Consensus opinion required - was 'more worms'

Shaun Oliver shaun_oliver at optusnet.com.au
Thu May 16 10:02:22 EDT 2002 

please note: comments are in the message below.

On Wed, 15 May 2002, Ameer Armaly wrote:

> Hi all.
> What would you rather do.  Check checkboxes, or arrow through config files
> (which make no sense att all!).  Everybody knows it, windows rules in the
> sense that the non-programer can use it.  It also isn't dependant on
> confusing drivers that are almost impossible to configure because of there
> confusingness.  now, if linux were a little less unix-style in the sense
> that it requires the time and patience of a programer, I would take a second
>
look.
First of all, the config files are commented to aid in not only debugging
but also setting up the process one wishes to run.
As for the confusingness of drivers, what's so confusing about that? if
you stripped microsoft's windows operating system down to it's basic
components, you'll find that it's more than likely unix based. This is
what shits me about people. They whinge and whine about "I'm being screwed
by microsoft! My Screen Reader won't do this or that!"
for god sakes people if you don't want to move away from windows because
you're too scared you'll break something, then what in the world are you
doing here?

 My friend at ms agrees.  He used linux for 4 years, and says that
> you're not very far in most areas than you were three years ago.  Also, why
> should you have to use cat to print files.  There should be a simple "print"
> command, like in dos (which is a lot more user-friendly than linux), and
> these extreemely long and borring paths shouldn't be so cumbersome.  I
> should know, zI like command-lines, but I'd rather type "print
> /etc/httpd/conf/http.conf" rather than use cat.  Also, why not have html in
> email.  It only makes it easier to go directly to a link rather than have to
> copy it and past it into lynx.  Also, why should we have to use lynx anyway.
> It at this stage is only an out-of-date piece of crap.  It can't interpret
> java, activeX, vbs, and who knows how many other things that ie can.  Also,
> you shouldn't have to wast your time working so hard on configuring the
> right alsa drivers for your soundcard.  In windows, you just tell it you
> have a sound card, and it just does the rest.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! in the case of the sb_live you still need to install
creative's own drivers for full functionality of the card.
What's wrong with cat as apposed to print? who cares how you do things
under GNU/Linux just as long as you can get the job done! JESUS!
And what about lynx? instead of posting this diotribe to the list, why
don't you get off your ass and code the damned support in? oh and how many
back doors does internet explorer have? how many times can you safely say
that lynx has seg-faulted in one session? And can you be serious about
html in email?
Haven't you learned a thing? with pine you can specify how you deal with
urls in email messages and not only that what bloody browser to use,
for christ sakes man!

  Also, home networking is
> another issue that linux needs to improve on.  You need to compile support
> into the colonel, and then do so many things to keep yourself from beeing
> hacked. But in windows xp, I just answered a few questions, and voila! my
> network was setup!  Now why can't linux be so easy?  Because there's no
> profit for the people who are working on it.  They have no financial goal,
> so most of them make really crappy software.  On the other hand, ms, who is
> working for a profit, has a purpose and goal, so therefore they make good
> software.
Oh I see a stooge ladies and gentlemen, we have a bloody microslop stooge
in our midst.
home networking under Gnu/Linux is easy. sure you could compile the
support in but why bother when all you need to do is build only for what
you have and what you need and then if you're as smart a person as you
think you are, you configure the network using the various shell scripts
that are on offer.
And as for being hacked, that's just as much an issue under windows as
under linux. difference is linux is totally customizable you can set
things up exactly how you want from the ground up. can you do that with
windows? you bloody fool, of course you can't.
Oh so the people that write code for GNU/LInux write crappy software? I've
never seen any evidence of it,
my god man do us all a favour and don't try to convert us back to
proprietory crap and don't bother trying to tell us that microsoft code
good software cause it's just not true. Once microsoft have a good thing,
they bugger it up.

 > That's
just my 2 cents. > Feel free to ask me to support it with a full-blown
> windows-to-linux-back-to-windows convert, namely, A good friend of mine, who
> will be glad to support my point.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex Snow" <alex_snow at gmx.net>
> To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 7:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Consensus opinion required - was 'more worms'
>
>
> > If only winblows used simple config files... instead of having to find the
> > right tab in those huge properties forms.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Igor Gueths" <igueths at attbi.com>
> > To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 7:24 PM
> > Subject: Re: Consensus opinion required - was 'more worms'
> >
> >
> > Hi Alex. Check the security tab in internet destroyer. This is what I hate
> > about integration! One thing affects another. I like the separation.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Alex Snow <alex_snow at gmx.net>
> > To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 6:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: Consensus opinion required - was 'more worms'
> >
> >
> > > Hi All,
> > > I use outlook depress to read email, since my linux box is still in
> > pieces.
> > > How can I stop active x controls and other code from launching the
> files?
> > > Norton catches them only after the file is opened.  Is there any way to
> > stop
> > > this?
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Igor Gueths" <igueths at attbi.com>
> > > To: <speakup at braille.uwo.ca>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 6:12 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Consensus opinion required - was 'more worms'
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi Kerry. Well said, no doubt on your statements. I remember the days
> > back
> > > > when plain text was perhaps the only method for sending e-mail (late
> > 80's
> > > > early 90's). Those were the good days!
> > > >
> > > > Gates go to hell, your OS is waiting for you there!
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 15 May 2002, Charles Hallenbeck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Kerry,
> > > > >
> > > > > No question about it, things would be a whole lot better if
> > > > > nobody sent html emails - I only wanted to point out that many
> > > > > html emails can readily be handled by pine (and perhaps other
> > > > > mail readers) and also that html email comes with and without
> > > > > viruses as do plain text emails - banning html is no protection
> > > > > against viruses.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chuck
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 15 May 2002, Kerry Hoath wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Chuck I should point out that certain versions
> > > > > > of pine have contained buffer overflows in the html processing
> > > elements
> > > > > > and so did older versions of mutt and lynx.
> > > > > > I am not taking a stand one way or the other regarding html
> messages
> > > > > > except to say that there are dangers in html;
> > > > > > more so for Windows users than Linux ones but the Linux dangers
> > > > > > exist as well.
> > > > > > I don't mind html if there is an equivalent plain text section,
> > > > > > but replying to html only messages causes me grief.
> > > > > > I for my own reasons choose to send to mailing lists in plain text
> > > > > > to minimize bandwidth usage and also message bloat.
> > > > > > I encourage people to set their look out distress
> > > > > > settings to send in plain text where possible but let it reply to
> a
> > > message
> > > > > > in the format it was received in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards, Kerry.
> > > > > > On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 09:16:13AM -0400, Charles Hallenbeck
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am still a pine user, and on my system pine reads html
> messages
> > > > > > > transparently, no problem. HTML has nothing to do with most
> > > > > > > viruses. Executable attachments that launch themselves are the
> > > > > > > real problem.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, 15 May 2002, Steve Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since I've been using mutt to read my mail, I really haven't
> > been
> > > > > > > > affected either way with HTML mail.  When I used pine, it was
> an
> > > > > > > > annoyance but no more than that.  But I think I would favor a
> > > blockage
> > > > > > > > of HTML mail since the reasons sighted below and some people
> > still
> > > use
> > > > > > > > windows mailers on the list; so go for it!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 07:48:26PM +0100, 'Georgina' wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi All
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Because of the use of html messages being used to transmit
> > > Windows
> > > > > > > > > viruses, I wondered if folks would agree to having list
> > messages
> > > > > > > > > restricted to plain text only?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The list owner will act upon whatever the consensus is.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Gena
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Have your say:
> > > > > > > > > Blindness Advocacy and Self Help Online www.bashonline.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please don't send me MS Word documents, see
> > > > > > > > > http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Personal Contact Details:
> > > > > > > > > E-mail: gena at gena-j.net WWW: http://www.gena-j.net ICQ:
> > > 144169465
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Speakup mailing list
> > > > > > > > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > > > > > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Speakup mailing list
> > > > > > > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > > > > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Visit me at http://www.valstar.net/~hallenbeck
> > > > > > > The Moon is Waxing Crescent (10% of Full)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Speakup mailing list
> > > > > > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > > > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Visit me at http://www.valstar.net/~hallenbeck
> > > > > The Moon is Waxing Crescent (10% of Full)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Speakup mailing list
> > > > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Speakup mailing list
> > > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Speakup mailing list
> > > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Speakup mailing list
> > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
>

More information about the Speakup mailing list