)
4/27/2005 1:00:07 AM
rapskat wrote:

> So, if that's how you like it, good for you.  I hear many people like
> being in prison as well.
> 

Yeah, but what if I just want those 25 free songs from Real Rhapsody?
0
jabailo (8241)
4/27/2005 1:26:39 AM
B wrote:
> Do you know why linux is definitely not the best OS?
> Check this www.spatula.net/proc/linux/index.src
>
> Out of curiosity, I have installed two linux distributions, in the
> past : red-hat and mandrake. I spent some time discovering what that
> linux hype was all about, what the GUI was like, what "cool" options
> KDE (or any other desktop manager) had to offer, the general
> look-and-feel of those so-called better alternatives to windows.
>
> Well, getting past the thrills of installation, my experience went
> down to disappointment and frustration. Things so trivial as changing
> the screen resolution seemed deeply obscure, and the help system
> downright cryptic. Plus I got a strange feeling that beyond those
> windows-like bells-and-whistles, the linux OS uncovers its real
> nature and betrays its unixish origins : an unfriendly piece of
> software with obscure rules and a complex architecture, with little
> or no general consistency (like a patchwork). Linux is aimed at the
> geek, the "leet"-wannabe, all those people who are so childishly
> narrow-minded and intolerant that they can't stand the name of
> microsoft, and they can't admit windows is doing a great job as a
> family desktop OS.
>
> So I switched back to windows. Everything is so smooth, under
> windows. No need to be a technical expert or an IT engineer to get
> the system work the way you want.
>
> Unlike *nix fanatics, I don't mean to boast about any sort of
> computer-related knowledge. Let it only be said that I'd not define
> myself as a lambda user. I know DOS 6.22, batch coding, and I know my
> way into the registry. I've also installed FreeBSD on another
> hard-drive, so as to get a taste of what was aside from the microsoft
> world.
>
> Well from all that experience, I can tell you I love Windows.
>
> Recently I was in need of a good word processor, for professional
> use. I decided to make my own review of what was available, and
> downloaded the following products:
> 602PCsuite, abi-word, easy-office, and, inevitably, open-office.
>
> I found them to suffer from either a crippled interface, a plague of
> bugs (especially abi-word), or an unprofessional look (some apps are
> apparently configured for use in a 1024*768 screen resolution...).
> Plus I noticed some of them don't uninstall properly (602 PC suite
> leaves unwanted file-associations in the registry).
>
> So I bought MS-Word. Yes, that's right, unlike most of those who trash
> windows, I took the trouble of *buying* Word. None of my MS software
> is a pirated copy. If you guys hate microsoft so much then ditch
> windows, office, IE, etc... and go away! It's not as if anybody
> wanted to force you to use something against your will.
>
> As to security, I don't understand all that fuss around MS products.
> As an avid web-user, I (think that I) have taken the appropriate
> steps to ensure my system is secured enough, and I have never had any
> sort of trouble in years. Have all those people kvetching about
> windows security really taken the trouble of reviewing the tools and
> options available before laying the blame on microsoft? A restrictive
> configuration of the internet zone in IE (disable anything that is
> not marked as "safe", set other options to "prompt"), the association
> of Outlook with the restricted-sites zone, the acquisition of a
> firewall, an antivirus and an antispyware sound good to me. Keep your
> system up-to-date, and, since the SMT protocol allows anybody to
> impersonate an innocent e-mail user, never trust e-mail attachments,
> even if they appear to come from a friend of yours.
>
> The bottom line : that hate campaign against microsoft makes me sick.
> Keep thinking you are intellectually superior and that "windoze
> lusers" are pathetic wimps that need to get a life, it makes your
> "culture" sound immature and unwelcoming.
> As to me, I will definitely not waste a cent on any linux/unix/sun
> related software... and you know money is the name of the game.

Cool post.

Stick around cola for a while, B.  It gets squirrelly in here sometimes, and 
you can help smack down some of the stupidity and lies the regs post about 
MS and Linux.



0
nospam2091 (10001)
4/27/2005 1:51:54 AM
begin  Error log for Tue, 26 Apr 2005 18:26:39 -0700 - John Bailo caused a
page fault at address <5YGdnbAQTp7Sd_PfRVn-1g@speakeasy.net>, details as
follows                             .vbs

> rapskat wrote:
> 
>> So, if that's how you like it, good for you.  I hear many people like
>> being in prison as well.
>> 
> 
> Yeah, but what if I just want those 25 free songs from Real Rhapsody?

You are willing to trade your freedoms, rights and property for 25 songs?
Go for it.

-- 
rapskat -  22:11:24 up 3 days,  6:49,  6 users,  load average: 0.04, 0.51, 0.58
	"Decisive action in the hour of need
	denotes the hero but does not succeed."
	-- Marion D. Hutchins

0
rapskat2 (2033)
4/27/2005 2:12:56 AM
In article <5YGdnbAQTp7Sd_PfRVn-1g@speakeasy.net>, jabailo@texeme.com 
says...
> rapskat wrote:
> 
> > So, if that's how you like it, good for you.  I hear many people like
> > being in prison as well.
> > 
> 
> Yeah, but what if I just want those 25 free songs from Real Rhapsody?

Buy two computers, or dual boot one.

-- 
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"Making it hard to do stupid things often makes it hard
 to do smart ones too." -- Andrew Koenig
0
randyhoward (4848)
4/27/2005 2:27:07 AM
In article <3d7vnbF6qd3i4U1@individual.net>, bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk 
says...
> On Tuesday 26 April 2005 23:44 Randy Howard wrote:
> 
> >> I have to press CTRL+ALT+keypad+/- to cycle round my screen
> >> resolutions.
> > 
> > Yeah, but it's not exactly obvious to the noob, is it?��:-)
> 
> It certainly isn't - and in truth I don't really know how I'm supposed
> to find these things out!

The ever-so-helpful "RTFM" springs to mind, except I don't know if
it's in there.  :-)  I guess that leaves us with "GIYF".

> Tell you what though - things like that sure impress visiting Windows
> users!  Another favourite is the multiple desktops - and the session
> restore:-)

It's be even more impressive if there was a way to do it with a 
mouse for the learners.  Keyboard shortcuts are great once you
know them, but I don't think that should be the only way.  Having a 
"beginner" method to get there seems to be all-too-often ignored in 
many Linux packages, hence the complaints about usability.


-- 
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"Making it hard to do stupid things often makes it hard
 to do smart ones too." -- Andrew Koenig
0
randyhoward (4848)
4/27/2005 2:32:21 AM
DFS wrote something like:

> B wrote:

>> The bottom line : that hate campaign against microsoft makes me sick.
>> Keep thinking you are intellectually superior and that "windoze
>> lusers" are pathetic wimps that need to get a life, it makes your
>> "culture" sound immature and unwelcoming.
>> As to me, I will definitely not waste a cent on any linux/unix/sun
>> related software... and you know money is the name of the game.
> 
> Cool post.
> 
> Stick around cola for a while, B.  It gets squirrelly in here sometimes,
> and you can help smack down some of the stupidity and lies the regs post
> about MS and Linux.

Which lie would that be? That ReactOS is not linux?

-- 
-
 I don't actually live here.
- 
0
linux_nut (576)
4/27/2005 2:40:45 AM
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:31:17 +0200, B wrote:

> Do you know why linux is definitely not the best OS? Check this
> www.spatula.net/proc/linux/index.src
> 
> Out of curiosity, I have installed two linux distributions, in the past
> : red-hat and mandrake. I spent some time discovering what that linux
> hype was all about, what the GUI was like, what "cool" options KDE (or
> any other desktop manager) had to offer, the general look-and-feel of
> those so-called better alternatives to windows.
> 
IMHO Linux is better.

> Well, getting past the thrills of installation, my experience went down
> to disappointment and frustration. Things so trivial as changing the
> screen resolution seemed deeply obscure, and the help system downright
> cryptic. Plus I got a strange feeling that beyond those windows-like
> bells-and-whistles, the linux OS uncovers its real nature and betrays
> its unixish origins : an unfriendly piece of software with obscure rules
> and a complex architecture, with little or no general consistency (like
> a patchwork). Linux is aimed at the geek, the "leet"-wannabe, all those
> people who are so childishly narrow-minded and intolerant that they
> can't stand the name of microsoft, and they can't admit windows is doing
> a great job as a family desktop OS.

SUSE 9.2 pro was one of the easiest OS installs I have ever done. Gee I
have a little blue icon on the panel right-click select resolution from
the list damn that is hard.
 
<snip>

> Recently I was in need of a good word processor, for professional use. I
> decided to make my own review of what was available, and downloaded the
> following products:
> 602PCsuite, abi-word, easy-office, and, inevitably, open-office.
> 
> I found them to suffer from either a crippled interface, a plague of
> bugs (especially abi-word), or an unprofessional look (some apps are
> apparently configured for use in a 1024*768 screen resolution...). Plus
> I noticed some of them don't uninstall properly (602 PC suite leaves
> unwanted file-associations in the registry).

Except for OOo the oyher wp programs do suck on windows from my own
experience.

> So I bought MS-Word. Yes, that's right, unlike most of those who trash
> windows, I took the trouble of *buying* Word. None of my MS software is
> a pirated copy. If you guys hate microsoft so much then ditch windows,
> office, IE, etc... and go away! It's not as if anybody wanted to force
> you to use something against your will.

Excuse me "go away" ummm this is comp.os.linux.advocacy (COLA) notice the
word LINUX in there? Now who should go away

> The bottom line : that hate campaign against microsoft makes me sick.
> Keep thinking you are intellectually superior and that "windoze lusers"
> are pathetic wimps that need to get a life, it makes your "culture"
> sound immature and unwelcoming.
> As to me, I will definitely not waste a cent on any linux/unix/sun
> related software... and you know money is the name of the game.

I don't hate windows I prefer linux in my experience I have found I get to
use my computers more productively since the switch from windows and spend
much less time on maintenance: defraging, virus scans/updates, regestry
cleaning, spy/adware scans and updates taking away hours weekly from being
able to use the machines productively.

Ps. I do not like Mr. Gates personally having met him in the mid 70's (he
gave a talk to one of my electronics classes at MPC when he was in
Monterey trying to buy Digitals DOS) as I found him to be concited and
arogant but that did not stop me from using MS products as they worked for
me. 

-- 
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for you are crunchy and good
with ketchup."

Linux User #273161

0
thedread (82)
4/27/2005 2:54:56 AM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
Randy Howard <randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net> espoused:
> In article <3d7vnbF6qd3i4U1@individual.net>, bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk 
> says...
>> On Tuesday 26 April 2005 23:44 Randy Howard wrote:
>> 
>> >> I have to press CTRL+ALT+keypad+/- to cycle round my screen
>> >> resolutions.
>> > 
>> > Yeah, but it's not exactly obvious to the noob, is it?��:-)
>> 
>> It certainly isn't - and in truth I don't really know how I'm supposed
>> to find these things out!
> 
> The ever-so-helpful "RTFM" springs to mind, except I don't know if
> it's in there.  :-)  I guess that leaves us with "GIYF".
> 


Welcome to the general experience of learning.  I didn't know that
differential equations existed until I did maths at school.  They're
extremely useful in electronics, engineering, all kinds of things.
To find out about them, you can go on a course, or read a book.  You are
*very unlikely* to discover them if you sit there was a piece of paper
and a pencil, randomly writing algebraic expressions.

Where the idea came from that just looking at a PC should enable the
user to know everthing about it is beyond me, but the idea is puerile.
It takes /some/ effort to learn things.  Linux is not more difficult
to learn than anything else - it might have more features than any
competing OS, but it's far better documented.

-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
What's done to children, they will do to society.
0
mark.kent (15323)
4/27/2005 6:24:10 AM
B wrote:
> Do you know why linux is definitely not the best OS?
> Check this www.spatula.net/proc/linux/index.src
>
> Out of curiosity, I have installed two linux distributions, in the
past :
> red-hat and mandrake. I spent some time discovering what that linux
hype was
> all about, what the GUI was like, what "cool" options KDE (or any
other
> desktop manager) had to offer, the general look-and-feel of those
so-called
> better alternatives to windows

The first question.  How much time was spent with Linux?

I find it very hard to be impressed by anyone who hasn't spent at least
90 days actually USING Linux.  And by this I mean the actual equivalent
of 90 days, not 2-3 hours/day for 90 days.

The very nature of all human beings is to resist change, to cling to
the familiar.  During the Oklahoma dust bowl, families clung to the
familiarity of the family farms even in the face of certain starvation,
rather than venture into the unknown and unfamiliar.

Anyone under 20 probably can't even remember a computer that wasn't
sold with Windows.  Anyone under 30 probably can't remember using a
computer that wasn't sold with a Microsoft Operating system.

The exception of course being that small percentage of young people who
have installed Linux on a PC which was too slow or didn't have enough
memory/hard drive to run the newest versions of Windows.

What is remarkable is not that so many people use windows.  This was
the result of good marketeting strategies, including negotiating
tactics and carefully worded contracts which appeared flexible, but
gave Microsoft far more control over the OEM and Corporate IT
department than ever intended.

> Well, getting past the thrills of installation, my experience went
down to
> disappointment and frustration. Things so trivial as changing the
screen
> resolution seemed deeply obscure, and the help system downright
cryptic.

What amazing isn't that so many people use Windows, but that so many
people use Linux.  Think about it, not only do they have to make
substantial effort to git it properly installed and configured, but
they have to learn new user interfaces, new tools, and then most begin
to explore capabilities and offerings that are either not available for
Windows at all, or are available only at a significant cost.  They
learn to use scripting tools, configuration files, and programming
languages to customize tools and applications that have been provided
for little or no cost.  In many cases, they have to spend hours
downloading commercial software, because commercial software is not
available through retail outlets.

What is truly amazing is the tens of millions of users who mastered
Linux with little or no direct personal support.  There was no one to
hold their hand, answer their questions, or show them how to configure
drivers for hardware that was slightly different than the subsystems
that were already configured for plug-and-play.

Today, it's getting easier to purchase systems which can be quickly
configured to run Linux.  This is not because the OEMs are so
supportive, but because there are so many highly skilled resources
providing the tools and drivers for these machines - often in spite the
best efforts of Microsoft to prevent the development of such drivers.

> Plus I got a strange feeling that beyond those windows-like
> bells-and-whistles, the linux OS uncovers its real nature and betrays
its
> unixish origins : an unfriendly piece of software with obscure rules
and a
> complex architecture, with little or no general consistency (like a
> patchwork).

This is actually quite accurate.  Linux is partially the product of the
highly competitive and constantly evolving UNIX environment.  Even
before UNIX was commercially available, AT&T was competing with BSD.
Competition continued to result in constant enhancements, often in the
form of Open Source technologies including BSD, MIT, Athena, and GNU
technologies.  UNIX quickly gained the support of both corporate and
goverment funding, including the National Center for Supercomputing
Architecture.  Ironically, Linux gained much of it's support from the
network which was established to support Open Source projects
originally developed for BSD and commercial UNIX.

The result is best of breed products that have been hardened and
improved over almost 30 years, uncluding innovations originally
introduced in projects such as EMACS, and contributed to repositories
such as the U.S. department of Defense's SIMTEL-20 repository and
archive.

> Linux is aimed at the geek, the "leet"-wannabe, all those people
> who are so childishly narrow-minded and intolerant that they can't
stand the
> name of microsoft, and they can't admit windows is doing a great job
as a
> family desktop OS.

This is partially true.  Most Linux users have plenty of experience
with Windows.  They know the capabilities, of Windows, and most have
used Windows for years before adopting and learning Linux.

The initial experience is that Linux is very much like Windows.  There
are windows, desktops, GUI based configuration tools, and all of the
familiar capabilities.  This is no accident.  Many of the technologies
used in Windows were originally developed for BSD UNIX.  Most were
originally implemented as Open Source technologies.  Many of these
technologies were also ported to commercial implementations such as SCO
UNIX, AIX, SunOS, Solaris, and HP_UX as well as Irix and numerous other
outstanding UNIX implementations.  Some of these frameworks evolved
into commercial implementations such as Motif, DCE, and Orbix, and
other commercial tools and applications.

Even Java was an attempt to bring the capabilites of UNIX to other
platforms such as Linux and Windows.  The original intent, as stated by
Sun, was to ease the transition from Windows to Linux and eventually to
Solaris.

This strategy actually worked very well, especially in the server
environments.  Applications developed in Java and for Linux servers
were easily and quickly transitioned to Solaris.  For many years,
especially from 1993 to 1997 Solaris was the first choice for this
transition.  In 1998, IBM began to aggressively support Linux and soon
began to see customers transition not only from Linux to AIX, but also
to OS/390 and Linux on Z/OS with Z/VM.

> So I switched back to windows. Everything is so smooth, under
windows. No
> need to be a technical expert or an IT engineer to get the system
work the
> way you want.

I remember when my oldest son got his first bicycle.  Like most
American children, he had first learned to ride a tricycle.  The
tricycle gave him the ability to pedal, and he became quite effective
at moving himself around the apartment complex courtyard at rather
rapid speed.

When he got the bicycle, we put on training wheels.  Even with the
training wheels, the higher center of gravity and limited support of
the training wheels often resulted in the bicycle tipping over.  In
addition, the bicycle traveled much faster, and the limited confines of
the apartement house courtyard was suddenly very small.  Often, Nick
would go back to his familiar tricycle, but he soon saw the other
children riding their bicycles and began taking the falls and the risks
to learn the new skills required.

Then came the day when I removed the training wheels.  I would push him
on the bicycle, helping him to learn balance.  But still, he would tip
over and the bike would fall over.  There were times when he would just
decide that he didn't want to ride the bicycle.  Fortunately, he kept
coming back, and both I and his mother would support him.  Finally, the
day came when he learned balance.  On that day, an entirely new world
opened up.  Before long, he was riding his bicycle in the Cray computer
parking lot across the street.  He would go up and down the lot all
afternoon, after the parking lot was empty and nearly everyone had gone
home.  This wide open space was huge compared to the apartment house
courtyard.

Soon, Nick, his mom, and I, would go riding together.  Before long, we
were riding 2-3 miles, to a local strip mall, a nearby duck pond, and
other interesting locations.  Less than 1 year after first learning to
ride his bicycle, Nick was riding his bike to school, to stores, and to
the playground with his friends.

About 12 years later, Nick had a new skill to learn.  This time, he had
to learn to drive a 4 wheeled vehicle, with a moter, which weighed over
a ton.  He had to study laws, he had to learn road rules, he had to
learn to properly use the controls, and he had to learn how to properly
interact with other similar vehicles on the road.  After passing a
written test, he was given a "learner's permit", and was able to drive
with an adult (usually his mother) guiding and supporting them from the
seat next to his driver's seat.

Within a few months, Nick had mastered the art of driving an
automobile, and by the time he was 16 was able to drive many times the
distance he usually traversed with his simple bicycle.  Within a year,
he was able to master the skills of driving on highways, driving on
busy city streets, and was soon able to drive hundreds of miles every
month.

About the same time that Nick was first learning to ride that Bicycle,
he was also learning to play video games on a computer.  He was
learning to play these cames on a small TRS-80 color computer.

By the time Nick had mastered the bicycle, he was using computers
powered with MS-DOS, and very soon after, with Windows.

About the time that he was learning to drive, he had a computer that
was capable of running both Linux and Windows.  Before long, he had
discovered that he could do things with Linux that he could not do with
Windows.

Today, Nick Ballard posts on this same group, along with several other
Linux newsgroups.  He also helps many of his friends install new Linux
systems on everything from old PCs to AMD-64 powered laptops, to PDAs
including Palm and IPaq systems.  He has even installed Linux on PS/2
and Xbox machines.

Today, asking Nick to give up Linux and run Windows exclusively would
be a bit like asking him to sell his car and stick with the bicycle
exclusively.  He knows the capabilities of that car and will not give
them up easily.  He works very hard to earn the paychecks that make
sure that he can drive that car.  He also knows the capabilities of
Linux and will not give those advantages up easily.

His experiences with Windows were beneficial.  Windows was much like
that Bicycle with the training wheels.  The helps, pop-ups, wizards,
and other tools made it easy for him to learn many of the skills common
to any Window based operating system, including Mac, Windows, and *nix
with X11.

Eventually, the training wheels were no longer necessary.  In fact,
some of those little aids, such as the dancing paper clip became
annoying.  In addition, because all three of his parents were very
ethical, he was not allowed to simply pirate copies of Windows or
Office.  His first PC had both Windows and Linux installed, but did not
have Microsoft Office.  On the other hand, the Linux envirnment
included word processors, presentation graphics authoring tools, and
spreadsheet editors.  In addition, there were a number of games and of
course lots of utilities written in programming languages such as PERL,
Python, and TCL (which was also widely used for AOL applications).

All of that free software was good, but even more important was that
there were lots of competing products, including evaluation versions of
WordPerfect, Applix, and Lyx.  All of these were good for the primary
objective of creating documents that could be printed on an inexpensive
printer.

Nick eventually learned to use these tools to create HTML documents and
was allowed to turn in assignments in HTML or RTF format rather than
Microsoft Word format.

> Unlike *nix fanatics, I don't mean to boast about any sort of
> computer-related knowledge. Let it only be said that I'd not define
myself
> as a lambda user. I know DOS 6.22, batch coding, and I know my way
into the
> registry. I've also installed FreeBSD on another hard-drive, so as to
get a
> taste of what was aside from the microsoft world.
>
> Well from all that experience, I can tell you I love Windows.

This might be a valid conclusion.  On the other hand, it might be the
simple reaction and instinct to cling to the familiar.

The key questions:
   How long did you actually USE Linux?
   How many actual HOURS were spent using Linux?
   How much time was spent learning to use the Linux applications?
   How much time was spent USING the features unique to Linux?
   How much time was spent doing actual work?

I've seen hundreds of "reviews" involving an feeble attempt to install
Linux, often less than 40 hours of actual installation effort, followed
by 10-12 hours of superficial half-hearted attempt to test unsupported
obsolete software.  For example, the reviewer in this response
evaluated ABI Word - which was obsolete back in 1996.

There was no mention of even the most obvious differences and
advantages of Linux, features not included with Windows, such as
multiple desktops, applications included in Linux, or even a basic
objective comparison between similar applications.  No mention of the
fact that multiple Office suites were included, no attempt to compare
commercial versions of software in the same genre of the equivalent
commercial Microsoft products.  The author didn't even both to mention
that he was comparing Office suites which were INCLUDED for FREE with
Microsoft products valued at nearly $500/user (MSRP).

On the other hand, such comprehensive evaluations are generally not
published.  After all, IBM is only paying to advertise Linux as a
SERVER platform.  On the other hand, Microsoft has an annual budget of
nearly $4 billion which it spends to promote Windows. This substantial
budget is further leveraged to control nearly $20 billion in
co-operative advertizing for PC vendors.  Microsoft controls placement
of this substantial budget.

The net result is that almost no articles which make substantive
comparisons between Windows and Linux are published.  Furthermore,
current EULA terms prevent the publication of such "benchmarks" without
prior written permission from Microsoft.  A publisher might let one
slip through, but Microsoft has the legal authority to rewrite the
article, and have the revised version published.  Microsoft then uses
the revised version in their "Fast Facts" promotional materials.  The
original author is attributed, making it appear to be the "unbiased"
opinion of an "independent" reviewer.

> Recently I was in need of a good word processor, for professional
use. I
> decided to make my own review of what was available, and downloaded
the
> following products:
> 602PCsuite, abi-word, easy-office, and, inevitably, open-office.

No attempt to explore StarOffice?  What about WordPerfect?

> I found them to suffer from either a crippled interface, a plague of
bugs
> (especially abi-word), or an unprofessional look (some apps are
apparently

Yes.  ABI-word was originally a Windows application, and was obsolete
in 1997.

> configured for use in a 1024*768 screen resolution...).

Probably correct.  Keep in mind that Linux is often installed on
laptops that have little more than 1024x768.  On the other hand, many
UNIX workstations have resolutions of greater than 4096x 3072, for
example SGI and Solaris CAD workstations.

Tweaking fonts and resolutions is not a complex task.  Nearly every
version of Linux since Red Hat 4.0 has had scalable fonts with
smoothing.  However, the defaults for some of the older applications
was set to support low-resolution displays where screen real-estate was
at a premium.

> Plus I noticed some
> of them don't uninstall properly (602 PC suite leaves unwanted
> file-associations in the registry).

Uninstalls for Windows are no picnic either.  Uninstalls of some third
party software, and even some Microsoft software can leave the system
in a state where the entire hard drive has to be re-engineered.

> So I bought MS-Word. Yes, that's right, unlike most of those who
trash
> windows, I took the trouble of *buying* Word. None of my MS software
is a
> pirated copy. If you guys hate microsoft so much then ditch windows,
office,
> IE, etc... and go away! It's not as if anybody wanted to force you to
use
> something against your will.

This is at least an honest appraisal.  I've seen way too many
evaluations of software purchased with OTHER PEOPLE's MONEY.  The
saleried employee who expects his employer to purchase the PC, the OS,
and all of the applications he wants, including development tools, with
absolutely no impact on his overall salery.  Of course, when a
corporation spends the equivalent of 20% of it's payroll on software,
then salary IS affected, but then again, since the load is spread
evently, it's just like the social security tax paid by the employer.
Would people be so eager to have Windows if they knew that they were
paying 20% of their salary off the top to Microsoft?  Appearantly this
is one author who feels that this is a worthwhile expense.

The costs of any software solution are often hidden and are often many
times the actual retail price.  Time spent dealing with viruses,
reinstallations, technical support, mandatory upgrades during highest
prices, client access licenses, and numerous other incidental expenses.

Linux isn't "free" either.  There are initial training costs,
configuration costs, and of course the costs of commercial software.
The experience of those who have actually completed successful
transitions to Linux, especially in the server market, have shown
savings of as much as 90%.  Put another way, Linux costs about 1/10th
the cost of Windows over a 2 year period.

> As to security, I don't understand all that fuss around MS products.
As an
> avid web-user, I (think that I) have taken the appropriate steps to
ensure
> my system is secured enough, and I have never had any sort of trouble
in
> years.

I've known some experts who have successfully secured Windows systems.
It requires some substantial expertise and often results in inability
to access many web sites along with lots of nasty warnings, threats,
and other irritating messages.  Even with all of these countermeasures,
there are still problems with stealth viruses and spyware that uses the
same back doors Microsoft uses to monitor piracy.

> Have all those people kvetching about windows security really taken
> the trouble of reviewing the tools and options available before
laying the
> blame on microsoft?

Microsoft is finally making some efforts, but even today, Microsoft
still lags far behind Linux in terms of both security and flexibility.
Part of the problem is that Linux evolved from a server environment,
and was able to leverage the government research, including some
technology which was at one time classified because it was considered
so secure.

Linux has the benefits of 25 years of security efforts ranging from
AT&T to BSD to NCSA to DOD to even the CIA and NSA.  Most of this
technology has been included in publicly available versions of Linux.

> A restrictive configuration of the internet zone in IE
> (disable anything that is not marked as "safe", set other options to
> "prompt"), the association of Outlook with the restricted-sites zone,
the
> acquisition of a firewall, an antivirus and an antispyware sound good
to me.
> Keep your system up-to-date, and, since the SMT protocol allows
anybody to
> impersonate an innocent e-mail user, never trust e-mail attachments,
even if
> they appear to come from a friend of yours.

Firewalls are the "front door".  ActiveX controls are the "back door".
If you are running IE with ActiveX controls and running Outlook with
HTML display enabled and directed to IE, then a simple preview can
trigger an infection.

Antivirus software efforts focus on disruptive software designed to
infect every computer it touches.  There are no significant efforts to
target tightly directed attacks which quietly do almost nothing - other
than send passwords to a carefully disguised "web server".  The
firewall is useless because the infecting program is using the already
permitted ports, but just in unconventional ways.

Microsoft still doesn't let users or auditors monitor the outbound
traffic from Windows workstations.

> The bottom line : that hate campaign against microsoft makes me sick.

There are lots of good reasons to dislike Microsoft, to distrust
Microsoft, and to want to have alternatives to Microsoft.  This doesn't
equate directly to hate.

My own personal experiences with Microsoft goes back over 25 years to
1982.  Microsoft convinced my employer to use Microsoft Basic Compiler
to develop their product.  They promised us that we would not have to
pay license fees on the run-time library.  We spent over a year
developing a product, we had sold it to about 2000 users, and suddenly
Microsoft tells us that we have to upgrade to the newer version, and we
also have to pay $500/user for every workstation already licensed.
Furthermore, they revoked the previous license.  The net effect was
that the company went into bankruptcy.  All but 2 of the programmers
were laid off, and the remainder of the company was sold to a Microsoft
"strategic partner" for about 10% of it's value prior to the Microsoft
sanctions.

If this wasn't bad enough, I applied to Microsoft for a job.  They
asked me to submit samples of my code, including work that I had done
for CP/M.  I went to my employer to get permission.  They provided me
with several hundred pages of code each with copyright notices.  They
even mailed it to Microsoft using certified mail.  Microsoft not only
sent me a rejection letter, but used several of my ideas in MS-DOS 2.0.

A few years later, I was working for an employer who had become a
"strategic partner" for Microsoft.  What this actually meant was that
they had to divert ALL of their programming staff to Windows NT 3.x
application development.  All efforts to support UNIX were halted.  I
was the only one supporting Linux through a series of "Alliance
Developers" who were working with me to create content which could be
distributed using TCP/IP.  This was just prior to the commercial use of
the Internet.  One of those alliance developers provided a search
engine and HTTP server as well as training on how to configure Mosaic
Web Browsers.

The employer ended up spending nearly 5 times what they originally
budgeted, and recovered none of their investment in the Windows NT 3.x
product.  Ironically they were one of the first publishers to actually
make a PROFIT on the Internet, using Open Source based technology
including WAIS search engines, NCSA web servers, and Mosaic web
browsers.

I've had 25 years of experience developing for both Microsoft and *nix.
 I have enough experience to know what works and what doesn't.  I've
been able to craft some very cost-effective solutions through the
marriage of Windows and *nix technology.

Do I honestly believe that the 95% of all of the users who currently
use Windows can or will convert to Linux?  Probably not.  On the other
hand, I've seem very real benefits achieved by introducing Open Source
technology to the workstation.  This includes Web Browsers, e-mail
clients, chat clients, and tools like cygwin.  I've also seen benefits
of improving the links between Windows and *nix.

I've also seen many people express great delight with OS/X, even when
they have to pay as much as twice the price of comparable Windows
equipment.  This alone should speak volumes.

> Keep thinking you are intellectually superior and that "windoze
lusers" are
> pathetic wimps that need to get a life, it makes your "culture" sound
> immature and unwelcoming.

Linux users vary in their skills.  There are many who have little more
experience than the author of this post.  They just need to create
documents that they can print, slide shows that look good, and
spreadsheets that need to be accurate.

It's ironic that many of the features touted as making Microsoft Office
superior, such as macros, ActiveX, and DirectX have turned out to be
the very source of the most frequent and dangerous virus and trojan
infections.

> As to me, I will definitely not waste a cent on any linux/unix/sun
related
> software... and you know money is the name of the game.

You might not be aware of the *nix software that you are using, but you
couldn't do most of what you do today without it.  The TCP/IP stack,
the Browser, the e-mail client, even the word processor, spreadsheet,
and presentation tools, have their roots in Open Source technologies
first developed for other platforms.  Most of the servers, routers,
mail servers, firewalls, cable modems, and remaining infrastructure are
based on *nix technology, mostly originating as Open Source technology
such as BSD or even emacs.

Microsoft even acknowledges this in their copyright and license
notices.  They are required to do this by law, as a condition of the
licenses of the original software.  It's ironic that Microsoft has
appropriated technology developed for *nix and attempted to use this
technology to bankrupt the originators of this very technology.

0
r.e.ballard (1110)
4/27/2005 6:41:37 AM
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:51:54 -0400, DFS wrote:

> B wrote:
<snip nonsense>
>>
>> The bottom line : that hate campaign against microsoft makes me sick.
>> Keep thinking you are intellectually superior and that "windoze
>> lusers" are pathetic wimps that need to get a life, it makes your
>> "culture" sound immature and unwelcoming.
>> As to me, I will definitely not waste a cent on any linux/unix/sun
>> related software... and you know money is the name of the game.
> 
> Cool post.
> 
> Stick around cola for a while, B.  It gets squirrelly in here sometimes, and 
> you can help smack down some of the stupidity and lies the regs post about 
> MS and Linux.

Lies are cool to you, are they? Dickhead.

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
4/27/2005 8:16:42 AM
begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:51:54 -0400, that DFS
was seen to write:

> Stick around cola for a while, B.  It gets squirrelly in here sometimes,
> and you can help smack down some of the stupidity and lies the regs post
> about MS and Linux.

You mean like you posted about ReactOS being linux? 
You should know all about lies too, you're an expert at telling them.

-- 
As an Outlook Express user, your opinion 
on other newsreaders means about as much 
as Carrot Top's advice on fashion.
- Tukla Ratte's reply to DFS - 
Boycott OE - http://www.ichimusai.org/oe/
0
willpoast (5106)
4/27/2005 8:47:38 AM
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> Stick around cola for a while, B.  It gets squirrelly in here sometimes, and 
> you can help smack down some of the stupidity and lies the regs post about 
> MS and Linux.

B, smack down DFS while you're at it.

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
4/27/2005 11:28:25 AM
r.e.ballard@usa.net poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> When he got the bicycle, we put on training wheels.  Even with the
> training wheels, the higher center of gravity and limited support of
> the training wheels often resulted in the bicycle tipping over.
>
> . . .
>
> His experiences with Windows were beneficial.  Windows was much like
> that Bicycle with the training wheels.  The helps, pop-ups, wizards,
> and other tools made it easy for him to learn many of the skills common
> to any Window based operating system, including Mac, Windows, and *nix
> with X11.

Windows -- The OS with training wheels.

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
4/27/2005 11:33:15 AM
There are people for whom Windows is best, and I'm not one of them;
yet, I use Windows.  "In Rome, do as the Romans do."  When working
where everyone uses Windows, I don't think I'd be awful bright to come
in using Linux.

This despite my severely negative feelings about Microsoft.  See up
this thread on other people's experience with Microsoft.  I don't
think it was quality that put those people at the top of the market;
but that's another subject.

I think the best OS is the one that fits your need and individual
character best.  The OS gets better if you can find two or three good
books on it.

Re OSs, I think Linux could be *greatly* improved if its "Large icons
/ Small icons" choice could be expanded with a *no icons* option.  Not
everyone reads icons!  My strongly text oriented mind stumbles over
icons, even after years of tolerating, oops, using them.  If I had an
option to simply not get them on the screen, I could work much easier
and faster.

I think if Linux offered this option, even Microsoft would come up
with it pretty soon after.  

Back to "best" OS.  My choice is dual boot: Windows XP *and* Fedora
Core 3 in the same machine.  With a little detail change in the
Windows: I found its NT filesystem could be converted to FAT32/vfat.
Which I did immediately.  This is great for me.  So my choice for best
filesystem, today, is *both*.  And I hope the locals using Windows
will wise up one of these days.

Cheers -- Martha Adams


0
mha1 (1)
4/27/2005 1:33:19 PM
mha@math.mit.edu poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> Re OSs, I think Linux could be *greatly* improved if its "Large icons
> / Small icons" choice could be expanded with a *no icons* option.  Not
> everyone reads icons!  My strongly text oriented mind stumbles over
> icons, even after years of tolerating, oops, using them.  If I had an
> option to simply not get them on the screen, I could work much easier
> and faster.
>
> I think if Linux offered this option, even Microsoft would come up
> with it pretty soon after.  

Uh, XFce has this option.  I would bet most window managers do.

> Back to "best" OS.  My choice is dual boot: Windows XP *and* Fedora
> Core 3 in the same machine.  With a little detail change in the
> Windows: I found its NT filesystem could be converted to FAT32/vfat.
> Which I did immediately.  This is great for me.  So my choice for best
> filesystem, today, is *both*.  And I hope the locals using Windows
> will wise up one of these days.

Actually, dual boot gets old after awhile.  Better to keep your old machine
around for the other OS.

> Cheers -- Martha Adams


-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
4/27/2005 2:44:53 PM
begin  In <1114584097.879621.142350@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, on
04/26/2005
   at 11:41 PM, r.e.ballard@usa.net said:

>Anyone under 20 probably can't even remember a computer that wasn't
>sold with Windows.  Anyone under 30 probably can't remember using a
>computer that wasn't sold with a Microsoft Operating system.

While m$ strongarm tactics have certainly reduced the availability of
computers without a m$ tax for unwanted malware, they have been
available. My daughters grew up in a windoze free home, and that
includes a new PC, not just old ones.

>Linux on Z/OS

There is no such thing. z/OS is not z/VM, and does not support guest
operating systems.

>His experiences with Windows were beneficial.

Mine wasn't. I hated it the first time that I used it, and still do.

>The helps, pop-ups, wizards,

Have never answered any of the quexstions that I needed answered. I
would much rather have had a real manual, online or in a dead tree.

>This might be a valid conclusion.  On the other hand, it might be
>the simple reaction and instinct to cling to the familiar.

Those are charitable explanations. The name Barkto comes to mind.

>The key questions:

You're missing the key question:

  "Why are you making ad hominem arguments instead of addressing the
  real 0or imaginary defects in Linux?"

Phrases like "childishly narrow-minded and intolerant" suggest that
the poster has agenda other than what he claims.

>> So I bought MS-Word. Yes, that's right, unlike most of those who
>> trash windows, I took the trouble of *buying* Word. None of my MS 
>> software is a pirated copy. If you guys hate microsoft so much
>> then ditch windows, office, IE, etc... and go away! It's not as if
>> anybody wanted to force you to use something against your will.

>This is at least an honest appraisal.

No it isn't. Many Linux users *don't* have any m$ malware, and m$
*does* want to force people to use its software against their will, as
shown by the evidence at the antitrust trails. Keep in mind that the
appeals court sustained the conviction.

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

0
spamtrap16 (3722)
4/27/2005 3:35:42 PM
B,
     It's just a matter of learning a 'different' OS.
     It's like, one person goes to school to learn art, and another
goes to learn to be a doctor:  They are two different skills
altogether.
     Don't expect an OS designed differently than M$ to be just like
it.
     You spend your effort learn M$, or Linux, or Sun.  In any event,
you have to learn the system.  They're different, neither better nor
worse.
     If you don't want to take the time to learn Linux, then don't.
That's exactly what Bill G. is relying upon to keep his income coming:
mental laziness.  He's got the American people pegged.

0
sbarringer (258)
4/27/2005 4:08:25 PM
Sandlin wrote:

>      If you don't want to take the time to learn Linux, then don't.
> That's exactly what Bill G. is relying upon to keep his income coming:
> mental laziness.  He's got the American people pegged.
> 

There's another aspect to Americans: cheapness...which is why Linux is 
killing M$>
0
jabailo (8241)
4/27/2005 4:12:24 PM
Randy Howard wrote:

> In article <3d7vnbF6qd3i4U1@individual.net>, bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk
> says...
>> On Tuesday 26 April 2005 23:44 Randy Howard wrote:
>> 
>> >> I have to press CTRL+ALT+keypad+/- to cycle round my screen
>> >> resolutions.
>> > 
>> > Yeah, but it's not exactly obvious to the noob, is it?��:-)
>> 
>> It certainly isn't - and in truth I don't really know how I'm supposed
>> to find these things out!
> 
> The ever-so-helpful "RTFM" springs to mind, except I don't know if
> it's in there.  :-)  I guess that leaves us with "GIYF".
> 
>> Tell you what though - things like that sure impress visiting Windows
>> users!  Another favourite is the multiple desktops - and the session
>> restore:-)
> 
> It's be even more impressive if there was a way to do it with a
> mouse for the learners.  Keyboard shortcuts are great once you
> know them, but I don't think that should be the only way.  Having a
> "beginner" method to get there seems to be all-too-often ignored in
> many Linux packages, hence the complaints about usability.
> 

On my systems, running KDE 3.3, right clicking on the desktop background,
selecting "configure desktop", then "display" lets you change screen size
entirely by mouse.  Or you could click your way there via control panel.
-- 
Regards,
Jim
0
jimtrice (168)
4/27/2005 4:36:17 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Randy Howard
<randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net>
 wrote
on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:24:28 GMT
<MPG.1cd87b9a88fc96c698a495@news.verizon.net>:
> In article <d4mc7d0gl7@enews4.newsguy.com>, bl@h.net says...
>> Do you know why linux is definitely not the best OS?
>
> Yes.  The answer is because the best OS has not yet been written.
>

And probably never will be, if only because "best" means different
things to different individuals.

[1] Most convenient?
[2] Fastest?
[3] Smallest memory footprint?
[4] Smallest amount of storage on disk?
[5] Most reliable?
[6] Most responsive?  (This is *not* the same as "fastest".)
[7] Most standard?
[8] Most often seen in adverts?
[9] Highest number of applications?
[10] Highest number of *good* applications?  (Dare I mention that
     "good" has the same problem as "best" here? :-) )
[11] Highest sales revenue?
[12] Biggest install base?
[13] Cutest avatars/logos?  (Linux wins hands down here if one
     considers only logos; I've yet to see anyone with a
     certain brightly-colored flag but I've seen plush Tux toys. :-) )
[14] Most colorful bootup screen?
[15] Most useful crash screen?

Linux is like an airplane: a bunch of compromises.
So is Windows.  One nice thing about Linux, however, is
that the community has a little more say in exactly what
compromises it's willing to accept, especially if they're
adept enough in C coding to make changes in the kernel
(although in most cases the coding is probably somewhere
else anyway; kernel mods should be few in an ideal system).

With Windows, Microsoft has the final say.  Presumably
that bothers a fair number of people, myself included.
(It wouldn't be so bad, except that they've established
a near-monopoly on the desktop, and a lot of people will
think "well, it's Windows; everyone else is doing it"
and follow the herd -- right off the cliff.  Then again,
there *is* hope; we don't have BOB to kick around anymore
[though the doggy is apparently an artifact therefrom --
but he at least can be told to "shaddup and go away",
along with Clippy].)

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
0
ewill (4394)
4/27/2005 7:00:03 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Lin�nut
<lin�nut@bone.com>
 wrote
on Wed, 27 Apr 2005 06:33:15 -0500
<8pWdnWQ0hLLm5fLfRVn-uA@comcast.com>:
> r.e.ballard@usa.net poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> When he got the bicycle, we put on training wheels.  Even with the
>> training wheels, the higher center of gravity and limited support of
>> the training wheels often resulted in the bicycle tipping over.
>>
>> . . .
>>
>> His experiences with Windows were beneficial.  Windows was much like
>> that Bicycle with the training wheels.  The helps, pop-ups, wizards,
>> and other tools made it easy for him to learn many of the skills common
>> to any Window based operating system, including Mac, Windows, and *nix
>> with X11.
>
> Windows -- The OS with training wheels.
>

And a little doggy, too.  Isn't Rover ky00000t?? :-)

Never mind performance; never mind reliability; never mind
that the BSOD is so well-known it appears on T-shirts.
Just pay attention to the mutt as it chews through your data....

:-)

(Does Merlin have a gold watch that swings in front of him and
hypnotizes the user?)

Personally, I wouldn't mind a more integrated help system, which can
be accessed through any one of the commands today:

    man/tkman
    help
    info
    Konqueror
    Gnome

I'd also like to ensure that all manpages are complete enough to
answer any questions.  I'll admit I'm not sure how to do that
without thorough review of said manpages; the best I can do here
is submit bug reports with suggestions...when I find them.

But with Linux, one can either use the training wheels, or abandon
them when no longer needed (and one requires the disk space).
Admittedly, I'm not sure I'd want to abandon them entirely, mostly
because I refer to the manpages on occasion when I want to know the
details on an obscure option.

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
0
ewill (4394)
4/27/2005 7:00:04 PM
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:31:17 +0200, B wrote:

> Do you know why linux is definitely not the best OS?
> Check this www.spatula.net/proc/linux/index.src
> 
> Out of curiosity, I have installed two linux distributions, in the past :
> red-hat and mandrake. I spent some time discovering what that linux hype was
> all about, what the GUI was like, what "cool" options KDE (or any other
> desktop manager) had to offer, the general look-and-feel of those so-called
> better alternatives to windows.
> 
> Well, getting past the thrills of installation, my experience went down to
> disappointment and frustration. Things so trivial as changing the screen
> resolution seemed deeply obscure,

Obscure? What is so obscure about changing it in GNOME, where it's a
simple menu item and a GUI app? And since you can easily put that app on
the panel...if you routinely change your resolution it's even easier. What
is so obscure about it in KDE? It's a fucking *applet* for crying
out loud! Your problem isn't that it's geeky and obscure, some arcane
"deep geek magic", it's that it's *different* from your beloved Windows.

> and the help system downright cryptic.

Oh please, it's no more cryptic than the Windows help system.

> Plus I got a strange feeling that beyond those windows-like
> bells-and-whistles, the linux OS uncovers its real nature and betrays
> its unixish origins

And what exactly is wrong with Unix?


> : an unfriendly piece of software with obscure
> rules and a complex architecture, with little or no general consistency
> (like a patchwork).

If anything's a patchwork it's Windows...well, more a slow buildup of
layers of crud, with all sorts of incompatible things being built on top
of each other, and many things not documented to outside sources...making
it a nightmare to actually develop programs that will run in a stable
fashion for the platform. There are programmers on big projects in the
Windows world that have to play around *reverse engineering* Microsoft
technology in order to get their own software to work on the platform.

> Linux is aimed at the geek, the "leet"-wannabe, all
> those people who are so childishly narrow-minded and intolerant that
> they can't stand the name of microsoft, and they can't admit windows is
> doing a great job as a family desktop OS.


This is just idiocy on your part.

> 
> So I switched back to windows. Everything is so smooth, under windows.
> No need to be a technical expert or an IT engineer to get the system
> work the way you want.


No need with Linux either.

> 
> Unlike *nix fanatics, I don't mean to boast about any sort of
> computer-related knowledge. Let it only be said that I'd not define
> myself as a lambda user. I know DOS 6.22, batch coding,

Batch file programming is incredibly simplistic, and horribly underpowered. 

> and I know my
> way into the registry.

Well, good for you. Very few do...which is too bad, because you really
have to know your way around that arcane bullshit to have a system that
actually *works* on Windows...or truely customise it in a meaningful
way...unless you shell out cash for special software.


> I've also installed FreeBSD on another hard-drive, so as to get a taste
> of what was aside from the microsoft world.
> 
> Well from all that experience, I can tell you I love Windows.

Yes, you love a product put out by a company with tactics that would make
any mafia proud.

> 
> Recently I was in need of a good word processor, for professional use. I
> decided to make my own review of what was available, and downloaded the
> following products:
> 602PCsuite, abi-word, easy-office, and, inevitably, open-office.
> 
> I found them to suffer from either a crippled interface, a plague of
> bugs (especially abi-word),

You are lying here. Abiword is an *excellant* word processor, and very
feature rich....as well as surprisingly light. Yet also good looking.


But then you indicate that you're using Windows, maybe the problem lies
with your OS, and not with abiword.

> or an unprofessional look (some apps are
> apparently configured for use in a 1024*768 screen resolution...).

Again... My apps look fantastic, and I don't have to use them at that
resolution although I usually do. It's a nice resolution.


> Plus
> I noticed some of them don't uninstall properly (602 PC suite leaves
> unwanted file-associations in the registry).


That's the problems you get with Windows...and things like a registry.
Blame your pathetic OS, not Linux and OSS.

> 
> So I bought MS-Word. Yes, that's right, unlike most of those who trash
> windows, I took the trouble of *buying* Word. None of my MS software is
> a pirated copy. If you guys hate microsoft so much then ditch windows,
> office, IE, etc... and go away! It's not as if anybody wanted to force
> you to use something against your will.
> 
> As to security, I don't understand all that fuss around MS products. As
> an avid web-user, I (think that I) have taken the appropriate steps to
> ensure my system is secured enough, and I have never had any sort of
> trouble in years. Have all those people kvetching about windows security
> really taken the trouble of reviewing the tools and options available
> before laying the blame on microsoft?

Maybe because their products have more holes than swiss cheese?

> A restrictive configuration of the
> internet zone in IE (disable anything that is not marked as "safe", set
> other options to "prompt"), the association of Outlook with the
> restricted-sites zone, 

And does this still allow the use of ActiveX? If so, huge hole.

And might I add....these are steps we generally don't need to take.

>the acquisition of a firewall,

The one that comes *with* Windows is....pathetic, almost might as well not
have one. Most other "popular" firewall products for Windows are
similar...low grade and ineffective protection. Ironically, the best
firewall for a Windows machine is a Linux machine serving as a dedicated
firewall. We actually have *secure* firewall tools.

> an antivirus and
> an antispyware sound good to me.

And these are steps we don't need to take.

> Keep your system up-to-date, and,
> since the SMT protocol allows anybody to impersonate an innocent e-mail
> user, never trust e-mail attachments, even if they appear to come from a
> friend of yours.

Microsoft makes email less secure for a few reasons. 

1) Open = Execute. Basically this means that opening a file is the same as
executing it, so if you open an attachment containing a virus....boom,
infected. In Linux open is not the same as execute, and executables will
not be run. This is *not* something specific to the email
client....but OS wide.

2) On Windows, you can have a file labeled "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg.exe" and
the Windows system will tell you it's "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg" and you *have*
to admit that is a *huge* security hole. On Linux, this simply doesn't
happen. "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg.exe" is "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg.exe" every time.
Furthermore, extensions themselves are not necessary....the system knows
what file is what type and can still tell you what kind of thing it
is...even if it's just labeled "Hotnekkidchick."

As you can see, each one of these makes Linux more secure than
Windows....together they *definately* make Linux more secure than Windows
and Windows downright dangerous.

> 
> The bottom line : that hate campaign against microsoft makes me sick.
> Keep thinking you are intellectually superior and that "windoze lusers"
> are pathetic wimps that need to get a life, it makes your "culture"
> sound immature and unwelcoming.
> As to me, I will definitely not waste a cent on any linux/unix/sun
> related software... and you know money is the name of the game.


I want to know what "hate campaign" you are talking about? While most of
us dispise Microsoft....most of the talk in here is in support of Linux.
0
liam8 (4986)
4/28/2005 12:52:58 AM
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:44:55 +0000, Randy Howard wrote:

> 
>> True, true.
>> 
>> I have to press CTRL+ALT+keypad+/- to cycle round my screen
>> resolutions.
> 
> Yeah, but it's not exactly obvious to the noob, is it?  :-)

Yeah...but at least in Mandrake 10.1 using KDE it's an applet, using GNOME
it's an app listed in the menu and can easily be added to the panel. And
they aren't even cryptically named....

0
liam8 (4986)
4/28/2005 12:56:54 AM
Liam Slider wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:31:17 +0200, B wrote:
>
>> Do you know why linux is definitely not the best OS?
>> Check this www.spatula.net/proc/linux/index.src
>>
>> Out of curiosity, I have installed two linux distributions, in the
>> past : red-hat and mandrake. I spent some time discovering what that
>> linux hype was all about, what the GUI was like, what "cool" options
>> KDE (or any other desktop manager) had to offer, the general
>> look-and-feel of those so-called better alternatives to windows.
>>
>> Well, getting past the thrills of installation, my experience went
>> down to disappointment and frustration. Things so trivial as
>> changing the screen resolution seemed deeply obscure,
>
> Obscure? What is so obscure about changing it in GNOME, where it's a
> simple menu item and a GUI app? And since you can easily put that app
> on the panel...if you routinely change your resolution it's even
> easier. What is so obscure about it in KDE? It's a fucking *applet*
> for crying
> out loud! Your problem isn't that it's geeky and obscure, some arcane
> "deep geek magic", it's that it's *different* from your beloved
> Windows.
>
>> and the help system downright cryptic.
>
> Oh please, it's no more cryptic than the Windows help system.
>
>> Plus I got a strange feeling that beyond those windows-like
>> bells-and-whistles, the linux OS uncovers its real nature and betrays
>> its unixish origins
>
> And what exactly is wrong with Unix?
>
>
>>> an unfriendly piece of software with obscure
>> rules and a complex architecture, with little or no general
>> consistency (like a patchwork).
>
> If anything's a patchwork it's Windows...well, more a slow buildup of
> layers of crud, with all sorts of incompatible things being built on
> top of each other, and many things not documented to outside
> sources...making it a nightmare to actually develop programs that
> will run in a stable fashion for the platform. There are programmers
> on big projects in the Windows world that have to play around
> *reverse engineering* Microsoft technology in order to get their own
> software to work on the platform.
>
>> Linux is aimed at the geek, the "leet"-wannabe, all
>> those people who are so childishly narrow-minded and intolerant that
>> they can't stand the name of microsoft, and they can't admit windows
>> is doing a great job as a family desktop OS.
>
>
> This is just idiocy on your part.
>
>>
>> So I switched back to windows. Everything is so smooth, under
>> windows.
>> No need to be a technical expert or an IT engineer to get the system
>> work the way you want.
>
>
> No need with Linux either.
>
>>
>> Unlike *nix fanatics, I don't mean to boast about any sort of
>> computer-related knowledge. Let it only be said that I'd not define
>> myself as a lambda user. I know DOS 6.22, batch coding,
>
> Batch file programming is incredibly simplistic, and horribly
> underpowered.
>
>> and I know my
>> way into the registry.
>
> Well, good for you. Very few do...which is too bad, because you really
> have to know your way around that arcane bullshit to have a system
> that actually *works* on Windows...or truely customise it in a
> meaningful way...unless you shell out cash for special software.
>
>
>> I've also installed FreeBSD on another hard-drive, so as to get a
>> taste
>> of what was aside from the microsoft world.
>>
>> Well from all that experience, I can tell you I love Windows.
>
> Yes, you love a product put out by a company with tactics that would
> make any mafia proud.
>
>>
>> Recently I was in need of a good word processor, for professional
>> use. I decided to make my own review of what was available, and
>> downloaded the following products:
>> 602PCsuite, abi-word, easy-office, and, inevitably, open-office.
>>
>> I found them to suffer from either a crippled interface, a plague of
>> bugs (especially abi-word),
>
> You are lying here. Abiword is an *excellant* word processor, and very
> feature rich....as well as surprisingly light. Yet also good looking.
>
>
> But then you indicate that you're using Windows, maybe the problem
> lies with your OS, and not with abiword.
>
>> or an unprofessional look (some apps are
>> apparently configured for use in a 1024*768 screen resolution...).
>
> Again... My apps look fantastic, and I don't have to use them at that
> resolution although I usually do. It's a nice resolution.
>
>
>> Plus
>> I noticed some of them don't uninstall properly (602 PC suite leaves
>> unwanted file-associations in the registry).
>
>
> That's the problems you get with Windows...and things like a registry.
> Blame your pathetic OS, not Linux and OSS.
>
>>
>> So I bought MS-Word. Yes, that's right, unlike most of those who
>> trash windows, I took the trouble of *buying* Word. None of my MS
>> software is
>> a pirated copy. If you guys hate microsoft so much then ditch
>> windows, office, IE, etc... and go away! It's not as if anybody
>> wanted to force
>> you to use something against your will.
>>
>> As to security, I don't understand all that fuss around MS products.
>> As
>> an avid web-user, I (think that I) have taken the appropriate steps
>> to ensure my system is secured enough, and I have never had any sort
>> of trouble in years. Have all those people kvetching about windows
>> security really taken the trouble of reviewing the tools and options
>> available before laying the blame on microsoft?
>
> Maybe because their products have more holes than swiss cheese?
>
>> A restrictive configuration of the
>> internet zone in IE (disable anything that is not marked as "safe",
>> set other options to "prompt"), the association of Outlook with the
>> restricted-sites zone,
>
> And does this still allow the use of ActiveX? If so, huge hole.
>
> And might I add....these are steps we generally don't need to take.
>
>> the acquisition of a firewall,
>
> The one that comes *with* Windows is....pathetic, almost might as
> well not have one. Most other "popular" firewall products for Windows
> are similar...low grade and ineffective protection. Ironically, the
> best firewall for a Windows machine is a Linux machine serving as a
> dedicated firewall. We actually have *secure* firewall tools.
>
>> an antivirus and
>> an antispyware sound good to me.
>
> And these are steps we don't need to take.
>
>> Keep your system up-to-date, and,
>> since the SMT protocol allows anybody to impersonate an innocent
>> e-mail user, never trust e-mail attachments, even if they appear to
>> come from a friend of yours.
>
> Microsoft makes email less secure for a few reasons.
>
> 1) Open = Execute. Basically this means that opening a file is the
> same as executing it, so if you open an attachment containing a
> virus....boom, infected. In Linux open is not the same as execute,
> and executables will not be run. This is *not* something specific to
> the email
> client....but OS wide.
>
> 2) On Windows, you can have a file labeled "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg.exe"
> and the Windows system will tell you it's "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg" and
> you *have* to admit that is a *huge* security hole. On Linux, this
> simply doesn't happen. "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg.exe" is
> "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg.exe" every time. Furthermore, extensions
> themselves are not necessary....the system knows what file is what
> type and can still tell you what kind of thing it is...even if it's
> just labeled "Hotnekkidchick."
>
> As you can see, each one of these makes Linux more secure than
> Windows....together they *definately* make Linux more secure than
> Windows and Windows downright dangerous.
>
>>
>> The bottom line : that hate campaign against microsoft makes me sick.
>> Keep thinking you are intellectually superior and that "windoze
>> lusers"
>> are pathetic wimps that need to get a life, it makes your "culture"
>> sound immature and unwelcoming.
>> As to me, I will definitely not waste a cent on any linux/unix/sun
>> related software... and you know money is the name of the game.
>
>
> I want to know what "hate campaign" you are talking about? While most
> of us dispise Microsoft....most of the talk in here is in support of
> Linux.

What?  You just spent 2/3 of this post insulting MS and Windows.

Get your lies straight.



0
nospam2091 (10001)
4/28/2005 1:05:26 AM
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> Liam Slider wrote:
> What?  You just spent 2/3 of this post insulting MS and Windows.

I saw only a couple of truth-stretchers in what Liam wrote.

> Get your lies straight.

He mainly needs to turn down the hyperbole in a couple places.

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
4/28/2005 1:09:11 AM
Lin�nut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> Liam Slider wrote:
>> What?  You just spent 2/3 of this post insulting MS and Windows.
>
> I saw only a couple of truth-stretchers in what Liam wrote.

Nearly every sentence he uttered about MS was an insult or an outright lie 
that he knows to be a fabrication.


>> Get your lies straight.
>
> He mainly needs to turn down the hyperbole in a couple places.

His very last sentence was an outright lie.





0
nospam2091 (10001)
4/28/2005 4:22:41 AM
DFS wrote something like:

> Lin�nut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
>> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>
>>> Liam Slider wrote:
>>> What?  You just spent 2/3 of this post insulting MS and Windows.
>>
>> I saw only a couple of truth-stretchers in what Liam wrote.
> 
> Nearly every sentence he uttered about MS was an insult or an outright lie
> that he knows to be a fabrication.

Looks mostly okay to me, with the previous qualifications by others noted...

MS users would have to really be running scared to be offended by this.

>>> Get your lies straight.
>>
>> He mainly needs to turn down the hyperbole in a couple places.
> 
> His very last sentence was an outright lie.

This last bit from you looks like a lie to me. From what I read on cola
there is a lot or scared windows people lying about linux for some reason
(maybe just bored trolls) and then a few linux people defending linux -
sometimes comparing the faults to more serious ones in windows. 

-- 
-
 I don't actually live here.
- 
0
linux_nut (576)
4/28/2005 4:54:28 AM
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:05:26 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Liam Slider wrote:

>> I want to know what "hate campaign" you are talking about? While most
>> of us dispise Microsoft....most of the talk in here is in support of
>> Linux.
> 
> What?  You just spent 2/3 of this post insulting MS and Windows.
> 
> Get your lies straight.

You quoted *the entire post* to add this? You twat.

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
4/28/2005 9:09:39 AM
begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:22:41 -0400, that DFS
was seen to write:

> Lin�nut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
>> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>
>>> Liam Slider wrote:
>>> What?  You just spent 2/3 of this post insulting MS and Windows.
>>
>> I saw only a couple of truth-stretchers in what Liam wrote.
> 
> Nearly every sentence he uttered about MS was an insult or an outright lie
> that he knows to be a fabrication.

Buulshit, sounds like you're getting rattled DooFu$.

>>> Get your lies straight.
>>
>> He mainly needs to turn down the hyperbole in a couple places.
> 
> His very last sentence was an outright lie.

You're lying again, (nothing new *there*) DooFu$. 

-- 
With GPL the only thing Microsoft 
gets for free is nightmares.
-- Jean Francois Martinez


0
willpoast (5106)
4/28/2005 9:14:32 AM
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

>>> Get your lies straight.
>>
>> He mainly needs to turn down the hyperbole in a couple places.
>
> His very last sentence was an outright lie.

No.  He's describing those who support the purpose of this group.
Linux advocacy.

The advocacy, however, is swamped by trolls and responses to trolls.

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
4/28/2005 11:27:48 AM
begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 06:27:48 -0500, that
Lin�nutlin�nut was seen to write:

> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
> 
>>>> Get your lies straight.
>>>
>>> He mainly needs to turn down the hyperbole in a couple places.
>>
>> His very last sentence was an outright lie.
> 
> No.  He's describing those who support the purpose of this group. Linux
> advocacy.
> 
> The advocacy, however, is swamped by trolls and responses to trolls.

Of which DFS is one.

-- 
With GPL the only thing Microsoft 
gets for free is nightmares.
-- Jean Francois Martinez


0
willpoast (5106)
4/28/2005 11:44:54 AM
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:22:41 -0400, DFS wrote:

> His very last sentence was an outright lie.

It's a lie that changing the resolution is a matter of a simple applet, or
simple menu item...which can be added to the panel, depending on the DE?


That we don't need anti-spyware and anti-virus software is a lie?

That we don't have the Open=Execute problem or the file extension problem
like Windows does is a lie?

That Linux has good firewalls is a lie?

That abiword is an excellant, feature rich, but light word processor is a
lie?

That batch file programming is incredibly simplistic, especially when
compared to shell scripting is a lie?

That you don't need to be an IT expert to customise the system and make it
work the way you want is a lie?


What are you smoking DooFuS?

0
liam8 (4986)
4/28/2005 3:25:52 PM
begin  Error log for Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:33:19 +0000 - mha caused a page
fault at address <426f949f$0$563$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
details as follows                             .vbs

> Re OSs, I think Linux could be *greatly* improved if its "Large icons
> / Small icons" choice could be expanded with a *no icons* option.  Not
> everyone reads icons!  My strongly text oriented mind stumbles over
> icons, even after years of tolerating, oops, using them.  If I had an
> option to simply not get them on the screen, I could work much easier
> and faster.

Depending on your Windows Manager/Desktop Environment, this is possible.

For instance, on KDE, just open kcontrol, select Desktop > Behavior >
Uncheck "Show icons on desktop", click apply, done.

IceWM doesn't have desktop icons by default, neither does fluxbox.  Not
sure about XFce.  GNOME does, but I'm sure there is some way to disable it
from within Nautilus' settings.

-- 
rapskat -  12:13:20 up 4 days, 20:50,  8 users,  load average: 0.55, 1.33, 1.18
	"Heisenberg _may_ have slept here."

0
rapskat2 (2033)
4/28/2005 4:16:36 PM
Liam Slider wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:22:41 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> His very last sentence was an outright lie.
>
> It's a lie that changing the resolution is a matter of a simple
> applet, or simple menu item...which can be added to the panel,
> depending on the DE?
>
>
> That we don't need anti-spyware and anti-virus software is a lie?
>
> That we don't have the Open=Execute problem or the file extension
> problem like Windows does is a lie?
>
> That Linux has good firewalls is a lie?
>
> That abiword is an excellant, feature rich, but light word processor
> is a lie?
>
> That batch file programming is incredibly simplistic, especially when
> compared to shell scripting is a lie?
>
> That you don't need to be an IT expert to customise the system and
> make it work the way you want is a lie?
>
>
> What are you smoking DooFuS?

As I said, the very last sentence in your post was an outright lie.



0
nospam2091 (10001)
4/28/2005 4:31:24 PM
Lin�nut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>>>> Get your lies straight.
>>>
>>> He mainly needs to turn down the hyperbole in a couple places.
>>
>> His very last sentence was an outright lie.
>
> No.  He's describing those who support the purpose of this group.
> Linux advocacy.
>
> The advocacy, however, is swamped by trolls and responses to trolls.

Because that's how "advocates" want it.  Absent every troll here, the group 
is still filled with anti-MS and anti-Windows tirades.

It's rare to see a pro-Linux cola post that doesn't also insult MS or the 
competing Windows product.



0
nospam2091 (10001)
4/28/2005 4:34:02 PM
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:31:24 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Liam Slider wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:22:41 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> His very last sentence was an outright lie.
>>
>> It's a lie that changing the resolution is a matter of a simple
>> applet, or simple menu item...which can be added to the panel,
>> depending on the DE?
>>
>>
>> That we don't need anti-spyware and anti-virus software is a lie?
>>
>> That we don't have the Open=Execute problem or the file extension
>> problem like Windows does is a lie?
>>
>> That Linux has good firewalls is a lie?
>>
>> That abiword is an excellant, feature rich, but light word processor
>> is a lie?
>>
>> That batch file programming is incredibly simplistic, especially when
>> compared to shell scripting is a lie?
>>
>> That you don't need to be an IT expert to customise the system and
>> make it work the way you want is a lie?
>>
>>
>> What are you smoking DooFuS?
> 
> As I said, the very last sentence in your post was an outright lie.

You are smoking crack. Or perhaps you can demonstrate *how* those things I
said there are lies?

0
liam8 (4986)
4/28/2005 5:07:37 PM
begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:34:02 -0400, that DFS
was seen to write:

> Lin�nut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
>> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>
>>>>> Get your lies straight.
>>>>
>>>> He mainly needs to turn down the hyperbole in a couple places.
>>>
>>> His very last sentence was an outright lie.
>>
>> No.  He's describing those who support the purpose of this group. Linux
>> advocacy.
>>
>> The advocacy, however, is swamped by trolls and responses to trolls.
> 
> Because that's how "advocates" want it.  Absent every troll here, the
> group is still filled with anti-MS and anti-Windows tirades.
> 
> It's rare to see a pro-Linux cola post that doesn't also insult MS or the
> competing Windows product.

Hey, if M$ is crap it's crap, no matter how you want to dress it.
If you don't like it, fuck off.

-- 
With GPL the only thing Microsoft 
gets for free is nightmares.
-- Jean Francois Martinez


0
willpoast (5106)
4/28/2005 6:36:27 PM
begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:31:24 -0400, that DFS
was seen to write:

> Liam Slider wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:22:41 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> His very last sentence was an outright lie.
>>
>> It's a lie that changing the resolution is a matter of a simple applet,
>> or simple menu item...which can be added to the panel, depending on the
>> DE?
>>
>> That we don't need anti-spyware and anti-virus software is a lie?
>>
>> That we don't have the Open=Execute problem or the file extension
>> problem like Windows does is a lie?
>>
>> That Linux has good firewalls is a lie?
>>
>> That abiword is an excellant, feature rich, but light word processor is
>> a lie?
>>
>> That batch file programming is incredibly simplistic, especially when
>> compared to shell scripting is a lie?
>>
>> That you don't need to be an IT expert to customise the system and make
>> it work the way you want is a lie?
>>
>>
>> What are you smoking DooFuS?
> 
> As I said, the very last sentence in your post was an outright lie.

And as I've said (before) *you* are an idiot.

-- 
With GPL the only thing Microsoft 
gets for free is nightmares.
-- Jean Francois Martinez


0
willpoast (5106)
4/28/2005 6:37:58 PM
William Poaster wrote:
> begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:31:24 -0400, that DFS
> was seen to write:
> >>
>>As I said, the very last sentence in your post was an outright lie.
> 
> 
> And as I've said (before) *you* are an idiot.
> 

I always thought he said he didn't read 'begin  ' posts?

Besides, if you don't dance along, its hard to play the 'COLA is 
attacking poor MS' shuffle....

Don't forget, don't just trash the messenger, trash the forum / venue / 
message system while your at it!

Same reason flatty calls it a cesspool all the time, (funny, nobody, and 
no-fish I know would willingly swim in a 'cesspool' , yet he scurries 
around the pond a fair bit doesn't he??)

DooFuS is mostly here to trash talk all that OSS 'slopware', while out 
the other side of his mouth trash talking the 'stupid developers' for 
'giving away their valuable??? work' while mumbling about how its not 
really being 'Given' away since he can't exploit the same 'slopware' by 
the same 'stupid developer' for his financial gain without being 
'forced' to 'give away' his work [or being charged with copyright 
infringement, lets not forget the GPL is a DISTRIBUTION license, and 
enforces no conditions on a user, it only GIVES freedoms current law 
takes away otherwise]

It gets a tad naseuating, not because its particularly objectionable, 
but going around in such a wobbly circle gets dizzying....

Hmm, how would one make a financial gain selling 'slopware' DooFuS?

Perhaps, by taking some OSS code, which 'stupidly' was coded for Linux, 
and porting it to Windows so as to have a /larger/ customer base to sell 
it to?

Playing on the fact that the majority of Windows users don't know they 
could switch OS and get the same thing, free, and with bugfixes faster 
than you could hope for?
0
callanca (1273)
4/28/2005 7:04:54 PM
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> Lin�nut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
>> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>
> Because that's how "advocates" want it.  Absent every troll here, the group 
> is still filled with anti-MS and anti-Windows tirades.

How can you know this?  Was there a time when there weren't Windows MVPs
("Most Vociferous Pricks") egging on the regulars with lies and insults?

> It's rare to see a pro-Linux cola post that doesn't also insult MS or the 
> competing Windows product.

That's because some features of Windows are crappy compared to the same
features of Linux.

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
4/28/2005 7:48:34 PM
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:07:37 +0000, Liam Slider wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:31:24 -0400, DFS wrote:
> 
>> Liam Slider wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:22:41 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> His very last sentence was an outright lie.
>>>
>>> It's a lie that changing the resolution is a matter of a simple
>>> applet, or simple menu item...which can be added to the panel,
>>> depending on the DE?
>>>
>>>
>>> That we don't need anti-spyware and anti-virus software is a lie?
>>>
>>> That we don't have the Open=Execute problem or the file extension
>>> problem like Windows does is a lie?
>>>
>>> That Linux has good firewalls is a lie?
>>>
>>> That abiword is an excellant, feature rich, but light word processor
>>> is a lie?
>>>
>>> That batch file programming is incredibly simplistic, especially when
>>> compared to shell scripting is a lie?
>>>
>>> That you don't need to be an IT expert to customise the system and
>>> make it work the way you want is a lie?
>>>
>>>
>>> What are you smoking DooFuS?
>> 
>> As I said, the very last sentence in your post was an outright lie.
> 
> You are smoking crack. Or perhaps you can demonstrate *how* those things I
> said there are lies?

Perhaps I should clarify here, to avoid looking like an idiot. DFS likes
to assert that I am a liar about one little thing, while distracting from
the many points I made, which he *also* implied were lies in another post.
I want him, right here, to show how any one of those claims was a lie.

Come on DFS, show where those statements are lies. 

0
liam8 (4986)
4/28/2005 8:24:03 PM
Lin�nut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> Lin�nut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
>>> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>>
>> Because that's how "advocates" want it.  Absent every troll here,
>> the group is still filled with anti-MS and anti-Windows tirades.
>
> How can you know this?  Was there a time when there weren't Windows
> MVPs ("Most Vociferous Pricks") egging on the regulars with lies and
> insults?
>
>> It's rare to see a pro-Linux cola post that doesn't also insult MS
>> or the competing Windows product.
>
> That's because some features of Windows are crappy compared to the
> same features of Linux.

And vice versa, but you don't see newsgroups and magazines devoted to 
Windows knocking Linux for it.

I think it's really pathetic to see Linux Journal and Linux Format and Linux 
Review and whoever else continually make childish, snide references to MS 
and Windows.

What's most pathetic is for Linux Format magazine to rail against 
"proprietary, expensive, closed source software" and then use it (Macs) to 
produce their magazine.







0
nospam2091 (10001)
4/28/2005 9:33:53 PM
Liam Slider wrote:

> Perhaps I should clarify here, to avoid looking like an idiot. DFS
> likes to assert that I am a liar about one little thing,

It's not one little thing.  Most of your statements about Windows are lies, 
and you know them to be lies.


> while distracting from the many points I made,

Some of which are true.


> which he *also* implied were
> lies in another post. I want him, right here, to show how any one of
> those claims was a lie.
>
> Come on DFS, show where those statements are lies.

"...you really have to know your way around that arcane bullshit [the 
registry] to have a system that actually *works* on Windows."  LIE

"Windows...more a slow buildup of layers of crud..."  LIE

"...a company with tactics that would make any mafia proud."  LIE

"...pathetic OS"  LIE

"...their products have more holes than swiss cheese"  LIE

"Microsoft makes email less secure for a few reasons"  LIE.  Viruses make 
email less secure.

"..you can have a file labeled "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg.exe" and the Windows 
system will tell you it's "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg"  LIE DUE TO IGNORANCE - it 
depends on your Explorer settings.

"While most of us dispise Microsoft...."  TRUE, if you're talking about cola 
regs.

"...most of the talk in here is in support of Linux"  OUTRIGHT LIE





0
nospam2091 (10001)
4/28/2005 9:48:10 PM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> espoused:
> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
> 
>> Lin�nut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
>>> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>>
>> Because that's how "advocates" want it.  Absent every troll here, the group 
>> is still filled with anti-MS and anti-Windows tirades.
> 
> How can you know this?  Was there a time when there weren't Windows MVPs
> ("Most Vociferous Pricks") egging on the regulars with lies and insults?
> 
>> It's rare to see a pro-Linux cola post that doesn't also insult MS or the 
>> competing Windows product.
> 
> That's because some features of Windows are crappy compared to the same
> features of Linux.
> 

It's not necessary to either insult MS or their products, a mere honest
description of either is damning enough.

-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
System going down in 5 minutes.
0
mark.kent (15323)
4/28/2005 10:07:53 PM
begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:04:54 +0000, that
Philip Callan was seen to write:

> William Poaster wrote:
>> begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:31:24 -0400, that DFS
>> was seen to write:
>> >>
>>>As I said, the very last sentence in your post was an outright lie.
>> 
>> 
>> And as I've said (before) *you* are an idiot.
>> 
>> 
> I always thought he said he didn't read 'begin  ' posts?

He doesn't, but of course that's *his* problem. Anyone can correct him, &
show his lies up, without him interfering.

> Besides, if you don't dance along, its hard to play the 'COLA is attacking
> poor MS' shuffle....

True. I don't read very post DooFu$ makes though, as they're nearly all
the same drivel.

> Don't forget, don't just trash the messenger, trash the forum / venue /
> message system while your at it!
> 
> Same reason flatty calls it a cesspool all the time, (funny, nobody, and
> no-fish I know would willingly swim in a 'cesspool' , yet he scurries
> around the pond a fair bit doesn't he??)

Yup.

> DooFuS is mostly here to trash talk all that OSS 'slopware', while out the
> other side of his mouth trash talking the 'stupid developers' for 'giving
> away their valuable??? work' while mumbling about how its not really being
> 'Given' away since he can't exploit the same 'slopware' by the same
> 'stupid developer' for his financial gain without being 'forced' to 'give
> away' his work [or being charged with copyright infringement, lets not
> forget the GPL is a DISTRIBUTION license, and enforces no conditions on a
> user, it only GIVES freedoms current law takes away otherwise]

Absolutely.

> It gets a tad naseuating, not because its particularly objectionable, but
> going around in such a wobbly circle gets dizzying....

It's what trolls do, eventually they *will* keep repeating themselves.

-- 
With GPL the only thing Microsoft 
gets for free is nightmares.
-- Jean Francois Martinez


0
willpoast (5106)
4/28/2005 10:14:15 PM
begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:48:10 -0400, that DFS
was seen to write:

>> Liam Slider wrote:

>> which he *also* implied were
>> lies in another post. I want him, right here, to show how any one of
>> those claims was a lie.
>>
>> Come on DFS, show where those statements are lies.
> 
> "...you really have to know your way around that arcane bullshit [the
> registry] to have a system that actually *works* on Windows."  LIE
> 
> "Windows...more a slow buildup of layers of crud..."  LIE
> 
> "...a company with tactics that would make any mafia proud."  LIE
> 
> "...pathetic OS"  LIE
> 
> "...their products have more holes than swiss cheese"  LIE
> 
> "Microsoft makes email less secure for a few reasons"  LIE.  Viruses make
> email less secure.
> 
> "..you can have a file labeled "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg.exe" and the Windows
> system will tell you it's "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg"  LIE DUE TO IGNORANCE - it
> depends on your Explorer settings.
> 
> "While most of us dispise Microsoft...."  TRUE, if you're talking about
> cola regs.
> 
> "...most of the talk in here is in support of Linux"  OUTRIGHT LIE

You're pathetic.

-- 
With GPL the only thing Microsoft 
gets for free is nightmares.
-- Jean Francois Martinez


0
willpoast (5106)
4/28/2005 10:16:55 PM
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:48:10 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Liam Slider wrote:
> 
>> Perhaps I should clarify here, to avoid looking like an idiot. DFS
>> likes to assert that I am a liar about one little thing,
> 
> It's not one little thing.  Most of your statements about Windows are lies, 
> and you know them to be lies.

Uh, yeah sure, whatever.

> 
> 
>> while distracting from the many points I made,
> 
> Some of which are true.


All.

> 
> 
>> which he *also* implied were
>> lies in another post. I want him, right here, to show how any one of
>> those claims was a lie.
>>
>> Come on DFS, show where those statements are lies.
> 
> "...you really have to know your way around that arcane bullshit [the 
> registry] to have a system that actually *works* on Windows."  LIE

So you don't have to know the registry (a downright arcane system) to deal
with spyware, slow buildup of cruft, and other bullshit to keep a stable
system over the long term? Oh wait, I suppose you count re-installing as
a solution there...
>
> "Windows...more a slow buildup of layers of crud..."  LIE

It isn't? You clearly do not know the Microsoft development method.

> 
> "...a company with tactics that would make any mafia proud."  LIE

So extortion, blackmail, fraud, sabotage, and so forth which they've
*admitted* in open court are *not* mafia-style tactics? Sounds like you
are the one lying DooFuS.

> 
> "...pathetic OS"  LIE

How is this a lie? Compared to Linux, or Mac, or BSD, Windows is
*incredibly* pathetic in many areas.

> 
> "...their products have more holes than swiss cheese"  LIE

See...below.

> 
> "Microsoft makes email less secure for a few reasons"  LIE.  Viruses make 
> email less secure.


Notice you ignore what I followed that with, the *huge flaws* in
Microsoft's system that allows those viruses to thrive.

> 
> "..you can have a file labeled "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg.exe" and the Windows
> system will tell you it's "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg"  LIE DUE TO IGNORANCE -
> it depends on your Explorer settings.

Right....but it's entirely true about the *default* setting, which
virtually everyone uses. In fact, very few people even know the settings
can be changed concerning that...or even what it is. It's one of those
arcane, expert things.

>
> "While most of us dispise Microsoft...."  TRUE, if you're talking about
> cola regs.
> 
> "...most of the talk in here is in support of Linux"  OUTRIGHT LIE

Nope.



Now, DooFuS, how about those specific points I asked you about.
0
liam8 (4986)
4/28/2005 10:20:16 PM
begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:33:53 -0400, that DFS
was seen to write:

> Lin�nut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
>> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>
>>> Lin�nut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
>>>> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>>>
>>> Because that's how "advocates" want it.  Absent every troll here, the
>>> group is still filled with anti-MS and anti-Windows tirades.
>>
>> How can you know this?  Was there a time when there weren't Windows MVPs
>> ("Most Vociferous Pricks") egging on the regulars with lies and insults?
>>
>>> It's rare to see a pro-Linux cola post that doesn't also insult MS or
>>> the competing Windows product.
>>
>> That's because some features of Windows are crappy compared to the same
>> features of Linux.

Maybe because they daren't mention linux, in case their readers try to see
if what they say is true? If their readers did try linux, some of them
might actually *like* it, then what would M$ say....

> And vice versa, but you don't see newsgroups and magazines devoted to
> Windows knocking Linux for it.
> 
> I think it's really pathetic to see Linux Journal and Linux Format and
> Linux Review and whoever else continually make childish, snide references
> to MS and Windows.

I haven't read them, but they're probably correct about M$ & Windows. 

> What's most pathetic is for Linux Format magazine to rail against
> "proprietary, expensive, closed source software" and then use it (Macs) to
> produce their magazine.

It's been explained once in this group *why* they use Macs, of course
with your crappy OE you probably missed it. Or f you did se it, chose to
ignore it. Either way, it shows you up as an idiot.

-- 
With GPL the only thing Microsoft 
gets for free is nightmares.
-- Jean Francois Martinez


0
willpoast (5106)
4/28/2005 10:24:43 PM
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> And vice versa, but you don't see newsgroups and magazines devoted to 
> Windows knocking Linux for it.

1. You don't see magazines devoted to knocking Windows, either.

2. You do see newsgroups devoted to Windows doing that if some idiot
   posts rabidly pro-Linux or mildly anti-Windows posts.

   Don't you ever notice the deliberate crosspostings of, say, Mike Cox
   and the flatfishers?

> I think it's really pathetic to see Linux Journal and Linux Format and Linux 
> Review and whoever else continually make childish, snide references to MS 
> and Windows.

That's your characterisation.

Check out the (American) "Linux Magazine".  You'll find they publish
troll letters and raves about OS X and Solaris.

> What's most pathetic is for Linux Format magazine to rail against 
> "proprietary, expensive, closed source software" and then use it (Macs) to 
> produce their magazine.

That is indeed hypocritical.  Stallman would recommend they get beyond
that dependency.

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
4/28/2005 10:58:21 PM
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> Liam Slider wrote:
>
>> Perhaps I should clarify here, to avoid looking like an idiot. DFS
>> likes to assert that I am a liar about one little thing,
>
> It's not one little thing.  Most of your statements about Windows are lies, 
> and you know them to be lies.

I object strenuously to that characterisation of Liam.

> "...you really have to know your way around that arcane bullshit [the 
> registry] to have a system that actually *works* on Windows."  LIE

I have one word to say:  TcpAckFrequency

> "Windows...more a slow buildup of layers of crud..."  LIE

Windows still exhibits that behavior unless you don't install or update
software.

> "...a company with tactics that would make any mafia proud."  LIE

True.

> "...pathetic OS"  LIE

Yes, at time.

> "...their products have more holes than swiss cheese"  LIE

Obviously, patently true.

> "Microsoft makes email less secure for a few reasons"  LIE.  Viruses make 
> email less secure.

Then why isn't "linux email" not troubled by "viruses"?

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
4/28/2005 11:01:10 PM
Mark Kent poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

>>> It's rare to see a pro-Linux cola post that doesn't also insult MS or the 
>>> competing Windows product.
>> 
>> That's because some features of Windows are crappy compared to the same
>> features of Linux.
>
> It's not necessary to either insult MS or their products, a mere honest
> description of either is damning enough.

Indeed.  But sometimes, when you've just lost a couple of hours because
a document now causes Word to show the hourglass forever, you get rather
angry, and vocal about it.

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
4/28/2005 11:02:23 PM
Lin�nut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> Liam Slider wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps I should clarify here, to avoid looking like an idiot. DFS
>>> likes to assert that I am a liar about one little thing,
>>
>> It's not one little thing.  Most of your statements about Windows
>> are lies, and you know them to be lies.
>
> I object strenuously to that characterisation of Liam.
>
>> "...you really have to know your way around that arcane bullshit [the
>> registry] to have a system that actually *works* on Windows."  LIE
>
> I have one word to say:  TcpAckFrequency

There's that and many more arcane settings in the Windows registry - NONE of 
which you have to know to run a stable, secure, successful Windows 
environment.



>> "Windows...more a slow buildup of layers of crud..."  LIE
>
> Windows still exhibits that behavior unless you don't install or
> update software.

What behavior?



>> "...a company with tactics that would make any mafia proud."  LIE
>
> True.

False.


>> "...pathetic OS"  LIE
>
> Yes, at time.

At no time.



>> "...their products have more holes than swiss cheese"  LIE
>
> Obviously, patently true.

Obviously a blanket lie.



>> "Microsoft makes email less secure for a few reasons"  LIE.  Viruses
>> make email less secure.
>
> Then why isn't "linux email" not troubled by "viruses"?

There's no such thing as "Linux email" but I know what you're getting at. 
The answer is Linux handles viruses and virus-infected email better than 
Windows.  You know why and how, probably better than I: Windows monoculture 
vs. Linux diversity, open vs. execute, default OE and Outlook HTML settings, 
allowing ActiveX to run, etc.  There's also the social engineering and user 
education aspects: the small population of Linux users are more technical 
and security-minded than the average Windows user, and less likely to click 
on unknown executables.

But I notice you said troubled and not immune.  So you know you can indeed 
get a virus infection via Thunderbird or Evolution or mutt or pine on Linux.

ie, Mutt exploit: http://www.securiteam.com/exploits/3Z5QCS0MUY.html



0
nospam2091 (10001)
4/29/2005 2:42:16 AM
DFS wrote something like:

> "...you really have to know your way around that arcane bullshit [the
> registry] to have a system that actually *works* on Windows."  LIE

I have a feeling I'm not the only one that has had to deal with reg entries.
It wouldn't be such a big deal if the registry wasn't such a mess...

> "Windows...more a slow buildup of layers of crud..."  LIE

Not completely MS fault due to backward compatibility, but true enough...

> "...a company with tactics that would make any mafia proud."  LIE

I don't know many in the mafia, but the tactics are similar on certain
levels. 

> "...pathetic OS"  LIE

Opinion, and I tend to agree. Compared to others it's not as good. 

> "...their products have more holes than swiss cheese"  LIE

Making a point. I don't think we are talking about actual numbers of holes
in the cheese. But MS obviously is having some serious security issues of
late. 

> "Microsoft makes email less secure for a few reasons"  LIE.  Viruses make
> email less secure.

AS above. My work in the field suggests that MS mail systems are less secure
than others.

> "..you can have a file labeled "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg.exe" and the Windows
> system will tell you it's "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg"  LIE DUE TO IGNORANCE - it
> depends on your Explorer settings.

True for the default install, obviously.

> "While most of us dispise Microsoft...."  TRUE, if you're talking about
> cola regs.
> 
> "...most of the talk in here is in support of Linux"  OUTRIGHT LIE

That's what I try to do, tho many things require a comparison. A is better
than B because...

-- 
-
 I don't actually live here.
- 
0
linux_nut (576)
4/29/2005 2:47:08 AM
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 17:58:21 -0500, Lin�nutlin�nut wrote:

> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
> 
>> And vice versa, but you don't see newsgroups and magazines devoted to 
>> Windows knocking Linux for it.
> 
> 1. You don't see magazines devoted to knocking Windows, either.
> 
> 2. You do see newsgroups devoted to Windows doing that if some idiot
>    posts rabidly pro-Linux or mildly anti-Windows posts.
> 
>    Don't you ever notice the deliberate crosspostings of, say, Mike Cox
>    and the flatfishers?
> 
>> I think it's really pathetic to see Linux Journal and Linux Format and Linux 
>> Review and whoever else continually make childish, snide references to MS 
>> and Windows.
> 
> That's your characterisation.
> 
> Check out the (American) "Linux Magazine".  You'll find they publish
> troll letters and raves about OS X and Solaris.

LXF will publish criticism of Windows, but not diatribes and rants, and
gives specific warnings about what isn't acceptable to them. And they do
criticise Windows themselves, but why not, if they consider it merits
criticism? There's also the fact that there's no requirement for them to
praise Windows, or even be neutral about it, in a magazine devoted to a
rival OS. They're feature writers, not news journalists or the BBC. We
don't see MS being fair or balanced towards Linux.

> 
>> What's most pathetic is for Linux Format magazine to rail against 
>> "proprietary, expensive, closed source software" and then use it (Macs) to 
>> produce their magazine.
> 
> That is indeed hypocritical.  Stallman would recommend they get beyond
> that dependency.

And they probably will, in time. But as has been explained, the LXF crew
are part of a larger group, and all must get their work done on time. The
work probably *could* be done on exclusively Linux machines, with a little
extra effort,but they can't just up and change the corporate policy to
suit themselves.

It's noticeable theat they don't like their Macs very much, don't find
them teribly reliable, and that they don't use Windows, either - and the
other computing mags in the same group are Windows mags.

-- 
Kier
0
vallon (8614)
4/29/2005 8:49:51 AM
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> Lin�nut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
>> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>
>>> "...you really have to know your way around that arcane bullshit [the
>>> registry] to have a system that actually *works* on Windows."  LIE
>>
>> I have one word to say:  TcpAckFrequency
>
> There's that and many more arcane settings in the Windows registry - NONE of 
> which you have to know to run a stable, secure, successful Windows 
> environment.

   http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;328890
   http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555041
   http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;815230

And the piece d'resistance, they still have troubles with with this
setting!!!!

   http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;823764

This little Registry item had a very interesting effect on our HP
Proliant blade server system running Win 2003 Server Enterprise:
it would cause what was supposed to be a minute of unzipping a large
file to a SAN disk to take, get this, one freakin' hour!

>>> "Windows...more a slow buildup of layers of crud..."  LIE
>>
>> Windows still exhibits that behavior unless you don't install or
>> update software.
>
> What behavior?

   o File dialogs on a networked XP machine taking 15 seconds to respond
     each time you click a directory entry.

   o Console screen updating raggedly while the disk is working on
     large amounts of data.

   o MS Office's Word acting differently after installing updates or
     a service pack (e.g. the right-click option now no longer appears
     when you have selected the whole document)

Just for example.

>>> "...a company with tactics that would make any mafia proud."  LIE
>>
>> True.
>
> False.

True.

   http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=95000750

   Court Ruling
   Was No Victory
   For Microsoft
   King Pyrrhus, meet Bill Gates.

   BY ROBERT H. BORK AND KENNETH W. STARR
   Thursday, July 5, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT 

I will grant you, however, that Gates has probably not had anyone
killed, except maybe that IBM engineer who joked (on camera, in
front of Bill) that, while he may have invented Ctrl-Alt-Del, it
was Bill Gates that perfected it.

>>> "...pathetic OS"  LIE
>>
>> Yes, at time.
>
> At no time.

Snort.

>>> "...their products have more holes than swiss cheese"  LIE
>>
>> Obviously, patently true.
>
> Obviously a blanket lie.

My my my, the blinders are on.

> But I notice you said troubled and not immune.  So you know you can indeed 
> get a virus infection via Thunderbird or Evolution or mutt or pine on Linux.
>
> ie, Mutt exploit: http://www.securiteam.com/exploits/3Z5QCS0MUY.html

Yeah, from 1998.  Get real! (And that wasn't really mutt, it was slang).

Still, you have a point.  OSS software must aim for perfection.

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
4/29/2005 11:47:25 AM
Jim Trice <jimtrice@linuxmail.org> writes:

< snip >

> On my systems, running KDE 3.3, right clicking on the desktop background,
> selecting "configure desktop", then "display" lets you change screen size
> entirely by mouse.  Or you could click your way there via control panel.

Or click on the "Screen Resize & Rotate" icon in the applet tray, and up
pops a menu of the available resolutions.

-- 
Tukla, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
0
tukla_ratte (438)
4/29/2005 2:04:42 PM
Mark Kent <mark.kent@demon.co.uk> writes:

< snip >

> Where the idea came from that just looking at a PC should enable the
> user to know everthing about it is beyond me,

Wasn't that supposed to be the whole point of the Macintosh?

< snip >

-- 
Tukla, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
0
tukla_ratte (438)
4/29/2005 2:06:46 PM
In article <sScce.26156$Ow2.24408@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
>> Come on DFS, show where those statements are lies.
 
> "...you really have to know your way around that arcane bullshit [the 
> registry] to have a system that actually *works* on Windows."  LIE
 
 I have encountered spyware that required not only knowledge of the
registry, but I finally had to boot into DOS and remember the ATTR
command. Neither Ad-Aware nor Sypbot S&D could eliminate it. The
system would not work properly until the malware was removed. I've
also had to hack the registry to get hardware working. So, the
statement is true in at least some cases. At most you can say that
it's overbroad.

> "Windows...more a slow buildup of layers of crud..."  LIE
> "...a company with tactics that would make any mafia proud."  LIE
> "...pathetic OS"  LIE

 Opinion. I would say your claims that most OSS software is 'slopware'
qualifies as a 'LIE' if these statements do.

> "...their products have more holes than swiss cheese"  LIE

 Places like CERT have recommended not using IE and OE precisely because
of their problematic security record.
 
> "Microsoft makes email less secure for a few reasons"  LIE.  Viruses make 
> email less secure.

 This is just absurd. "The lack of locks doesn't make a bank vault less
secure, theives make it less seucre." Viruses take advantage of security
flaws, they do not create them.

> "..you can have a file labeled "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg.exe" and the Windows 
> system will tell you it's "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg"  LIE DUE TO IGNORANCE - it 
> depends on your Explorer settings.

 Again, at most you can say the statement is overbroad. It's true by
the default settings...

> "...most of the talk in here is in support of Linux"  OUTRIGHT LIE

 Actually, it seems like most of the traffic is in response to Wintrolls,
so I'd say it's true.

-- 
 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                     (313) 227-2317

 Here, Iraq, take our Constitution. We're not using it anyway.
                    -- Robin Willams
0
sorceror1 (1083)
4/29/2005 3:28:27 PM
Tukla Ratte wrote:
> Jim Trice <jimtrice@linuxmail.org> writes:
> 
> < snip >
> 
>>On my systems, running KDE 3.3, right clicking on the desktop background,
>>selecting "configure desktop", then "display" lets you change screen size
>>entirely by mouse.  Or you could click your way there via control panel.
> 
> 
> Or click on the "Screen Resize & Rotate" icon in the applet tray, and up
> pops a menu of the available resolutions.
> 

Provided your vendor/cooker/source supplied version of Xorg/XFree has 
been compiled with RANDR enabled. Otherwise I don't think the KRANDR 
tray applet will work.

Finding out is rather simple.


[philip@gibraltar ~]$ xdpyinfo
name of display:    :0.0
version number:    11.0
vendor string:    Mandrakelinux (X.Org X11 6.8.2, patch level 7mdk)
vendor release number:    60802000
X.Org version: 6.8.2
maximum request size:  16777212 bytes
motion buffer size:  256
bitmap unit, bit order, padding:    32, LSBFirst, 32
image byte order:    LSBFirst
number of supported pixmap formats:    7
supported pixmap formats:
     depth 1, bits_per_pixel 1, scanline_pad 32
     depth 4, bits_per_pixel 8, scanline_pad 32
     depth 8, bits_per_pixel 8, scanline_pad 32
     depth 15, bits_per_pixel 16, scanline_pad 32
     depth 16, bits_per_pixel 16, scanline_pad 32
     depth 24, bits_per_pixel 32, scanline_pad 32
     depth 32, bits_per_pixel 32, scanline_pad 32
keycode range:    minimum 8, maximum 255
focus:  window 0x2400007, revert to PointerRoot

[This is the piece you need to look at 'extensions']

number of extensions:    26
     BIG-REQUESTS
     DAMAGE
     DOUBLE-BUFFER
     DPMS
     Extended-Visual-Information
     LBX
     MIT-SCREEN-SAVER
     MIT-SHM
     MIT-SUNDRY-NONSTANDARD
     RANDR

[Found Waldo!]

   [snip remainder]
0
callanca (1273)
4/29/2005 3:53:37 PM
Kier wrote:
<sniporama>

>We
> don't see MS being fair or balanced towards Linux.
> 

Indeed, quite the opposite. We see Microsoft slamming Linux at every 
opportunity, creating FUD through outright lies, 
stretched-beyond-recognition statistics, source-locked companies (who 
are probably locked in through service contracts till the 12th of 
Forever) giving their one sided appraisals of Micosoft sales and 
aftermarket service... what I'd like to see, somewhere, possibly - I may 
even do it myself, having to use Windows for work and weaning on Linux 
in my spare time - is an honest Joe Public appraisal of the advantages 
and disadvantages of both platforms with regard to:

  i. ease of installation - can Joe Public just throw in a disc and be 
up and away in mere minutes? Or is a case of fighting with the thing for 
an entire day just to get the thing to beep?

  ii. ease of configuration - see i. Is the platform customisable, with 
a nice, intuitive interface for addition or removal of components as 
needed? What about third party drivers? Is it a case of roll-your-own 
(given the skills) or a quick jump to the manufacturers/retailers 
website, or a supplied disc, or something in between?

  iii. scalability in hardware terms - what happens when I plug in a usb 
flash drive? My expectation is that /it works/.

  iv. local and wide area network security as far as the kernel /and/ 
third-party applications (example: Apache) are concerned. We're 
wandering slightly away from the platform side of things here and into 
the realms of how well the third party application is built, but all the 
same it's still a critical question to ask when choosing an OS for a 
home, office or server room platform.

  v. everyday tasking, such as writing and printing a document, or 
editing and publishing an image or brochure - for example, how easy is 
it to configure [insert printer/scanner model here]? What are the 
options with regard to office packages, image editing, CAD, 
wireframe/textured wrap rendering, animation, digital video, digital 
music, with particular emphasis on cost vs quality vs usability?

  vi. portability - how difficult would it be for [me] to configure a 
laptop to run either or both platforms (personally, I know how easy it 
is, being as it's what I do, and I have my preferences in hardware)? How 
does aftermarket modifications to laptops affect the usability of any 
given component? (I can name a couple of examples right off the bat: 
cardbus and i400. This laptop (Dell C840) has no sound when booting into 
Knoppix 3.6, 3.7 or 3.8 - surprising considering that my C400, which has 
the same chipset, produces sound. It's very difficult to get powered 
cardbus devices (ie card readers) to run anything like stable in XP on 
the C840. In Knoppix, they just keep on truckin').

  vii. games. The reason most of us have a computer at home. C'mon, 
admit it. Popular retail games or freeware titles - we're asking the 
question of availability and the ability of each platform to run [insert 
title here].

  viii. stability. What happens /when/ (not /if/, every OS crashes) the 
desktop goes caca? How are minor errors and major errors, forced or 
unforced, handled by the platform? How useful are the error messages 
generated to a: the user, b:  the application/platform developer or c: 
third party technical support?

> 
>>>What's most pathetic is for Linux Format magazine to rail against 
>>>"proprietary, expensive, closed source software" and then use it (Macs) to 
>>>produce their magazine.
>>

whatever tool is best fit for the job.

>>That is indeed hypocritical.  Stallman would recommend they get beyond
>>that dependency.
> 

see above point.

> 
> And they probably will, in time. But as has been explained, the LXF crew
> are part of a larger group, and all must get their work done on time. The
> work probably *could* be done on exclusively Linux machines, with a little
> extra effort,but they can't just up and change the corporate policy to
> suit themselves.
> 
> It's noticeable theat they don't like their Macs very much, don't find
> them teribly reliable, and that they don't use Windows, either - and the
> other computing mags in the same group are Windows mags.
> 

I'll bet half of those (if not most) use Macs to do the layouts, too.


-- 
Cheers,

Jim

-begin sig-
Opinions expressed in this message may or may not be representative of 
the opinions of its author. You decide.

Web: 	http://www.dotware.co.uk
	http://www.dotware-entertainment.co.uk

Portable: P4m 2.0, 1GB, 40GB, MX440/15" XGA@1600x1200, Wi-Fi, GPRS, 
DVD/CDRW, XPSP2/Knoppix
Powerbook G3/400, 392MB, 20GB, Rage 128/15"@1024x768, Wi-Fi, DVD, Mac OS 
X 10.4 "Tiger" Dev. Build
Desktop: AMD64 3200+@2.63GHz, 512MB, 80GB, FX5700LE/32" WXGA@2048x768, 
DVD+-RW, XPSP1/Debian
FileServer: Athlon XP 2400+, 256MB, 2.72TB, Blind, MuLinux

More but I'm not tellin' ya, there's a pool forming at your feet.
-end sig-
0
james199 (2531)
4/29/2005 4:36:55 PM
Ray Ingles wrote:
> In article <sScce.26156$Ow2.24408@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>> Come on DFS, show where those statements are lies.
>
>> "...you really have to know your way around that arcane bullshit [the
>> registry] to have a system that actually *works* on Windows."  LIE
>
> I have encountered spyware that required not only knowledge of the
> registry, but I finally had to boot into DOS and remember the ATTR
> command. Neither Ad-Aware nor Sypbot S&D could eliminate it. The
> system would not work properly until the malware was removed. I've
> also had to hack the registry to get hardware working. So, the
> statement is true in at least some cases. At most you can say that
> it's overbroad.

At least we can say your malware invasion has nothing to do with the Liam 
Slider lie that you have to know the registry to have a working Windows 
system.


>> "Windows...more a slow buildup of layers of crud..."  LIE
>> "...a company with tactics that would make any mafia proud."  LIE
>> "...pathetic OS"  LIE
>
> Opinion. I would say your claims that most OSS software is 'slopware'
> qualifies as a 'LIE' if these statements do.

And that's your opinion.



>> "...their products have more holes than swiss cheese"  LIE
>
> Places like CERT have recommended not using IE and OE precisely
> because of their problematic security record.

But it's funny how CERT never recommended anyone drop PostGreSQL db server 
for the dozens of security issues associated with it.  Or Mozilla.  Or any 
number of open source packages that have been afflicted with security 
vulnerabilities.



>> "Microsoft makes email less secure for a few reasons"  LIE.  Viruses
>> make email less secure.
>
> This is just absurd. "The lack of locks doesn't make a bank vault less
> secure, theives make it less seucre." Viruses take advantage of
> security flaws, they do not create them.

In that case, OSS programs like sendmail are the thieves' delivery and 
getaway cars, and by assuming the role of virus delivery and propagation are 
equally complicit as the virus writers.



>> "..you can have a file labeled "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg.exe" and the
>> Windows system will tell you it's "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg"  LIE DUE TO
>> IGNORANCE - it depends on your Explorer settings.
>
> Again, at most you can say the statement is overbroad. It's true by
> the default settings...

Where did he say that in the original post?  Did I miss it?



>> "...most of the talk in here is in support of Linux"  OUTRIGHT LIE
>
> Actually, it seems like most of the traffic is in response to
> Wintrolls, so I'd say it's true.

Not from where I'm sitting.



0
nospam2091 (10001)
4/29/2005 9:42:54 PM
Philip Callan <callanca@shaw.ca> writes:

> Tukla Ratte wrote:
>> Jim Trice <jimtrice@linuxmail.org> writes:
>> < snip >
>>
>>>On my systems, running KDE 3.3, right clicking on the desktop background,
>>>selecting "configure desktop", then "display" lets you change screen size
>>>entirely by mouse.  Or you could click your way there via control panel.
>> Or click on the "Screen Resize & Rotate" icon in the applet tray,
>> and up
>> pops a menu of the available resolutions.
>>
>
> Provided your vendor/cooker/source supplied version of Xorg/XFree has
> been compiled with RANDR enabled. Otherwise I don't think the KRANDR
> tray applet will work.

Of course.  I'd be surprised to find an up-to-date distro that doesn't
have that compiled in these days, though.

-- 
Tukla, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
0
tukla_ratte (438)
4/29/2005 9:46:24 PM
"DFS" <nospam@dfs.com> writes:

> Liam Slider wrote:
>
>> Perhaps I should clarify here, to avoid looking like an idiot. DFS
>> likes to assert that I am a liar about one little thing,
>
> It's not one little thing.  Most of your statements about Windows are lies, 
> and you know them to be lies.

Whoa.  Suddenly you're psychic!  Read my mind next, Kreskin!

< snip >

>> Come on DFS, show where those statements are lies.
>
> "...you really have to know your way around that arcane bullshit [the 
> registry] to have a system that actually *works* on Windows."  LIE
>
> "Windows...more a slow buildup of layers of crud..."  LIE

Excellent refutations.  You are a master debater.

< snip >

-- 
Tukla, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
0
tukla_ratte (438)
4/29/2005 9:58:10 PM
"DFS" <nospam@dfs.com> writes:

< snip >

> ie, Mutt exploit: http://www.securiteam.com/exploits/3Z5QCS0MUY.html

Christ.  April 1998?!

So, when we bring up Windows stability and security issues, we can use
Windows 95 as our source?  I mean, Win98 wasn't even out yet.

-- 
Tukla, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism
0
tukla_ratte (438)
4/29/2005 10:08:58 PM
begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:42:54 -0400, that DFS
was seen to write:

> Ray Ingles wrote:
>> In article <sScce.26156$Ow2.24408@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>>> Come on DFS, show where those statements are lies.
>>
>>> "...you really have to know your way around that arcane bullshit [the
>>> registry] to have a system that actually *works* on Windows."  LIE
>>
>> I have encountered spyware that required not only knowledge of the
>> registry, but I finally had to boot into DOS and remember the ATTR
>> command. Neither Ad-Aware nor Sypbot S&D could eliminate it. The system
>> would not work properly until the malware was removed. I've also had to
>> hack the registry to get hardware working. So, the statement is true in
>> at least some cases. At most you can say that it's overbroad.
> 
> At least we can say your malware invasion has nothing to do with the Liam
> Slider lie that you have to know the registry to have a working Windows
> system.

JHC...

>>> "Windows...more a slow buildup of layers of crud..."  LIE "...a company
>>> with tactics that would make any mafia proud."  LIE "...pathetic OS" 
>>> LIE
>>
>> Opinion. I would say your claims that most OSS software is 'slopware'
>> qualifies as a 'LIE' if these statements do.
> 
> And that's your opinion.

Only as far as your opinion that OSS software is 'slopware'. My opinion is
that M$ is a heap of junk.

>>> "...their products have more holes than swiss cheese"  LIE
>>
>> Places like CERT have recommended not using IE and OE precisely because
>> of their problematic security record.
> 
> But it's funny how CERT never recommended anyone drop PostGreSQL db server
> for the dozens of security issues associated with it.  Or Mozilla.  Or any
> number of open source packages that have been afflicted with security
> vulnerabilities.

Because they are nowhere *near* as badly affected, as you'd find out *if*
you cared to look. Idiot.

>>> "Microsoft makes email less secure for a few reasons"  LIE.  Viruses
>>> make email less secure.
>>
>> This is just absurd. "The lack of locks doesn't make a bank vault less
>> secure, theives make it less seucre." Viruses take advantage of security
>> flaws, they do not create them.
> 
> In that case, OSS programs like sendmail are the thieves' delivery and
> getaway cars, and by assuming the role of virus delivery and propagation
> are equally complicit as the virus writers.

Stupid clot.

<snip>
>> Actually, it seems like most of the traffic is in response to Wintrolls,
>> so I'd say it's true.
> 
> Not from where I'm sitting.

That's because *you* are one of the wintrolls.

-- 
With GPL the only thing Microsoft 
gets for free is nightmares.
-- Jean Francois Martinez


0
willpoast (5106)
4/29/2005 10:23:03 PM
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:31:17 +0200, "B" <bl@h.net> wrote:

>Do you know why linux is definitely not the best OS?
>Check this www.spatula.net/proc/linux/index.src

>Out of curiosity, I have installed two linux distributions, in the past :
>red-hat and mandrake. I spent some time discovering what that linux hype was
>all about, what the GUI was like, what "cool" options KDE (or any other
>desktop manager) had to offer, the general look-and-feel of those so-called
>better alternatives to windows.

Glad to see you gave it a go.


>Well, getting past the thrills of installation, my experience went down to
>disappointment and frustration. Things so trivial as changing the screen
>resolution seemed deeply obscure, and the help system downright cryptic.

Read a book, people have to if they really want to know about Windows.


>Plus I got a strange feeling that beyond those windows-like
>bells-and-whistles, the linux OS uncovers its real nature and betrays its
>unixish origins : an unfriendly piece of software with obscure rules and a
>complex architecture, with little or no general consistency (like a
>patchwork). 

Try changing things in Windows without using the programs in Control
Panel and and you can see just how complicated Windows is under the
hood.


> Linux is aimed at the geek, the "leet"-wannabe, all those people
>who are so childishly narrow-minded and intolerant that they can't stand the
>name of microsoft, and they can't admit windows is doing a great job as a
>family desktop OS.

Anyone who watches M$'s business and legal practices would be
intolerant.


>So I switched back to windows. Everything is so smooth, under windows. No
>need to be a technical expert or an IT engineer to get the system work the
>way you want.

Anyone who has had to tinker with Active Directory, Windows Server
2003 or had to connect different versions of Windows to the same
network might disagree with you.  Trying to get legacy software
running under Windows XP is a nightmare.  Things happen like data from
legacy apps disappearing off a hard disk when the computer is
rebooted.
When updating software under linux, it's generally just a matter of
downloading the latest source code for a program.  The compiler system
comes with Linux for free, with Windows you have to pay a lot extra.
After building the program and running it, the user is back in
business.  Try doing that with Windows.


>Unlike *nix fanatics, I don't mean to boast about any sort of
>computer-related knowledge. Let it only be said that I'd not define myself
>as a lambda user. I know DOS 6.22, batch coding, and I know my way into the
>registry. I've also installed FreeBSD on another hard-drive, so as to get a
>taste of what was aside from the microsoft world.

MSDOS, now there's an operating system.  It couldn't even do
networking without lots of addon software and hardware.  And it
required specialist knowledge to get networking up and running.


>Well from all that experience, I can tell you I love Windows.

I use it all the time, but only because I play a lot of games.  If
games weren't an issue, I would use Linux all the time.


>Recently I was in need of a good word processor, for professional use. I
>decided to make my own review of what was available, and downloaded the
>following products:
>602PCsuite, abi-word, easy-office, and, inevitably, open-office.

I use OpenOffice, it's not perfect, but it's a lot better than forking
out $600.


>I found them to suffer from either a crippled interface, a plague of bugs
>(especially abi-word), or an unprofessional look (some apps are apparently
>configured for use in a 1024*768 screen resolution...). Plus I noticed some
>of them don't uninstall properly (602 PC suite leaves unwanted
>file-associations in the registry).

I've noticed users being confused by menu options moving around in M$
Office programs every time a new version is released.  Fighting with
the paper-clip help system is always fun when there's a deadline to
meet.  Want to right-click to cut and paste something?  Forget it, at
random times Word will offer alternative spellings of 'cat' so you
can't do it.  And forget reading a document created with the latest
version of MS-Word into MS-Word 6.


>So I bought MS-Word. Yes, that's right, unlike most of those who trash
>windows, I took the trouble of *buying* Word. None of my MS software is a
>pirated copy. If you guys hate microsoft so much then ditch windows, office,
>IE, etc... and go away! It's not as if anybody wanted to force you to use
>something against your will.

I agree, if you want it, pay for it.  But with Linux software you
don't have to pay for it.  With Linux, if people want support, they
can pay for it, and they get it.  If you pay for support with M$, you
get an hour wait on the phone followed by some guy with a bad accent
and useless help.


>As to security, I don't understand all that fuss around MS products. As an
>avid web-user, I (think that I) have taken the appropriate steps to ensure
>my system is secured enough, and I have never had any sort of trouble in
>years. Have all those people kvetching about windows security really taken
>the trouble of reviewing the tools and options available before laying the
>blame on microsoft? A restrictive configuration of the internet zone in IE
>(disable anything that is not marked as "safe", set other options to
>"prompt"), the association of Outlook with the restricted-sites zone, the
>acquisition of a firewall, an antivirus and an antispyware sound good to me.
>Keep your system up-to-date, and, since the SMT protocol allows anybody to
>impersonate an innocent e-mail user, never trust e-mail attachments, even if
>they appear to come from a friend of yours.

You've covered all of the relevant Windows security issues pretty
well, and it only took TWELVE LINES.  Most of the problems with
viruses, spyware and attachments just don't exist with Linux.


>The bottom line : that hate campaign against microsoft makes me sick.
>Keep thinking you are intellectually superior and that "windoze lusers" are
>pathetic wimps that need to get a life, it makes your "culture" sound
>immature and unwelcoming.

I don't think of it as being intellectually superior, it's a matter of
evolution.


>As to me, I will definitely not waste a cent on any linux/unix/sun related
>software... and you know money is the name of the game.

Computing is the name of the game...


Sig:
Work saves us from three great evils: boredom, vice and need. -Voltaire,
philosopher (1694-1778)
0
rs158 (50)
4/30/2005 4:46:26 AM
Rotes Sapiens wrote:

> Work saves us from three great evils: boredom, vice and need. -Voltaire,
> philosopher (1694-1778)

Spoken like a true imperialist...who saves the /good/ stuff for *hisself* !

-- 
Texeme Construct
http://texeme.com
0
jabailo (8241)
4/30/2005 5:06:49 AM
Tukla Ratte wrote something like:

> "DFS" <nospam@dfs.com> writes:
> 
> < snip >
> 
>> ie, Mutt exploit: http://www.securiteam.com/exploits/3Z5QCS0MUY.html
> 
> Christ.  April 1998?!
> 
> So, when we bring up Windows stability and security issues, we can use
> Windows 95 as our source?  I mean, Win98 wasn't even out yet.
> 

Poor ol' DFS is scraping the bottom of the barrel now :)

-- 
-
 I don't actually live here.
- 
0
linux_nut (576)
4/30/2005 6:39:42 AM
begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Sat, 30 Apr 2005 06:39:42 +0000, that amosf
was seen to write:

> Tukla Ratte wrote something like:
> 
>> "DFS" <nospam@dfs.com> writes:
>> 
>> < snip >
>> 
>>> ie, Mutt exploit: http://www.securiteam.com/exploits/3Z5QCS0MUY.html
>> 
>> Christ.  April 1998?!
>> 
>> So, when we bring up Windows stability and security issues, we can use
>> Windows 95 as our source?  I mean, Win98 wasn't even out yet.
>> 
>> 
> Poor ol' DFS is scraping the bottom of the barrel now :)

He does that a lot. ;-)

-- 
With GPL the only thing Microsoft 
gets for free is nightmares.
-- Jean Francois Martinez


0
willpoast (5106)
4/30/2005 10:13:35 AM
On 2005-04-30, Rotes Sapiens <rs@redplanet.mars.org.cy> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:31:17 +0200, "B" <bl@h.net> wrote:
>
>>Do you know why linux is definitely not the best OS?
>>Check this www.spatula.net/proc/linux/index.src
>
>>Out of curiosity, I have installed two linux distributions, in the past :
>>red-hat and mandrake. I spent some time discovering what that linux hype was
>>all about, what the GUI was like, what "cool" options KDE (or any other
>>desktop manager) had to offer, the general look-and-feel of those so-called
>>better alternatives to windows.
>
> Glad to see you gave it a go.
>
>
>>Well, getting past the thrills of installation, my experience went down to
>>disappointment and frustration. Things so trivial as changing the screen
>>resolution seemed deeply obscure, and the help system downright cryptic.

	What's so "cryptic" about hunting through the "Control Panel"?

	What you're whining about is the fact that it is DIFFERENT than
Windows and thus not what you expected or are able to cope with based on 
your limited ability to handle an arbitrary GUI.

>
> Read a book, people have to if they really want to know about Windows.

	A book isn't even necessary.

	All that's required is that you approach the system like a pre-Windows
GUI user. That's all.

>
>
>>Plus I got a strange feeling that beyond those windows-like
>>bells-and-whistles, the linux OS uncovers its real nature and betrays its
>>unixish origins : an unfriendly piece of software with obscure rules and a
>>complex architecture, with little or no general consistency (like a
>>patchwork). 
>

	This is just rhetoric, probably just someone else's rhetoric that
this person has decided to parrot.

> Try changing things in Windows without using the programs in Control
> Panel and and you can see just how complicated Windows is under the
> hood.
>
>
>> Linux is aimed at the geek, the "leet"-wannabe, all those people
>>who are so childishly narrow-minded and intolerant that they can't stand the
>>name of microsoft, and they can't admit windows is doing a great job as a
>>family desktop OS.

	Nothing that tends to create new and inventive infection vectors
for malware can be claimed to be doing a "great job" as a family desktop OS.

	Nothing else that you can say on the matter can make up for this.

[deletia]

	The essential difference between Linux and MS-Whatever remains the
same. Linux may require a little more effort on the front-end but whatever
you setup will remain setup.

	Thus, perversely enough, my Debian laptop is much more reliable when
it comes to wifi than the wife's XP laptop. This despite the PITA that Linux
can be in this subsection of laptop hardware.

-- 
	The best OS in the world is ultimately useless         |||
	if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates.      / | \
                                                     
0
jedi (14754)
4/30/2005 2:16:59 PM
amosf wrote:
> Tukla Ratte wrote something like:
>
>> "DFS" <nospam@dfs.com> writes:
>>
>> < snip >
>>
>>> ie, Mutt exploit: http://www.securiteam.com/exploits/3Z5QCS0MUY.html
>>
>> Christ.  April 1998?!
>>
>> So, when we bring up Windows stability and security issues, we can
>> use Windows 95 as our source?  I mean, Win98 wasn't even out yet.
>>
>
> Poor ol' DFS is scraping the bottom of the barrel now :)

True, it's old.  I didn't see the date when I first posted it.  I'll find 
you some much more current Linux and mutt exploits. 


0
nospam2091 (10001)
4/30/2005 3:53:57 PM
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 11:53:57 -0400, a Disturbed Fanatical Sloth spewed:

> amosf wrote:
>> Tukla Ratte wrote something like:
>>
>>> "DFS" <nospam@dfs.com> writes:
>>>
>>> < snip >
>>>
>>>> ie, Mutt exploit: http://www.securiteam.com/exploits/3Z5QCS0MUY.html
>>>
>>> Christ.  April 1998?!
>>>
>>> So, when we bring up Windows stability and security issues, we can
>>> use Windows 95 as our source?  I mean, Win98 wasn't even out yet.
>>>
>>
>> Poor ol' DFS is scraping the bottom of the barrel now :)
> 
> True, it's old.  I didn't see the date when I first posted it.  I'll find 
> you some much more current Linux and mutt exploits.

try this link for why us "uninformed Linux fanatics" do not worry about
virus intrusions on our systems!

http://librenix.com/?inode=21

-- 
"Got the dirty lowdown Ms spyware, adware, malware, virus blues?
Try *nix there is a distro just for you."

Linux User #273161

0
thedread (82)
4/30/2005 4:56:12 PM
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:34:02 -0400, a Disillusioned Fanatic Symbiot wrote:

<snip>
> 
> Because that's how "advocates" want it.  Absent every troll here, the group 
> is still filled with anti-MS and anti-Windows tirades.
> 
> It's rare to see a pro-Linux cola post that doesn't also insult MS or the 
> competing Windows product.

If by insult you mean comparing and contrasting the merits of the OSS and
Microsoft products count me in as an insulter. But IMHO the track record
of MS in user security is insult enough to their (MS) products. 

-- 
"Got the dirty lowdown Ms spyware, adware, malware, virus blues?
Try *nix there is a distro just for you."

Linux User #273161

0
thedread (82)
4/30/2005 5:17:00 PM
In article <vTxce.8488$QR1.3411@fe04.lga>, DFS wrote:

>> I have encountered spyware that required not only knowledge of the
>> registry, but I finally had to boot into DOS and remember the ATTR
>> command.
> 
> At least we can say your malware invasion has nothing to do with the Liam 
> Slider lie that you have to know the registry to have a working Windows 
> system.

 It does if you want to hook that Windows system to the Internet.

>> Places like CERT have recommended not using IE and OE precisely
>> because of their problematic security record.
> 
> But it's funny how CERT never recommended anyone drop PostGreSQL db server 
> for the dozens of security issues associated with it.  Or Mozilla.  Or any 
> number of open source packages that have been afflicted with security 
> vulnerabilities.

 Perhaps because the difference in number of vulnerabilities is so marked?
 
>>> "Microsoft makes email less secure for a few reasons"  LIE.  Viruses
>>> make email less secure.
>>
>> This is just absurd. "The lack of locks doesn't make a bank vault less
>> secure, theives make it less seucre." Viruses take advantage of
>> security flaws, they do not create them.
> 
> In that case, OSS programs like sendmail are the thieves' delivery and 
> getaway cars, and by assuming the role of virus delivery and propagation are 
> equally complicit as the virus writers.

 Hey, let's run with that for a minute, and assume your analogy has even
a shred of basis. That would imply that a scam using the telephone would
make the phone companies liable. Oh wait, the law specifically recognizes
that carriers are not liable for the traffic they carry. They are
obligated to carry it, period. For an extreme example, see, e.g., here:

 http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/4781806/

 But, of course, it doesn't have any basis, any more than Ford is liable
if you use one of their trucks in a bank heist. You're really getting
desperate, DFS. Best to cut your losses, edit this out of any reply you
make, and pretend it never happened. Or just don't reply at all, I'm used
to that.

>>> "..you can have a file labeled "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg.exe" and the
>>> Windows system will tell you it's "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg"  LIE DUE TO
>>> IGNORANCE - it depends on your Explorer settings.
>>
>> Again, at most you can say the statement is overbroad. It's true by
>> the default settings...
> 
> Where did he say that in the original post?  Did I miss it?
 
 As I said, overbroad, not false. Or do you really think most people
change the Explorer defaults? Not the case in the systems I've seen.

-- 
 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                            (313) 227-2317

 "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple,
                  and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken
0
sorceror1 (1083)
5/2/2005 2:58:42 PM
Ray Ingles wrote:
> In article <vTxce.8488$QR1.3411@fe04.lga>, DFS wrote:
>
>>> I have encountered spyware that required not only knowledge of the
>>> registry, but I finally had to boot into DOS and remember the ATTR
>>> command.
>>
>> At least we can say your malware invasion has nothing to do with the
>> Liam Slider lie that you have to know the registry to have a working
>> Windows system.
>
>  It does if you want to hook that Windows system to the Internet.

The operative word being _that system_.



>>> Places like CERT have recommended not using IE and OE precisely
>>> because of their problematic security record.
>>
>> But it's funny how CERT never recommended anyone drop PostGreSQL db
>> server for the dozens of security issues associated with it.  Or
>> Mozilla.  Or any number of open source packages that have been
>> afflicted with security vulnerabilities.
>
>  Perhaps because the difference in number of vulnerabilities is so
> marked?

Or, perhaps because CERT has large numbers of MS-hating Linux/OSS nuts on
staff?



>>>> "Microsoft makes email less secure for a few reasons"  LIE.
>>>> Viruses make email less secure.
>>>
>>> This is just absurd. "The lack of locks doesn't make a bank vault
>>> less secure, theives make it less seucre." Viruses take advantage of
>>> security flaws, they do not create them.
>>
>> In that case, OSS programs like sendmail are the thieves' delivery
>> and getaway cars, and by assuming the role of virus delivery and
>> propagation are equally complicit as the virus writers.
>
>  Hey, let's run with that for a minute, and assume your analogy has
> even a shred of basis. That would imply that a scam using the
> telephone would make the phone companies liable.

I believe so, if they know of and continue to enable the scam.



> Oh wait, the law
> specifically recognizes that carriers are not liable for the traffic
> they carry. They are obligated to carry it, period.

I don't think so.  I don't have the relevant legal references in front of me
regarding telcos, but I know my ISP and news server company is not required
to provide service to me.  They can dump me for the slightest infraction, at
their discretion.



> For an extreme
> example, see, e.g., here:
>
>  http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/4781806/
>
>  But, of course, it doesn't have any basis, any more than Ford is
> liable if you use one of their trucks in a bank heist.

But Ford is liable if it sells its trucks knowing they will be used in a
bank heist.  Similarly, sendmail knows it's propagating viruses, but does
nothing about it.


> You're really getting desperate, DFS.

Not any more desperate than I've ever been.


> Best to cut your losses, edit this out of any
> reply you make, and pretend it never happened.

Why?  'Cause you disagree with it?

You want to impugn MS' security for propagating viruses written by others,
but you don't want sendmail to accept liability for doing the same thing.
That makes you and the rest of the OSS world hypocrites.



> Or just don't reply at
> all, I'm used to that.

Sorry if I don't/can't answer your every post.  Some I miss, some I ignore,
some I don't feel there's any contribution I can make, some I feel the
thread has tired out, etc.




>>>> "..you can have a file labeled "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg.exe" and the
>>>> Windows system will tell you it's "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg"  LIE DUE TO
>>>> IGNORANCE - it depends on your Explorer settings.
>>>
>>> Again, at most you can say the statement is overbroad. It's true by
>>> the default settings...
>>
>> Where did he say that in the original post?  Did I miss it?
>
>  As I said, overbroad, not false.

It is false.  Had he said "...Windows system can tell you..." I would have
agreed.



> Or do you really think most people change the Explorer defaults?
> Not the case in the systems I've seen.

I don't inspect a lot of others' Windows Explorer settings, so I can't say.



0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/2/2005 3:34:23 PM
begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Mon, 02 May 2005 11:34:23 -0400, that DFS
was seen to write:

> Ray Ingles wrote:
>> In article <vTxce.8488$QR1.3411@fe04.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>
>>>> I have encountered spyware that required not only knowledge of the
>>>> registry, but I finally had to boot into DOS and remember the ATTR
>>>> command.
>>>
>>> At least we can say your malware invasion has nothing to do with the
>>> Liam Slider lie that you have to know the registry to have a working
>>> Windows system.
>>
>>  It does if you want to hook that Windows system to the Internet.
> 
> The operative word being _that system_.

Yes, that *windows* system.

>>>> Places like CERT have recommended not using IE and OE precisely
>>>> because of their problematic security record.
>>>
>>> But it's funny how CERT never recommended anyone drop PostGreSQL db
>>> server for the dozens of security issues associated with it.  Or
>>> Mozilla.  Or any number of open source packages that have been
>>> afflicted with security vulnerabilities.
>>
>>  Perhaps because the difference in number of vulnerabilities is so
>> marked?
> 
> Or, perhaps because CERT has large numbers of MS-hating Linux/OSS nuts on
> staff?

Paranoia.

<snip> 

>> You're really getting desperate, DFS.
> 
> Not any more desperate than I've ever been.

Which is pretty desperate then.

>> Best to cut your losses, edit this out of any reply you make, and
>> pretend it never happened.
> 
> Why?  'Cause you disagree with it?
> 
> You want to impugn MS' security for propagating viruses written by others,
> but you don't want sendmail to accept liability for doing the same thing.
> That makes you and the rest of the OSS world hypocrites.

Shows you haven't a clue, & just make yourself look more idiotic.

>> Or just don't reply at all, I'm used to that.
> 
> Sorry if I don't/can't answer your every post.  Some I miss, some I
> ignore, some I don't feel there's any contribution I can make, some I feel
> the thread has tired out, etc.

In other words, they're excuses because he didn't have answers.

<snip>

-- 
With GPL the only thing Microsoft 
gets for free is nightmares.
-- Jean Francois Martinez --
0
willpoast (5106)
5/2/2005 3:44:12 PM
In article <3Mrde.27592$Ow2.11420@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>> At least we can say your malware invasion has nothing to do with the
>>> Liam Slider lie that you have to know the registry to have a working
>>> Windows system.
>>
>>  It does if you want to hook that Windows system to the Internet.
> 
> The operative word being _that system_.

 Yes, hooking up a Windows system to the Internet will cause it not
to work unless you knw your way around the registry. Glad we agree.

> Or, perhaps because CERT has large numbers of MS-hating Linux/OSS nuts on
> staff?

 Gee, and you say *we're* "paranoid Linux nutcases". :->

>>>>> "Microsoft makes email less secure for a few reasons"  LIE.
>>>>> Viruses make email less secure.

 Man, I might add that to my .sig collection. Gets funnier every time
I read it. :->

>> Oh wait, the law
>> specifically recognizes that carriers are not liable for the traffic
>> they carry. They are obligated to carry it, period.
> 
> I don't think so.  I don't have the relevant legal references in front of me
> regarding telcos, but I know my ISP and news server company is not required
> to provide service to me.  They can dump me for the slightest infraction, at
> their discretion.

 As long as you're their client, they have to carry your traffic, no matter
who you call. Go look up the relevant legal references. I'll wait.

>>  But, of course, it doesn't have any basis, any more than Ford is
>> liable if you use one of their trucks in a bank heist.
> 
> But Ford is liable if it sells its trucks knowing they will be used in a
> bank heist.  Similarly, sendmail knows it's propagating viruses, but does
> nothing about it.

 Ford knows some of their vehicles will be used in bank heists. They don't
know that *particular* vehicles will see such use. Same with software.
(This is really getting funny! :-> )

> You want to impugn MS' security for propagating viruses written by others,
> but you don't want sendmail to accept liability for doing the same thing.
> That makes you and the rest of the OSS world hypocrites.
 
 Ah, but sendmail is doing its job, relaying the information. It's not its
job to verify the data is safe. (And how, pray tell, would it do so? Feel
free to elaborate...) Hey, Windows zombie machines are used in DDOS attacks
all the time. I guess Microsoft is liable for all those ping floods...

 Microsoft software, on the other hand, is broken in ways that can be
exploited by malicious individials (or, increasingly these days, groups).
Like a vault maker that sells vaults to banks even though they know there
are easy ways to break in.

> It is false.  Had he said "...Windows system can tell you..." I would have
> agreed.
 
 How about "most Windows systems will tell you"? That's the most
accurate...

-- 
 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                            (313) 227-2317

 "If the American people really tire of democracy and want to make a
 trial of Fascism, I shall be the last person to object. But if that
   is their mood, then they had better proceed toward their aim by
 changing the Constitution and not by forgetting it." - H. L. Mencken
0
sorceror1 (1083)
5/2/2005 4:13:01 PM
On Mon, 02 May 2005 11:34:23 -0400, DFS wrote:

<snip>
>>>>> "Microsoft makes email less secure for a few reasons"  LIE.
>>>>> Viruses make email less secure.
>>>>
>>>> This is just absurd. "The lack of locks doesn't make a bank vault
>>>> less secure, theives make it less seucre." Viruses take advantage of
>>>> security flaws, they do not create them.
>>>
>>> In that case, OSS programs like sendmail are the thieves' delivery
>>> and getaway cars, and by assuming the role of virus delivery and
>>> propagation are equally complicit as the virus writers.
>>
>>  Hey, let's run with that for a minute, and assume your analogy has
>> even a shred of basis. That would imply that a scam using the
>> telephone would make the phone companies liable.
> 
> I believe so, if they know of and continue to enable the scam.
> 
I think a better analogy on the sendmail issue would be freeways and other
surface roads being the mediun that routs the traffic. Whereas the e-mail
clients would be the automotive devices. To furthur this discussion
sendmail being the road the vehicle travels on then should not the vehicle
manufacturer hold greater liability.

Assuming a typical new home user of a computer, bought the system with
Windows preinstalled and hooks it up to the internet;
1. Do they know about hardning IE for security?
	unlikely
2. Do they know about disabling or curtailing the default active x
   settings?
	unlikely
3. Do they know about not opening attachments in e-mail?
	unlikely
4. Do they know about unchecking hide known file extensions in the
   explorer configuration files?
	again unlikely

	The list goes on and on.

Most new home users will and do use the PC
and OS with the default settings leaving the system open as a gateway for
the proliferation of malware in general without a clue. Yes most come with
a trial of norton or macafee av but how many actually know to ubdate the
av databases regulary and buy a full product before the trial period ends.
Not many in my experience. Many times people I have helped with computer
problems tell me things like "It (the pc) came with norton why did I get a
virus?" I ask if they have updated the av definations or upgraded after
the trial period and usually get blank looks as a reasponse.

Therefore I find your analogy of sendmail to be flawed:
1. Sendmail does not initiate the traffic the user or os does (active x
   controls, automatic open and execute of attachments in OE)
2. Active x in its default configuration in IE automatically running
   active x scripts when visiting websites allowing it to call sendmail
   and read OE address books to automagically infect the users system and
   send the infection to everyone in the users addressgbook.
3. Etc.

My point being that it is the OS namely Windows in its default
configuration which is most culpable. Linux, OSX and unix like systems in
general are totally immune from this automatic propogation hence more
secure out of the box.


> 
>> Oh wait, the law
>> specifically recognizes that carriers are not liable for the traffic
>> they carry. They are obligated to carry it, period.
> 
> I don't think so.  I don't have the relevant legal references in front of me
> regarding telcos, but I know my ISP and news server company is not required
> to provide service to me.  They can dump me for the slightest infraction, at
> their discretion.
> 
> 
> 
>> For an extreme
>> example, see, e.g., here:
>>
>>  http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/4781806/
>>
>>  But, of course, it doesn't have any basis, any more than Ford is
>> liable if you use one of their trucks in a bank heist.
> 
> But Ford is liable if it sells its trucks knowing they will be used in a
> bank heist.  Similarly, sendmail knows it's propagating viruses, but does
> nothing about it.

Sendmail routes data it has no way built in to it to differenciate a virus
from any other binary attachment like a jpeg or mp3 thus once again your
analogy is flawed.

>> You're really getting desperate, DFS.
> 
> Not any more desperate than I've ever been.
> 
> 
>> Best to cut your losses, edit this out of any reply you make, and
>> pretend it never happened.
> 
> Why?  'Cause you disagree with it?
> 
> You want to impugn MS' security for propagating viruses written by
> others, but you don't want sendmail to accept liability for doing the
> same thing. That makes you and the rest of the OSS world hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
>> Or just don't reply at
>> all, I'm used to that.
> 
> Sorry if I don't/can't answer your every post.  Some I miss, some I
> ignore, some I don't feel there's any contribution I can make, some I
> feel the thread has tired out, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>>>> "..you can have a file labeled "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg.exe" and the
>>>>> Windows system will tell you it's "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg"  LIE DUE TO
>>>>> IGNORANCE - it depends on your Explorer settings.
>>>>
>>>> Again, at most you can say the statement is overbroad. It's true by
>>>> the default settings...
>>>
>>> Where did he say that in the original post?  Did I miss it?
>>
>>  As I said, overbroad, not false.
> 
> It is false.  Had he said "...Windows system can tell you..." I would
> have agreed.
> 
> 
> 
>> Or do you really think most people change the Explorer defaults? Not
>> the case in the systems I've seen.
> 
> I don't inspect a lot of others' Windows Explorer settings, so I can't
> say.

-- 
"Got the dirty lowdown Ms spyware, adware, malware, virus blues?
Try *nix there is a distro just for you."

Linux User #273161

0
thedread (82)
5/2/2005 5:10:52 PM
begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Mon, 02 May 2005 12:13:01 -0400, that Ray
Ingles was seen to write:

<snip>

> (This is really getting funny! :-> )

Yes, it's getting most amusing to read his answers. ;-)

-- 
With GPL the only thing Microsoft 
gets for free is nightmares.
-- Jean Francois Martinez --
0
willpoast (5106)
5/2/2005 5:19:25 PM
Ray Ingles wrote:
> In article <3Mrde.27592$Ow2.11420@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>>> At least we can say your malware invasion has nothing to do with
>>>> the Liam Slider lie that you have to know the registry to have a
>>>> working Windows system.
>>>
>>>  It does if you want to hook that Windows system to the Internet.
>>
>> The operative word being _that system_.
>
>  Yes, hooking up a Windows system to the Internet will cause it not
> to work unless you knw your way around the registry. Glad we agree.

Correction: Yes, hooking up _that malware-infected_ Windows system to the
Internet will cause it not to work unless _that malware-infected system's
owner or user_ knows his way around the registry.

Correction: We don't agree.



>> Or, perhaps because CERT has large numbers of MS-hating Linux/OSS
>> nuts on staff?
>
>  Gee, and you say *we're* "paranoid Linux nutcases". :->

I do.  You are.


>>>>>> "Microsoft makes email less secure for a few reasons"  LIE.
>>>>>> Viruses make email less secure.
>
>  Man, I might add that to my .sig collection. Gets funnier every time
> I read it. :->

Glad you like it...

Feel free to .sig it.  If you read it enough, you might even come to
understand and accept it.



>>> Oh wait, the law
>>> specifically recognizes that carriers are not liable for the traffic
>>> they carry. They are obligated to carry it, period.
>>
>> I don't think so.  I don't have the relevant legal references in
>> front of me regarding telcos, but I know my ISP and news server
>> company is not required to provide service to me.  They can dump me
>> for the slightest infraction, at their discretion.
>
>  As long as you're their client, they have to carry your traffic, no
> matter who you call. Go look up the relevant legal references. I'll
> wait.

No need.  A telco will not willingly carry information they know to be
criminal.  sendmail will and does, to the detriment of the whole world.



>>>  But, of course, it doesn't have any basis, any more than Ford is
>>> liable if you use one of their trucks in a bank heist.
>>
>> But Ford is liable if it sells its trucks knowing they will be used
>> in a bank heist.  Similarly, sendmail knows it's propagating
>> viruses, but does nothing about it.
>
>  Ford knows some of their vehicles will be used in bank heists. They
> don't know that *particular* vehicles will see such use. Same with
> software. (This is really getting funny! :-> )

But Ford can inspect the vehicle and still not know it will be used for
nefarious purposes.  sendmail, however, can inspect the email and positively
identify it as a virus, but won't.



>> You want to impugn MS' security for propagating viruses written by
>> others, but you don't want sendmail to accept liability for doing
>> the same thing. That makes you and the rest of the OSS world
>> hypocrites.
>
>  Ah, but sendmail is doing its job, relaying the information.

And MS/Windows/OE/Outlook/IE is doing the same.




> It's not its job to verify the data is safe.

Nor is it MS' job to verify the data is safe.



> (And how, pray tell, would it
> do so? Feel free to elaborate...)

The same way anti-virus programs work:

- inspect for virus signatures, attachment names, bodies.
- quarantine certain file types - .exe, .com, .scr, .cpl and .bat - and
verify acceptance by the intended recipient.

The best way to reduce malware?  Severing the fingers of the perps.



> Hey, Windows zombie machines are
> used in DDOS attacks all the time. I guess Microsoft is liable for
> all those ping floods...

According to 99.99999% of cola it is.



>  Microsoft software, on the other hand, is broken in ways that can be
> exploited by malicious individials (or, increasingly these days,
> groups).

MS software isn't broken.  Malicious individuals and groups are.



> Like a vault maker that sells vaults to banks even though
> they know there are easy ways to break in.

By that measure (ease of break-in), Linux/OSS apps are very guilty, as
buffer overflow vulnerabilities are the most widely-known and used exploits.
But still, day after day after year after year, they show up.



>> It is false.  Had he said "...Windows system can tell you..." I
>> would have agreed.
>
>  How about "most Windows systems will tell you"? That's the most
> accurate...

That presupposes most Windows users leave the their Windows Explorer Folder
Options settings at the default.  I don't agree.  Plus, the default settings
vary from version to version.


0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/2/2005 6:14:23 PM
DFS wrote:

> But Ford can inspect the vehicle and still not know it will be used for
> nefarious purposes.  sendmail, however, can inspect the email and positively
> identify it as a virus, but won't.

Funny you should mention that DooFuS, you see there was a little company 
that designed a program for Linux to do exactly that, filter WINDOWS 
viruses out of traffic.

MS bought them, and killed it.

It's not our job to hide the evidence generated by infected machines, so 
as to make people think that MS knows what the fuck its doing.

Much better that all Windows machines get infected, and die, to be 
resurrected with an OS that comprehends the concept of 'network 
security' and 'limited rights users'......
0
callanca (1273)
5/2/2005 6:32:19 PM
Philip Callan wrote:
> DFS wrote:
> 
>> But Ford can inspect the vehicle and still not know it will be used for
>> nefarious purposes.  sendmail, however, can inspect the email and 
>> positively
>> identify it as a virus, but won't.
> 
> 
> Funny you should mention that DooFuS, you see there was a little company 
> that designed a program for Linux to do exactly that, filter WINDOWS 
> viruses out of traffic.
> 
> MS bought them, and killed it.
> 
> It's not our job to hide the evidence generated by infected machines, so 
> as to make people think that MS knows what the fuck its doing.
> 
> Much better that all Windows machines get infected, and die, to be 
> resurrected with an OS that comprehends the concept of 'network 
> security' and 'limited rights users'......

I don't think you are correct, Phil.  I am pretty sure that Brighthouse 
   Networks and/or Roadrunner are filtering the dickens out of e-mail 
messages.  I frequently see messages that are otherwise spam but had a 
heading attached by the email system saying that the offensive 
attachment has been deleted and listing the specific virus that it was 
found to contain.

I used to get tens if not hundreds of emails a day that were pure spam 
as well. Now I only get two or three, mostly from people offering 
prescription drugs at low prices, particularly Cialis, and occasionally 
knock-off Swiss watches.  There are also a couple of grey-market 
software offers per month.  I think that the ISVs must be filtering the 
mail for spam, too.  That is reasonable, since their well-being depends 
on remaining useful.  It would seem to me that Microsoft is sincere in 
their efforts to put a stop to the electronic vandalism represented by 
hackers, viruses, and spam since they too prosper in an environment that 
does not have this behavior.
0
billwg (581)
5/2/2005 7:43:30 PM
DFS wrote:

> > Come on DFS, show where those statements are lies.
>
> "...you really have to know your way around that arcane bullshit [the

> registry] to have a system that actually *works* on Windows."  LIE
>
> "Windows...more a slow buildup of layers of crud..."  LIE
>
> "...a company with tactics that would make any mafia proud."  LIE

Someone is in serious DENIAL  [/satire]

And besides, all the law-suits decided against them say otherwise.

>
> "...pathetic OS"  LIE
>
> "...their products have more holes than swiss cheese"  LIE
>
> "Microsoft makes email less secure for a few reasons"  LIE.  Viruses
make
> email less secure.

Ah, i haven't laughed so hard in a while.  You should do stand-up.

>
> "..you can have a file labeled "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg.exe" and the
Windows
> system will tell you it's "Hotnekkidchick.jpeg"  LIE DUE TO IGNORANCE
- it
> depends on your Explorer settings.

You're a real tard.  Those are the default settings and you know it.
And you also know full well that most users don't even know that there
settings for it, much less how to change them.

>
> "While most of us dispise Microsoft...."  TRUE, if you're talking
about cola
> regs.
>
> "...most of the talk in here is in support of Linux"  OUTRIGHT LIE



Liar, liar pants on fire, hanging from a telephone wire....

DFS reminded me of that.  It seems he doesn't know the difference
between a lie and a fallacy.  Kinda like a 6 year old.

0
5/2/2005 8:40:05 PM
B wrote:
> Do you know why linux is definitely not the best OS?
> Check this www.spatula.net/proc/linux/index.src
> 
> Out of curiosity, I have installed two linux distributions, in the past :
> red-hat and mandrake. I spent some time discovering what that linux hype was
> all about, what the GUI was like, what "cool" options KDE (or any other
> desktop manager) had to offer, the general look-and-feel of those so-called
> better alternatives to windows.
> 
> Well, getting past the thrills of installation, my experience went down to
> disappointment and frustration. Things so trivial as changing the screen
> resolution seemed deeply obscure, and the help system downright cryptic.
> Plus I got a strange feeling that beyond those windows-like
> bells-and-whistles, the linux OS uncovers its real nature and betrays its
> unixish origins : an unfriendly piece of software with obscure rules and a
> complex architecture, with little or no general consistency (like a
> patchwork). Linux is aimed at the geek, the "leet"-wannabe, all those people
> who are so childishly narrow-minded and intolerant that they can't stand the
> name of microsoft, and they can't admit windows is doing a great job as a
> family desktop OS.

Sounds like this was written ages ago. Installing Redhat is almost 
automatic, confirm that display etc have been found correct, and lean 
back. Same with Suse 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3, probably other distros are the 
same. Ever tried installing XP or a 2003 server from scratch - not 
preinsta�� ? That's hard work.
> 
> So I switched back to windows. Everything is so smooth, under windows. No
> need to be a technical expert or an IT engineer to get the system work the
> way you want.
Neither do you in Linux. Or Mac OS for that sake.
> 
> Unlike *nix fanatics, I don't mean to boast about any sort of
> computer-related knowledge. Let it only be said that I'd not define myself
> as a lambda user. I know DOS 6.22, batch coding, and I know my way into the
> registry. I've also installed FreeBSD on another hard-drive, so as to get a
> taste of what was aside from the microsoft world.

DOS 6.22 was 15 years ago.......
> 
> Well from all that experience, I can tell you I love Windows.

OK, fine,. I work with it professionally, and I thonk it's crappy stuff 
with lots of errors. Makes me earn good money though.
> 
> Recently I was in need of a good word processor, for professional use. I
> decided to make my own review of what was available, and downloaded the
> following products:
> 602PCsuite, abi-word, easy-office, and, inevitably, open-office.
> 
> I found them to suffer from either a crippled interface, a plague of bugs
> (especially abi-word), or an unprofessional look (some apps are apparently
> configured for use in a 1024*768 screen resolution...). Plus I noticed some
> of them don't uninstall properly (602 PC suite leaves unwanted
> file-associations in the registry).

Ever checked how much stuff is lefter after installing Office, rebooting 
and uninstalling ?
> 
> So I bought MS-Word. Yes, that's right, unlike most of those who trash
> windows, I took the trouble of *buying* Word. None of my MS software is a
> pirated copy. If you guys hate microsoft so much then ditch windows, office,
> IE, etc... and go away! It's not as if anybody wanted to force you to use
> something against your will.

No, but it is still almost impossible to buy a 'brand' PC without paying 
MS for an OS that is erased first thong the box is switched on. It's tax.
I ditched Windows at home 5-6 years ago.
I ditched Internet explorer from the very start.
I ditched the Office package from the start. Used Lotus Suite and later 
Star Office which is much better than anything out of Redmond Wa. MS 
office still lack decent groupwork facilities, which have been resent in 
Lotus Smartsuite past 10 years. Star Office opens older MS Powerpoint 
documents better than Office does, and if there are problems with 
f.inst. Word templates, it's because MS formats are secret. They won't 
let you know how YOUR OWN documents are stored.
> 
> As to security, I don't understand all that fuss around MS products. As an
> avid web-user, I (think that I) have taken the appropriate steps to ensure
> my system is secured enough, and I have never had any sort of trouble in
> years. Have all those people kvetching about windows security really taken
> the trouble of reviewing the tools and options available before laying the
> blame on microsoft? A restrictive configuration of the internet zone in IE
> (disable anything that is not marked as "safe", set other options to
> "prompt"), the association of Outlook with the restricted-sites zone, the
> acquisition of a firewall, an antivirus and an antispyware sound good to me.
> Keep your system up-to-date, and, since the SMT protocol allows anybody to
> impersonate an innocent e-mail user, never trust e-mail attachments, even if
> they appear to come from a friend of yours.
I have seen PC's with more than 30 virusses and 4 diallers after 2 hours 
unprotected use on the net. Write this stuff in Windows groups, they 
really need it. I have used different OS's for more than 30 years, and 
the ONLY ONES that are vulnerable to virus and other badstuff is those 
from Redmond Wa.
> 
> The bottom line : that hate campaign against microsoft makes me sick.
> Keep thinking you are intellectually superior and that "windoze lusers" are
> pathetic wimps that need to get a life, it makes your "culture" sound
> immature and unwelcoming.

I see... now I am member of a culture. Isn't it funny then, that all 
Windows users know Bill Gates the Hero who invented computers. Who is 
manager in IBM, Corell, Suse, Mandrake, Redhat ?. If we talk of culture 
I think it is found in the windows world, where we almost can talk of a 
religion.
> As to me, I will definitely not waste a cent on any linux/unix/sun related
> software... and you know money is the name of the game.

OK, so continue paying your tax to Microsoft at the rate they demand. Be 
happy with your OS, you chose it. I'm happy with mine, but I don't call 
you idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
0
Somebody
5/2/2005 9:25:39 PM
Philip Callan wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> But Ford can inspect the vehicle and still not know it will be used
>> for nefarious purposes.  sendmail, however, can inspect the email
>> and positively identify it as a virus, but won't.
>
> Funny you should mention that DooFuS, you see there was a little
> company that designed a program for Linux to do exactly that, filter
> WINDOWS viruses out of traffic.
>
> MS bought them, and killed it.

Interesting, lowlife.  What was the company?

I'll have to do some research, where I'll probably find out the story isn't
quite so simple.


> It's not our job to hide the evidence generated by infected machines,
> so as to make people think that MS knows what the fuck its doing.

But you just said some company did just that?

Besides, you can't whine about Windows viruses when Linux servers running
OSS are merrily propagating them.  (well, you can and will whine about them,
but that's 'cause you're a hypocrite).


> Much better that all Windows machines get infected, and die, to be
> resurrected with an OS that comprehends the concept of 'network
> security' and 'limited rights users'......

Windows 2000?  XP?  2003?



0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/3/2005 2:15:17 AM
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> Philip Callan wrote:
>>
>> Funny you should mention that DooFuS, you see there was a little
>> company that designed a program for Linux to do exactly that, filter
>> WINDOWS viruses out of traffic.
>>
>> MS bought them, and killed it.
>
> Interesting, lowlife.  What was the company?

Now, boyz!

> I'll have to do some research, where I'll probably find out the story isn't
> quite so simple.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/16/ms_fights_spyware/

   "At the time, Microsoft said it would use GeCAD's expertise and
   technology to "enhance the Windows platform" and extend support for
   third-party antivirus vendors. Fast forward 18 months and Microsoft
   is yet to announce a product strategy (naysayers reckon MS only
   bought GeCAD to kill of the latter's Linux server products)."

> Besides, you can't whine about Windows viruses when Linux servers running
> OSS are merrily propagating them.

1. There are more than just Linux servers out there.

2. Many servers, including Linux servers, run filters and anti-virus
   software.

>> Much better that all Windows machines get infected, and die, to be
>> resurrected with an OS that comprehends the concept of 'network
>> security' and 'limited rights users'......
>
> Windows 2000?  XP?  2003?

He means "de facto", I guess.  I doubt anyone really uses a limited
access account for very long on Windows, it can be inconvenient.

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
5/3/2005 11:25:32 AM
Lin�nut wrote:
>>>Much better that all Windows machines get infected, and die, to be
>>>resurrected with an OS that comprehends the concept of 'network
>>>security' and 'limited rights users'......
>>
>>Windows 2000?  XP?  2003?
> 
> 
> He means "de facto", I guess.  I doubt anyone really uses a limited
> access account for very long on Windows, it can be inconvenient.
> 
Any restrictions on use are an inconvenience if you are capable of doing 
more in an unrestricted environment, nut.  Windows has been designed 
from the beginning as a personal computer platform that allows the owner 
/user the freedom to do whatever they want to do today.  That 
necessarily includes the freedom to do something foolish, but that is 
the case with everything from jet airplanes to five pound boxes of 
chocolates.

Competence begins with education and eventually makes most men much more 
free than they are with even a highly skilled and benevolent keeper such 
as the linux systems are designed to have based on their unix heritage. 
  Unix was created when ordinary people could not manage or afford a 
computer and were designed to allow a multitude of users to share one 
precious resource, the electronic equivalent of a public well.

Today we have outgrown this model and have water piped to every home 
just as everyman has their own computer in most cases.  That sets the 
scene with a potential for individual creativity of use that was never 
imagined and so never provided for in the old unix mold.

Beware the pedantic IT weenies that inhabit cola who would rather keep 
their once monopoly on computer freedom!
0
billwg (581)
5/3/2005 12:28:52 PM
In article <88Kde.26401$716.6144@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, billwg wrote:

>   Unix was created when ordinary people could not manage or afford a 
> computer and were designed to allow a multitude of users to share one 
> precious resource, the electronic equivalent of a public well.
 
 Unix was designed to allow multiple users and multiple *processes* to
coexist happily on a server, able to do whatever they wanted to do
without tripping over or interfering with each other. Windows evolved
from a single-tasking environment barely powerful enough to run one
app at a time.

 In a typical scenario, there are two "modes"; one, a user mode where
you're actually doing something with the applications, and an
"administrator" mode where you're working on the setup of the computer.

 Windows hopelessly confuses the two, so most apps of any complexity
require administrator privileges to function. So if an apps is
compromised, it can do unlimited damage to the system. Unix keeps them
clearly separated.

 But there is no reason that the same person can't do both kinds of
work, and even do it at the same time under Unix. I do that all the
time on my system. I can do work with my own account, and switch to
another window and log in as root to install some software. And I
don't even need to reboot after it's installed!

> Today we have outgrown this model and have water piped to every home 
> just as everyman has their own computer in most cases.

 I dunno what circles you run in, but very few of the households I've
seen have more than one computer.

> That sets the 
> scene with a potential for individual creativity of use that was never 
> imagined and so never provided for in the old unix mold.
 
 Really? Please give an example of something 'not provided for' in Unix
that Windows can do.

-- 
 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                   (313) 227-2317

  "No federal income tax was assessed before 1913, because
  government didn't require the kind of dough it needs now
         that it's running a concierge business."
 - Bill Maher, "When You Ride Alone You Ride With bin Laden"
0
sorceror1 (1083)
5/3/2005 2:03:28 PM
In article <46ude.27672$Ow2.10878@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>  Yes, hooking up a Windows system to the Internet will cause it not
>> to work unless you knw your way around the registry. Glad we agree.
> 
> Correction: Yes, hooking up _that malware-infected_ Windows system to the
> Internet will cause it not to work unless _that malware-infected system's
> owner or user_ knows his way around the registry.
 
 Of course, the user got malware-infected by connecting to the Internet.
All those malware-infected machines got infected by connecting to the
Internet. So, if you want to hook up a Windows system to the internet,
you'd better know your way around the registry, or your system will
be 0wned by someone else.

>>>>>>> "Microsoft makes email less secure for a few reasons"  LIE.
>>>>>>> Viruses make email less secure.

 Still like that. :->

>>  As long as you're their client, they have to carry your traffic, no
>> matter who you call. Go look up the relevant legal references. I'll
>> wait.
> 
> No need.  A telco will not willingly carry information they know to be
> criminal. 

 Wow, you're dense. Let me reiterate an example of that very practice.
I suggest you actually read the article I pointed you to before:

 http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/4781806/

 Here, let me quote a part of it; wouldn't want you to wear yourself
out reading an entire article: "So when a criminal calls in, the operators
must relay the call without interfering."

 You *really* need to study the law in this area.

> sendmail will and does, to the detriment of the whole world.

 Can you give an example of an email server that doesn't? Can you give
an example of an email server that doesn't by default? Now, are you aware
that there are products available that can do such filtering if the user
wants it, even ones that hook up to sendmail?

> But Ford can inspect the vehicle and still not know it will be used for
> nefarious purposes.  sendmail, however, can inspect the email and positively
> identify it as a virus, but won't.
 
 Actually, you can set it up to do so. You can set up Exchange to do so,
too, but in both cases it takes work. Guess they are both equally liable,
eh?

>>  Ah, but sendmail is doing its job, relaying the information.
> 
> And MS/Windows/OE/Outlook/IE is doing the same.
 
 It's not Outlook's job to patch the operating system, but that's what
it does. Real email clients don't leave holes like buffer overflows
lying around.
 
>> (And how, pray tell, would it do so? Feel free to elaborate...)
> 
> The same way anti-virus programs work:

 So now you say that any program that isn't also an antivirus program
is negligent? Interesting position. Are all of your SQL programs
virus-checkers, too? What if some malware tries to store a copy of
itself in one of your databases, will you catch that?

>>  Microsoft software, on the other hand, is broken in ways that can be
>> exploited by malicious individials (or, increasingly these days,
>> groups).
> 
> MS software isn't broken.  Malicious individuals and groups are.
 
 I'm beginning to think *you* are. You remind me of a wife defending
an abusive husband. My mail-reading software doesn't allow emails from
random losers to run arbitrary code on my machine without my permission.
You apparently think your mail reader has the right to do that. Enjoy
your serfdom, I guess.
 
>> Like a vault maker that sells vaults to banks even though
>> they know there are easy ways to break in.
> 
> By that measure (ease of break-in), Linux/OSS apps are very guilty, as
> buffer overflow vulnerabilities are the most widely-known and used exploits.
> But still, day after day after year after year, they show up.

 "...even though they *know*..." When flaws are found in OSS software,
it gets fixed quickly. Microsoft ships known-broken software and sits
on patches. I wonder if you can see the difference?
 
>>  How about "most Windows systems will tell you"? That's the most
>> accurate...
> 
> That presupposes most Windows users leave the their Windows Explorer Folder
> Options settings at the default.  I don't agree.  Plus, the default settings
> vary from version to version.

 Can you point out a version where the "hide extensions for known file
types" setting wasn't enabled by default?

-- 
 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                             (313) 227-2317

 "As it stands now, for the vast majority of the populace, selecting a
 leader is like deciding which dishwasher detergent to purchase at the
 grocery store. You have a couple of brands with big, flashy, colorful
      boxes, that smell the same, look the same, and are probably
           manufactured by the same company." - Dan J. Rempe
0
sorceror1 (1083)
5/3/2005 2:20:28 PM
billwg wrote:

> Beware the pedantic IT weenies that inhabit cola who would rather keep
> their once monopoly on computer freedom!

LOL!

Nice.


0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/3/2005 2:43:28 PM
Ray Ingles wrote:
> In article <88Kde.26401$716.6144@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, billwg
> wrote:
>
>>   Unix was created when ordinary people could not manage or afford a
>> computer and were designed to allow a multitude of users to share one
>> precious resource, the electronic equivalent of a public well.
>
>  Unix was designed to allow multiple users and multiple *processes* to
> coexist happily on a server, able to do whatever they wanted to do
> without tripping over or interfering with each other. Windows evolved
> from a single-tasking environment barely powerful enough to run one
> app at a time.

But what glorious apps they were (and are).  Linux/Unix still can't approach
them.


>  In a typical scenario, there are two "modes"; one, a user mode where
> you're actually doing something with the applications, and an
> "administrator" mode where you're working on the setup of the
> computer.
>
>  Windows hopelessly confuses the two, so most apps of any complexity
> require administrator privileges to function.

Which ones?



>  But there is no reason that the same person can't do both kinds of
> work, and even do it at the same time under Unix. I do that all the
> time on my system. I can do work with my own account, and switch to
> another window and log in as root to install some software. And I
> don't even need to reboot after it's installed!

Do I hear an insinuation that one must always reboot after installing
software on Windows?

If so....LIE.



>> Today we have outgrown this model and have water piped to every home
>> just as everyman has their own computer in most cases.
>
>  I dunno what circles you run in, but very few of the households I've
> seen have more than one computer.

???  Most households (above a certain level of income) have multiple
computers.

I have 3.  My wife has 1.  My brother has 1.  My Mom has 2.  My Dad has 2.
My friends all have at least 2 in their houses.

And we're all subsistence, poverty-level people.



>> That sets the
>> scene with a potential for individual creativity of use that was
>> never imagined and so never provided for in the old unix mold.
>
>  Really? Please give an example of something 'not provided for' in
> Unix that Windows can do.

Allow people to actually enjoy using their personal computers.



0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/3/2005 2:53:15 PM
Lin�nut wrote:
> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> Philip Callan wrote:
>>>
>>> Funny you should mention that DooFuS, you see there was a little
>>> company that designed a program for Linux to do exactly that, filter
>>> WINDOWS viruses out of traffic.
>>>
>>> MS bought them, and killed it.
>>
>> Interesting, lowlife.  What was the company?
>
> Now, boyz!

He's a disturbing idiot.  I can see him posting and toking, red eyes blazing
while cannabis smoke curls out of his nostrils as he insults MS and Windows
(and the US, and Bush, and capitalism, and me).



>> I'll have to do some research, where I'll probably find out the
>> story isn't quite so simple.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/16/ms_fights_spyware/
>
>    "At the time, Microsoft said it would use GeCAD's expertise and
>    technology to "enhance the Windows platform" and extend support for
>    third-party antivirus vendors. Fast forward 18 months and Microsoft
>    is yet to announce a product strategy (naysayers reckon MS only
>    bought GeCAD to kill of the latter's Linux server products)."

Pure baseless speculation, and more paranoid Linux/OSS nutjobs accusing MS
of bad faith actions.

MS may have used GeCAD technology in the recent MS AntiSpyware app.  Or not.
That link, and lowlife's claim, prove nothing and mean nothing.



0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/3/2005 3:02:14 PM
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

>>  Unix was designed to allow multiple users and multiple *processes* to
>> coexist happily on a server, able to do whatever they wanted to do
>> without tripping over or interfering with each other. Windows evolved
>> from a single-tasking environment barely powerful enough to run one
>> app at a time.
>
> But what glorious apps they were (and are).  Linux/Unix still can't approach
> them.

Bullshit.

> Do I hear an insinuation that one must always reboot after installing
> software on Windows?
>
> If so....LIE.

You don't always have to reboot on Windows.  You don't have to reboot
if the installer is not replacing an active DLL or an active Registry
entry.  You don't have to reboot when changing network settings if you
take care not to disable networking before making the change (odd, isn't
it?)  You don't have to reboot (usually) if the installer doesn't
request a reboot.

> I have 3.  My wife has 1.  My brother has 1.  My Mom has 2.  My Dad has 2.
> My friends all have at least 2 in their houses.
>
> And we're all subsistence, poverty-level people.

More bullshit.

>>  Really? Please give an example of something 'not provided for' in
>> Unix that Windows can do.
>
> Allow people to actually enjoy using their personal computers.

More bullshit.  

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
5/3/2005 3:02:19 PM
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> billwg wrote:
>
>> Beware the pedantic IT weenies that inhabit cola who would rather keep
>> their once monopoly on computer freedom!
>
> LOL!
>
> Nice.

No.  It is bullshit.

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
5/3/2005 3:02:37 PM
DFS wrote:

> 
> Pure baseless speculation, and more paranoid Linux/OSS nutjobs accusing MS
> of bad faith actions.
> 
> MS may have used GeCAD technology in the recent MS AntiSpyware app.  Or not.
> That link, and lowlife's claim, prove nothing and mean nothing.
> 
> 
> 

You fuckwit, GeCAD /run ons linux/ its only purpose is removing 
attachments harmful to WINDOWS machines.

You are the unethical lowlife here DooFuS, afraid to use your real name, 
and stuck shifting amongst your nyms to try and antagonize and distract.

So fuck you, DooFuS, Hyeena, Simon Cooke, Erik FuDkenbusch, skagg71, 
drestin black, chad myers, whatever fucking nym your antagonistic 
homophobic ass chooses to use today.

You are the unethical fuckwit that pulled this shit before with Bilk and 
others, anyone who said something you don't like, your on the attack, 
doing what you can to try and slag the person, to drive them off COLA.

In my case you seem to jump on my occassional usage of pot, at least it 
won't give as much ammo for your homophobia, go right ahead, there is 
fuck all your going to say to make me leave.
0
callanca (1273)
5/3/2005 3:20:21 PM
Lin�nut wrote:
> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>>>  Unix was designed to allow multiple users and multiple *processes*
>>> to coexist happily on a server, able to do whatever they wanted to
>>> do without tripping over or interfering with each other. Windows
>>> evolved from a single-tasking environment barely powerful enough to
>>> run one app at a time.
>>
>> But what glorious apps they were (and are).  Linux/Unix still can't
>> approach them.
>
> Bullshit.
>
>> Do I hear an insinuation that one must always reboot after installing
>> software on Windows?
>>
>> If so....LIE.
>
> You don't always have to reboot on Windows.  You don't have to reboot
> if the installer is not replacing an active DLL or an active Registry
> entry.  You don't have to reboot when changing network settings if you
> take care not to disable networking before making the change (odd,
> isn't it?)  You don't have to reboot (usually) if the installer
> doesn't request a reboot.
>
>> I have 3.  My wife has 1.  My brother has 1.  My Mom has 2.  My Dad
>> has 2. My friends all have at least 2 in their houses.
>>
>> And we're all subsistence, poverty-level people.
>
> More bullshit.

LOL!



>>>  Really? Please give an example of something 'not provided for' in
>>> Unix that Windows can do.
>>
>> Allow people to actually enjoy using their personal computers.
>
> More bullshit.

True shit.

I notice you seem to have regained your natural eloquence.



0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/3/2005 3:24:17 PM
In article <vfMde.28556$Ow2.10957@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
> Ray Ingles wrote:
>>  Windows hopelessly confuses the two, so most apps of any complexity
>> require administrator privileges to function.
> 
> Which ones?

 Here are 189 of them:
 http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;307091

 Some other resources:
 http://nonadmin.editme.com/KnownProblems

> Do I hear an insinuation that one must always reboot after installing
> software on Windows?
 
 No, but you have to do so with distressing frequency. E.g. installing
a *compiler*!Heck, just inserting a new USB device, or inserting an old
one in a different slot, can require a reinstall of the driver and a
reboot.

> ???  Most households (above a certain level of income) have multiple
> computers.
 
 Specify that 'certain level'. I'd like to be able to estimate how many
people are below that level...

> I have 3.  My wife has 1.  My brother has 1.  My Mom has 2.  My Dad
> has 2. My friends all have at least 2 in their houses.
> 
> And we're all subsistence, poverty-level people.

 So there's a computer for every member of the household as billwg
suggests?

>>  Really? Please give an example of something 'not provided for' in
>> Unix that Windows can do.
> 
> Allow people to actually enjoy using their personal computers.

 The Windows users I know are hopelessly frustrated by malware. The
Linux types have computers that just do what they want them to do.

-- 
 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                          (313) 227-2317

 "Bush's claim that he listed three exceptions under which he would
 run deficits during a 2000 Chicago campaign stop -- war, national
 emergency or recession -- is blatantly false. No one has found any
 evidence that Bush made such a statement, and the White House has
         pointedly failed to provide any." - Salon
0
sorceror1 (1083)
5/3/2005 3:26:27 PM
begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Tue, 03 May 2005 10:53:15 -0400, that DFS
was seen to write:

<snip>
> I have 3.  My wife has 1.  My brother has 1.  My Mom has 2.  My Dad has 2.
> My friends all have at least 2 in their houses.
> 
> And we're all subsistence, poverty-level people.

Again, which University did you get your Degree in Bollocks from?

>>> That sets the
>>> scene with a potential for individual creativity of use that was never
>>> imagined and so never provided for in the old unix mold.
>>
>>  Really? Please give an example of something 'not provided for' in
>> Unix that Windows can do.
> 
> Allow people to actually enjoy using their personal computers.

Yes, that's linux, but he was asking for something "not provided for". I
can think of three things that windows provides which linux doesn't. 
Adware
Spyware.
Malware/viruses.

-- 
With GPL the only thing Microsoft 
gets for free is nightmares.
-- Jean Francois Martinez --
0
willpoast (5106)
5/3/2005 3:27:35 PM
Ray Ingles wrote:
> In article <46ude.27672$Ow2.10878@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>>  Yes, hooking up a Windows system to the Internet will cause it not
>>> to work unless you knw your way around the registry. Glad we agree.
>>
>> Correction: Yes, hooking up _that malware-infected_ Windows system
>> to the Internet will cause it not to work unless _that
>> malware-infected system's owner or user_ knows his way around the
>> registry.
>
>  Of course, the user got malware-infected by connecting to the
> Internet. All those malware-infected machines got infected by
> connecting to the Internet. So, if you want to hook up a Windows
> system to the internet, you'd better know your way around the
> registry, or your system will be 0wned by someone else.

Your circular reasoning is making you dizzy.




>>>>>>>> "Microsoft makes email less secure for a few reasons"  LIE.
>>>>>>>> Viruses make email less secure.
>
>  Still like that. :->

Good.




>>>  As long as you're their client, they have to carry your traffic, no
>>> matter who you call. Go look up the relevant legal references. I'll
>>> wait.
>>
>> No need.  A telco will not willingly carry information they know to
>> be criminal.
>
>  Wow, you're dense.

I am.  And I probably shouldn't have stated it that way.  What I believe is
a telco isn't required to provide phone service to entities they know are
criminal.



> Let me reiterate an example of that very practice.
> I suggest you actually read the article I pointed you to before:
>
>  http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/4781806/
>
>  Here, let me quote a part of it; wouldn't want you to wear yourself
> out reading an entire article: "So when a criminal calls in, the
> operators must relay the call without interfering."
>
>  You *really* need to study the law in this area.

http://tariffs.uswest.com:8000/eldocs/TARIFFS/Oregon/ORET/or_e_t_s006p001.pdf

6. MESSAGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
6.1 GENERAL
6.1.2 TERMS AND CONDITIONS (Cont'd)
C. Use of Service
1. The Company shall refuse to establish service for any applicant, and it
shall
discontinue and disconnect service to a customer, whenever it has reasonable
cause to believe that the use made or to be made of the service, or the
furnishing
of service to the premises of the applicant or customer, is prohibited under
any
law, ordinance, regulation, or other legal requirement, or is being or is to
be used
directly or indirectly, to violate or to aid and abet the violation of the
law. A
written notice to the Company from any official charged with the enforcement
of
the law stating that the service is being used or will be used in order to
violate or
to aid and abet the violation of the law, is sufficient to constitute
reasonable
cause.



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/puc/5311-5322.html

"(c) Any telephone utility operating under the jurisdiction of the
commission shall refuse telephone service to a new customer and shall
disconnect telephone service of an existing customer only after it
is shown that other available enforcement remedies of the commission
have failed to terminate unlawful activities detrimental to the
public welfare and safety,..."



There's probably a federal law citation somewhere, I just couldn't find it.

Do I understand your thinking: telco's are obligated by law to carry
"virus-laden" data (computer malware, criminal conversations, etc) and have
no liability for doing so, and by extension sendmail is also excused for
propagating viruses?



>> sendmail will and does, to the detriment of the whole world.
>
>  Can you give an example of an email server that doesn't? Can you give
> an example of an email server that doesn't by default?

What does that have to do with anything?  It surely doesn't excuse sendmail
if MS Exchange Server commits the same offense.



> Now, are you
> aware that there are products available that can do such filtering if
> the user wants it, even ones that hook up to sendmail?

I'm sure there are such products, but they're not working too well if
there's so much malware being spread by sendmail and Linux servers.




>> But Ford can inspect the vehicle and still not know it will be used
>> for nefarious purposes.  sendmail, however, can inspect the email
>> and positively identify it as a virus, but won't.
>
>  Actually, you can set it up to do so. You can set up Exchange to do
> so, too, but in both cases it takes work. Guess they are both equally
> liable, eh?

Of course.



>>>  Ah, but sendmail is doing its job, relaying the information.
>>
>> And MS/Windows/OE/Outlook/IE is doing the same.
>
>  It's not Outlook's job to patch the operating system, but that's what
> it does. Real email clients don't leave holes like buffer overflows
> lying around.

http://www.securiteam.com/exploits/3Z5QCS0MUY.html  (old, but still)

And you were calling me dense.

And even if Linux/OSS email clients don't have lots of buffer overflows
(that I could find), the Linux/OSS world is full of them.




>>> (And how, pray tell, would it do so? Feel free to elaborate...)
>>
>> The same way anti-virus programs work:
>
>  So now you say that any program that isn't also an antivirus program
> is negligent? Interesting position. Are all of your SQL programs
> virus-checkers, too? What if some malware tries to store a copy of
> itself in one of your databases, will you catch that?

I'm not saying anything like that, so try to keep focused.  You asked how
sendmail would verify the email data is safe.  That's the question I
addressed.  I didn't say anything about databases.




>>>  Microsoft software, on the other hand, is broken in ways that can
>>> be exploited by malicious individials (or, increasingly these days,
>>> groups).
>>
>> MS software isn't broken.  Malicious individuals and groups are.
>
> I'm beginning to think *you* are. You remind me of a wife defending
> an abusive husband.

You remind me of a Linux/OSS guy who parrots the party line from morning to
night.


> My mail-reading software doesn't allow emails from
> random losers to run arbitrary code on my machine without my
> permission.

Nor does mine.


> You apparently think your mail reader has the right to do
> that.

You apparently don't know what you're talking about.


> Enjoy your serfdom, I guess.

It's only Linux/OSS nutcases who are victims here.




>>> Like a vault maker that sells vaults to banks even though
>>> they know there are easy ways to break in.
>>
>> By that measure (ease of break-in), Linux/OSS apps are very guilty,
>> as buffer overflow vulnerabilities are the most widely-known and
>> used exploits. But still, day after day after year after year, they
>> show up.
>
>  "...even though they *know*..." When flaws are found in OSS software,
> it gets fixed quickly.  Microsoft ships known-broken software and sits
> on patches.

ha!  Don't give me this "gets fixed quickly" crapola.  Nearly 8 months ago
cola nut Rob Hughes reported the OO.o Calc mangler macro I found to
OpenOffice.org.  Guess what?  It still hasn't been fixed, and they've
shipped at least two beta versions since then.  It probably never will be
fixed.  Same for untold numbers of bugs in OSS.



> I wonder if you can see the difference?

I can see the difference in what you and I consider broken.





>>>  How about "most Windows systems will tell you"? That's the most
>>> accurate...
>>
>> That presupposes most Windows users leave the their Windows Explorer
>> Folder Options settings at the default.  I don't agree.  Plus, the
>> default settings vary from version to version.
>
>  Can you point out a version where the "hide extensions for known file
> types" setting wasn't enabled by default?

Windows 3.1 showed extensions by default (LOL!).  After that I don't
know/remember.



0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/3/2005 4:02:11 PM
billwg wrote:

> Lin�nut wrote:

>> He means "de facto", I guess.  I doubt anyone really uses a limited
>>  access account for very long on Windows, it can be inconvenient.

> Any restrictions on use are an inconvenience if you are capable of 
> doing more in an unrestricted environment, nut.  Windows has been 
> designed from the beginning as a personal computer platform that 
> allows the owner /user the freedom to do whatever they want to do 
> today.  That necessarily includes the freedom to do something 
> foolish, but that is the case with everything from jet airplanes to 
> five pound boxes of chocolates.

This is news to me. Which Windows are you referring to here. WindowsNT
was specifically designed for multi users access. It was also
specifically designed for secure network usage as a server. That it
fails spectacularly at both is a monument to its designers incompetence.

> Competence begins with education and eventually makes most men much 
> more free than they are with even a highly skilled and benevolent 
> keeper such as the linux systems are designed to have based on their
>  unix heritage. Unix was created when ordinary people could not
> manage or afford a computer and were designed to allow a multitude of
> users to share one precious resource, the electronic equivalent of a 
> public well.

> Today we have outgrown this model and have water piped to every home
>  just as everyman has their own computer in most cases.  That sets
> the scene with a potential for individual creativity of use that was
>  never imagined and so never provided for in the old unix mold.

How does the above equate to the `Next-Generation Secure Computing
Base'. As in there will be a chip in every computer monitoring usage and
reporting back to whoever.

> Beware the pedantic IT weenies that inhabit cola who would rather 
> keep their once monopoly on computer freedom!

You're a very confused boy. How does one ever hold a monopoly on
freedom. You're talking utter tripe.
0
5/3/2005 4:04:43 PM
billwg wrote:

> AWindows has been designed 
> from the beginning as a personal computer platform that allows the owner 
> /user the freedom to do whatever they want to do today.  

Windows has been designed to "look" like an operating system.

It's a shill.




-- 
Texeme Construct
http://texeme.com
0
jabailo (8241)
5/3/2005 4:07:16 PM
DFS wrote:
> billwg wrote:
> 
> 
>>Beware the pedantic IT weenies that inhabit cola who would rather keep
>>their once monopoly on computer freedom!
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Nice.
> 
> 

Windowshills.


-- 
Texeme Construct
http://texeme.com
0
jabailo (8241)
5/3/2005 4:07:54 PM
Colliermeister wrote:
> Which Windows are you referring to here. WindowsNT
> was specifically designed for multi users access. It was also
> specifically designed for secure network usage as a server. That it
> fails spectacularly at both is a monument to its designers incompetence.

No, it was designed to do what Linux did -- kill Unix.

Unfortunately, there was no powder in Bill Gate$ shotgun.

His arrows were bent, if you get my drift.

His long bow, went short, wink, wink.

A nod is as good as wink to a blind horse, eh, goven 'nor.





-- 
Texeme Construct
http://texeme.com
0
jabailo (8241)
5/3/2005 4:09:52 PM
Philip Callan wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>
>>
>> Pure baseless speculation, and more paranoid Linux/OSS nutjobs
>> accusing MS of bad faith actions.
>>
>> MS may have used GeCAD technology in the recent MS AntiSpyware app.
>> Or not. That link, and lowlife's claim, prove nothing and mean
>> nothing.
>>
>
> You fuckwit, GeCAD /run ons linux/ its only purpose is removing
> attachments harmful to WINDOWS machines.

So?  That doesn't mean MS bought the program just to kill it.  Why would
they do that, since it would only harm Windows users?  And just because it
runs on Linux doesn't mean it can't be adapted to run on Windows.



> You are the unethical lowlife here DooFuS,

Considering that you smoke dope, and rant against capitalism and the US and
MS/Windows (while at the same time using the advantages they provide you),
you are unethical.



> afraid to use your real name,

Why do you care what my name is?  What does it have to do with anything?



> and stuck shifting amongst your nyms to try and antagonize and
> distract.

> So fuck you, DooFuS, Hyeena, Simon Cooke, Erik FuDkenbusch, skagg71,
> drestin black, chad myers, whatever fucking nym your antagonistic
> homophobic ass chooses to use today.

I only have one nym, lowlife.  I have only ever used one nym, since I first
posted here June 2004.

And what homophobia?  You mean referring to ralph as romantic, sexy and
funny?  What's wrong with that?  Isn't he?



> You are the unethical fuckwit that pulled this shit before with Bilk
> and others, anyone who said something you don't like, your on the
> attack, doing what you can to try and slag the person, to drive them
> off COLA.

You're out of your mind, lowlife  I've never addressed Bilk (that I can
remember).  And I generally refrain from personal attacks, unless the post
is incredibly pro-Linux stupid (many cola nut posts), incredibly
anti-MS/Windows stupid (every Rex Ballard post) or insults me first for no
reason (you, Willie Poaster, a few others)



> In my case you seem to jump on my occassional usage of pot, at least
> it won't give as much ammo for your homophobia, go right ahead, there
> is fuck all your going to say to make me leave.

I don't want you to leave.  I want you to stay and argue and contribute more
hostile rants.  Like this one.





0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/3/2005 4:24:58 PM
Ray Ingles wrote:
> In article <vfMde.28556$Ow2.10957@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
>> Ray Ingles wrote:
>>>  Windows hopelessly confuses the two, so most apps of any complexity
>>> require administrator privileges to function.
>>
>> Which ones?
>
>  Here are 189 of them:
>  http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;307091

Almost all are old games, and all were created for versions of Windows other
than XP.  And you call me dense and desperate....



>  Some other resources:
>  http://nonadmin.editme.com/KnownProblems

Did you miss these?  Results 1 - 10 of about 4,260,000 for known Linux
problems. (0.10 seconds)



>> Do I hear an insinuation that one must always reboot after installing
>> software on Windows?
>
>  No, but you have to do so with distressing frequency. E.g. installing
> a *compiler*! Heck, just inserting a new USB device, or inserting an
> old one in a different slot, can require a reinstall of the driver
> and a reboot.

But that's the exception.

I agree, it's not the ideal situation, but it's not the end of the world,
either.  Rebooting takes about a minute and a half, and only for some
installs, so it's generally a non-issue for most Windows users.




>>>  Really? Please give an example of something 'not provided for' in
>>> Unix that Windows can do.
>>
>> Allow people to actually enjoy using their personal computers.
>
>  The Windows users I know are hopelessly frustrated by malware. The
> Linux types have computers that just do what they want them to do.

And what they really want them to do is run Windows software.



0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/3/2005 5:11:50 PM
begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Tue, 03 May 2005 13:11:50 -0400, that DFS
was seen to write:

<snip>
>>  The Windows users I know are hopelessly frustrated by malware. The
>> Linux types have computers that just do what they want them to do.
> 
> And what they really want them to do is run Windows software.

So now you know what other people *really* want on their computers,
eh...you really are a pillock. Personally, I don't want M$haft crapware
anywhere near *my* machines.

-- 
With GPL the only thing Microsoft 
gets for free is nightmares.
-- Jean Francois Martinez --
0
willpoast (5106)
5/3/2005 5:44:52 PM
begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Tue, 03 May 2005 12:02:11 -0400, that DFS
was seen to write:

> Ray Ingles wrote:

>>>>>>>>> "Microsoft makes email less secure for a few reasons"  LIE.
>>>>>>>>> Viruses make email less secure.
>>
>>  Still like that. :->
> 
> Good.

Because it's funny.


<snip more drivel>

<snip>
>>> MS software isn't broken.  Malicious individuals and groups are.

So they've fixed OE's 'begin' bug have they....

>> I'm beginning to think *you* are. You remind me of a wife defending an
>> abusive husband.
> 
> You remind me of a Linux/OSS guy who parrots the party line from morning
> to night.

Funny, that's *just* what you sound like, parroting the M$ line, day after
day after day....

<snip>
>> Enjoy your serfdom, I guess.
> 
> It's only Linux/OSS nutcases who are victims here.

We're free, how can *we* be victims.....sheesh.

<snip>

-- 
With GPL the only thing Microsoft 
gets for free is nightmares.
-- Jean Francois Martinez --
0
willpoast (5106)
5/3/2005 5:55:05 PM
On Tue, 03 May 2005 10:53:15 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Ray Ingles wrote:
>> In article <88Kde.26401$716.6144@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, billwg
>> wrote:
>>
>>>   Unix was created when ordinary people could not manage or afford a
>>> computer and were designed to allow a multitude of users to share one
>>> precious resource, the electronic equivalent of a public well.
>>
>>  Unix was designed to allow multiple users and multiple *processes* to
>> coexist happily on a server, able to do whatever they wanted to do
>> without tripping over or interfering with each other. Windows evolved
>> from a single-tasking environment barely powerful enough to run one
>> app at a time.
> 
> But what glorious apps they were (and are).  Linux/Unix still can't approach
> them.

Bullshit.

> 
> 
>>  In a typical scenario, there are two "modes"; one, a user mode where
>> you're actually doing something with the applications, and an
>> "administrator" mode where you're working on the setup of the
>> computer.
>>
>>  Windows hopelessly confuses the two, so most apps of any complexity
>> require administrator privileges to function.
> 
> Which ones?

Most of 'em.

> 
> 
> 
>>  But there is no reason that the same person can't do both kinds of
>> work, and even do it at the same time under Unix. I do that all the
>> time on my system. I can do work with my own account, and switch to
>> another window and log in as root to install some software. And I
>> don't even need to reboot after it's installed!
> 
> Do I hear an insinuation that one must always reboot after installing
> software on Windows?
> 
> If so....LIE.

It's rare not to have to reboot after installation in Windows. Even if you
don't do so immediately, you'll be prompted to do so later.

> 
> 
> 
>>> Today we have outgrown this model and have water piped to every home
>>> just as everyman has their own computer in most cases.
>>
>>  I dunno what circles you run in, but very few of the households I've
>> seen have more than one computer.
> 
> ???  Most households (above a certain level of income) have multiple
> computers.
> 
> I have 3.  My wife has 1.  My brother has 1.  My Mom has 2.  My Dad has 2.
> My friends all have at least 2 in their houses.
> 
> And we're all subsistence, poverty-level people.

You have a strange idea of what constitutes poverty-level subsistence.

> 
> 
> 
>>> That sets the
>>> scene with a potential for individual creativity of use that was
>>> never imagined and so never provided for in the old unix mold.
>>
>>  Really? Please give an example of something 'not provided for' in
>> Unix that Windows can do.
> 
> Allow people to actually enjoy using their personal computers.

I seem to enjoy using mine, and so do the other Linux users I know. Tell
me what's enjoyable about losing your internet acess for two weeks because
of a Windows worm (that happened to a workmate of mine recently).

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
5/3/2005 6:14:41 PM
On Tue, 03 May 2005 12:24:58 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Philip Callan wrote:
> 
>> You are the unethical lowlife here DooFuS,
> 
> Considering that you smoke dope, and rant against capitalism and the US and
> MS/Windows (while at the same time using the advantages they provide you),
> you are unethical.

Now tell us how it is 'unethical' to dislike or even hate capitalism, or
MS or the US, or to use dope (dope-smoking may well be illegal where he
comes from, that doesn't automatically make it 'unethical'. In some other
countries it is legal).

-- 
Kier


0
vallon (8614)
5/3/2005 6:27:56 PM
In article <qhOde.31536$Jg7.17862@fe03.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>  Here are 189 of them:
>>  http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;307091
> 
> Almost all are old games, and all were created for versions of Windows other
> than XP.  And you call me dense and desperate....
 
 But... but... I thought *everyone* wanted to play games, and no one
can play games under Linux! So games must be a critical feature of
Windows! How dare you dismiss them so cavalierly?
 
>>  Some other resources:
>>  http://nonadmin.editme.com/KnownProblems
> 
> Did you miss these?  Results 1 - 10 of about 4,260,000 for known Linux
> problems. (0.10 seconds)

 You really have no shame, do you? The webpage I pointed you to lists
"Known Problems" with applications running without administrator
privileges specifically. It links to the following website that lists
applications that have problems with this model:

 http://pluralsight.com/wiki/default.aspx/Keith.HallOfShame

 Notes such games as AutoCAD, QuickBooks, Picasa, ActiveSync, the
Palm Desktop, TurboTax, and even the Windows XP clock!

 Here's a choice quote directly from Microsoft:

 http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
 url=/library/en-us/dnlong/html/leastprivlh.asp

 "Users expect to be able to install software on their machines, but
 you can't install 90 percent of today's software unless you're an
 administrator. Users expect software to run without crashing, but 70
 percent of software won't run properly unless the user is an
 administrator, and that's an optimistic number... But why, you might
 ask, should users want to run as non-administrators, especially home
 users? Well, if it were actually easy to do, the home user would reap
 loads of benefits. Malware (a virus, worm, or other malicious code)
 loves having administrative privileges. Surfing the Web or reading
 e-mail as an administrator is just plain dangerous these days. What
 about your kids? Wouldn't it be nice to allow them to install and play
 games on your home computer knowing that they won't accidentally break
 something, install spyware, or remove the content rating limitations
 you've imposed? Think about it this way: running as an administrator
 effectively turns off most of the security protections provided by
 Windows. Home and corporate users alike shouldn't be turning off these
 protections, especially when connected to the Internet, which has
 become a rather dangerous neighborhood."

 (Can't wait to point that link out to billwg...) Of course, the article
goes on to promise that Longhorn will be so much better. When's that due
again?

 But anyway, just for grins, let's do the comparable search for Windows:
 Results 1 - 10 of about 11,500,000 for known windows problems. (0.85
seconds)

 There we go, more Windows problems than Linux ones. Get started
switching!

-- 
 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                         (313) 227-2317

 A citizen of the USA will cross the ocean to fight for democracy,
         but won't cross the street to vote in elections.
0
sorceror1 (1083)
5/3/2005 6:36:43 PM
DFS wrote:
> Philip Callan wrote:
> > 
>>So fuck you, DooFuS, Hyeena, Simon Cooke, Erik FuDkenbusch, skagg71,
>>drestin black, chad myers, whatever fucking nym your antagonistic
>>homophobic ass chooses to use today.
> 
> 
> I only have one nym, lowlife.  I have only ever used one nym, since I first
> posted here June 2004.

Bullshit, they are all mouthpieces for the same revisionist, deceptive FUD.

I don't care which Clampett is typing, your all just spewing the 
hillbilly line....
0
callanca (1273)
5/3/2005 6:49:49 PM
Philip Callan wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>> Philip Callan wrote:
>>>
>>> So fuck you, DooFuS, Hyeena, Simon Cooke, Erik FuDkenbusch, skagg71,
>>> drestin black, chad myers, whatever fucking nym your antagonistic
>>> homophobic ass chooses to use today.
>>
>>
>> I only have one nym, lowlife.  I have only ever used one nym, since
>> I first posted here June 2004.
>
> Bullshit, they are all mouthpieces for the same revisionist,
> deceptive FUD.
>
> I don't care which Clampett is typing, your all just spewing the
> hillbilly line....

Speaking of hillbillies: your = you're

Typical cola bozo: if I don't agree with the cola party line, I'm a FUDder,
stupid, hillbilly, antagonistic, etc.


0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/3/2005 6:59:41 PM
On Tue, 03 May 2005 13:11:50 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Ray Ingles wrote:
>> In article <vfMde.28556$Ow2.10957@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>> Ray Ingles wrote:
>>>>  Windows hopelessly confuses the two, so most apps of any complexity
>>>> require administrator privileges to function.
>>>
>>> Which ones?
>>
>>  Here are 189 of them:
>>  http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;307091
> 
> Almost all are old games, and all were created for versions of Windows other
> than XP.  And you call me dense and desperate....

You generally are. remember how you dragged up all those old, old Debian
bugs that were mostly fixed or not even worth mentioning?

> 
> 
> 
>>  Some other resources:
>>  http://nonadmin.editme.com/KnownProblems
> 
> Did you miss these?  Results 1 - 10 of about 4,260,000 for known Linux
> problems. (0.10 seconds)

Big deal. How many Windows problems are there? How may of those results
are actually about *different* or *current* problems. Results like those
are essentially meaningless.

> 
> 
> 
>>> Do I hear an insinuation that one must always reboot after installing
>>> software on Windows?
>>
>>  No, but you have to do so with distressing frequency. E.g. installing
>> a *compiler*! Heck, just inserting a new USB device, or inserting an
>> old one in a different slot, can require a reinstall of the driver and
>> a reboot.
> 
> But that's the exception.

Is it?

> 
> I agree, it's not the ideal situation, but it's not the end of the world,
> either.  Rebooting takes about a minute and a half, and only for some
> installs, so it's generally a non-issue for most Windows users.

It's an unnecessary and annoying procedure. You complain about the time it
supposedly takes to boot Linux, yet you don't care if you have to reboot
after every install?
 
>>>>  Really? Please give an example of something 'not provided for' in
>>>> Unix that Windows can do.
>>>
>>> Allow people to actually enjoy using their personal computers.
>>
>>  The Windows users I know are hopelessly frustrated by malware. The
>> Linux types have computers that just do what they want them to do.
> 
> And what they really want them to do is run Windows software.

Lie. Lying. Liar. You don't know how to do anything else, do you?

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
5/3/2005 7:03:02 PM
In article <8gNde.34487$c42.13608@fe07.lga>, DFS wrote:
> I am.  And I probably shouldn't have stated it that way.  What I believe is
> a telco isn't required to provide phone service to entities they know are
> criminal.

 Hey, you're almost right! But if they *do* provide service, they have
to carry evrything. Look up "common carrier" sometime.
 
>>  Here, let me quote a part of it; wouldn't want you to wear yourself
>> out reading an entire article: "So when a criminal calls in, the
>> operators must relay the call without interfering."

 Way to ignore the point! Good job!

> A written notice to the Company from any official charged with the enforcement
> of the law stating that the service is being used or will be used in order to
> violate or to aid and abet the violation of the law, is sufficient to constitute
> reasonable cause.

 You give a sendmail admin written notice from a law enforcement agent,
they can disable an account. There you go.
 
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/puc/5311-5322.html
> 
> "(c) Any telephone utility operating under the jurisdiction of the
> commission shall refuse telephone service to a new customer and shall
> disconnect telephone service of an existing customer only after it
> is shown that other available enforcement remedies of the commission
> have failed to terminate unlawful activities detrimental to the
> public welfare and safety,..."
 
 See, until other avenues are exhausted, they can't refuse service!
Thanks, nice quote!
 
> Do I understand your thinking: telco's are obligated by law to carry
> "virus-laden" data (computer malware, criminal conversations, etc) and have
> no liability for doing so,

 Yeah, pretty much the definition of "common carrier".

> and by extension sendmail is also excused for propagating viruses?
 
 It's the job of a Mail Transport Agent to Tranport Mail. That's how
it's speced. MUAs and such are supposed to do filtering. There are
*extensions* that let MTAs reject mail based on content but they
aren't required. If you think they should be, perhaps you should
write up an RFC and submit it to the IETF.
 
>>  Can you give an example of an email server that doesn't? Can you give
>> an example of an email server that doesn't by default?
> 
> What does that have to do with anything?  It surely doesn't excuse
> sendmail if MS Exchange Server commits the same offense.

 Any random data could be a virus aimed at some program or another.
How exactly do you propose that an MTA verify the contents of a
password-protected archive, to note one example that's in active
use? This is too silly to even bother continuing with.
 
> I'm sure there are such products, but they're not working too well if
> there's so much malware being spread by sendmail and Linux servers.
 
 Wow, DFS admits that Linux has a huge market penetration in mail
servers! Cool, I'll remember that. Guess most people in the know
choose "slopware". :->
 
>>> And MS/Windows/OE/Outlook/IE is doing the same.
>>
>>  It's not Outlook's job to patch the operating system, but that's what
>> it does. Real email clients don't leave holes like buffer overflows
>> lying around.
> 
> http://www.securiteam.com/exploits/3Z5QCS0MUY.html  (old, but still)
 
 That's the *best* you have? It's not even exploitable by an email -
you need a local account to even try it! And it's been fixed for almost
eight years! That's what I mean, real email clients don't leave holes
lying around - they are fixed. On the other hand, Microsoft:

 http://www.safecenter.net/UMBRELLAWEBV4/ie_unpatched/

> And even if Linux/OSS email clients don't have lots of buffer overflows
> (that I could find), the Linux/OSS world is full of them.
 
 No, it isn't. (Gee, it's kind of fun arguing by assertion. So much
easier than backing up ones statements.)
 
> I'm not saying anything like that, so try to keep focused.  You asked how
> sendmail would verify the email data is safe.  That's the question I
> addressed.  I didn't say anything about databases.
 
 I didn't say anything about mail transport agents, but that didn't stop
*you*. I was talking about broken email clients. The most common one for
Microsoft is slopware, the most recent exploit you can find for a Linux
one is almost eight years old. :->
 
>> My mail-reading software doesn't allow emails from
>> random losers to run arbitrary code on my machine without my
>> permission.
> 
> Nor does mine.
 
 What do you use? Hope it isn't Outlook Express:

 http://secunia.com/product/102/

 11 vulnerabilities in the last two years, and some of them still
unpatched...
 
> ha!  Don't give me this "gets fixed quickly" crapola.  Nearly 8 months ago
> cola nut Rob Hughes reported the OO.o Calc mangler macro I found to
> OpenOffice.org.

 And this is a security issue how?

>>  Can you point out a version where the "hide extensions for known file
>> types" setting wasn't enabled by default?
> 
> Windows 3.1 showed extensions by default (LOL!).  After that I don't
> know/remember.

 Neither the Program Manager nor the File Manager are the Windows
Explorer. Basically, you can't name a single one so you'll pretend
there might have been one. I'll mail you a $5 check if you can name
a version of Windows Explorer (i.e. Win95 or beyond) that didn't
hide file extensions by default. I know my money's safe...

-- 
 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                    (313) 227-2317

 Westheimer's Discovery: A couple of months in the laboratory
    can frequently save a couple of hours in the library.
0
sorceror1 (1083)
5/3/2005 7:22:14 PM
Ray Ingles wrote:
> In article <qhOde.31536$Jg7.17862@fe03.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>>  Here are 189 of them:
>>>  http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;307091
>>
>> Almost all are old games, and all were created for versions of
>> Windows other than XP.  And you call me dense and desperate....
>
>  But... but... I thought *everyone* wanted to play games, and no one
> can play games under Linux! So games must be a critical feature of
> Windows! How dare you dismiss them so cavalierly?

But... but... but... your post said "most apps of any complexity require
administrator privileges to function."

Then you pointed me to approx. 15 old apps.  15 out of an XP app universe of
what?  100,000 programs?

15 is the best you can do?  After crowing "most"?

You're slipping, pal.



>>>  Some other resources:
>>>  http://nonadmin.editme.com/KnownProblems
>>
>> Did you miss these?  Results 1 - 10 of about 4,260,000 for known
>> Linux problems. (0.10 seconds)
>
>  You really have no shame, do you?

Only about 4,260,000 units of shame.



> The webpage I pointed you to lists
> "Known Problems" with applications running without administrator
> privileges specifically. It links to the following website that lists
> applications that have problems with this model:
>
>  http://pluralsight.com/wiki/default.aspx/Keith.HallOfShame
>
>  Notes such games as AutoCAD, QuickBooks, Picasa, ActiveSync, the
> Palm Desktop, TurboTax, and even the Windows XP clock!

Ray, the 'Net is chock full of bullshit Linux/OSS bugs, of any and all
kinds.



>  Here's a choice quote directly from Microsoft:
>
>  http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
>  url=/library/en-us/dnlong/html/leastprivlh.asp
>
<snip - I went to the page>

>  (Can't wait to point that link out to billwg...)

I bet you can't.  All I can say is MS posted some damning evidence there,
didn't they?  And on their own website.

Of course, it is one guy's opinion, and he offers zero evidence to back it
up.  And you sure can't.



> Of course, the
> article goes on to promise that Longhorn will be so much better.
> When's that due again?

I think late 2006 was the latest estimated ship date.  It'll be here before
you know it, so start saving.



>  But anyway, just for grins, let's do the comparable search for
>  Windows: Results 1 - 10 of about 11,500,000 for known windows
> problems. (0.85 seconds)
>
>  There we go, more Windows problems than Linux ones. Get started
> switching!

Windows market share: 93%
Linux market share: 3%
Ratio: 31 to 1

Google hits on known Windows problems: 11,500,000
Google hits on known Linux problems: 4,260,000
Ratio: 2.7 to 1

31 / 2.7 = 11.5

Based on market share, Linux has 11.5 times as many known problems as
Windows.  Sounds about right to me.




0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/3/2005 7:26:39 PM
In article <OfQde.31565$Jg7.15693@fe03.lga>, DFS wrote:
> But... but... but... your post said "most apps of any complexity require
> administrator privileges to function."
 
 And Microsoft agrees with me.

>>  Notes such games as AutoCAD, QuickBooks, Picasa, ActiveSync, the
>> Palm Desktop, TurboTax, and even the Windows XP clock!
> 
> Ray, the 'Net is chock full of bullshit Linux/OSS bugs, of any and all
> kinds.
 
 Even if this were true - and, of course, it isn't (I can assert just
as well as you can) - how is it relevant to the topic at hand, that
Windows isn't usable unless you run it as an administrator? You have
completely ignored that and tried to change the subject. I don't think
I'll bother discussing these side tangents with you. Address the topic
at hand, or buh-bye.
 
>> Of course, the
>> article goes on to promise that Longhorn will be so much better.
>> When's that due again?
> 
> I think late 2006 was the latest estimated ship date.  It'll be here before
> you know it, so start saving.
 
 Of course, it was already promised for "late 2004" and that whizzed by.
I'll believe it when I see it...
 
>>  There we go, more Windows problems than Linux ones. Get started
>> switching!
> 
> Windows market share: 93%
> Linux market share: 3%

 I won't hold my breath waiting for support of those numbers...

-- 
 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                     (313) 227-2317

 Linux is as much about being Communist, as is the phrase, "of
 the people, by the people, and for the people". - Jon Sculley
0
sorceror1 (1083)
5/3/2005 7:53:10 PM
Ray Ingles wrote:
> In article <8gNde.34487$c42.13608@fe07.lga>, DFS wrote:

>> A written notice to the Company from any official charged with the
>> enforcement of the law stating that the service is being used or
>> will be used in order to violate or to aid and abet the violation of
>> the law, is sufficient to constitute reasonable cause.
>
>  You give a sendmail admin written notice from a law enforcement
> agent, they can disable an account. There you go.

Great.  Unix: making the web safer, one criminal at a time.



>> Do I understand your thinking: telco's are obligated by law to carry
>> "virus-laden" data (computer malware, criminal conversations, etc)
>> and have no liability for doing so,
>
>  Yeah, pretty much the definition of "common carrier".
>
>> and by extension sendmail is also excused for propagating viruses?
>
>  It's the job of a Mail Transport Agent to Tranport Mail. That's how
> it's speced.

Now the specs are your excuse?  What about the "telco liability" excuse?



> MUAs and such are supposed to do filtering. There are
> *extensions* that let MTAs reject mail based on content but they
> aren't required. If you think they should be, perhaps you should
> write up an RFC and submit it to the IETF.

Will they listen to a Windope?



>>>  Can you give an example of an email server that doesn't? Can you
>>> give an example of an email server that doesn't by default?
>>
>> What does that have to do with anything?  It surely doesn't excuse
>> sendmail if MS Exchange Server commits the same offense.
>
>  Any random data could be a virus aimed at some program or another.
> How exactly do you propose that an MTA verify the contents of a
> password-protected archive, to note one example that's in active
> use? This is too silly to even bother continuing with.

You brought it up.



>> I'm sure there are such products, but they're not working too well if
>> there's so much malware being spread by sendmail and Linux servers.
>
>  Wow, DFS admits that Linux has a huge market penetration in mail
> servers! Cool, I'll remember that.

Please don't lie and attribute statements to me that don't resemble what I
said.



> Guess most people in the know choose "slopware". :->

sendmail isn't slopware.  It's Unix stuff.  It's old school.  It makes Ray
Ingles feel important to know about it, and toss it around in conversations.




>>>> And MS/Windows/OE/Outlook/IE is doing the same.
>>>
>>>  It's not Outlook's job to patch the operating system, but that's
>>> what it does. Real email clients don't leave holes like buffer
>>> overflows lying around.
>>
>> http://www.securiteam.com/exploits/3Z5QCS0MUY.html  (old, but still)
>
>  That's the *best* you have?

You said (let me quote you): "Real email clients don't leave holes like
buffer overflows lying around."

So I show you one and now you dismiss it?


> It's not even exploitable by an email -
> you need a local account to even try it! And it's been fixed for
> almost eight years! That's what I mean, real email clients don't
> leave holes lying around - they are fixed. On the other hand,
> Microsoft:
>
>  http://www.safecenter.net/UMBRELLAWEBV4/ie_unpatched/

And on the other other hand, Mozilla Thunderbird:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=specific&order=relevance+desc&bug_status=__open__&product=Thunderbird&content=security

(that's a search for open - Thunderbird - security)



>> And even if Linux/OSS email clients don't have lots of buffer
>> overflows (that I could find), the Linux/OSS world is full of them.
>
>  No, it isn't. (Gee, it's kind of fun arguing by assertion. So much
> easier than backing up ones statements.)

Please tell me you're kidding when you say "No, it isn't."




>> I'm not saying anything like that, so try to keep focused.  You
>> asked how sendmail would verify the email data is safe.  That's the
>> question I addressed.  I didn't say anything about databases.
>
>  I didn't say anything about mail transport agents, but that didn't
> stop *you*.

What?  That's exactly what you asked me to do.

Here's you: "Ah, but sendmail is doing its job, relaying the information.
It's not its
job to verify the data is safe. (And how, pray tell, would it do so?"

Here's me: "The same way anti-virus programs work:

- inspect for virus signatures, attachment names, bodies.
- quarantine certain file types - .exe, .com, .scr, .cpl and .bat - and
verify acceptance by the intended recipient."

Here's you: "I didn't say anything about mail transport agents..."

I see you use the popular 'On Nabbed Resume Denial' exception handling




> I was talking about broken email clients. The most common
> one for Microsoft is slopware, the most recent exploit you can find
> for a Linux one is almost eight years old. :->
>
>>> My mail-reading software doesn't allow emails from
>>> random losers to run arbitrary code on my machine without my
>>> permission.
>>
>> Nor does mine.
>
>  What do you use? Hope it isn't Outlook Express:

It is.  It works great.  One feature I like is it identifies Linux fanboys
who post 'begin  ' drivel.  It's almost self-plonking.




>  http://secunia.com/product/102/
>
>  11 vulnerabilities in the last two years, and some of them still
> unpatched...

Only 11?  Not bad at all, considering it's used by probably 100,000,000
people.

Hasn't given me many problems (besides a very few lockups that lost a
half-composed email or Usenet post).





>> ha!  Don't give me this "gets fixed quickly" crapola.  Nearly 8
>> months ago cola nut Rob Hughes reported the OO.o Calc mangler macro I
found to
>> OpenOffice.org.
>
>  And this is a security issue how?

What does security have to do with your bogus claim that "When flaws are
found in OSS software, it gets fixed quickly."?  All you have to do is log
into the Debian stable package distribution web page and sift through the
developer info and see head-spinning amounts of unfixed flaws.  Some are
years old.



>>>  Can you point out a version where the "hide extensions for known
>>> file types" setting wasn't enabled by default?
>>
>> Windows 3.1 showed extensions by default (LOL!).  After that I don't
>> know/remember.
>
>  Neither the Program Manager nor the File Manager are the Windows
> Explorer. Basically, you can't name a single one so you'll pretend
> there might have been one.

There's no pretending.  The Liam Slider claim was that Windows would show
*.jpg.exe as *.jpg.  The truth is it depends on your default settings and
the version of Windows.



> I'll mail you a $5 check if you can name
> a version of Windows Explorer (i.e. Win95 or beyond) that didn't
> hide file extensions by default. I know my money's safe...

It probably is.  And I see you're willing to be a lot on your knowledge...



0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/3/2005 8:26:41 PM
Kier wrote:
> On Tue, 03 May 2005 13:11:50 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> Ray Ingles wrote:
>>> In article <vfMde.28556$Ow2.10957@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>>> Ray Ingles wrote:
>>>>>  Windows hopelessly confuses the two, so most apps of any
>>>>> complexity require administrator privileges to function.
>>>>
>>>> Which ones?
>>>
>>>  Here are 189 of them:
>>>  http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;307091
>>
>> Almost all are old games, and all were created for versions of
>> Windows other than XP.  And you call me dense and desperate....
>
> You generally are. remember how you dragged up all those old, old
> Debian bugs that were mostly fixed or not even worth mentioning?

I don't remember that at all.  I remember bringing up old, unfixed Debian
bugs of normal importance.



>>>  Some other resources:
>>>  http://nonadmin.editme.com/KnownProblems
>>
>> Did you miss these?  Results 1 - 10 of about 4,260,000 for known
>> Linux problems. (0.10 seconds)
>
> Big deal. How many Windows problems are there? How may of those
> results are actually about *different* or *current* problems. Results
> like those are essentially meaningless.

They're very meaningful.  They give an indication of how much Net content
references those keywords.




>>>> Do I hear an insinuation that one must always reboot after
>>>> installing software on Windows?
>>>
>>>  No, but you have to do so with distressing frequency. E.g.
>>> installing a *compiler*! Heck, just inserting a new USB device, or
>>> inserting an old one in a different slot, can require a reinstall
>>> of the driver and a reboot.
>>
>> But that's the exception.
>
> Is it?

Of course it is.




>> I agree, it's not the ideal situation, but it's not the end of the
>> world, either.  Rebooting takes about a minute and a half, and only
>> for some installs, so it's generally a non-issue for most Windows
>> users.
>
> It's an unnecessary and annoying procedure. You complain about the
> time it supposedly takes to boot Linux, yet you don't care if you
> have to reboot after every install?

I don't have to reboot after Windows software installs every day.  When
running Linux, I do have to reboot daily (unless I want to waste electricity
and money).




>>>>>  Really? Please give an example of something 'not provided for' in
>>>>> Unix that Windows can do.
>>>>
>>>> Allow people to actually enjoy using their personal computers.
>>>
>>>  The Windows users I know are hopelessly frustrated by malware. The
>>> Linux types have computers that just do what they want them to do.
>>
>> And what they really want them to do is run Windows software.
>
> Lie. Lying. Liar. You don't know how to do anything else, do you?

It's not a lie.  You must be very unobservant.  Haven't you ever looked at
all the effort Linux nuts go to to run Windows programs and games?



0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/3/2005 8:38:06 PM
Ray Ingles wrote:
> In article <OfQde.31565$Jg7.15693@fe03.lga>, DFS wrote:
>> But... but... but... your post said "most apps of any complexity
>> require administrator privileges to function."
>
>  And Microsoft agrees with me.

Lie.  That author didn't work for MS.



>>>  Notes such games as AutoCAD, QuickBooks, Picasa, ActiveSync, the
>>> Palm Desktop, TurboTax, and even the Windows XP clock!
>>
>> Ray, the 'Net is chock full of bullshit Linux/OSS bugs, of any and
>> all kinds.
>
>  Even if this were true - and, of course, it isn't (I can assert just
> as well as you can) - how is it relevant to the topic at hand, that
> Windows isn't usable unless you run it as an administrator?

It's not really a topic.  It's more a lie you can't support.



> You have
> completely ignored that and tried to change the subject. I don't think
> I'll bother discussing these side tangents with you. Address the topic
> at hand, or buh-bye.

Changing the subject?  Like when you ask when Longhorn will be released?



>>> Of course, the
>>> article goes on to promise that Longhorn will be so much better.
>>> When's that due again?
>>
>> I think late 2006 was the latest estimated ship date.  It'll be here
>> before you know it, so start saving.
>
>  Of course, it was already promised for "late 2004" and that whizzed
> by. I'll believe it when I see it...

In the meantime, you have Linux to keep you busy.



>>>  There we go, more Windows problems than Linux ones. Get started
>>> switching!
>>
>> Windows market share: 93%
>> Linux market share: 3%
>
>  I won't hold my breath waiting for support of those numbers...

Actually, informed estimates for Linux market share range from 1.3% to 3.5%
(but pssssttt... it's really 15%.   Don't tell anyone).




0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/3/2005 8:44:13 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Bailo
<jabailo@texeme.com>
 wrote
on Tue, 03 May 2005 09:07:16 -0700
<ecOdnREr448tPOrfRVn-3Q@speakeasy.net>:
> billwg wrote:
>
>> AWindows has been designed 
>> from the beginning as a personal computer platform that allows the owner 
>> /user the freedom to do whatever they want to do today.  
>
> Windows has been designed to "look" like an operating system.
>
> It's a shill.
>

Pedant Point: Windows *is* an operating system -- or at least the
NTOSKRNL.EXE portion is.  In fact, Win3.11 was a true OS, according
to Andrew Schullman.  I'm not sure I fully understand his logic,
though.

Of course, the problems in Windows are many, and most of them
appear to be centered around the browser and its attendant parts,
though the Shell is also culpable, since it can't seem to
differentiate between "Open" and "Execute".  At least now it
seems to ask "Did you really want to do that?" prior to actually
opening an executable or installing a .REG file.

However, I am wondering whose bright idea it was to leave
the RPC ports open.

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
0
ewill (4394)
5/3/2005 9:00:03 PM
begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Tue, 03 May 2005 16:26:41 -0400, that DFS
was seen to write:

<snip>
> It is.  It works great.  One feature I like is it identifies Linux fanboys
> who post 'begin  ' drivel.  It's almost self-plonking.

Nope, it's sloppy coding on M$'s part, they just can't be bothered to fix
it. You OTOH are just stupid enough to keep using OE, inspite of warnings
not to, even from your own gummint. I suppose you use IE too, well you
would as a M$ lackey.

-- 
With GPL the only thing Microsoft 
gets for free is nightmares.
-- Jean Francois Martinez --
0
willpoast (5106)
5/3/2005 10:14:35 PM
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> Lin�nut wrote:
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/16/ms_fights_spyware/
>>
>>    "At the time, Microsoft said it would use GeCAD's expertise and
>>    technology to "enhance the Windows platform" and extend support for
>>    third-party antivirus vendors. Fast forward 18 months and Microsoft
>>    is yet to announce a product strategy (naysayers reckon MS only
>>    bought GeCAD to kill of the latter's Linux server products)."
>
> Pure baseless speculation, and more paranoid Linux/OSS nutjobs accusing MS
> of bad faith actions.
>
> MS may have used GeCAD technology in the recent MS AntiSpyware app.  Or not.
> That link, and lowlife's claim, prove nothing and mean nothing.

Except that it wouldn't be the first time Microsoft did something like
that.

Like it or not, it is part of the Microsoft reputation.  There was even
a Simpson's episode where Homer had some cock-a-mamie software idea.
Bill Gates visits, and makes the deal to buy Homer's business.  But
Bill's henchmen trash the place, and Bill doesn't pay.  He says "Hey, I
didn't get rich writing a lot of checks."

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
5/4/2005 1:15:34 AM
Kier poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> On Tue, 03 May 2005 12:24:58 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> Considering that you smoke dope, and rant against capitalism and the US and
>> MS/Windows (while at the same time using the advantages they provide you),
>> you are unethical.
>
> Now tell us how it is 'unethical' to dislike or even hate capitalism, or
> MS or the US, or to use dope (dope-smoking may well be illegal where he
> comes from, that doesn't automatically make it 'unethical'. In some other
> countries it is legal).

Personally, when I tried it in college, I liked it.  If it were legal,
I'd probably toke up now and then.  Instead, I take Zoloft.

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
5/4/2005 1:17:12 AM
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> Lin�nut wrote:
>> More bullshit.
>
> True shit.
>
> I notice you seem to have regained your natural eloquence.

Lack of time and patience.  What of it?

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
5/4/2005 1:18:21 AM
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> Actually, informed estimates for Linux market share range from 1.3% to 3.5%
> (but pssssttt... it's really 15%.   Don't tell anyone).

Two different things that.  Market share, I mean, versus how many PCs
have Linux loaded on them.

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
5/4/2005 1:20:18 AM
Kier wrote:
> On Tue, 03 May 2005 12:24:58 -0400, DFS wrote:
> 
> 
>>Philip Callan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You are the unethical lowlife here DooFuS,
>>
>>Considering that you smoke dope, and rant against capitalism and the US and
>>MS/Windows (while at the same time using the advantages they provide you),
>>you are unethical.
> 
> 
> Now tell us how it is 'unethical' to dislike or even hate capitalism, or
> MS or the US, or to use dope (dope-smoking may well be illegal where he
> comes from, that doesn't automatically make it 'unethical'. In some other
> countries it is legal).
> 

I don't /hate/ capitalism, as much as I dislike it being carried to the 
extreme, that the /only/ motivation is to accrue wealth, like life is a 
giant monopoly game...

I think companies have a responsibility to their stakeholders, not just 
shareholders. The unethical conduct that follows when the dollar is 
pursued above all else is quite evident from people like skilling and 
lay....
0
callanca (1273)
5/4/2005 1:48:30 AM
Lin�nut wrote:
> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> Lin�nut wrote:
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/16/ms_fights_spyware/
>>>
>>>    "At the time, Microsoft said it would use GeCAD's expertise and
>>>    technology to "enhance the Windows platform" and extend support
>>>    for third-party antivirus vendors. Fast forward 18 months and
>>>    Microsoft is yet to announce a product strategy (naysayers
>>>    reckon MS only bought GeCAD to kill of the latter's Linux server
>>> products)."
>>
>> Pure baseless speculation, and more paranoid Linux/OSS nutjobs
>> accusing MS of bad faith actions.
>>
>> MS may have used GeCAD technology in the recent MS AntiSpyware app.
>> Or not. That link, and lowlife's claim, prove nothing and mean
>> nothing.
>
> Except that it wouldn't be the first time Microsoft did something like
> that.

Something like what?  Like buying a company or a technology and not doing
with it what Linux nutjobs think should be done with it?

1) It's their product
2) None of you knows what was done with the GeCAD technology
3) It's none of cola's business anyway



> Like it or not, it is part of the Microsoft reputation.

No it's not.  It's part of the Linux/OSS world/cola paranoia, stupidity and
lies about Microsoft.  Like the "NSA back door," and billwg and I are paid
by MS to be here, and MS is dying, and MS is a criminal organization, and so
on.

Maybe you don't know it, but quite a few of the claims cola levels against
MS are born and die here, on this newsgroup.  The rest of the world doesn't
feel like many of you do.



> There was
> even a Simpson's episode where Homer had some cock-a-mamie software
> idea. Bill Gates visits, and makes the deal to buy Homer's business.
> But Bill's henchmen trash the place, and Bill doesn't pay.  He says
> "Hey, I didn't get rich writing a lot of checks."

So he's an easy target.  He's the world's richest man, founder of and
currently chief architect of the world's most powerful software company, and
it wouldn't look good for him or MS to fight back and crush Fox and the
Simpson's for libel (though I'm sure it's protected as parody material).
Besides, he probably has a good sense of humor about that kind of thing.


0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/4/2005 3:24:46 AM
On 2005-05-04, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
> Lin�nut wrote:
>> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>
>>> Lin�nut wrote:
>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/16/ms_fights_spyware/
>>>>
>>>>    "At the time, Microsoft said it would use GeCAD's expertise and
>>>>    technology to "enhance the Windows platform" and extend support
>>>>    for third-party antivirus vendors. Fast forward 18 months and
>>>>    Microsoft is yet to announce a product strategy (naysayers
>>>>    reckon MS only bought GeCAD to kill of the latter's Linux server
>>>> products)."
>>>
>>> Pure baseless speculation, and more paranoid Linux/OSS nutjobs
>>> accusing MS of bad faith actions.
>>>
>>> MS may have used GeCAD technology in the recent MS AntiSpyware app.
>>> Or not. That link, and lowlife's claim, prove nothing and mean
>>> nothing.
>>
>> Except that it wouldn't be the first time Microsoft did something like
>> that.
>
> Something like what?  Like buying a company or a technology and not doing
> with it what Linux nutjobs think should be done with it?
>
> 1) It's their product
> 2) None of you knows what was done with the GeCAD technology
> 3) It's none of cola's business anyway

	Sure it is, it's a LINUX product. There are potential customers
with a vested interest in seeing this product continue on. This is the same
as Oracle wanting to suddenly kill Peoplesoft or Microsoft suddenly deciding 
it doesn't want to be in the RDBMS business.

	It alters the market. It directly effects end users.

[deletia]

	This "it's their property, SCREW THE END USERS" mentality is precisely 
the reason that Free Software needs to exist and thrive.
	

-- 
	The best OS in the world is ultimately useless         |||
	if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates.      / | \
                                                     
0
jedi (14754)
5/4/2005 4:20:56 AM
DFS wrote something like:

> So he's an easy target.  He's the world's richest man, founder of and
> currently chief architect of the world's most powerful software company,
> and it wouldn't look good for him or MS to fight back and crush Fox and
> the Simpson's for libel (though I'm sure it's protected as parody
> material). Besides, he probably has a good sense of humor about that kind
> of thing.

Bill Gates is the world's richest man?

Oh yes, satire is protected from being stepped on by people like BG... If it
wasn't you can be sure MS would indeed have done something about it and
various other satire - like south park...

-- 
-
 I don't actually live here.
- 
0
linux_nut (576)
5/4/2005 5:34:22 AM
DFS wrote something like:


> I don't have to reboot after Windows software installs every day.  When
> running Linux, I do have to reboot daily (unless I want to waste
> electricity and money).

Not rebooting even XP after installation is a recipe for problems. It is
getting better, but has a ways to go... Of course MS will always say it's
the application or games fault, but likely it's to do with limitations in
the platform. 

Rebooting XP is the only way to restart some services (at least for the
normal person) and it is required after many installs. As for you rebooting
linux daily, that's a personal choice. It also sounds untrue unless you use
it about 10 minute per day to get your hour per week... There is no need to
reboot a linux box aside from a hardware or kernel change...
 
> It's not a lie.  You must be very unobservant.  Haven't you ever looked at
> all the effort Linux nuts go to to run Windows programs and games?

Linux users prefer native apps and use them in preference. But some game
makers don't port the software so you do the next best thing. Just because
I don't feel like the hassle of running windows doesn't mean I don't want
to run certain software...

-- 
-
 I don't actually live here.
- 
0
linux_nut (576)
5/4/2005 5:52:48 AM
DFS wrote something like:

> Ray Ingles wrote:
>> In article <qhOde.31536$Jg7.17862@fe03.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>>>  Here are 189 of them:
>>>>  http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;307091
>>>
>>> Almost all are old games, and all were created for versions of
>>> Windows other than XP.  And you call me dense and desperate....
>>
>>  But... but... I thought *everyone* wanted to play games, and no one
>> can play games under Linux! So games must be a critical feature of
>> Windows! How dare you dismiss them so cavalierly?
> 
> But... but... but... your post said "most apps of any complexity require
> administrator privileges to function."
> 
> Then you pointed me to approx. 15 old apps.  15 out of an XP app universe
> of
> what?  100,000 programs?
> 
> 15 is the best you can do?  After crowing "most"?
> 
> You're slipping, pal.
> 
> 
> 
>>>>  Some other resources:
>>>>  http://nonadmin.editme.com/KnownProblems
>>>
>>> Did you miss these?  Results 1 - 10 of about 4,260,000 for known
>>> Linux problems. (0.10 seconds)
>>
>>  You really have no shame, do you?
> 
> Only about 4,260,000 units of shame.
> 
> 
> 
>> The webpage I pointed you to lists
>> "Known Problems" with applications running without administrator
>> privileges specifically. It links to the following website that lists
>> applications that have problems with this model:
>>
>>  http://pluralsight.com/wiki/default.aspx/Keith.HallOfShame
>>
>>  Notes such games as AutoCAD, QuickBooks, Picasa, ActiveSync, the
>> Palm Desktop, TurboTax, and even the Windows XP clock!
> 
> Ray, the 'Net is chock full of bullshit Linux/OSS bugs, of any and all
> kinds.
> 
> 
> 
>>  Here's a choice quote directly from Microsoft:
>>
>>  http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?
>>  url=/library/en-us/dnlong/html/leastprivlh.asp
>>
> <snip - I went to the page>
> 
>>  (Can't wait to point that link out to billwg...)
> 
> I bet you can't.  All I can say is MS posted some damning evidence there,
> didn't they?  And on their own website.
> 
> Of course, it is one guy's opinion, and he offers zero evidence to back it
> up.  And you sure can't.
> 
> 
> 
>> Of course, the
>> article goes on to promise that Longhorn will be so much better.
>> When's that due again?
> 
> I think late 2006 was the latest estimated ship date.  It'll be here
> before you know it, so start saving.
> 
> 
> 
>>  But anyway, just for grins, let's do the comparable search for
>>  Windows: Results 1 - 10 of about 11,500,000 for known windows
>> problems. (0.85 seconds)
>>
>>  There we go, more Windows problems than Linux ones. Get started
>> switching!
> 
> Windows market share: 93%
> Linux market share: 3%
> Ratio: 31 to 1
> 
> Google hits on known Windows problems: 11,500,000
> Google hits on known Linux problems: 4,260,000
> Ratio: 2.7 to 1
> 
> 31 / 2.7 = 11.5
> 
> Based on market share, Linux has 11.5 times as many known problems as
> Windows.  Sounds about right to me.

Going by these figures I guess we have to conclude that most windows users
are not smart enough to use the internet or help forums... Which actually
isn't too far wrong as the majority go to their supplier or PC shop or
people like me who do this sort of repair work for a job...

Linux people don't really have this option, plus linux is known as an OS
used by 'all those hacker guys out on the internet'.

you can draw whatever troll material you want from the figures, I'll draw my
own conclusions - like the knowledge that it is a little hard for new linux
users who come out of the rut into a whole new world where they aren't told
what to do by the PC and have to choose what they want to do themselves...
It's pretty scarey stuff without big brother holding your balls... ah, I
mean hand... 

-- 
-
 I don't actually live here.
- 
0
linux_nut (576)
5/4/2005 5:59:24 AM
In article <VEMde.1207096$Xk.631040@pd7tw3no>,
 Philip Callan <callanca@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > MS may have used GeCAD technology in the recent MS AntiSpyware app.  Or not.
> > That link, and lowlife's claim, prove nothing and mean nothing.
> > 
> 
> You fuckwit, GeCAD /run ons linux/ its only purpose is removing 
> attachments harmful to WINDOWS machines.

They had a full range of server antivirus products, that ran on Linux, 
*BSD, Solaris, UnixWare, OS X, Netware, and Windows, and a range of 
desktop antivirus products covering Windows and Linux.

-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
5/4/2005 6:23:36 AM
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

>> Like it or not, it is part of the Microsoft reputation.
>
> No it's not.  It's part of the Linux/OSS world/cola paranoia, stupidity and
> lies about Microsoft.  Like the "NSA back door," and billwg and I are paid
> by MS to be here, and MS is dying, and MS is a criminal organization, and so
> on.
>
> Maybe you don't know it, but quite a few of the claims cola levels against
> MS are born and die here, on this newsgroup.  The rest of the world doesn't
> feel like many of you do.

You don't get out much, do you?

>> "Hey, I didn't get rich writing a lot of checks."
>
> So he's an easy target.  He's the world's richest man, founder of and
> currently chief architect of the world's most powerful software company, and
> it wouldn't look good for him or MS to fight back and crush Fox and the
> Simpson's for libel (though I'm sure it's protected as parody material).

Nah, Microsoft would never go after Fox.  Microsoft only goes after kids
and college students.

> Besides, he probably has a good sense of humor about that kind of thing.

One would hope so, since, as he put it "I have an infinite supply of
money."


-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
5/4/2005 11:17:45 AM
In article <xoRde.34683$QR1.13061@fe04.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>  And Microsoft agrees with me.
> 
> Lie.  That author didn't work for MS.
 
 No, they merely published him. :->
 
>>  Even if this were true - and, of course, it isn't (I can assert just
>> as well as you can) - how is it relevant to the topic at hand, that
>> Windows isn't usable unless you run it as an administrator?
> 
> It's not really a topic.  It's more a lie you can't support.
 
 Have a nice life, DFS. There's no point it continuing this charade.
I can talk with my two-year-old if I want someone to say, "No! Is not!"
to me over and over. :->
 
-- 
 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                         (313) 227-2317

 No explosions: We're safe! Vote for your protectors, the GOP (and
   allies.)
 Explosions: Don't lose resolve, and don't give the terrorists what
   they want! Vote for the GOP.
0
sorceror1 (1083)
5/4/2005 12:16:51 PM
In article <48Rde.34680$QR1.21939@fe04.lga>, DFS wrote:
> Now the specs are your excuse?  What about the "telco liability" excuse?

 It's the "telco liability" *analogy*. Try to keep up.

> You said (let me quote you): "Real email clients don't leave holes like
> buffer overflows lying around."
> 
> So I show you one and now you dismiss it?
 
 Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. (I'm assuming you have
a strong suit, somewhere.) Take a look at the very next paragraph:

>> That's what I mean, real email clients don't leave holes lying around
>> - they are fixed.

>>  I didn't say anything about mail transport agents, but that didn't
>> stop *you*.
> 
> What?  That's exactly what you asked me to do.
 
 Short memory. Move back a few posts, grasshopper. I basically said
OE was slopware, and you said, basically, that the post office shouldn't
deliver wine to alchoholics. :->

>>  And this is a security issue how?
> 
> What does security have to do with your bogus claim that "When flaws are
> found in OSS software, it gets fixed quickly."?

 Actually, I said "buffer overflows", not 'flaws in general'. (Though
yeah, OSS has a better track record there, too.)

>> I'll mail you a $5 check if you can name
>> a version of Windows Explorer (i.e. Win95 or beyond) that didn't
>> hide file extensions by default. I know my money's safe...
> 
> It probably is.  And I see you're willing to be a lot on your knowledge...

 You're subsistence, poverty level. You said so yourself. I figure
$5 would make a big difference in your life. :->

 Okay, I'm done now. I won't reply to this thread anymore, in Monty
Python fashion it's gotten too silly to continue. Feel free to get
in the last word. :->

-- 
 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                        (313) 227-2317

 "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
     temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
                   - Benjamin Franklin, 1755
0
sorceror1 (1083)
5/4/2005 12:32:36 PM
amosf wrote:

> 
> Going by these figures I guess we have to conclude that most windows users
> are not smart enough to use the internet or help forums... Which actually
> isn't too far wrong as the majority go to their supplier or PC shop or
> people like me who do this sort of repair work for a job...
> 
It is a fact that most people with a problem on a Wintel machine will 
take it to a perceived qualified repair depot  or, if the machine is 
new, just return it to the store where they purchased it.

> Linux people don't really have this option, plus linux is known as an OS
> used by 'all those hacker guys out on the internet'.
> 
> you can draw whatever troll material you want from the figures, I'll draw my
> own conclusions - like the knowledge that it is a little hard for new linux
> users who come out of the rut into a whole new world where they aren't told
> what to do by the PC and have to choose what they want to do themselves...
> It's pretty scarey stuff without big brother holding your balls... ah, I
> mean hand... 
> 
Well you are clearly a superior being, amos, that's how you got so rich 
and famous.  Most of the other users, fortunately for Microsoft, are 
stuck with relying on their suppliers for goods and services.  They are 
themselves fortunate that Microsoft and the OEMs have partnered to do 
such a wonderful job of keeping things constantly improving and growing. 
  You don't need anyone else, but those who do are grateful.
0
billwg (581)
5/4/2005 12:33:41 PM
begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Wed, 04 May 2005 08:32:36 -0400, that Ray
Ingles was seen to write:

<snip>
>  Okay, I'm done now. I won't reply to this thread anymore, in Monty
> Python fashion it's gotten too silly to continue. Feel free to get in the
> last word. :->

In other words:-

 luser [-d] [-g4] [-s] DFS

-- 
With GPL the only thing Microsoft 
gets for free is nightmares.
-- Jean Francois Martinez --
0
willpoast (5106)
5/4/2005 12:57:10 PM
On Tue, 03 May 2005 16:38:06 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Kier wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 May 2005 13:11:50 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Ray Ingles wrote:
>>>> In article <vfMde.28556$Ow2.10957@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>>>> Ray Ingles wrote:
>>>>>>  Windows hopelessly confuses the two, so most apps of any
>>>>>> complexity require administrator privileges to function.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which ones?
>>>>
>>>>  Here are 189 of them:
>>>>  http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;307091
>>>
>>> Almost all are old games, and all were created for versions of
>>> Windows other than XP.  And you call me dense and desperate....
>>
>> You generally are. remember how you dragged up all those old, old
>> Debian bugs that were mostly fixed or not even worth mentioning?
> 
> I don't remember that at all.  I remember bringing up old, unfixed Debian
> bugs of normal importance.

No, you lied about bugs that weren't that important, and had often been
fixed.

> 
> 
> 
>>>>  Some other resources:
>>>>  http://nonadmin.editme.com/KnownProblems
>>>
>>> Did you miss these?  Results 1 - 10 of about 4,260,000 for known
>>> Linux problems. (0.10 seconds)
>>
>> Big deal. How many Windows problems are there? How may of those
>> results are actually about *different* or *current* problems. Results
>> like those are essentially meaningless.
> 
> They're very meaningful.  They give an indication of how much Net content
> references those keywords.

Have you actually read them all?
 
> 
>>>>> Do I hear an insinuation that one must always reboot after
>>>>> installing software on Windows?
>>>>
>>>>  No, but you have to do so with distressing frequency. E.g.
>>>> installing a *compiler*! Heck, just inserting a new USB device, or
>>>> inserting an old one in a different slot, can require a reinstall
>>>> of the driver and a reboot.
>>>
>>> But that's the exception.
>>
>> Is it?
> 
> Of course it is.

Wrong.

> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> I agree, it's not the ideal situation, but it's not the end of the
>>> world, either.  Rebooting takes about a minute and a half, and only
>>> for some installs, so it's generally a non-issue for most Windows
>>> users.
>>
>> It's an unnecessary and annoying procedure. You complain about the
>> time it supposedly takes to boot Linux, yet you don't care if you
>> have to reboot after every install?
> 
> I don't have to reboot after Windows software installs every day.  When
> running Linux, I do have to reboot daily (unless I want to waste electricity
> and money).

Liar.
 
> 
>>>>>>  Really? Please give an example of something 'not provided for' in
>>>>>> Unix that Windows can do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Allow people to actually enjoy using their personal computers.
>>>>
>>>>  The Windows users I know are hopelessly frustrated by malware. The
>>>> Linux types have computers that just do what they want them to do.
>>>
>>> And what they really want them to do is run Windows software.
>>
>> Lie. Lying. Liar. You don't know how to do anything else, do you?
> 
> It's not a lie.  You must be very unobservant.  Haven't you ever looked at
> all the effort Linux nuts go to to run Windows programs and games?

No, because many of them don't. Me, I don't play games in Windows at all,
and not many in Linux. A lot of Linux users avoid MS and Windows softwware
completely, and don't enjoy using it even when required to at work. Yet
you continue to lie and say that they really want to run Windows.

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
5/4/2005 2:13:57 PM
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2005-05-04, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>> Lin�nut wrote:
>>> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>>
>>>> Lin�nut wrote:
>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/16/ms_fights_spyware/
>>>>>
>>>>>    "At the time, Microsoft said it would use GeCAD's expertise and
>>>>>    technology to "enhance the Windows platform" and extend support
>>>>>    for third-party antivirus vendors. Fast forward 18 months and
>>>>>    Microsoft is yet to announce a product strategy (naysayers
>>>>>    reckon MS only bought GeCAD to kill of the latter's Linux
>>>>> server products)."
>>>>
>>>> Pure baseless speculation, and more paranoid Linux/OSS nutjobs
>>>> accusing MS of bad faith actions.
>>>>
>>>> MS may have used GeCAD technology in the recent MS AntiSpyware app.
>>>> Or not. That link, and lowlife's claim, prove nothing and mean
>>>> nothing.
>>>
>>> Except that it wouldn't be the first time Microsoft did something
>>> like that.
>>
>> Something like what?  Like buying a company or a technology and not
>> doing with it what Linux nutjobs think should be done with it?
>>
>> 1) It's their product
>> 2) None of you knows what was done with the GeCAD technology
>> 3) It's none of cola's business anyway
>
> Sure it is, it's a LINUX product. There are potential customers
> with a vested interest in seeing this product continue on. This is
> the same as Oracle wanting to suddenly kill Peoplesoft or Microsoft
> suddenly deciding it doesn't want to be in the RDBMS business.
>
> It alters the market. It directly effects end users.

Yes.  And?

It happens every single day in every industry.  Companies decide to stop
making, selling and supporting products.  And the large majority of
companies don't provide a 2-year end of life warning, as MS does.




> This "it's their property, SCREW THE END USERS" mentality is precisely
> the reason that Free Software needs to exist and thrive.

I didn't say that, and I don't feel that way.  I said it's their product,
and it's not cola's business what they do with it.  If they want to screw
the end users, that's their decision to make.  It's much better business to
work with users and formulate an end of life strategy - but that's up to the
company.

Even if you personally are a GeCAD user with 100 licenses, you have zero
claim and zero say on what they can and should do with their property and
products and technology.  You don't own them.  You didn't develop them.  You
bought a license to use that software under whatever terms they offered.
Your rights begin and end with that license agreement, or with whatever
other contracts you might have entered into.

I know you cola fanatics would love to dictate to every closed source vendor
that they release their source code upon product end-of-life, but it's not
gonna happen.



0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/4/2005 2:15:54 PM
Ray Ingles wrote:
> In article <48Rde.34680$QR1.21939@fe04.lga>, DFS wrote:

>> Now the specs are your excuse?  What about the "telco liability"
>> excuse?
>
>  It's the "telco liability" *analogy*. Try to keep up.

It's an excuse wrapped up in an analogy surrounded by whining.


>>>  And this is a security issue how?
>>
>> What does security have to do with your bogus claim that "When flaws
>> are found in OSS software, it gets fixed quickly."?
>
>  Actually, I said "buffer overflows", not 'flaws in general'. (Though
> yeah, OSS has a better track record there, too.)

Actually you really said "flaws".  I can quote you on that.




>  You're subsistence, poverty level. You said so yourself. I figure
> $5 would make a big difference in your life. :->

Can you spare some change for an old altar boy?



>  Okay, I'm done now. I won't reply to this thread anymore, in Monty
> Python fashion it's gotten too silly to continue. Feel free to get
> in the last word. :->

I usually do.

Windows wins - again.



0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/4/2005 2:21:04 PM
DFS wrote:
<snippididoodah>
> I know you cola fanatics would love to dictate to every closed source vendor
> that they release their source code upon product end-of-life, but it's not
> gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
would be nice though...
To sleep, perchance, to dream...

-- 
Cheers,

Jim

-begin sig-
Opinions expressed in this message may or may not be representative of 
the opinions of its author. You decide.

Web: 	http://www.dotware.co.uk
	http://www.dotware-entertainment.co.uk

Portable: P4m 2.0, 1GB, 40GB, MX440/15" XGA@1600x1200, Wi-Fi, GPRS, 
DVD/CDRW, XPSP2/Knoppix
Powerbook G3/400, 392MB, 20GB, Rage 128/15"@1024x768, Wi-Fi, DVD, Mac OS 
X 10.4 "Tiger" Dev. Build
Desktop: AMD64 3200+@2.63GHz, 512MB, 80GB, FX5700LE/32" WXGA@2048x768, 
DVD+-RW, XPSP1/Debian
FileServer: Athlon XP 2400+, 256MB, 2.72TB, Blind, MuLinux

More but I'm not tellin' ya, there's a pool forming at your feet.
-end sig-
0
james199 (2531)
5/4/2005 2:22:52 PM
Jim wrote:
> DFS wrote:
> <snippididoodah>
>> I know you cola fanatics would love to dictate to every closed
>> source vendor that they release their source code upon product
>> end-of-life, but it's not gonna happen.
>>
>>
>>
> would be nice though...
> To sleep, perchance, to dream...

I love Rush (that's the second "movement" in the instrumental song La Villa
Strangiato, from their 1978 classic Hemispheres, one of my all-time favorite
albums).


0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/4/2005 2:48:55 PM
DFS wrote:
> Jim wrote:
> 
>>DFS wrote:
>><snippididoodah>
>>
>>>I know you cola fanatics would love to dictate to every closed
>>>source vendor that they release their source code upon product
>>>end-of-life, but it's not gonna happen.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>would be nice though...
>>To sleep, perchance, to dream...
> 
> 
> I love Rush (that's the second "movement" in the instrumental song La Villa
> Strangiato, from their 1978 classic Hemispheres, one of my all-time favorite
> albums).
> 
> 
I was quoting Shakespeare... Hamlet Act III scene i; it's part of the 
"To Be Or Not To Be" soliloquy

But, given one of the best progressive rock bands in history (bar Pink 
Floyd) adopted it for a track, I say "Go Rush!"

-- 
Cheers,

Jim

-begin sig-
Opinions expressed in this message may or may not be representative of 
the opinions of its author. You decide.

Web: 	http://www.dotware.co.uk
	http://www.dotware-entertainment.co.uk

Portable: P4m 2.0, 1GB, 40GB, MX440/15" XGA@1600x1200, Wi-Fi, GPRS, 
DVD/CDRW, XPSP2/Knoppix
Powerbook G3/400, 392MB, 20GB, Rage 128/15"@1024x768, Wi-Fi, DVD, Mac OS 
X 10.4 "Tiger" Dev. Build
Desktop: AMD64 3200+@2.63GHz, 512MB, 80GB, FX5700LE/32" WXGA@2048x768, 
DVD+-RW, XPSP1/Debian
FileServer: Athlon XP 2400+, 256MB, 2.72TB, Blind, MuLinux

More but I'm not tellin' ya, there's a pool forming at your feet.
-end sig-
0
james199 (2531)
5/4/2005 3:36:51 PM
begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Wed, 04 May 2005 10:21:04 -0400, that DFS
was seen to write:

> Ray Ingles wrote:
>> In article <48Rde.34680$QR1.21939@fe04.lga>, DFS wrote:

<snip>
>>  Okay, I'm done now. I won't reply to this thread anymore, in Monty
>> Python fashion it's gotten too silly to continue. Feel free to get in
>> the last word. :->
> 
> I usually do.
> 
> Windows wins - again.

You won nothing, you dope. He just got fed up with your stupidity.

-- 
With GPL the only thing Microsoft 
gets for free is nightmares.
-- Jean Francois Martinez --
0
willpoast (5106)
5/4/2005 4:08:17 PM
begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Tue, 03 May 2005 16:38:06 -0400, that DFS
was seen to write:

> Kier wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 May 2005 13:11:50 -0400, DFS wrote:

<snip>
>>> And what they really want them to do is run Windows software.
>>
>> Lie. Lying. Liar. You don't know how to do anything else, do you?
> 
> It's not a lie.  You must be very unobservant.  Haven't you ever looked at
> all the effort Linux nuts go to to run Windows programs and games?

There you go again, repeating the same old shit. Get it through your
stupid thick head, the majority of linux users are NOT interested in
Windows. Now take your toy M$ OS & shove it.

-- 
With GPL the only thing Microsoft 
gets for free is nightmares.
-- Jean Francois Martinez --
0
willpoast (5106)
5/4/2005 4:14:50 PM
On Tue, 03 May 2005 20:17:12 -0500, Lin�nutlin�nut wrote:

> Kier poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
> 
>> On Tue, 03 May 2005 12:24:58 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> Considering that you smoke dope, and rant against capitalism and the US and
>>> MS/Windows (while at the same time using the advantages they provide you),
>>> you are unethical.
>>
>> Now tell us how it is 'unethical' to dislike or even hate capitalism, or
>> MS or the US, or to use dope (dope-smoking may well be illegal where he
>> comes from, that doesn't automatically make it 'unethical'. In some other
>> countries it is legal).
> 
> Personally, when I tried it in college, I liked it.  If it were legal,
> I'd probably toke up now and then.  Instead, I take Zoloft.

I tried dope a few times, found it didn't do much for me, and stopped.
Plus, I prefer not to start smoking again. Drink mellows me out just as
well and the smell doesn't linger on one's clothes.

-- 
Kier
0
vallon (8614)
5/4/2005 6:11:33 PM
Jim wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>> Jim wrote:
>>
>>> DFS wrote:
>>> <snippididoodah>
>>>
>>>> I know you cola fanatics would love to dictate to every closed
>>>> source vendor that they release their source code upon product
>>>> end-of-life, but it's not gonna happen.
>>>>
>>>
>>> would be nice though...
>>> To sleep, perchance, to dream...
>>
>>
>> I love Rush (that's the second "movement" in the instrumental song
>> La Villa Strangiato, from their 1978 classic Hemispheres, one of my
>> all-time favorite albums).
>>
>>
> I was quoting Shakespeare... Hamlet Act III scene i; it's part of the
> "To Be Or Not To Be" soliloquy

I know.  The Rush drummer, Neil Peart, writes most of their lyrics and is a
very literate individual.  He also borrows ideas and words from Ayn Rand.


> But, given one of the best progressive rock bands in history (bar Pink
> Floyd) adopted it for a track, I say "Go Rush!"



0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/4/2005 6:26:30 PM
Lin�nut wrote:
> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>>> Like it or not, it is part of the Microsoft reputation.
>>
>> No it's not.  It's part of the Linux/OSS world/cola paranoia,
>> stupidity and lies about Microsoft.  Like the "NSA back door," and
>> billwg and I are paid by MS to be here, and MS is dying, and MS is a
>> criminal organization, and so on.
>>
>> Maybe you don't know it, but quite a few of the claims cola levels
>> against MS are born and die here, on this newsgroup.  The rest of
>> the world doesn't feel like many of you do.
>
> You don't get out much, do you?

Not lately.  Working from the home office, I go out to lunch every day.
Otherwise, I'm working.

But I'm going to Alaska this fall.  Does that qualify as "getting out"?
Think they've heard of Linux in Alaska?




>>> "Hey, I didn't get rich writing a lot of checks."
>>
>> So he's an easy target.  He's the world's richest man, founder of and
>> currently chief architect of the world's most powerful software
>> company, and it wouldn't look good for him or MS to fight back and
>> crush Fox and the Simpson's for libel (though I'm sure it's
>> protected as parody material).
>
> Nah, Microsoft would never go after Fox.  Microsoft only goes after
> kids and college students.

Wherever pirates and thieves are found.

I'm glad to see them go after companies like Ernie Ball, who was found to be
basically running their company on pirated MS and Autodesk and other
closed-source software.  They sulked and stamped their feet and switched to
Linux after having to pay a $90,000 fine.  HA!

But I bet the hypocrites would have a fit if someone stole $90,000 worth of
their products.




>> Besides, he probably has a good sense of humor about that kind of
>> thing.
>
> One would hope so, since, as he put it "I have an infinite supply of
> money."

Sounds like another urban myth, ala "640k is all the memory anyone will ever
need"






0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/4/2005 6:34:02 PM
In article <tA8ee.9302$cZ6.653@fe02.lga>, DFS wrote:

> I'm glad to see them go after companies like Ernie Ball, who was found to be
> basically running their company on pirated MS and Autodesk and other
> closed-source software.

 6 out of 72 desktops. Hardly "running the company".

>  They sulked and stamped their feet and switched to
> Linux after having to pay a $90,000 fine.  HA!
 
 Actually, it was a $65K fine and $35K in legal fees. So $100,000 by your
math. You can't even FUD straight! :->

> But I bet the hypocrites would have a fit if someone stole $90,000 worth
> of their products.

 What do you do for a living, DFS? Could *your* company squeak through
a BSA audit? How much are you willing to bet? I can go higher than $5
if you care to wager...

-- 
 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                (313) 227-2317

 "No, Ah better not look... Ah just *might* be in there."
                  - Foghorn Leghorn
0
sorceror1 (1083)
5/4/2005 6:47:32 PM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
> On Tue, 03 May 2005 20:17:12 -0500, Lin�nutlin�nut wrote:
> 
>> Kier poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 03 May 2005 12:24:58 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> Considering that you smoke dope, and rant against capitalism and the US and
>>>> MS/Windows (while at the same time using the advantages they provide you),
>>>> you are unethical.
>>>
>>> Now tell us how it is 'unethical' to dislike or even hate capitalism, or
>>> MS or the US, or to use dope (dope-smoking may well be illegal where he
>>> comes from, that doesn't automatically make it 'unethical'. In some other
>>> countries it is legal).
>> 
>> Personally, when I tried it in college, I liked it.  If it were legal,
>> I'd probably toke up now and then.  Instead, I take Zoloft.
> 
> I tried dope a few times, found it didn't do much for me, and stopped.
> Plus, I prefer not to start smoking again. Drink mellows me out just as
> well and the smell doesn't linger on one's clothes.
> 

Does if you spill... ;-)

-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
Shame is an improper emotion invented by pietists to oppress the human race.
		-- Robert Preston, Toddy, "Victor/Victoria"
0
mark.kent (15323)
5/4/2005 7:43:31 PM
Ray Ingles wrote:
> In article <tA8ee.9302$cZ6.653@fe02.lga>, DFS wrote:
>
>> I'm glad to see them go after companies like Ernie Ball, who was
>> found to be basically running their company on pirated MS and
>> Autodesk and other closed-source software.
>
>  6 out of 72 desktops. Hardly "running the company".

True.  My overstatement.



>>  They sulked and stamped their feet and switched to
>> Linux after having to pay a $90,000 fine.  HA!
>
>  Actually, it was a $65K fine and $35K in legal fees. So $100,000 by
> your math. You can't even FUD straight! :->

This is where my info. came from:

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/11/27/021127hnerniball.html?s=IDGNS
"Ernie Ball ended up settling with the BSA over claims related to use of
unlicensed software to the tune of $90,000."





>> But I bet the hypocrites would have a fit if someone stole $90,000
>> worth of their products.
>
>  What do you do for a living, DFS? Could *your* company squeak through
> a BSA audit? How much are you willing to bet? I can go higher than $5
> if you care to wager...

How high can you go?  Go high enough, and we can go to the effort to report
me to the BSA and I'll be glad to let them do an "unannounced audit".  Then
I'll take your money.



0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/4/2005 8:01:56 PM
On 2005-05-04, Jim <james@the-computer-shop.co.uk> wrote:
> DFS wrote:
><snippididoodah>
>> I know you cola fanatics would love to dictate to every closed source vendor
>> that they release their source code upon product end-of-life, but it's not
>> gonna happen.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> would be nice though...
> To sleep, perchance, to dream...
>
	It would also hold with the original spirit of copyright.

-- 
	The best OS in the world is ultimately useless         |||
	if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates.      / | \
                                                     
0
jedi (14754)
5/4/2005 8:20:49 PM
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

>> Nah, Microsoft would never go after Fox.  Microsoft only goes after
>> kids and college students.
>
> Wherever pirates and thieves are found.
>
> I'm glad to see them go after companies like Ernie Ball, who was found to be
> basically running their company on pirated MS and Autodesk and other
> closed-source software.  They sulked and stamped their feet and switched to
> Linux after having to pay a $90,000 fine.  HA!
>
> But I bet the hypocrites would have a fit if someone stole $90,000 worth of
> their products.

That's your spin on the incident, anyway.

>> One would hope so, since, as he put it "I have an infinite supply of
>> money."
>
> Sounds like another urban myth, ala "640k is all the memory anyone will ever
> need"

I believe it comes from the book "Hard Drive".  In any case, why would
Gates not say this?  A number of billions in your bank is, for anyone,
essentially infinite.

Here's an interesting article:

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/97/04/phenomena0497.asp

   "By ordinary standards, $258 million is a generous sum. But seen as a
   mere 1 percent of his net worth, Gates's philanthropic record is on a
   par with the average person's lifetime contribution to
   wishing-wells."

Oh, and no one's proven that the 640K quote is a myth.  (Nor have they
proven that it is not a myth.)  It was so easy to say, that I'd tend to
believe he said it.

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
5/4/2005 8:31:02 PM
Lin�nut wrote:
> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
> 
> 
>>>Nah, Microsoft would never go after Fox.  Microsoft only goes after
>>>kids and college students.
>>
>>Wherever pirates and thieves are found.
>>
>>I'm glad to see them go after companies like Ernie Ball, who was found to be
>>basically running their company on pirated MS and Autodesk and other
>>closed-source software.  They sulked and stamped their feet and switched to
>>Linux after having to pay a $90,000 fine.  HA!
>>
>>But I bet the hypocrites would have a fit if someone stole $90,000 worth of
>>their products.
> 
> 
> That's your spin on the incident, anyway.
> 
> 
>>>One would hope so, since, as he put it "I have an infinite supply of
>>>money."
>>
>>Sounds like another urban myth, ala "640k is all the memory anyone will ever
>>need"
> 
> 
> I believe it comes from the book "Hard Drive".  In any case, why would
> Gates not say this?  A number of billions in your bank is, for anyone,
> essentially infinite.
> 
> Here's an interesting article:
> 
> http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/97/04/phenomena0497.asp
> 
>    "By ordinary standards, $258 million is a generous sum. But seen as a
>    mere 1 percent of his net worth, Gates's philanthropic record is on a
>    par with the average person's lifetime contribution to
>    wishing-wells."
> 
> Oh, and no one's proven that the 640K quote is a myth.  (Nor have they
> proven that it is not a myth.)  It was so easy to say, that I'd tend to
> believe he said it.
> 

Article from Wired, quoted verbatim and in its entirety... I had a laugh...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did Gates Really Say 640K is Enough For Anyone?
Jon Katz

Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,1484,00.html

08:57 AM Jan. 16, 1997 PT

Earlier this week, in a column on Bill Gates, fellatio and media, and 
how all three relate to a profile of Gates in last week's Time magazine, 
this column daringly offered free software into the millennium to anyone 
who remembers one thing Bill Gates ever said. We were taking issue with 
the notion advanced in the magazine that Mr. Gates is shaping this or 
the next century as a visionary leader, as opposed to just selling lots 
of software.

Within minutes of the column's postings, the first challengers had 
emailed, all offering the same quote.

"I've got one for you," messaged a hacker from Cambridge. "Some years 
back, Gates said '640K is more memory than anyone will ever need.' Where 
do I pick up my software?"

Dan emailed: "I win! Gates said once that '640K software is all the 
memory anybody would ever need on a computer.' What do I get?" Susannah 
wrote from San Francisco: "Ha, Katz. You've finally stepped in it. Gates 
said that 640K of memory is all that anybody with a computer would ever 
need. Where's the stuff?"

Several dozen versions of the same quote appeared, all claiming victory 
and wanting the free software promised in the column.

We gulped. Were we caught in our own ruse? And could Bill Gates, the man 
journalism tells us almost daily is a profound visionary, have been so 
short-sighted?

We might be insufferable, pompous, Marxist, degenerate and all the other 
things people accuse us of, but that doesn't make us stupid. Do you 
honestly think we would offer anything free if we weren't 100 percent 
certain there was no chance we could lose? Claiming Gates has never 
uttered a memorable thought is as good and solid as gold. Take that to 
the bank, losers.

Check out this feature on the Huntsville Times (Tennessee) Web site, 
where you can read Bill Gates' impassioned denial that he ever said 
anything as potentially unprofitable as the quote attributed to him, and 
where you can also see just how safe our bet really is.

QUESTION: "I read in a newspaper that in l981 you said '640K of memory 
should be enough for anybody.' What did you mean when you said this?"

ANSWER: "I've said some stupid things and some wrong things, but not 
that. No one involved in computers would ever say that a certain amount 
of memory is enough for all time."

Gates goes on a bit about 16-bit computers and megabytes of logical 
address space, but the kid's question (will this boy never work at 
Microsoft?) clearly rankled the billionaire visionary.

"Meanwhile, I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me 
that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the 
quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again."

Silly quotations do have a way of floating like rumors.

Well, the truth starts here.

He never said it. No free software.

Mr. Gates, on behalf of the Web community, we're setting the record 
straight. Although we never said it ourselves, we apologize for this 
outrageous slander, and regret even inhabiting a medium that would think 
for one second of a world bounded by memory too small to encompass 
Windows 95 or Microsoft Internet Explorer.

An aside - did you know you can ask him anything you want at: 
askbill@microsoft.com?

But, don't fret, software scroungers. As a consolation prize, Wired 
Ventures has decided to give free Power Macs to five million webheads. 
To qualify, you have to be 13, born at the precise moment Saturn crossed 
the Jupiter moons, and be willing to walk naked around the world without 
food or drink, and with a laptop hanging around your neck. Other details 
are being worked out. We'll be in touch.

Reading through Gates' Q&A with America's youth, we feel pretty good 
about our bet. A 14-year-old female asked him about probable career 
opportunities.

His answer: "There will be a wealth of opportunities relating to software."

Talk about vision. No wonder Time said this man is shaping our world.

Other favorite feedback from this column: A woman (a Wal-Mart shopper, 
no doubt) emailed in outrage that I had used the word "blow job" in a 
public forum. "You are disgusting," she messaged. "How dare you use a 
word like 'blow-job' in your column, you fucking moron?"

We also heard from the author of the Bill Gates piece in Time, the 
magazine's managing editor, Walter Isaacson. He suggested we read the 
piece again and rethink whether it was an act of fellatio or not. We did 
and we do.

But he gets points for being perhaps the only high-ranking editor in 
journalism who would respond personally and directly to criticism. For 
embracing interactivity, he gets the Media Rant 640K award.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Given that that's a Jon Katz article from Wired back in '97, it's a bit 
old, but probably more accurate than modern theories into the origin of 
that [mis]quote.

-- 
Cheers,

Jim

-begin sig-
Opinions expressed in this message may or may not be representative of 
the opinions of its author. You decide.

Web: 	http://www.dotware.co.uk
	http://www.dotware-entertainment.co.uk

Portable: P4m 2.0, 1GB, 40GB, MX440/15" XGA@1600x1200, Wi-Fi, GPRS, 
DVD/CDRW, XPSP2/Knoppix
Powerbook G3/400, 392MB, 20GB, Rage 128/15"@1024x768, Wi-Fi, DVD, Mac OS 
X 10.4 "Tiger" Dev. Build
Desktop: AMD64 3200+@2.63GHz, 512MB, 80GB, FX5700LE/32" WXGA@2048x768, 
DVD+-RW, XPSP1/Debian
FileServer: Athlon XP 2400+, 256MB, 2.72TB, Blind, MuLinux

More but I'm not tellin' ya, there's a pool forming at your feet.
-end sig-
0
james199 (2531)
5/4/2005 11:44:48 PM
Jim wrote:

> Article from Wired, quoted verbatim and in its entirety... I had a
> laugh...

<snipped 1997 Wired article refuting the myth that Bill Gates said "640K of
memory should be enough for anybody">

Thanks for posting that.  Many cola nutcases are now embarrassed... well,
they should be embarrassed, and they would be embarrassed if they had any
shame for lying all the time about Bill Gates and MS and Windows.

But they don't, so they aren't.



0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/4/2005 11:56:33 PM
DFS wrote:
> Jim wrote:
> 
> 
>>Article from Wired, quoted verbatim and in its entirety... I had a
>>laugh...
> 
> 
> <snipped 1997 Wired article refuting the myth that Bill Gates said "640K of
> memory should be enough for anybody">
> 
> Thanks for posting that.  Many cola nutcases are now embarrassed... well,
> they should be embarrassed, and they would be embarrassed if they had any
> shame for lying all the time about Bill Gates and MS and Windows.
> 
> But they don't, so they aren't.
> 
> 
> 

oh the horror...
I think that "advocates" should be trustworthy, don't you? They should 
be big enough to admit when they might just possibly be wrong, even 
once? That way they can show themselves to be human like the rest of us 
poor lusers, that they're on our "level" and understanding of our 
problems and hurdles (after all, they've already been there and overcome 
those same hurdles, right?)
But they aren't, so they don't. For a large part, anyway.
Shame.
Hohum. Back to me beer.

-- 
Cheers,

Jim

-begin sig-
Opinions expressed in this message may or may not be representative of 
the opinions of its author. You decide.

Web: 	http://www.dotware.co.uk
	http://www.dotware-entertainment.co.uk

Portable: P4m 2.0, 1GB, 40GB, MX440/15" XGA@1600x1200, Wi-Fi, GPRS, 
DVD/CDRW, XPSP2/Knoppix
Powerbook G3/400, 392MB, 20GB, Rage 128/15"@1024x768, Wi-Fi, DVD, Mac OS 
X 10.4 "Tiger" Dev. Build
Desktop: AMD64 3200+@2.63GHz, 512MB, 80GB, FX5700LE/32" WXGA@2048x768, 
DVD+-RW, XPSP1/Debian
FileServer: Athlon XP 2400+, 256MB, 2.72TB, Blind, MuLinux

More but I'm not tellin' ya, there's a pool forming at your feet.
-end sig-
0
james199 (2531)
5/5/2005 12:05:37 AM
Jim wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>> Jim wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Article from Wired, quoted verbatim and in its entirety... I had a
>>> laugh...
>>
>>
>> <snipped 1997 Wired article refuting the myth that Bill Gates said
>> "640K of memory should be enough for anybody">
>>
>> Thanks for posting that.  Many cola nutcases are now embarrassed...
>> well, they should be embarrassed, and they would be embarrassed if
>> they had any shame for lying all the time about Bill Gates and MS
>> and Windows.
>>
>> But they don't, so they aren't.
>>
>>
>>
>
> oh the horror...
> I think that "advocates" should be trustworthy, don't you? They should
> be big enough to admit when they might just possibly be wrong, even
> once?

I don't know how many cola regs claim Gates said that - probably all - but
GreyCloud definitely did.  Unfortunately, he's not around to not apologize
for not telling the truth.

My prediction?  Zero cola nuts will offer mea culpas, and some will even
deny the Wired interview.



> That way they can show themselves to be human like the rest of
> us poor lusers, that they're on our "level" and understanding of our
> problems and hurdles (after all, they've already been there and
> overcome those same hurdles, right?)
> But they aren't, so they don't. For a large part, anyway.
> Shame.
> Hohum. Back to me beer.


0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/5/2005 12:30:09 AM
Ray Ingles wrote:
> In article <xoRde.34683$QR1.13061@fe04.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>>  And Microsoft agrees with me.
>>
>> Lie.  That author didn't work for MS.
>
>  No, they merely published him. :->

And?  Newspapers and television stations and websites often publish articles
and programs that don't reflect the views of the owners.

(gratuitous insult: are you dense?)



>>>  Even if this were true - and, of course, it isn't (I can assert
>>> just as well as you can) - how is it relevant to the topic at hand,
>>> that Windows isn't usable unless you run it as an administrator?
>>
>> It's not really a topic.  It's more a lie you can't support.
>
>  Have a nice life, DFS. There's no point it continuing this charade.
> I can talk with my two-year-old if I want someone to say, "No! Is
> not!" to me over and over. :->

So what's wrong with talking to a forty-two year old who can say "No! Is
not!" over and over?



0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/5/2005 4:57:17 AM
billwg wrote something like:

> Well you are clearly a superior being, amos, that's how you got so rich
> and famous.  Most of the other users, fortunately for Microsoft, are
> stuck with relying on their suppliers for goods and services.  They are
> themselves fortunate that Microsoft and the OEMs have partnered to do
> such a wonderful job of keeping things constantly improving and growing.
>   You don't need anyone else, but those who do are grateful.

I'm not ruthless enough to get rich in the way someone like BG got rich. 

People get ripped off all the time by their PC guy and mechanic... Ah well.
I'm too honest to even make too much money fixing PC's and cars, but am
quite good with both - especially for those without much in the way of
funds who need to keep their P120 going another year...

But since I live in the middle of a 2200 acre property, I don't worry about
'anyone else' much :)

-- 
-
 I don't actually live here.
- 
0
linux_nut (576)
5/5/2005 11:17:32 AM
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> Jim wrote:
>
>> Article from Wired, quoted verbatim and in its entirety... I had a
>> laugh...
>
> <snipped 1997 Wired article refuting the myth that Bill Gates said "640K of
> memory should be enough for anybody">
>
> Thanks for posting that.  Many cola nutcases are now embarrassed... well,
> they should be embarrassed, and they would be embarrassed if they had any
> shame for lying all the time about Bill Gates and MS and Windows.

Actually, I still believe that Bill Gates said it, even if it was merely
a non-public quip that someone ferried along.  Bill is just the kind of
arrogant jerk to make such a quip in a fit of pique, and then deny
he ever said it, even as a quip.

> But they don't, so they aren't.

You're pulling that deduction out through your sphincter.

In any case, the article does seem like evidence he never said it
*publicly*.

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
5/5/2005 11:22:13 AM
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> I don't know how many cola regs claim Gates said that - probably all - but
> GreyCloud definitely did.  Unfortunately, he's not around to not apologize
> for not telling the truth.
>
> My prediction?  Zero cola nuts will offer mea culpas, and some will even
> deny the Wired interview.

Say, aren't you the guy that told Bush and Blair about the weapons of
mass destruction?

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
5/5/2005 11:23:32 AM
In article <TS9ee.37734$QR1.4402@fe04.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>  What do you do for a living, DFS? Could *your* company squeak through
>> a BSA audit? How much are you willing to bet? I can go higher than $5
>> if you care to wager...
> 
> How high can you go?  Go high enough, and we can go to the effort to report
> me to the BSA and I'll be glad to let them do an "unannounced audit".  Then
> I'll take your money.

 How much are *you* willing to bet?

-- 
 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                      (313) 227-2317

   "The idea that an arbitrary naive human should be able to
  properly use a given tool without training or understanding
  is even more wrong for computing than it is for other tools
 (e.g. automobiles, airplanes, guns, power saws)." - Doug Gwyn
0
sorceror1 (1083)
5/5/2005 11:40:18 AM
amosf wrote:
> billwg wrote something like:
> 
> 
>>Well you are clearly a superior being, amos, that's how you got so rich
>>and famous.  Most of the other users, fortunately for Microsoft, are
>>stuck with relying on their suppliers for goods and services.  They are
>>themselves fortunate that Microsoft and the OEMs have partnered to do
>>such a wonderful job of keeping things constantly improving and growing.
>>  You don't need anyone else, but those who do are grateful.
> 
> 
> I'm not ruthless enough to get rich in the way someone like BG got rich. 
> 
Now I know that you meant that as a slur on Bill Gates, but consider 
that anyone who is going to be effective in changing the way the world 
works and/or thinks is going to have to be very single minded and a 
focused on their goals.  Bill is nothing worse than than and, if you 
were to be completely fair, you should agree.  Bill has amply 
demonstrated that he is trying to be the world's benefactor in terms of 
personal computer empowerment for the individual and in terms of 
charitable benevolence.

> People get ripped off all the time by their PC guy and mechanic... Ah well.
> I'm too honest to even make too much money fixing PC's and cars, but am
> quite good with both - especially for those without much in the way of
> funds who need to keep their P120 going another year...
>
You have a low opinion of your own work then, thinking that those who 
charge more for the same sort of service are "ripping off" their 
customers.  Values are relative and those who pay for some service pay 
because in their minds they have a need that must be met.


> But since I live in the middle of a 2200 acre property, I don't worry about
> 'anyone else' much :)
> 
LOL!!! amos, I sort of figured you for being a hermit. It kind of fits 
the OSS user stereotype.  I know that the anti-MS side includes some 
avowedly impecunious Brits, too, along with a sour techno-Kraut.  Any 
others care to share?
0
billwg (581)
5/5/2005 12:20:28 PM
billwg wrote something like:

> amosf wrote:
>> billwg wrote something like:
>> 
>> 
>>>Well you are clearly a superior being, amos, that's how you got so rich
>>>and famous.  Most of the other users, fortunately for Microsoft, are
>>>stuck with relying on their suppliers for goods and services.  They are
>>>themselves fortunate that Microsoft and the OEMs have partnered to do
>>>such a wonderful job of keeping things constantly improving and growing.
>>>  You don't need anyone else, but those who do are grateful.
>> 
>> 
>> I'm not ruthless enough to get rich in the way someone like BG got rich.
>> 
> Now I know that you meant that as a slur on Bill Gates, but consider
> that anyone who is going to be effective in changing the way the world
> works and/or thinks is going to have to be very single minded and a
> focused on their goals.  Bill is nothing worse than than and, if you
> were to be completely fair, you should agree.  Bill has amply
> demonstrated that he is trying to be the world's benefactor in terms of
> personal computer empowerment for the individual and in terms of
> charitable benevolence.

BG appears to be the type who thinks the bottom line only. Supplying a
perfect product doesn't fit that ideal, hence the many 9x 'upgrades' he got
people to pay for when they were bug fixes at best. 

To be honest I don't know what you are trying to say with the mistyped "Bill
is nothing worse than than and, if you were to be completely fair, you
should agree." so I doubt I'll agree :)

>> People get ripped off all the time by their PC guy and mechanic... Ah
>> well. I'm too honest to even make too much money fixing PC's and cars,
>> but am quite good with both - especially for those without much in the
>> way of funds who need to keep their P120 going another year...
>>
> You have a low opinion of your own work then, thinking that those who
> charge more for the same sort of service are "ripping off" their
> customers.  Values are relative and those who pay for some service pay
> because in their minds they have a need that must be met.

Rip off as in the time I caught a ford dealership try to charge a guy $3500
for a new drive shaft in his truck - they'd already replaced it once under
warrenty and this was the second time and so the shaft was realatively new.
It was actually the CV joint that needed grease (which was not greased
correctly when assembled by the looks) and it cost me about $20 to fix and
that included the grease and the torx drive tools to pull it appart (which
I added to my tool kit). Since it took me about 10 minutes I only charged
about $50... He probably would have paid $200 and thought it was a bargin,
but I wouldn't charge more for such a simple job.

>> But since I live in the middle of a 2200 acre property, I don't worry
>> about 'anyone else' much :)
>> 
> LOL!!! amos, I sort of figured you for being a hermit. It kind of fits
> the OSS user stereotype.  I know that the anti-MS side includes some
> avowedly impecunious Brits, too, along with a sour techno-Kraut.  Any
> others care to share?

Of course I also get flown around the place to judge dog sport events, so I
do get out at times. And since there's 8 people in the house it's hardly a
hermit existance... Plus I end up in frigging town at least twice a week
and will be in some other town every weekend til about september...

-- 
-
 I don't actually live here.
- 
0
linux_nut (576)
5/5/2005 12:45:34 PM
Ray Ingles wrote:
> In article <TS9ee.37734$QR1.4402@fe04.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>>  What do you do for a living, DFS? Could *your* company squeak
>>> through a BSA audit? How much are you willing to bet? I can go
>>> higher than $5 if you care to wager...
>>
>> How high can you go?  Go high enough, and we can go to the effort to
>> report me to the BSA and I'll be glad to let them do an "unannounced
>> audit".  Then I'll take your money.
>
>  How much are *you* willing to bet?


As much as it takes to bankrupt you.



0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/5/2005 1:09:56 PM
amosf wrote:
> billwg wrote something like:
>
>> Well you are clearly a superior being, amos, that's how you got so
>> rich and famous.  Most of the other users, fortunately for
>> Microsoft, are stuck with relying on their suppliers for goods and
>> services.  They are themselves fortunate that Microsoft and the OEMs
>> have partnered to do such a wonderful job of keeping things
>>   constantly improving and growing. You don't need anyone else, but
>> those who do are grateful.
>
> I'm not ruthless enough to get rich in the way someone like BG got
> rich.
>
> People get ripped off all the time by their PC guy and mechanic... Ah
> well. I'm too honest to even make too much money fixing PC's and
> cars, but am quite good with both - especially for those without much
> in the way of funds who need to keep their P120 going another year...
>
> But since I live in the middle of a 2200 acre property, I don't worry
> about 'anyone else' much :)

I didn't know prisons were so big.



0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/5/2005 1:16:05 PM
DFS wrote something like:

> amosf wrote:
>> billwg wrote something like:
>>
>>> Well you are clearly a superior being, amos, that's how you got so
>>> rich and famous.  Most of the other users, fortunately for
>>> Microsoft, are stuck with relying on their suppliers for goods and
>>> services.  They are themselves fortunate that Microsoft and the OEMs
>>> have partnered to do such a wonderful job of keeping things
>>>   constantly improving and growing. You don't need anyone else, but
>>> those who do are grateful.
>>
>> I'm not ruthless enough to get rich in the way someone like BG got
>> rich.
>>
>> People get ripped off all the time by their PC guy and mechanic... Ah
>> well. I'm too honest to even make too much money fixing PC's and
>> cars, but am quite good with both - especially for those without much
>> in the way of funds who need to keep their P120 going another year...
>>
>> But since I live in the middle of a 2200 acre property, I don't worry
>> about 'anyone else' much :)
> 
> I didn't know prisons were so big.

Ah, okay?

-- 
-
 I don't actually live here.
- 
0
linux_nut (576)
5/5/2005 1:36:34 PM
In article <DWoee.37951$QR1.19309@fe04.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>  How much are *you* willing to bet?
> 
> As much as it takes to bankrupt you.

 You stated you're at the poverty level. Assuming that's true, you
don't have enough assets to put up to bankrupt me. Please stop
dodging the question - a figure in United States dollars would be
most helpful.

-- 
 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                  (313) 227-2317

 Only one thing is impossible for God: to find any sense in
       any copyright law on the planet. - Mark Twain
0
sorceror1 (1083)
5/5/2005 1:45:26 PM
Ray Ingles wrote:
> In article <DWoee.37951$QR1.19309@fe04.lga>, DFS wrote:
> 
>>> How much are *you* willing to bet?
>>
>>As much as it takes to bankrupt you.
> 
> 
>  You stated you're at the poverty level. Assuming that's true, you
> don't have enough assets to put up to bankrupt me. Please stop
> dodging the question - a figure in United States dollars would be
> most helpful.
> 
how about a useful metric? Bull gold would be good.

-- 
Cheers,

Jim

-begin sig-
Opinions expressed in this message may or may not be representative of 
the opinions of its author. You decide.

Web: 	http://www.dotware.co.uk
	http://www.dotware-entertainment.co.uk

Portable: P4m 2.0, 1GB, 40GB, MX440/15" XGA@1600x1200, Wi-Fi, GPRS, 
DVD/CDRW, XPSP2/Knoppix
Powerbook G3/400, 392MB, 20GB, Rage 128/15"@1024x768, Wi-Fi, DVD, Mac OS 
X 10.4 "Tiger" Dev. Build
Desktop: AMD64 3200+@2.63GHz, 512MB, 80GB, FX5700LE/32" WXGA@2048x768, 
DVD+-RW, XPSP1/Debian
FileServer: Athlon XP 2400+, 256MB, 2.72TB, Blind, MuLinux

More but I'm not tellin' ya, there's a pool forming at your feet.
-end sig-
0
james199 (2531)
5/5/2005 1:47:14 PM
On Wed, 04 May 2005 20:30:09 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Jim wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>> Jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Article from Wired, quoted verbatim and in its entirety... I had a
>>>> laugh...
>>>
>>>
>>> <snipped 1997 Wired article refuting the myth that Bill Gates said
>>> "640K of memory should be enough for anybody">
>>>
>>> Thanks for posting that.  Many cola nutcases are now embarrassed...
>>> well, they should be embarrassed, and they would be embarrassed if
>>> they had any shame for lying all the time about Bill Gates and MS
>>> and Windows.

Since I barely bother to mention Gates, *I've* nothing to be ashamed of.
Nor am I a nutcase. I never believed it anyway.

>>>
>>> But they don't, so they aren't.

Pot, kettle, black Mr Liar.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> oh the horror...
>> I think that "advocates" should be trustworthy, don't you? They should
>> be big enough to admit when they might just possibly be wrong, even
>> once?
> 
> I don't know how many cola regs claim Gates said that - probably all - but
> GreyCloud definitely did.  Unfortunately, he's not around to not apologize
> for not telling the truth.

Nowhere near all. If I recall, Jesse Hughes said quite vehemently that he
disbelieved it, and challenged anyone to provide genuine proof it had been
said. No one did.

> 
> My prediction?  Zero cola nuts will offer mea culpas, and some will even
> deny the Wired interview.

It's a free world, and they're entitled to.

-- 
Kier


0
vallon (8614)
5/5/2005 2:20:51 PM
On Thu, 05 May 2005 13:36:34 +0000, amosf wrote:

>>> People get ripped off all the time by their PC guy and mechanic... Ah
>>> well. I'm too honest to even make too much money fixing PC's and
>>> cars, but am quite good with both - especially for those without much
>>> in the way of funds who need to keep their P120 going another year...
>>>
>>> But since I live in the middle of a 2200 acre property, I don't worry
>>> about 'anyone else' much :)
>> 
>> I didn't know prisons were so big.
> 
> Ah, okay?

That's what passes for his sense of humour. It's as lame as what passes
for his brain.

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
5/5/2005 2:27:06 PM
Kier wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 13:36:34 +0000, amosf wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>People get ripped off all the time by their PC guy and mechanic... Ah
>>>>well. I'm too honest to even make too much money fixing PC's and
>>>>cars, but am quite good with both - especially for those without much
>>>>in the way of funds who need to keep their P120 going another year...
>>>>
>>>>But since I live in the middle of a 2200 acre property, I don't worry
>>>>about 'anyone else' much :)
>>>
>>>I didn't know prisons were so big.
>>
>>Ah, okay?
> 
> 
> That's what passes for his sense of humour. It's as lame as what passes
> for his brain.
> 
<SFX mode=whiplash />

-- 
Cheers,

Jim

-begin sig-
Opinions expressed in this message may or may not be representative of 
the opinions of its author. You decide.

Web: 	http://www.dotware.co.uk
	http://www.dotware-entertainment.co.uk

Portable: P4m 2.0, 1GB, 40GB, MX440/15" XGA@1600x1200, Wi-Fi, GPRS, 
DVD/CDRW, XPSP2/Knoppix
Powerbook G3/400, 392MB, 20GB, Rage 128/15"@1024x768, Wi-Fi, DVD, Mac OS 
X 10.4 "Tiger" Dev. Build
Desktop: AMD64 3200+@2.63GHz, 512MB, 80GB, FX5700LE/32" WXGA@2048x768, 
DVD+-RW, XPSP1/Debian
FileServer: Athlon XP 2400+, 256MB, 2.72TB, Blind, MuLinux

More but I'm not tellin' ya, there's a pool forming at your feet.
-end sig-
0
james199 (2531)
5/5/2005 2:32:33 PM
On Wed, 04 May 2005 20:43:31 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:

> begin  oe_protect.scr 
> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
>> On Tue, 03 May 2005 20:17:12 -0500, Lin�nutlin�nut wrote:
>> 
>>> Kier poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, 03 May 2005 12:24:58 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Considering that you smoke dope, and rant against capitalism and the US and
>>>>> MS/Windows (while at the same time using the advantages they provide you),
>>>>> you are unethical.
>>>>
>>>> Now tell us how it is 'unethical' to dislike or even hate capitalism, or
>>>> MS or the US, or to use dope (dope-smoking may well be illegal where he
>>>> comes from, that doesn't automatically make it 'unethical'. In some other
>>>> countries it is legal).
>>> 
>>> Personally, when I tried it in college, I liked it.  If it were legal,
>>> I'd probably toke up now and then.  Instead, I take Zoloft.
>> 
>> I tried dope a few times, found it didn't do much for me, and stopped.
>> Plus, I prefer not to start smoking again. Drink mellows me out just as
>> well and the smell doesn't linger on one's clothes.
>> 
> 
> Does if you spill... ;-)

True. And what a waste of good alcohol :-)

-- 
Kier
0
vallon (8614)
5/5/2005 2:34:56 PM
Kier wrote:
> On Wed, 04 May 2005 20:43:31 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> begin  oe_protect.scr
>> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
>>> On Tue, 03 May 2005 20:17:12 -0500, Lin�nutlin�nut wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kier poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 03 May 2005 12:24:58 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Considering that you smoke dope, and rant against capitalism and
>>>>>> the US and MS/Windows (while at the same time using the
>>>>>> advantages they provide you), you are unethical.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now tell us how it is 'unethical' to dislike or even hate
>>>>> capitalism, or MS or the US, or to use dope (dope-smoking may
>>>>> well be illegal where he comes from, that doesn't automatically
>>>>> make it 'unethical'. In some other countries it is legal).
>>>>
>>>> Personally, when I tried it in college, I liked it.  If it were
>>>> legal, I'd probably toke up now and then.  Instead, I take Zoloft.
>>>
>>> I tried dope a few times, found it didn't do much for me, and
>>> stopped. Plus, I prefer not to start smoking again. Drink mellows
>>> me out just as well and the smell doesn't linger on one's clothes.
>>>
>>
>> Does if you spill... ;-)
>
> True. And what a waste of good alcohol :-)

I bet you're a mean drunk.



0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/5/2005 2:57:55 PM
On Thu, 05 May 2005 10:57:55 -0400, DFS wrote:

> Kier wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 May 2005 20:43:31 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> begin  oe_protect.scr
>>> Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> espoused:
>>>> On Tue, 03 May 2005 20:17:12 -0500, Lin�nutlin�nut wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kier poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 03 May 2005 12:24:58 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Considering that you smoke dope, and rant against capitalism and
>>>>>>> the US and MS/Windows (while at the same time using the
>>>>>>> advantages they provide you), you are unethical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now tell us how it is 'unethical' to dislike or even hate
>>>>>> capitalism, or MS or the US, or to use dope (dope-smoking may
>>>>>> well be illegal where he comes from, that doesn't automatically
>>>>>> make it 'unethical'. In some other countries it is legal).
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, when I tried it in college, I liked it.  If it were
>>>>> legal, I'd probably toke up now and then.  Instead, I take Zoloft.
>>>>
>>>> I tried dope a few times, found it didn't do much for me, and
>>>> stopped. Plus, I prefer not to start smoking again. Drink mellows
>>>> me out  just as well
>>>> and the smell doesn't linger on one's clothes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Does if you spill... ;-)
>>
>> True. And what a waste of good alcohol :-)
> 
> I bet you're a mean drunk.

Nope. You obviously failed to read teh part above which said:'Drink
mellows me out'. 

-- 
Kier
0
vallon (8614)
5/5/2005 3:16:38 PM
Ray Ingles wrote:
> In article <DWoee.37951$QR1.19309@fe04.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>>  How much are *you* willing to bet?
>>
>> As much as it takes to bankrupt you.
>
>  You stated you're at the poverty level. Assuming that's true, you
> don't have enough assets to put up to bankrupt me. Please stop
> dodging the question - a figure in United States dollars would be
> most helpful.

I don't have installed or even own any unlicensed software.  Knowingly.  But
there might be a "gotcha" that this discussion prompted me to investigate.

A couple weeks ago I bought an OEM copy of Outlook 2003 via a Yahoo merchant
I found on pricewatch.com, www.globe2000.com.  They have a decent website,
and sell a wide variety of hardware and software, some OEM, some upgrade,
etc.  Some of the software prices are pretty low, others are about what you
would expect.  I paid $28.99 for Outlook 2003.  The package came with the CD
and product key.

If it's a counterfeit, it's absolutely perfect and took time and money to
produce.  The product key label was printed very nicely, as on most MS
packages.  There is not a single blemish I can see on the CD or the label.
The hologram on the front is perfect (it's a rectangle with a binary number
at each corner, with a globe in the middle and Microsoft superimposed).  The
inner ring on the read-side has a 180-degree holographic label that looks
flawless - at certain angles I can see the tiny words SECURE and
GENUINE/Microsoft and ASP0225.  The other tiny, tiny lettering is etched
perfectly.  (maybe the Chinese actually do good work...)

I called MS to see if they were an authorized reseller, and the guy said MS
doesn't maintain such a list (their distributors do), but that the software
should have a COA with it no matter what.  So I've written the website to
ask about it.

MS told me not to worry, that they wouldn't be coming after me.

Anyway, this might technically be unlicensed software (though it was paid
for and has a product key), so I won't be bankrupting you this time around.
But feel free to sic the BSA on me.




0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/5/2005 5:23:14 PM
amosf wrote:

>>Now I know that you meant that as a slur on Bill Gates, but consider
>>that anyone who is going to be effective in changing the way the world
>>works and/or thinks is going to have to be very single minded and a
>>focused on their goals.  Bill is nothing worse than than and, if you
>>were to be completely fair, you should agree.  Bill has amply
>>demonstrated that he is trying to be the world's benefactor in terms of
>>personal computer empowerment for the individual and in terms of
>>charitable benevolence.
> 
> 
> BG appears to be the type who thinks the bottom line only. Supplying a
> perfect product doesn't fit that ideal, hence the many 9x 'upgrades' he got
> people to pay for when they were bug fixes at best. 
> 
Bug fixes were and still are free, amos.  Versions of Windows do have 
functionality changes.  Perhaps you don't agree with them or don't like 
the functionality or some such, but they are changes.  No one with Win98 
would ever return to even a fully patched Win95.  Win98SE was a free 
upgrade to Win98.  WinMe had a lot of differences, even if they weren't 
so useful and some didn't like them at all.

Win XP is substantially different from and more capable than Win9x/Me, too.

> To be honest I don't know what you are trying to say with the mistyped "Bill
> is nothing worse than than and, if you were to be completely fair, you
> should agree." so I doubt I'll agree :)
> 
"than that", rhetorical, of course
0
billwg (581)
5/5/2005 5:34:01 PM
In article <iGsee.38402$QR1.29003@fe04.lga>, DFS wrote:
> I don't have installed or even own any unlicensed software.  Knowingly.  But
> there might be a "gotcha" that this discussion prompted me to investigate.
 
 Interesting that you should phrase things this way:

 http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/05/149250

 It does illustrate how difficult it is to be certain of compliance with
typical commercial licenses. If you're using open-source software, though,
it's quite easy to be sure you're in compliance. :->

> Anyway, this might technically be unlicensed software (though it was paid
> for and has a product key), so I won't be bankrupting you this time around.
> But feel free to sic the BSA on me.

 How would I do that? You post under a pseudonym and, while I haven't
read all your posts, you've never specified your real name, or place of
employment, or location, to my knowledge.

-- 
 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                       (313) 227-2317

       "TRAB PU KCIP! TRAB PU KCIP!" - Milhouse Van Houten
0
sorceror1 (1083)
5/5/2005 5:49:21 PM
billwg wrote something like:


>> BG appears to be the type who thinks the bottom line only. Supplying a
>> perfect product doesn't fit that ideal, hence the many 9x 'upgrades' he
>> got people to pay for when they were bug fixes at best.
>> 
> Bug fixes were and still are free, amos.  Versions of Windows do have
> functionality changes.  Perhaps you don't agree with them or don't like
> the functionality or some such, but they are changes.  No one with Win98
> would ever return to even a fully patched Win95.  Win98SE was a free
> upgrade to Win98.  WinMe had a lot of differences, even if they weren't
> so useful and some didn't like them at all.

I have worked extensively with all consumer desktop versions of windows and
disagree. win98 was little more than win95+plus and they had very similar
functionality. Sure, over the years we were given the poor excuses for
filesystem improvements, like fat32 - or finally adding some of the useful
'plus' functionality into the OS rather than charging extra for the rest of
the OS as they did with 95. SE was an obvious bug fix and ME added things
like the broken media player - which you have to remove (amongst other
things) to turn ME back into a stable SE-like OS. MS did make some
wonderful other changes, like locking away a full DOS mode. XP finally
brought somthing of a 'new' OS with a decent filsystem, which took long
enough - but we know damn well they could have done that years before as
NTFS existed for a long time already. 

And yes, I went back to 95 after 98 as 95 ran quite well in emulation on
win4lin and offered all the functionality of 98 as far as I could tell and
was quite stable (with the trelos/netraverse alterations) on an ext2/3
filsystem. I also went back from ME to SE on various game boxes, tho did
set up a very stable ME system at one stage by removing large amounts on
the ME 'extras' as I said - like media player. Made an okay game launching
device then, which is about all the desktop MS OS's have been good for IMO.

MS was excellent in keeping some people looking elsewhere for 'something
better' so you have to congratulate them on that. Thank's bill for helping
me find DR-DOS and OS/2 and linux...

>> To be honest I don't know what you are trying to say with the mistyped
>> "Bill is nothing worse than than and, if you were to be completely fair,
>> you should agree." so I doubt I'll agree :)
>> 
> "than that", rhetorical, of course

I still have no idea of what the heck you are trying to say. You make BG out
to be some saviour of humanity rather than what he really is - at best just
a guy who wants to makes a lot of money by selling overpriced software
using a monopoly position. 

-- 
-
 I don't actually live here.
- 
0
linux_nut (576)
5/5/2005 6:00:49 PM
Ray Ingles wrote:
> In article <iGsee.38402$QR1.29003@fe04.lga>, DFS wrote:
> > 
>>Anyway, this might technically be unlicensed software (though it was paid
>>for and has a product key), so I won't be bankrupting you this time around.
>>But feel free to sic the BSA on me.
> 
> 
>  How would I do that? You post under a pseudonym and, while I haven't
> read all your posts, you've never specified your real name, or place of
> employment, or location, to my knowledge.
> 

Besides, the dog doesn't go anywhere its master doesn't point it, its 
obvious who holds the BSA's leash....
0
callanca (1273)
5/5/2005 6:04:45 PM
B wrote:
> <retarded dribble>
> 
> Unlike *nix fanatics, I don't mean to boast about any sort of
> computer-related knowledge.

B Retard

0
AeoN
5/5/2005 6:06:26 PM
Linonut,
    I love it:  "Windows -- the OS with training wheels"
    Yeah, but the training wheels are welded-on, and most Windows users
never learn welding so they can remove the training wheels.  So, they
just vegetate right there.
     Proprietary software?  A cage for stupid birds.

0
sbarringer (258)
5/5/2005 6:46:58 PM
Right....but it's entirely true about the *default* setting, which
virtually everyone uses. In fact, very few people even know the
settings
can be changed concerning that...or even what it is. It's one of those
arcane, expert things.
  "Very few people even know the settings can be changed."
    You're right about most people "average"   not knowing about these
things.
    Yesterday I found out the depth of the average users lack of
knowlegde about their Windows system.  I was talking to a Win user
about changing ISPS (She didn't know what that was; she was
blasting-off about  how wonderful AOL is!)   She was telling her friend
who was looking  for an ISP (she called it dial-up service) that all
you had to do in drop in the CD and it's all set up for you.  That's
when I found out that the AOL advocate (who uses Windows at work , 40
hours/week.)  does not  have a clue about how to install a program.
But, her friend thought she was a real guru and so knowledgeable about
computers.
    Here, friends, lis your typical Windows user.
    Is it any wonder that they're terrified when they try to use Linux?

0
sbarringer (258)
5/5/2005 7:27:38 PM
Sandlin poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> Linonut,
>     I love it:  "Windows -- the OS with training wheels"
>     Yeah, but the training wheels are welded-on, and most Windows users
> never learn welding so they can remove the training wheels.

I like that refinement of my quip (which itself was insprired by one of
Rex's posts.)

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
5/5/2005 7:36:22 PM
At least we can say your malware invasion has nothing to do with the
Liam
Slider lie that you have to know the registry to have a working Windows
system.
>From my personal experience, I know that you, sooner or later, have to
learn the registry to keep Windows running at all.  Get browser
hi-jacked, and believe me, you will find your way to the registry, or
you won't get rid of the problem short of re-installing the OS.

0
sbarringer (258)
5/5/2005 7:42:54 PM
Lin�nut wrote:
> Sandlin poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> Linonut,
>>     I love it:  "Windows -- the OS with training wheels"
>>     Yeah, but the training wheels are welded-on, and most Windows
>> users never learn welding so they can remove the training wheels.
>
> I like that refinement of my quip (which itself was insprired by one
> of Rex's posts.)

Yet the Linux "community" spends quite a lot of its time trying to build its
own training wheels?  Too bad it can't find any new riders...




0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/5/2005 7:46:57 PM
On Thu, 05 May 2005 12:27:38 -0700, Sandlin wrote:

> Right....but it's entirely true about the *default* setting, which
> virtually everyone uses. In fact, very few people even know the
> settings
> can be changed concerning that...or even what it is. It's one of those
> arcane, expert things.
>   "Very few people even know the settings can be changed."
>     You're right about most people "average"   not knowing about these
> things.
>     Yesterday I found out the depth of the average users lack of
> knowlegde about their Windows system.  I was talking to a Win user
> about changing ISPS (She didn't know what that was; she was
> blasting-off about  how wonderful AOL is!)   She was telling her friend
> who was looking  for an ISP (she called it dial-up service) that all
> you had to do in drop in the CD and it's all set up for you.  That's
> when I found out that the AOL advocate (who uses Windows at work , 40
> hours/week.)  does not  have a clue about how to install a program.
> But, her friend thought she was a real guru and so knowledgeable about
> computers.
>     Here, friends, lis your typical Windows user.
>     Is it any wonder that they're terrified when they try to use Linux?

I've been saying the same thing to the ColaNuts for years and still they
don't get it.
"Why email granny such a large file?"
Simply set up an ftp server and etc.......

The problem with many Linux advocates is they think that the rest of the
world lives eats and shits operating systems.
This why the Macheads and COLA-nuts clash so badly.
The Maccies can't figure out why a person would want to tinker with an
operating system and the COLA-nuts can't figure out why applications are
really what count.

I've said it before, if you stood on the corner of 42nd and Broadway in
NYC for 3 hours and asked people passing by the question "Do you know what
Linux is?" you would get at least a 95 percent or greater solid no for an
answer.

The real truth is the public at large doesn't give a hoot about Linux
because they don't even know what it is!!
Now as more and more corporations start moving to Linux on the desktop,
and this is inevitable, people will start to discover Linux and it will be
at that point that Microsoft will be in serious trouble.

But until that happens, Linux, no matter how good or how free it is, will
be for geeks only.

0
flatfish4 (6248)
5/5/2005 7:47:16 PM
I agree, if you want it, pay for it.  But with Linux software you
don't have to pay for it.  With Linux, if people want support, they
can pay for it, and they get it.  If you pay for support with M$, you
get an hour wait on the phone followed by some guy with a bad accent
and useless help.
      M$ now wants to bring those people with bad accents and useless
help into the US.   M$ making things  better?

0
sbarringer (258)
5/5/2005 7:52:01 PM
If by insult you mean comparing and contrasting the merits of the OSS
and
Microsoft products count me in as an insulter. But IMHO the track
record
of MS in user security is insult enough to their (MS) products.

-- The Dread,
    On security of OSs:  Consider the Internet run completely on a
Windows Server!!!    How long before the whole system is down?

0
sbarringer (258)
5/5/2005 7:59:07 PM
DFS,
   Show us some hard figures or an article that specifically proves
your assertion.
                                                                    "
Or, perhaps because CERT has large numbers of MS-hating Linux/OSS nuts
on
staff? "

0
sbarringer (258)
5/5/2005 8:20:42 PM
Ray,
    Manufactured by "Skull and Bones".

0
sbarringer (258)
5/5/2005 8:41:00 PM
amosf wrote:
> billwg wrote something like:
> 
> 
> 
>>>BG appears to be the type who thinks the bottom line only. Supplying a
>>>perfect product doesn't fit that ideal, hence the many 9x 'upgrades' he
>>>got people to pay for when they were bug fixes at best.
>>>
>>
>>Bug fixes were and still are free, amos.  Versions of Windows do have
>>functionality changes.  Perhaps you don't agree with them or don't like
>>the functionality or some such, but they are changes.  No one with Win98
>>would ever return to even a fully patched Win95.  Win98SE was a free
>>upgrade to Win98.  WinMe had a lot of differences, even if they weren't
>>so useful and some didn't like them at all.
> 
> 
> I have worked extensively with all consumer desktop versions of windows and
> disagree. win98 was little more than win95+plus and they had very similar
> functionality. Sure, over the years we were given the poor excuses for
> filesystem improvements, like fat32 - or finally adding some of the useful
> 'plus' functionality into the OS rather than charging extra for the rest of
> the OS as they did with 95. SE was an obvious bug fix and ME added things
> like the broken media player - which you have to remove (amongst other
> things) to turn ME back into a stable SE-like OS. MS did make some
> wonderful other changes, like locking away a full DOS mode. XP finally
> brought somthing of a 'new' OS with a decent filsystem, which took long
> enough - but we know damn well they could have done that years before as
> NTFS existed for a long time already. 
> 
> And yes, I went back to 95 after 98 as 95 ran quite well in emulation on
> win4lin and offered all the functionality of 98 as far as I could tell and
> was quite stable (with the trelos/netraverse alterations) on an ext2/3
> filsystem. I also went back from ME to SE on various game boxes, tho did
> set up a very stable ME system at one stage by removing large amounts on
> the ME 'extras' as I said - like media player. Made an okay game launching
> device then, which is about all the desktop MS OS's have been good for IMO.
> 
> MS was excellent in keeping some people looking elsewhere for 'something
> better' so you have to congratulate them on that. Thank's bill for helping
> me find DR-DOS and OS/2 and linux...
> 
How convenient for you then!  How ever is it that you see a monopoly 
when it is so easy to pick up the competitor's product and use it for 
all your needs?  That is something that I just do not understand.
> 
>>>To be honest I don't know what you are trying to say with the mistyped
>>>"Bill is nothing worse than than and, if you were to be completely fair,
>>>you should agree." so I doubt I'll agree :)
>>>
>>
>>"than that", rhetorical, of course
> 
> 
> I still have no idea of what the heck you are trying to say. You make BG out
> to be some saviour of humanity rather than what he really is - at best just
> a guy who wants to makes a lot of money by selling overpriced software
> using a monopoly position. 
> 
Now if that were the case, amos, I wager that you would be much more 
charitable in you assessment.  Bill Gates is not "just a guy who wants 
to make a lot of money by selling overprice software using a monopoly 
position" but is rather a man who *has* made a lot of money and achieved 
a monopoly position by selling software more successfully than anyone 
else ever has managed to do.  Admittedly, the market position feeds on 
itself, but that is the story with all commercial success and the very 
reason that you would want to have one.  As to "overprice" I would point 
out that Apple's OS upgrade pricing matches or exceeds that of Microsoft 
and while it was available, so did that for OS/2.  OS/2 was initially 
priced at $!!95 when the Windows/MS-DOS combo was being discounted to 
the public for $50 during the Windows 3.0 introduction period.
0
billwg (581)
5/5/2005 8:43:52 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jim
<james@the-computer-shop.co.uk>
 wrote
on Thu, 05 May 2005 13:47:14 GMT
<Ctpee.15094$l37.6691@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>:
> Ray Ingles wrote:
>> In article <DWoee.37951$QR1.19309@fe04.lga>, DFS wrote:
>> 
>>>> How much are *you* willing to bet?
>>>
>>>As much as it takes to bankrupt you.
>> 
>> 
>>  You stated you're at the poverty level. Assuming that's true, you
>> don't have enough assets to put up to bankrupt me. Please stop
>> dodging the question - a figure in United States dollars would be
>> most helpful.
>> 
> how about a useful metric? Bull gold would be good.
>

The closest I can get to this is an Isaac Asimov short story
suggesting how a duck can lay golden eggs by incorporating
a nuclear reactor in its liver and processing oxygen-18...

:-)

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
0
ewill (4394)
5/5/2005 9:00:05 PM
Sandlin wrote:
> DFS,
>    Show us some hard figures or an article that specifically proves
> your assertion.
>                                                                     "
> Or, perhaps because CERT has large numbers of MS-hating Linux/OSS nuts
> on
> staff? "

It's only my gut instinct.  If I could prove it I wouldn't have said
"perhaps."


0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/5/2005 9:29:42 PM
begin  KillFileMe.vbs

On 2005-05-05, quoth flatfish <flatfish@linuxmail.org>:
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 12:27:38 -0700, Sandlin wrote:
>
>> Right....but it's entirely true about the *default* setting, which
>> virtually everyone uses. In fact, very few people even know the
>> settings
>> can be changed concerning that...or even what it is. It's one of those
>> arcane, expert things.
>>   "Very few people even know the settings can be changed."
>>     You're right about most people "average"   not knowing about these
>> things.
>>     Yesterday I found out the depth of the average users lack of
>> knowlegde about their Windows system.  I was talking to a Win user
>> about changing ISPS (She didn't know what that was; she was
>> blasting-off about  how wonderful AOL is!)   She was telling her friend
>> who was looking  for an ISP (she called it dial-up service) that all
>> you had to do in drop in the CD and it's all set up for you.  That's
>> when I found out that the AOL advocate (who uses Windows at work , 40
>> hours/week.)  does not  have a clue about how to install a program.
>> But, her friend thought she was a real guru and so knowledgeable about
>> computers.
>>     Here, friends, lis your typical Windows user.
>>     Is it any wonder that they're terrified when they try to use Linux?
>
> I've been saying the same thing to the ColaNuts for years and still they
> don't get it.
> "Why email granny such a large file?"
> Simply set up an ftp server and etc.......
>
> The problem with many Linux advocates is they think that the rest of the
> world lives eats and shits operating systems.

You were trying to send from linux. It was as simple as (if not already
done):

1. install the software
2. start the service
3. put the file in the server directory
4. open the port
5. create a link that granny can klik on (ftp://<ip_address>/file.iso)

For a regular web server, it's usually usually just as simple. You follow the
same procedure, but change ftp to http and away granny goes.

But, you wouldn't be able to invent a phony scenario that way.

> This why the Macheads and COLA-nuts clash so badly.

It's simple to do it on Mac, too. It's just a matter of turning on the
service that's already there, put the file in the right location and
give somebody the link.

> The Maccies can't figure out why a person would want to tinker with an
> operating system and the COLA-nuts can't figure out why applications are
> really what count.

That doesn't negate the fact that it's stupid to send a huge file via
email, or that it's simpler to make the file accessible so the intended
target can get it at their leisure.

Not that I believe for a second that you sent a huge file.

> I've said it before,

It doesn't matter. You've said a *lot* of things before. That doesn't
make any of them true, relevant or anything else.

-- 
Aprilcons - Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
0
sinister2419 (3164)
5/5/2005 9:30:06 PM
On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:30:06 +0000, Sinister Midget wrote:

>
> You were trying to send from linux. It was as simple as (if not already
> done):
> 
> 1. install the software
> 2. start the service
> 3. put the file in the server directory
> 4. open the port
> 5. create a link that granny can klik on (ftp://<ip_address>/file.iso)
> 
> For a regular web server, it's usually usually just as simple. You follow the
> same procedure, but change ftp to http and away granny goes.

You still don't get it do you.
It's a TOS to run a server with OOL, they do look and they will catch and
cap you.
And BTW Kmail STILL crashes when sending a large file, it doesn't have to
be an iso.
 

You go on and on and on and it doesn't matter a hill of beans because
Forte Agent sent the file fine and kmail crashed and burned.
If you took the time to actually read the kmail bug list you would know
that.
It doesn't matter how smart or stupid it is, it is a valid method of
sending a file.
So what if it was a 10 meg file?
Can kmail handle that?
Who knows, I no longer trust the program and am using something else.

0
flatfish4 (6248)
5/5/2005 10:10:29 PM
billwg wrote something like:

> amosf wrote:

>> MS was excellent in keeping some people looking elsewhere for 'something
>> better' so you have to congratulate them on that. Thank's bill for
>> helping me find DR-DOS and OS/2 and linux...
>> 
> How convenient for you then!  How ever is it that you see a monopoly
> when it is so easy to pick up the competitor's product and use it for
> all your needs?  That is something that I just do not understand.

That's no unusual. A lot of you windows boys are a bit dim and can't work
out the whole legal monopoly thing. You should do some reading. 

>> I still have no idea of what the heck you are trying to say. You make BG
>> out to be some saviour of humanity rather than what he really is - at
>> best just a guy who wants to makes a lot of money by selling overpriced
>> software using a monopoly position.
>> 
> Now if that were the case, amos, I wager that you would be much more
> charitable in you assessment.  Bill Gates is not "just a guy who wants
> to make a lot of money by selling overprice software using a monopoly
> position" but is rather a man who *has* made a lot of money and achieved
> a monopoly position by selling software more successfully than anyone
> else ever has managed to do.  Admittedly, the market position feeds on
> itself, but that is the story with all commercial success and the very
> reason that you would want to have one.  As to "overprice" I would point
> out that Apple's OS upgrade pricing matches or exceeds that of Microsoft
> and while it was available, so did that for OS/2.  OS/2 was initially
> priced at $!!95 when the Windows/MS-DOS combo was being discounted to
> the public for $50 during the Windows 3.0 introduction period.

OS/2 was overpriced, but at least it worked, which was a plus. I tend to pay
more for working software. BG had to screw a few guys over to get started,
but you know all that anyway and are just crapping on for the heck of it...

I'm not particularly an apple fan either, but again, at least it works.

So what would you prefer. 

I actually think bill gates is the younger son of god who has come to earth
to again save humanity...

Can we crucify him now?

-- 
-
 I don't actually live here.
- 
0
linux_nut (576)
5/5/2005 10:24:30 PM
begin   oe_virus.scr It was on Thu, 05 May 2005 17:29:42 -0400, that DFS
was seen to write:

> Sandlin wrote:
>> DFS,
>>    Show us some hard figures or an article that specifically proves
>> your assertion.
>>                                                                     "
>> Or, perhaps because CERT has large numbers of MS-hating Linux/OSS nuts
>> on
>> staff? "
> 
> It's only my gut instinct.  If I could prove it I wouldn't have said
> "perhaps."

Huh, & you say linux advocates are paranoid about M$haft.

(spot the irony)

-- 
With GPL the only thing Microsoft 
gets for free is nightmares.
-- Jean Francois Martinez --
0
willpoast (5106)
5/5/2005 10:33:29 PM
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

>>>     Yeah, but the training wheels are welded-on, and most Windows
>>> users never learn welding so they can remove the training wheels.
>>
>> I like that refinement of my quip (which itself was insprired by one
>> of Rex's posts.)
>
> Yet the Linux "community" spends quite a lot of its time trying to build its
> own training wheels?  Too bad it can't find any new riders...

Wrong on two counts, brahmichari.

First, although some of the community spends some time on GNU/Linux
"training wheels" (e.g. GNOME, KDE, and config apps), these wheels can
be of various sizes and strengths.  And they can be removed.  And Linux
is more like a motorcycle.

Windows is often like those three-wheel adult tricycles with the cover
and large basket.  Ever try to ride on of those things?

As far as riders, there are more out there than you know.

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
5/6/2005 12:53:34 AM
flatfish poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

>> For a regular web server, it's usually usually just as simple. You follow the
>> same procedure, but change ftp to http and away granny goes.
>
> You still don't get it do you.
> It's a TOS to run a server with OOL, they do look and they will catch and
> cap you.

Not necessarily.  If your server has a lot of traffic, yeah, they might
get wise, but many ISPs already cap you anyway on the uploads.

No one's ever complained about my low volume servers.

> Who knows, I no longer trust the program and am using something else.

I think that's a good idea.  I still don't believe any ISP will let you
send a 600+ Mb file, unless you are using your own mail server (I mean
one you set up at home) to do it.

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
5/6/2005 12:59:52 AM
amosf wrote:
> billwg wrote something like:
> 
> 
>>amosf wrote:
> 
> 
>>>MS was excellent in keeping some people looking elsewhere for 'something
>>>better' so you have to congratulate them on that. Thank's bill for
>>>helping me find DR-DOS and OS/2 and linux...
>>>
>>
>>How convenient for you then!  How ever is it that you see a monopoly
>>when it is so easy to pick up the competitor's product and use it for
>>all your needs?  That is something that I just do not understand.
> 
> 
> That's no unusual. A lot of you windows boys are a bit dim and can't work
> out the whole legal monopoly thing. You should do some reading. 
> 
Oh! So that's the story!  It is a *legal* monopoly and so people are 
actually free to choose what they want to use and alternatives are 
readily available.  As long as that's not illegal, I'm happy then!

> 
>>>I still have no idea of what the heck you are trying to say. You make BG
>>>out to be some saviour of humanity rather than what he really is - at
>>>best just a guy who wants to makes a lot of money by selling overpriced
>>>software using a monopoly position.
>>>
>>
>>Now if that were the case, amos, I wager that you would be much more
>>charitable in you assessment.  Bill Gates is not "just a guy who wants
>>to make a lot of money by selling overprice software using a monopoly
>>position" but is rather a man who *has* made a lot of money and achieved
>>a monopoly position by selling software more successfully than anyone
>>else ever has managed to do.  Admittedly, the market position feeds on
>>itself, but that is the story with all commercial success and the very
>>reason that you would want to have one.  As to "overprice" I would point
>>out that Apple's OS upgrade pricing matches or exceeds that of Microsoft
>>and while it was available, so did that for OS/2.  OS/2 was initially
>>priced at $!!95 when the Windows/MS-DOS combo was being discounted to
>>the public for $50 during the Windows 3.0 introduction period.
> 
> 
> OS/2 was overpriced, but at least it worked, which was a plus. I tend to pay
> more for working software. BG had to screw a few guys over to get started,
> but you know all that anyway and are just crapping on for the heck of it...
> 
> I'm not particularly an apple fan either, but again, at least it works.
> 
> So what would you prefer. 
> 
> I actually think bill gates is the younger son of god who has come to earth
> to again save humanity...
> 
> Can we crucify him now?
> 
Well, you could try, amos, but, if the cola commandos are right, BG has 
bought all the judges off and you won't be able to get him sentenced. 
So there is a dilemma.  If he is guilty as you say, he can't be touched, 
but you wouldn't want to crucify an innocent man, so he gets a walk, eh?

0
billwg (581)
5/6/2005 1:19:38 AM
Lin�nut wrote:
> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>>>>     Yeah, but the training wheels are welded-on, and most Windows
>>>> users never learn welding so they can remove the training wheels.
>>>
>>> I like that refinement of my quip (which itself was insprired by one
>>> of Rex's posts.)
>>
>> Yet the Linux "community" spends quite a lot of its time trying to
>> build its own training wheels?  Too bad it can't find any new
>> riders...
>
> Wrong on two counts, brahmichari.

A word I had to look up!  I hate it when that happens.  But, it turns out
you're spelling it wrong.  It's brahmachari, and a quick Google returns
references to movies, a Hindu saint, and an entry for 'Songs of
Brahmachari.'

I give up - though I bet your usage is sarcastic :-)



> First, although some of the community spends some time on GNU/Linux
> "training wheels" (e.g. GNOME, KDE, and config apps), these wheels can
> be of various sizes and strengths.  And they can be removed.

I think you'll agree removing them would obliterate desktop adoption.  So
let's consider them necessary, why don't we?



> And Linux is more like a motorcycle.

I like motorcycles - I rode dirt bikes when I was younger.  And I even like
parts of the Linux motorcycle.  But I refuse to ride it without training
wheels.



> Windows is often like those three-wheel adult tricycles with the cover
> and large basket.  Ever try to ride on of those things?
>
> As far as riders, there are more out there than you know.

Perhaps, though research organizations far more knowledgeable and informed
than you or I say otherwise.



0
nospam2091 (10001)
5/6/2005 3:05:37 AM
begin  KillFileMe.vbs

On 2005-05-05, quoth flatfish <flatfish@linuxmail.org>:
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:30:06 +0000, Sinister Midget wrote:
>
>>
>> You were trying to send from linux. It was as simple as (if not already
>> done):
>> 
>> 1. install the software
>> 2. start the service
>> 3. put the file in the server directory
>> 4. open the port
>> 5. create a link that granny can klik on (ftp://<ip_address>/file.iso)
>> 
>> For a regular web server, it's usually usually just as simple. You follow the
>> same procedure, but change ftp to http and away granny goes.
>
> You still don't get it do you.

Yes I do. You haven't been paying attention. You imagined an imaginary
situation, doing imaginary things. I pointed that out.

I just did it again, too.

> It's a TOS to run a server with OOL, they do look and they will catch and
> cap you.

I'm not supposed to run servers. But I do. The biggest problem is the
level of traffic.

Yes, they know I run them. They let it go because it doesn't take
enough hits to cause problems. If it does, they'll say something.
Otherwise they let it go.

I have sites hosted elsewhere for high-level traffic. (A few that don't
get much traffic, too.)

> And BTW Kmail STILL crashes when sending a large file, it doesn't have to
> be an iso.

Then you didn't need to crate a phony case of you trying to do it and
having failure on the one hand and claiming to try it with Windowes
with success. All you needed to do was point out that someone had a
problem with it.

Your particular sophistry requires you to claim all failures as
personal knowledge, though, instead of allowing them to be failures by
someone else. That's primarily because it all has to be about you.


> You go on and on and on and it doesn't matter a hill of beans because
> Forte Agent sent the file fine and kmail crashed and burned.

Uh huh. I'm sure it did. ISPs let 650M files pass in and out of email
systems dozens of times a day. I know they're really swell guys that
want to let users do whatever they want, whenever they want.

> If you took the time to actually read the kmail bug list you would know
> that.

I don't have issue an with kmail or any reported bugs. My issue is with
your feigned attempt at playing nice little advocate again, then
turning it into a major case of FUD. Like you've done before.

I ain't buyin' Bub.

> It doesn't matter how smart or stupid it is, it is a valid method of
> sending a file.

Agreed. Not a valid method for a complete CD's worth of files, but a
valid one for a few jpegs or a zipped one or two.

> So what if it was a 10 meg file?

That wasn't conducive to your pretend situation or you would have used
it.

> Can kmail handle that?

I have no idea. I don't use kmail, meself.

> Who knows, I no longer trust the program and am using something else.

As you were doing to begin with, I'm sure.

That has nothing to do with your attempt at playing friendly to set
people up for later trolling. For that to work you had to not only play
nice, but you had to have a genuine bug that *you* experienced
personally to whinge about. It was all going to come apart later on,
when you started getting more and more angry about little things, when
you started getting called on some stuff because you were beginning to
get ridiculous with things nobody on earth has reported or could
reproduce.

As I said elsewhere, learn some new steps or a couple of different
tunes. Change the words or something. Write your own material.
Anything. But many of us have seen this musical before, and, frankly,
it wasn't worth the price of admission the first time you performed it.

-- 
XP: The ME of NT.
0
sinister2419 (3164)
5/6/2005 4:15:03 AM
DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> Lin�nut wrote:
>>
>> Wrong on two counts, brahmichari.
>
> A word I had to look up!  I hate it when that happens.  But, it turns out
> you're spelling it wrong.  It's brahmachari, and a quick Google returns
> references to movies, a Hindu saint, and an entry for 'Songs of
> Brahmachari.'
>
> I give up - though I bet your usage is sarcastic :-)

Definitely.  I actually first heard the word on
the Firesign Theatre album "Waiting for the Electrician, Or Someone
Like Him".

Read this quick description first:

http://www.firesigntheatre.com/albums/album.php?album=wfte

Anyway, one cowboy character says "Howdy brahmachari!", so it seemed
to me the word was akin to "cowboy".  I never looked it up, though, so I
applaud your research.

>> First, although some of the community spends some time on GNU/Linux
>> "training wheels" (e.g. GNOME, KDE, and config apps), these wheels can
>> be of various sizes and strengths.  And they can be removed.
>
> I think you'll agree removing them would obliterate desktop adoption.  So
> let's consider them necessary, why don't we?

Necessary at first.  Most people outgrow them, at least on bicycles.  On
computers, many people don't seem to outgrow them (physical advancement
seems easier than mental advancement).  However, those who do outgrow
them (and I think I have, to some extent) find the training wheel
interface a bit of an impediment on Windows.

When I first started with Linux, I dual-booted, and I actually needed
to.  I had no one to call with Linux help, and I often had to consult
Windows resources to figure out hardware and network (ISP servers etc.)
parameters.  And, on Linux itself, for a long time I used mainly GUI
apps (netscape and linuxconf), though I remembered some UNIX commands
from my time in grad school.

As time wore on, though, I slowly used more and more text-based tools,
and primarily modify configurations through vi now.

Apart from the GIMP, Firefox is about the only other GUI tool I use
consistently.  Also gFTP when I have a complex set of uploads to a web
site (otherwise it's ncftp).  And gnutella.

>> And Linux is more like a motorcycle.
>
> I like motorcycles - I rode dirt bikes when I was younger.  And I even like
> parts of the Linux motorcycle.  But I refuse to ride it without training
> wheels.

That's cool.  I like it because I can ditch the training wheels, which
only add some complexity and slowness to using certain tools to connect
to my home box.

>> Windows is often like those three-wheel adult tricycles with the cover
>> and large basket.  Ever try to ride on of those things?
>>
>> As far as riders, there are more out there than you know.
>
> Perhaps, though research organizations far more knowledgeable and informed
> than you or I say otherwise.

I've wondered about that.  I know there was a book about human
interfaces (someone showed it to me around 1990), and it would be
interesting to see an objective analysis of the many desktop metaphors
on all these operating systems.

Microsoft did a lot of research on the issue, as I recall.  One thing
they noted is that most people seemed to maximize one window at a time.
So that's why Win 95 had a "start" menu at the bottom.  And that's
probably why you hear Erik Funkenbusch deriding the multiple desktop
scenario (also, he's probably tried Microsoft's implementation of it,
which has some neat features, but also causes severe problems.)

I've noticed that myself, in other people.  But that paradigm drives me
batty.  I like to have lots of windows, with small text, so it is easy
to keep track of what they are doing simultaneously.  It drives me crazy
to help someone who maximizes every window they're working in.

Anyway, enough about me. <grin>

-- 
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
0
iso
5/6/2005 3:04:58 PM
On Thu, 05 May 2005 18:10:29 -0400, flatfish wrote:

> On Thu, 05 May 2005 21:30:06 +0000, Sinister Midget wrote:
> 
>>
>> You were trying to send from linux. It was as simple as (if not already
>> done):
>> 
>> 1. install the software
>> 2. start the service
>> 3. put the file in the server directory
>> 4. open the port
>> 5. create a link that granny can klik on (ftp://<ip_address>/file.iso)
>> 
>> For a regular web server, it's usually usually just as simple. You follow the
>> same procedure, but change ftp to http and away granny goes.
> 
> You still don't get it do you.
> It's a TOS to run a server with OOL, they do look and they will catch and
> cap you.
> And BTW Kmail STILL crashes when sending a large file, it doesn't have to
> be an iso.

Most people don't send stupidly large files over email.

>  
> 
> You go on and on and on and it doesn't matter a hill of beans because
> Forte Agent sent the file fine and kmail crashed and burned.
> If you took the time to actually read the kmail bug list you would know
> that.

Big deal.

> It doesn't matter how smart or stupid it is, it is a valid method of
> sending a file.

A file *that* size? You have got to be smoking crack.

> So what if it was a 10 meg file?

A ten meg file is in the bounds of reason. A 650 meg file is just fucking
bananas - how long do you imagine it would take to download, even on
broadband? Dial-up - forget it, your mythical granny would be pushing up
the daisies before it ever arrived. 

> Can kmail handle that?
> Who knows, I no longer trust the program and am using something else.

Fine, that's your prerogative. But why whine to us?

The most sensible thing for you to do would have been burn the damned iso
yourself and send it to her in the mail.

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
5/6/2005 3:40:33 PM
On 2005-05-04, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
> Jim wrote:
>
>> Article from Wired, quoted verbatim and in its entirety... I had a
>> laugh...
>
><snipped 1997 Wired article refuting the myth that Bill Gates said "640K of
> memory should be enough for anybody">
>
> Thanks for posting that.  Many cola nutcases are now embarrassed... well,
> they should be embarrassed, and they would be embarrassed if they had any

	That should have been an intersesting article...

		...being that it would have to "prove a negative" and all.

> shame for lying all the time about Bill Gates and MS and Windows.
>
> But they don't, so they aren't.

	That "myth" was ancient 10 years before that article was written.

-- 
	The best OS in the world is ultimately useless         |||
	if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates.      / | \
                                                     
0
jedi (14754)
5/7/2005 3:51:45 AM
On 2005-05-05, flatfish <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 12:27:38 -0700, Sandlin wrote:
[deletia]
>>     Here, friends, lis your typical Windows user.
>>     Is it any wonder that they're terrified when they try to use Linux?
>
> I've been saying the same thing to the ColaNuts for years and still they
> don't get it.
> "Why email granny such a large file?"
> Simply set up an ftp server and etc.......
>
> The problem with many Linux advocates is they think that the rest of the
> world lives eats and shits operating systems.

	The problem with Lemmings is that they don't think things through.

	They fail to realize that a HUGE ATTACHMENT will likely cause a mail
to be bounced somewhere along the route from your house to grannies.

	It makes FAR more sense to share the file locally through some file
sharing mechanism. FTP just happens to be bog standard and something that is
well supported, routable and is supported by any browser (like the one that
comes with WinDOS).

[deletia]

	Incidentally, "grandma" makes extensive use out of my ftp/http 
server.

	The serverside setup might not yet be at Mirabilis territory for Linux.
However I don't see anyone else mentioning a non-Linux option that would be.


-- 
	The best OS in the world is ultimately useless         |||
	if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates.      / | \
                                                     
0
jedi (14754)
5/7/2005 3:56:43 AM
On 2005-05-05, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
> Sandlin wrote:
>> DFS,
>>    Show us some hard figures or an article that specifically proves
>> your assertion.
>>                                                                     "
>> Or, perhaps because CERT has large numbers of MS-hating Linux/OSS nuts
>> on
>> staff? "
>
> It's only my gut instinct.  If I could prove it I wouldn't have said
> "perhaps."

	Well these are SECURITY EXPERTS.

	Sometimes hate is earned. 

	...and they don't even have to be "OSS nuts". There's a wide
variety of more-secure-than-Microsoft systems out there. They could be
generic Unix people, or Mac-heads or even crufty old VMS diehards.


-- 
	The best OS in the world is ultimately useless         |||
	if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates.      / | \
                                                     
0
jedi (14754)
5/7/2005 4:00:39 AM
DFS,
     You need to refine your reading skills.  You misread everything.
Dyslexic, are you?

0
sbarringer (258)
5/7/2005 7:16:35 PM
begin  risky.vbs
	<1115493395.488183.133890@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
	"Sandlin" <sbarringer@netpenny.net> writes:
>
> DFS,
>      You need to refine your reading skills.  You misread
> everything.  Dyslexic, are you?

And you need to add some context to your replies. It is even worse
than top posting.
0
rgc4 (3198)
5/8/2005 2:57:06 AM
B wrote:
> Do you know why linux is definitely not the best OS?
> Check this www.spatula.net/proc/linux/index.src

Please note that this is by no means an authorative web site.  The
author doesn't even list his credentials.  Is he experienced in UNIX?
Linux? Windows Server programming?  Large scale projects?  For all we
know, he might be some high school kid using his parents' credit card
to register his domain name.

As for the references, very out of date.  Very carefully selected to
compare only those conditions in which Linux is known to be at a
disadvantage.  Yes, FreeBSD will run much faster on an Intel 80486 box
with 32 meg of RAM than Linux will.  FreeBSD will not run on
multiprocessor machines very effeciently, and the kernel hasn't been
upgraded significantly in many years.  There are many sites who have
run FreeBSD for over 4 years without a reboot, because there is no
compelling reason to upgrade to a newer kernel.

> Out of curiosity, I have installed two linux distributions, in the
past :
> red-hat and mandrake.

When?  5 iears ago?  2 weeks ago?
On hardware DESIGNED to run Linux?  or on hardware Designed to run
Windows ONLY, but could be brute-forced into running Linux?

> I spent some time discovering what that linux hype was
> all about,

How much time?  A week?  A month?  A year?  How many hours?  40 (less
than one staff-week), 160 (less than one staff month), or 2000 hours
(one staff year).

I've spent over 8,000 hours using Linux in development and production
environments.  I've used Linux as my secondary desktop machine, I've
used Linux as my primary servers, I've used Linux to prototype clusters
and multi-organization B2B solutions.

> what the GUI was like, what "cool" options KDE (or any other
> desktop manager) had to offer, the general look-and-feel of those
so-called
> better alternatives to windows.

Sounds to me like you didn't really do anything useful.  You didn't
actually USE Linux for anything.  You just launched a few applications
waited what seemed like an eternity for them to come up, twiddled with
them for a few seconds, then closed them and moved on to the next one.

> Well, getting past the thrills of installation,

Wintroll problem number one.  You did not install Linux on a machine
DESIGNED for Linux.  There are many machines that are actually DESIGNED
to be Linux compatible out of the box.  Several models such as certain
IBM thinkpads (T-20, T-40, R-50) Aptiva, and Intellistation, Dell
Dimensions, and HP Pavilions, were all configured to run Linux "out of
the box".  The plug and play technology of contemporary versions of
Linux (those released shortly after the initial release of the hardware
or later) will auto-configure themselves with little or no
intervention.

On the other hand, most Compaq desktops, most Gateway low-end laptops
and desktops, and most low-end IBM laptops, will not run Linux very
nicely because they were designed to run Windows, including
Windows-only hardware.

> my experience went down to
> disappointment and frustration.

> Things so trivial as changing the screen
> resolution seemed deeply obscure, and the help system downright
cryptic.

Funny, Red Hat, SuSE, and Mandrake all have GUI tools for doing this,
and you can do it once you've started X11 in "default" resolution.
With hardware designed to be Linux-friendly, Linux will figure out the
resolution of your monitor and graphics card, and set this to be the
default resolution.  For example, both Red Hat Enterprise Workstation
and SuSE professional figured out the resolution on my T40 SXGA and A30
SXGA laptops and set the resolution accordingly.  I could have chosen
lower resolution, but was quite happy with what I got.  I spent an
extra $1000 for the higher resolution, I expect to have it with Linux.

> Plus I got a strange feeling that beyond those windows-like
> bells-and-whistles, the linux OS uncovers its real nature and betrays
its
> unixish origins

Very true.  Linux doesn't cripple it's users and force them to spend
thousands of dollars for developer tools in addition to the thousands
spent on the core hardware and operating system.

The advantage of this is that applications which would cost hundreds of
dollars on Windows are available for Linux as part of the standard
installation.  Applications that would cost thousands of dollars are
available via download for just a few hundred dollars.  Server
applications that would cost as much as 1/4 million dollars on Windows,
can be obtained for as little as $1,000 for limited scope hardware
(limited number of processors and/or users).

0
r.e.ballard (1110)
5/8/2005 5:27:40 AM
billwg wrote something like:

> amosf wrote:

>> That's no unusual. A lot of you windows boys are a bit dim and can't work
>> out the whole legal monopoly thing. You should do some reading.
>> 
> Oh! So that's the story!  It is a *legal* monopoly and so people are
> actually free to choose what they want to use and alternatives are
> readily available.  As long as that's not illegal, I'm happy then!

You just need to stop wanking a while and do some reading. You'll be okay. 

-- 
-
 I don't actually live here.
- 
0
linux_nut (576)
5/8/2005 8:17:37 AM
amosf wrote:
> billwg wrote something like:
> 
> 
>>amosf wrote:
> 
> 
>>>That's no unusual. A lot of you windows boys are a bit dim and can't work
>>>out the whole legal monopoly thing. You should do some reading.
>>>
>>
>>Oh! So that's the story!  It is a *legal* monopoly and so people are
>>actually free to choose what they want to use and alternatives are
>>readily available.  As long as that's not illegal, I'm happy then!
> 
> 
> You just need to stop wanking a while and do some reading. You'll be okay. 
> 
Do you think that will do it?  Did it work for you?
0
billwg (581)
5/8/2005 3:11:04 PM
> DFS,
>      You need to refine your reading skills.  You misread
> everything.  Dyslexic, are you?

And you need to add some context to your replies. It is even worse
than top posting.

Reply 
Roy,
    I stand corrected.

0
sbarringer (258)
5/9/2005 2:38:03 PM
Ray Ingles <sorceror@dmc22317.local> writes:

> In article <46ude.27672$Ow2.10878@fe06.lga>, DFS wrote:

>> That presupposes most Windows users leave the their Windows Explorer Folder
>> Options settings at the default.  I don't agree.  Plus, the default settings
>> vary from version to version.
>
>  Can you point out a version where the "hide extensions for known file
> types" setting wasn't enabled by default?

Windows 3.1?

Windows 1.0?

(Just guessing.  I don't recall how 3.1 really worked and never saw
1.0.)


-- 
When I am grown to man's estate 
I shall be very proud and great,
and tell the other girls and boys
not to meddle with my toys.          --Robert Louis Stevenson 
0
jesse18 (2492)
5/9/2005 3:31:09 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Best OS and Best Server OS, from Infoworld
January 02, 2006 08:00 AM US Central Timezone IDG's InfoWorld Names Top Technologies Impacting IT in 2006; Annual Technology of the Year Awards Honor 46 Innovative Solutions http://tinyurl.com/d5f6s OPERATING SYSTEMS Best Client Operating System: Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger Best Server Operating System: Mac OS X Server v10.4 (Note that lots of other folks were awarded accolades by IDG, including but not limited to M$, Apple, Cisco, IBM and others.) -- Regards, JP "The measure of a man is what he will do while expecting that he will get nothing in return!" On Jan 3, 2006, Ji...

Best OS for Ruby Dev/Best OS for Ruby Hosting
Which is the best OS to use for ruby development...My vote goes to Mac OS X? What would be considered the best environment for hosting ruby and rails? Mac? FreeBSD? Gentoo? Ruby is, I believe, primarily designed for use with Linux, although the code is highly portable. Since Linux is the primary development platform, it may also have the fastest bug fixing and the most thorough testing. As a result, your best bet for hosting would be a server-grade Linux OS such as RHEL, CentOS, or the server versions of other distributions. For development, consistency with your hosting platform may or ma...

IN your opinion what is the best way to share files between LInux and IN your opinion what is the best way to share files between LInux and MAC OS X?
IN your opinion what is the best way to share files between LInux and MAC OS X? I set up SAMBA on the LInux machine and the MAC (running the very latest OSX) can copy files to the SAMBA share at lightning speeds. When I try and copy files from the LInux machine to the Mac they take an eternity. So slow in fact I have to kill the process . I would appreciate any thoughts on why that maybe and also if there is a better way to share files (I guess HTTP-FTP would be the most sensible option ). navti wrote: > IN your opinion what is the best way to share files between LInux and > MAC O...

RE: Obsucure Inquier article about Intel mentions VMS (and not any other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other
> -----Original Message----- > From: JF Mezei [mailto:jfmezei.spamnot@teksavvy.com]=20 > Sent: October 11, 2004 11:45 PM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: Obsucure Inquier article about Intel mentions=20 > VMS (and not any other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS')=20 > other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other=20 > OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other=20 >=20 > "Main, Kerry" wrote: > > Course, there are many ways to offer differen...

RE: Obsucure Inquier article about Intel mentions VMS (and not any other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS')
> -----Original Message----- > From: Soterro [mailto:soterroatyahoocom@address.hp.com]=20 > Sent: October 11, 2004 9:43 AM > To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com > Subject: Re: Obsucure Inquier article about Intel mentions=20 > VMS (and not any other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS')=20 > other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') other OS') >=20 > Main, Kerry wrote: > >>From: John Smith [mailto:a@nonymous.com]=20 > >>You aren't directly to blame for this and I know you'd like=20 > >>to keep your > &...

[News] Making Linux More Like OS X and OS X More Like Linux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mac OS X - Highly Customized Linux ,----[ Quote ] | Few players in the Linux arena creates their Linux distro to look like Mac OS | X or Windows.... | | Here I'm going to list some distro which looks like Mac OS. `---- http://linuxtreat.blogspot.com/2008/07/mac-os-x-highly-customized-linux.html A Linux User's Guide to Mac ,----[ Quote ] | Take a deep breath and repeat after me: A computer is just a tool. It is only | so good as it serves to make life better for users. A "better" life is | obviously not the same thing fo...

The Best Linux OS
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C63F84.579DF340 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Check Out one of the best Linux OS's here Click Me ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C63F84.579DF340 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <MET...

os.linux.advocacy
Dear Friend, I have found some great articles at: http://www.familyandtwist.com/ http:www.articlestwist.com/ http://www.downloadstwist.com/ http://www.wallpaperstwist.com/ Read them all. Thanks mahmar07@gmail.com came up with this when s/he headbutted the keyboard a moment ago in comp.os.linux.advocacy: > Dear Friend, > > I have found some great articles at: > <URLs snipped> > Read them all. > > Thanks Not without a summary, I ain't. -- Spanking brand new high end desktop computer: £1700 Spanking brand new colour laser printer/scanner/copier/fax...

Best Linux OS for MySql
Hello, I had a mysql database running on windows 2K and want to migrate it to a Linux. In performance terms, what Linux kernel (in x86 : Intel Pentium 4 Prescott at 3.2 GHz and SCSI U320 hard drive) provide the best general performances with Mysql ? Thank you for your answers ! "fxzzzzzzzz" <fxzz@free.fr> wrote in message news:44005aa2$0$30865$636a55ce@news.free.fr... > In performance terms, what Linux kernel (in x86 : Intel Pentium 4 Prescott > at 3.2 GHz and SCSI U320 hard drive) provide the best general performances > with Mysql ? I would recommend just...

Is Linux the best in all OS areas?
Can anyone fill in the blanks on this? I am considering buying RHAT or another Linux stock as I think Linux is leading in many OS areas and wondering if this is true. Also, what other stocks are good Linux plays perhaps? LNUX, MDKFF, SUNW, NOVL? Is Linux the best operating system for: Server OS? Yes, RedHat PC user? Yes, Mandrake Tech saavy user? Yes, Gentoo Graphics manipulation OS? Real-time OS? Embedded OS? MPP (loosely coupled) OS? Yes. Beowulf. Massively SMP OS? (How many processors have been run under 1 Linux OS instance?) Gaming OS? PDA OS? Customizeable for performance? ...

Palm OS (Renamed "Garnet OS") and a Linux Future
IT Sstandrads Hijack Threatens European Economix Competitiveness ,----[ Quote ] | To stop Europe being rail-roaded into an inadequate standard, the | ODF Alliance urges national supporters who have issues to raise | contradictions of ECMA's standard with existing standards to | encourage their national ISO representatives to raise formal | contradictions as quickly as possible, certainly | before 5th February 2007. `---- http://sourcewire.com/releases/rel_dis ...

Choosing the right OS between Mac OS X, Linux dist, Win
Hi Guys, I have a 4 year old Dell Inspiron 5100 P4-2.8 GHz (1.25 GB RAM, 40GB HDD). Its been running fine with some heating problems, and a few fresh installations of win-xp needed. Now, I have a need to buy a second laptop (it has to be a laptop since I am moving place to place every few months). Thats when I hit the question.. What to buy... Well, before anything else, I should mention my intended usage of the system... - Running software like - Oracle 10g Server, - Oracle Warehouse Builder - Some ETL tools... - some shell programming - some perl programming - lots of...

best VNC clients/servers for OS 9 & OS X
What are the best VNC clients and servers for both OS X and OS 9? I want to control an OS 9 box from OS X. Thanks. -- In article <310120041326252800%nn@nn.nn1.org>, NN <nn@nn.nn1.org> wrote: >What are the best VNC clients and servers for both OS X and OS 9? I >want to control an OS 9 box from OS X. I'll answer for Mac OS X: Clients: Chicken of the VNC, VNC Dimension Server: OSXvnc I recall using the actual VNC binaries on Mac OS 9. Darrel ...

PC World Awards MAC OS X Panther BEST OS!
From the July 2004 Issue. Also state that they hope Microsoft is paying attention to OS X as they work on next Windows. ......also names Apple iTunes the Best New WINDOWS App of the year. "Apple makes Windows apps about as often as Microsoft ships bug-free products, and if iTunes for Windows (free) is any indication, that's a crying shame," the magazine reported. Isnt' this magazine a widely well-regarded Windows promotion machine? Sooo glad to see that someone so well embedded in the Windoze world is making some good sense. http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2004/06...

[News] A Look at Element OS and Introduction to Peppermint OS (GNU/Linux)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Element OS - An Ubuntu Based Distro For HTPCs ,----[ Quote ] | Element OS is a 32 bit Xubuntu based | distro for HTPCs(Home Theatre PCs). It | maintains compatibility with Ubuntu | repositories. It uses the Advanced | Packaging Tool(APT) with Element's own | custom repositories and the Ubuntu | repositories. Element OS also incorporates | the AllMyApps software center to allow | additional applications to be downloaded. `---- http://www.techdrivein.com/2010/06/element-os-ubuntu-based-distro-for.html An introduction to Peppermint OS ...

Web resources about - best OS ? - comp.os.linux.advocacy

Cruz And Rubio Sign Amicus Brief Urging Supreme Court To Weaken Roe
Republican presidential candidates Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida are among the 174 members of Congress who have submitted ...

Instagram Testing Multiple Account Support on iOS
Instagram has begun testing multiple account support on iOS, suggesting the feature could be coming to all Instagram iOS users in the near future. ...

Zika Virus is the New Ebola
San Diego area may offer glimpse of how Zika could gain foothold here.

Julian Assange had promised to turn himself if the UN ruled his detention lawful
When a UN panel from the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention upheld Julian Assange's claim that he was being unlawfully detained in London's ...

Viacom drama to continue now that Sumner Redstone is out at CBS
Sumner Redstone’s media empire has morphed into a Greek drama — complete with high-stakes power moves and talk on Wall Street of hoped-for C-suite ...

Android Wear update brings speaker support, new gestures, and voice features to messaging apps
Admit it: you’ve always wanted to take phone calls with your watch. You finally can with a new update to Android Wear that supports speaker hardware ...

The 5 most absurd moments of pharma bro Martin Shkreli's useless Congressional testimony
Martin Shkreli shocked the business world on Thursday by apologizing to the U.S. Congress for hiking the price of a crucial AIDS drug and trolling ...

Apple walloped with $625.6M in damages from FaceTime lawsuit
The tech giant was the target of a patent troll, a company that makes money by suing other companies.

Cisco Bets $1.4 Billion On The Internet Of Things
Internet of Things gets thrown around a lot these days given that most major tech companies are now making products to establish their dominance ...

Google will warn users away from fake download buttons, social engineering
Google has announced its new Safe Browsing Initiative will now target deceptive download links and practices. Site designers that like playing ...

Resources last updated: 2/4/2016 7:45:54 PM