WineHQ: Assorted spelling fixes
fgouget at free.fr
Tue May 4 06:21:01 CDT 2004
Assorted spelling fixes for WWN 220 and 221.
Francois Gouget fgouget at free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/
In a world without fences who needs Gates?
-------------- next part --------------
RCS file: /var/cvs/lostwages/wwn/wn20040423_220.xml,v
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -r1.2 wn20040423_220.xml
--- a/wwn/wn20040423_220.xml 30 Apr 2004 06:29:01 -0000 1.2
+++ b/wwn/wn20040423_220.xml 4 May 2004 09:17:54 -0000
@@ -121,8 +121,8 @@
I have heard a lot of good reports of FoxPro working with WINE but the
last major issue I heard was that Microsoft was restricting the
redistribution of the FoxPro runtime on Non-Microsoft platforms. It
-seems they dont like people writting apps with thier tools for
-non-windows platforms <g>. I cant find a link to this information
+seems they don't like people writing apps with their tools for
+non-windows platforms <g>. I can't find a link to this information
though so I could be mistaken or they may have amended the EULA to
allow this type of redistrabtution like in the case of MFC and ATL.
@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@
-Todays test results can be found here:
+Today's test results can be found here:
@@ -205,48 +205,48 @@
Steven Edwards started off a thread by sharing his thoughts about it:
</p><quote who="Steven Edwards"><p>
Note I only know a little about the Local Securty Authority but I think
- its not going to be too hard to implement if Wine and ReactOS work
+ it's not going to be too hard to implement if Wine and ReactOS work
together on it. /me just doubts how much he can write.
The unix security design of users and groups with permissions is not
-bad its just outdated. The nice thing about Unix is adding new security
+bad it's just outdated. The nice thing about Unix is adding new security
modules via PAM is not to bad except they are only for authentication.
The unix concept of groups, users and permissions needs to be moved
forward about 20 years. The SELinux stuff has really helped alot in
-this regard. (Please dont flame its the truth)
+this regard. (Please don't flame it's the truth)
I recently addressed this in a discussion about ReactOS. Currently our
lsass does not exist. I think we have what we have parts of the
security reference monitor already implemented in ntoskrnl and most of
the parts are there for winlogon and the SAM database so we need to
-develop the lsass services and build out the authentaticaion modules
+develop the lsass services and build out the authentication modules
for MSV1_0 auth.
One of the nice things about the design of the Windows security module
is that we can make plugins at both ends so that users can be granted
access either based on a "domain" concept in winlogin/Gina using
-plugins for LDAP and PAM or via the lsass so users can be authencated
+plugins for LDAP and PAM or via the lsass so users can be authenticated
-It would be nice if we could work with the Winehq people on this as I
+It would be nice if we could work with the WineHQ people on this as I
think we can share the parts of the security subsystem that reside in
lsass. Think of it like this
-wineserver/ntosknrl need to both implement the security refernce
-montior for privlaged use of the local system resources. I dont know
+wineserver/ntosknrl need to both implement the security reference
+monitor for privileged use of the local system resources. I don't know
how much of this wineserver really needs to take in to account in the
<u>Local security subsystem</u>
-Lsass works interactivly with services and the login system and can
+Lsass works interactively with services and the login system and can
accept all sorts of nice plugins so we are not limited to just the
standard Windows authentication. As a matter of fact you could replace
-large parts of they authentication system if you are supper paronoid.
+large parts of the authentication system if you are super paronoid.
Think of lsass as the sentry for Windows. It talks to the SRM to make
-sure you are not doing anything you shouldnt be.
+sure you are not doing anything you shouldn't be.
@@ -256,7 +256,7 @@
I wish I could attach the nice chart from Inside Windows NT so you
-could see the security subsystem. Its quite a piece of work and is
+could see the security subsystem. It's quite a piece of work and is
quite a shame Windows security gets a bad name due to slack
@@ -282,11 +282,11 @@
windows program installer that changes the file permissions in any way?
Last I checked, the standard installshield and wise template builders
didn't even have an option to do that! In other words, we should not
-aspire to bring Window's security model into Linux. All the Windows
+aspire to bring Windows' security model into Linux. All the Windows
security model did was cause every single user on the system to be an
-At the moment, Wine is only aimed at single users installations. As long
+At the moment, Wine is only aimed at single user installations. As long
as that is the case, each wine user is an "Administrator" over his own
fake-root wine installation. I don't see that changing.
@@ -311,7 +311,7 @@
<p>There's a lot of work to be done in this area, anyone interested
-in examining the differences between Unix and Windows security models
+in examining the differences between the Unix and Windows security models
might be interested in working on this.</p>
@@ -375,7 +375,7 @@
<quote who="Ivan Leo Murray-Smith">
Installing IE requires a windows license for the computer where you're
- installing it. This sort of restricts it's use with wine.
+ installing it. This sort of restricts its use with wine.
</quote> But Jakob Eriksson pointed out that was not enforcable
in every country and explained how it worked in Sweden:</p>
<quote who="Jakob Eriksson"><p>
RCS file: /var/cvs/lostwages/wwn/wn20040430_221.xml,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -u -r1.1 wn20040430_221.xml
--- a/wwn/wn20040430_221.xml 30 Apr 2004 06:29:01 -0000 1.1
+++ b/wwn/wn20040430_221.xml 4 May 2004 10:54:37 -0000
@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@
I should also note that the process is rather arbitrary.
There's definitely some developers who have been around a
while that we haven't interviewed yet. Likewise, there's
-some people I met WineConf that have been up
+some people I met at WineConf that have been up
to some interesting things. People keep talking about this
guy named Alexandre Julliard and asking when we'll interview
him. I suppose at some point this summer we'll look him up
@@ -182,7 +182,7 @@
<quote who="Brett Holcomb"><p>
I installed from CVS today and when I start wine I get the error below.
This happens even with the standard config file that it creates. I've
-check both my and the config file and can't find any errors. I'm
+checked both my and the config file and can't find any errors. I'm
including the c drive part of the config file.
Any ideas why this is telling me this?
More information about the wine-patches