>Hardly. If Microsoft tries to include even one major incompatability >or serious bug, it will kill "L++" the same way it killed MSIE and >Microsoft's ripoff of javascript during the IE3.0 days?
The people working on the kernal don't have to consern themselves with supporting anything that Microsoft tries to hook into the kernel. So in essence microsoft would be stuck with a kernel and addons that isn't supported by the main linux dists.
>I saw a rather sorry comment on Linux Today yesterday by a Java >developer who had quit Windows cold a year ago. Unfortunately, due to >JDK 1.3 not being available under Linux, they are again using Windows
God. Why do you Java fanatics remind me of the Amiga Arexx fanatics? Sheesh.......
>In the TNG episode "The Inner Light", Picard's brain is directly >accessed by a probe from a long-dead civilisation, and during his
There's an TOS episode "That Which Survives" if I recall correctly that had a computer create duplicates based on the body and personality of a long-dead female commander of an artfical planet that Kirk and Co had beamed down to investigate as part of the planet/base defense system. The duplicates mimiced the orginal personality of the woman so well that they felt regret over having to kill. Far better than "Inner Light" especally the end where it was revealed that it was their own technology that ended up dooming her people.
>thing to be careful with there...is that you would get informed >people running the country. This of course....goes against the current system
You've got to be kidding. Most of those "informed" people will be voting using software running under Mircosoft Windows. Yep, I'm sure we all want to entrust the future to a bunch of dim-witted script kiddies who think voting over the internet is a good idea. Wonder what kind of new "features" Microsoft will embed it's software in anticipation of internet voting. Hey maybe Melissa's kids will do your voting *FOR* you....
>I started complaining about the GPV - and coined the term - in 1991 >(or was it 1990? Damn, I gotta find a copy of that post). I didn't >even load Windows - any version - on a computer until 1996. The >license has always been broken, and some of us have been pointing >that out since the beginning.
So you were a *DOS* share/crippleware programmer. Big deal. The GPL is becoming more popular because people depise the BSD licence. The fact that SGI choose the GPL over the BSD licence to release their code under is proof that it's the BSD license that's seriously broken despite what idiots like yourself claim. In fact I really suspect that's the real reason the illusion of change was made in the BSD license agreement.
>Actually that's exactly what you do. You can release the damned thing >and change the license. What do you think Microsoft did with the >FreeBSD TCP/IP stack they used in Win2k?
The guy who wrote the Miami TCP/IP stack for the Amiga did pretty much the same thing, execpt he turned the BSD TCP/IP stack into crippled shareware. And the BSD license supporters wonder why linux users prefer the GPL.
>Pain is an illusion of the senses. Pain is for the weak. Life without >pain has no meaning. Use Slackware. Yours faithfully, A Slacker
Yeah right. And if you think for one moment that the people putting out Slackware or any other linux dist are going to let you and your script-kiddie pals pull this kind of bullshit with their dists, you're stupider than you look, which would be hard to top since you look pretty stupid.
>If you can find ANYWHERE else on the net offering FREE LIFETIME >SUPPORT AND WARRANTY for a Linux + PowerTools 2 cd set - buy it >because it's a steal! ******/
It sure is. Especially when that "FREE LIFETIME SUPPORT AND WARRANTY" is based on the lifespan of the person who's selling the cdrom set pet *FLEA*.....
>RedHat... they sell stuff that's available for free.
And by the time you've downloaded everything that makes up a Redhat dist over a 28 or 56k modem, your *PARENT'S* phone bill and isp's charges will be more than buying the Redhat boxed set. Grow up you microsoft-windows-using-script-kiddie.....
>expect support from RedHat. Unfortuately, most of these people are >not buying Official RedHat Linux that comes with support. When they >find out that they can't get support, it goes something like this: Exactly. And you're starting to see the same thing with the Macmillan bundling of Mandrake. The Macmillan package isn't bad but the packaging does tend to make you think you're buying something you really aren't.
>RedHat's being so public about all their bugs the way they bury it on >their website.
If RedHat and the other Linux dists hides these annoucements like you claim, then why can they be found on nearly all the Linux newsites like Linux Today and LWN? You truly are a Microsoft-paid moron you know that? The fact is really easy to find out if there is any sort of "Security Issue" with Linux or BSD software. It's nearly impossible to do the same when you have Mircosoft running around denying that there is even a problem to begin with 99% of the time.
>The am-utils package that they've been shipping is "being actively >exploited on the internet" to give root access on machines running >amd.
The key words here are "machines running amd." I don't run amd and nor am I required to. In fact amd wasn't even installed on my machine when I installed Redhat 6.0 -I did a custom install. Now if this was Microsoft I've would've had no choice. Software like am-util would've been installed by default even if I didn't want it on my machine. Also in case you didn't notice Redhat is informing people about the amd problems in a *VERY* public fashion, which is one of the reasons I like Redhat. On the other hand did Mircosoft inform *ANYBODY* about the problem with Hotmail? Nope. People really found out about it after the news (and it *DIDN'T*) come from Microsoft made it to Slashdot.
Bullshit. Microsoft screwed Hotmail up badly. Compare Hotmail as it was *BEFORE* Microsoft got it's hands on it as opposed to the way it is now. The old Hotmail didn't care what browser you used to acess it. Now thanks to MS, you can't use older browsers or Lynx with it (well you can use lynx but you have to modify it)
Opera coming out with a text-based browser than can compete with Lynx? Don't count on it. The current Lynx has a 32-bit DOS port that can run under MSDOS 6.2 on a 386. I rather doubt Opera's text-based browser will be pulling this off anytime soon.
>How about if your not a mobster but a political activist for a cause >they don't like?
If you were, you wouldn't be using the phone to discuss anything relating to your cause anyway. If you *ARE* stupid enough to do so,well you would've blown yourself up before this takes effect,so you won't have anything to worry about anyway.....
>Just let the other person know your account number, and they will do >the transaction, and your own account in minutes via the web >interface.
Idoit. What if I don't want *WANT* to let the other person know my account number? Forget paying bills by email or any other of the crap people like you seem to be fond of, it's stupid and you have no real control over it. I'ld rather buy a money order from the post office for the exact amount *I* want to *PAY* on a bill rather than go through that "electronic banking" bullshit that's basically a consumer rip-off.
>because of the support of such mainstream, and popular companies like C|Net
Eh? C|Net and sites like it are jokes when it comes to Linux. You want to see linux users break out in laughter? Mention ZDNet,C|Net and knowlege of Linux in the same sentance. Most of the C|Net guys couldn't explain how to format a 1.44meg floppy under DOS if their life depened on it......
>Who could resist this classic Star Trek quote. (Uh, I think it was >from Generations.)
Umm,no. It from one of the *WORST* classic Star Trek epidsode, "Spock's Brain". Yep someone actually stole Spock's brain. Ripped the sucker right out of his head. It's absolutely amazing that 99% of the Star Trek:The Next Generation,Deep Space 9 and Star Trek:Voyager epidsodes actually manage to make "Spock's Brain" look good. Would anyone actually notice if someone had actually stolen Westly's,Denna's or Worf's brain? I honestly don't think so...
Re:read the article before you get your flamethrow
on
Linus Puts Shields Up
·
· Score: 1
>He is mud-slinging against Linux because he feels put down because of >not having a personal red phone to Linus.
Also if you notice a *LOT* of these reporters are pissed because Linux Users have pretty much managed to do an end-run around them and the publications most of them work for. Remember the Amiga and the Atari ST? These reporters and industry trade rags could and did hinder the acceptance of both of these machines by refering to them as "Game Machines" and so forth. Nowdays they really can't do that when you have magazines like Forbes doing articles on Linux and BSD. Makes you wonder what the world would've been like if like articles concerning Amiga and ST had shown up in similar ones.
Just drop the word report and you have the gist of the mattter....
The National Enquirer must not be hiring right now, so ZDNet must have decided to take up the slack....
Re:Kernel Usage will fork unless...
on
Kernels Galore
·
· Score: 1
>This doesn't apply to/dev/cua* because the to have misunderstood >the point made earlier that the decision to drop/dev/cua* from 2.2 >was made on grounds of taste not of technical necessity.
What's the big deal? Instead of using/dev/cua* or/dev/ttyS* just use/dev/modem as the serial interface and create a symbolic link to either/dev/cua* or/dev/ttyS*. It's simple. When running the 2.0.x kernel I made sure I was running as root and typed ln -s/dev/cua1/dev/modem. When I switched over to the 2.2.x kernels I just entered ln -s -f/dev/ttyS1/dev/modem. That's it. No need to recompile anything. You Windows users really need to start reading the docs and manuals that come with software packages you use. Not doing so only makes you guys look stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
>Hardly. If Microsoft tries to include even one major incompatability >or serious bug, it will kill "L++" the same way it killed MSIE and >Microsoft's ripoff of javascript during the IE3.0 days?
The people working on the kernal don't have to consern themselves with supporting anything that Microsoft tries to hook into the kernel. So in essence microsoft would be stuck with a kernel and addons that isn't supported by the main linux dists.
>I saw a rather sorry comment on Linux Today yesterday by a Java >developer who had quit Windows cold a year ago. Unfortunately, due to >JDK 1.3 not being available under Linux, they are again using Windows
God. Why do you Java fanatics remind me of the Amiga Arexx fanatics? Sheesh.......
>In the TNG episode "The Inner Light", Picard's brain is directly >accessed by a probe from a long-dead civilisation, and during his
There's an TOS episode "That Which Survives" if I recall correctly that had a computer create duplicates based on the body and personality of a long-dead female commander of an artfical planet that Kirk and Co had beamed down to investigate as part of the planet/base defense system. The duplicates mimiced the orginal personality of the woman so well that they felt regret over having to kill. Far better than "Inner Light" especally the end where it was revealed that it was their own technology that ended up dooming her people.
>thing to be careful with there...is that you would get informed >people running the country. This of course....goes against the current system
You've got to be kidding. Most of those "informed" people will be voting using software running under Mircosoft Windows. Yep, I'm sure we all want to entrust the future to a bunch of dim-witted script kiddies who think voting over the internet is a good idea. Wonder what kind of new "features" Microsoft will embed it's software in anticipation of internet voting. Hey maybe Melissa's kids will do your voting *FOR* you....
>I started complaining about the GPV - and coined the term - in 1991 >(or was it 1990? Damn, I gotta find a copy of that post). I didn't >even load Windows - any version - on a computer until 1996. The >license has always been broken, and some of us have been pointing >that out since the beginning.
So you were a *DOS* share/crippleware programmer. Big deal. The GPL is becoming more popular because people depise the BSD licence. The fact that SGI choose the GPL over the BSD licence to release their code under is proof that it's the BSD license that's seriously broken despite what idiots like yourself claim. In fact I really suspect that's the real reason the illusion of change was made in the BSD license agreement.
That the biggest boosters of KDE seem to be Windows Share/Crippleware crowd? Interesting isn't it?
>Actually that's exactly what you do. You can release the damned thing >and change the license. What do you think Microsoft did with the >FreeBSD TCP/IP stack they used in Win2k?
The guy who wrote the Miami TCP/IP stack for the Amiga did pretty much the same thing, execpt he turned the BSD TCP/IP stack into crippled shareware. And the BSD license supporters wonder why linux users prefer the GPL.
>Pain is an illusion of the senses. Pain is for the weak. Life without >pain has no meaning. Use Slackware. Yours faithfully, A Slacker
Yeah right. And if you think for one moment that the people putting out Slackware or any other linux dist are going to let you and your script-kiddie pals pull this kind of bullshit with their dists, you're stupider than you look, which would be hard to top since you look pretty stupid.
>If you can find ANYWHERE else on the net offering FREE LIFETIME >SUPPORT AND WARRANTY for a Linux + PowerTools 2 cd set - buy it >because it's a steal! ******/
It sure is. Especially when that "FREE LIFETIME SUPPORT AND WARRANTY" is based on the lifespan of the person who's selling the cdrom set pet *FLEA*.....
>RedHat... they sell stuff that's available for free.
And by the time you've downloaded everything that makes up a Redhat dist over a 28 or 56k modem, your *PARENT'S* phone bill and isp's charges will be more than buying the Redhat boxed set. Grow up you microsoft-windows-using-script-kiddie.....
>expect support from RedHat. Unfortuately, most of these people are >not buying Official RedHat Linux that comes with support. When they >find out that they can't get support, it goes something like this:
Exactly. And you're starting to see the same thing with the Macmillan bundling of Mandrake. The Macmillan package isn't bad but the packaging does tend to make you think you're buying something you really aren't.
>RedHat's being so public about all their bugs the way they bury it on >their website.
If RedHat and the other Linux dists hides these annoucements like you claim, then why can they be found on nearly all the Linux newsites like Linux Today and LWN? You truly are a Microsoft-paid moron you know that? The fact is really easy to find out if there is any sort of "Security Issue" with Linux or BSD software. It's nearly impossible to do the same when you have Mircosoft running around denying that there is even a problem to begin with 99% of the time.
>The am-utils package that they've been shipping is "being actively >exploited on the internet" to give root access on machines running >amd.
The key words here are "machines running amd." I don't run amd and nor am I required to. In fact amd wasn't even installed on my machine when I installed Redhat 6.0 -I did a custom install. Now if this was Microsoft I've would've had no choice. Software like am-util would've been installed by default even if I didn't want it on my machine. Also in case you didn't notice Redhat is informing people about the amd problems in a *VERY* public fashion, which is one of the reasons I like Redhat. On the other hand did Mircosoft inform *ANYBODY* about the problem with Hotmail? Nope. People really found out about it after the news (and it *DIDN'T*) come from Microsoft made it to Slashdot.
In other words, get lost MS-Flunky......
>And to linuxppc, I find it hard to believe you've never heard of >antionline, especially after the packetstorm fiasco.
Don't be too surprised. A lot of people don't find sites like packetstorm or antionline very interesting or even care about them all that much.
Bullshit. Microsoft screwed Hotmail up badly. Compare Hotmail as it was *BEFORE* Microsoft got it's hands on it as opposed to the way it is now. The old Hotmail didn't care what browser you used to acess it. Now thanks to MS, you can't use older browsers or Lynx with it (well you can use lynx but you have to modify it)
>So? From the screenshot, it DOES do tables, which lynx has failed to >address (in any MEANINGFUL way) for years.
That's because nobody who uses and works on lynx cares enough about tables to bother with it. Quite frankly tables doesn't make my top 10 list either.
Opera coming out with a text-based browser than can compete with Lynx? Don't count on it. The current Lynx has a 32-bit DOS port that can run under MSDOS 6.2 on a 386. I rather doubt Opera's text-based browser will be pulling this off anytime soon.
>If anyone deserves bashing here, it is PCWeek and/or this particular >reporter,not MS.
Get real. You don't actually think that MS didn't approve of this article before PCWeek released it,do you?
You MS PR flacks are really quite stupid,you know.
>How about if your not a mobster but a political activist for a cause >they don't like?
If you were, you wouldn't be using the phone to discuss anything relating to your cause anyway. If you *ARE* stupid enough to do so,well you would've blown yourself up before this takes effect,so you won't have anything to worry about anyway.....
>Just let the other person know your account number, and they will do >the transaction, and your own account in minutes via the web >interface.
Idoit. What if I don't want *WANT* to let the other person know my account number? Forget paying bills by email or any other of the crap people like you seem to be fond of, it's stupid and you have no real control over it. I'ld rather buy a money order from the post office for the exact amount *I* want to *PAY* on a bill rather than go through that "electronic banking" bullshit that's basically a consumer rip-off.
>because of the support of such mainstream, and popular companies like C|Net
Eh? C|Net and sites like it are jokes when it comes to Linux. You want to see linux users break out in laughter? Mention ZDNet,C|Net and knowlege of Linux in the same sentance. Most of the C|Net guys couldn't explain how to format a 1.44meg floppy under DOS if their life depened on it......
>Who could resist this classic Star Trek quote. (Uh, I think it was >from Generations.)
Umm,no. It from one of the *WORST* classic Star Trek epidsode, "Spock's Brain". Yep someone actually stole Spock's brain. Ripped the sucker right out of his head. It's absolutely amazing that 99% of the Star Trek:The Next Generation,Deep Space 9 and Star Trek:Voyager epidsodes actually manage to make "Spock's Brain" look good. Would anyone actually notice if someone had actually stolen Westly's,Denna's or Worf's brain? I honestly don't think so...
>He is mud-slinging against Linux because he feels put down because of >not having a personal red phone to Linus.
Also if you notice a *LOT* of these reporters are pissed because Linux Users have pretty much managed to do an end-run around them and the publications most of them work for. Remember the Amiga and the Atari ST? These reporters and industry trade rags could and did hinder the acceptance of both of these machines by refering to them as "Game Machines" and so forth. Nowdays they really can't do that when you have magazines like Forbes doing articles on Linux and BSD. Makes you wonder what the world would've been like if like articles concerning Amiga and ST had shown up in similar ones.
>ZDNet report is completely useless
Just drop the word report and you have the gist of the mattter....
The National Enquirer must not be hiring right now, so ZDNet must have decided to take up the slack....
>This doesn't apply to /dev/cua* because the to have misunderstood >the point made earlier that the decision to drop /dev/cua* from 2.2 >was made on grounds of taste not of technical necessity.
/dev/cua* or /dev/ttyS* just use /dev/modem as the serial interface and create a symbolic link to either /dev/cua* or /dev/ttyS*. It's simple. When running the 2.0.x kernel I made sure I was running as root and typed ln -s /dev/cua1 /dev/modem. When I switched over to the 2.2.x kernels I just entered ln -s -f /dev/ttyS1 /dev/modem. That's it. No need to recompile anything. You Windows users really need to start reading the docs and manuals that come with software packages you use. Not doing so only makes you guys look stupid.
What's the big deal? Instead of using