Linux-Advocacy Digest #471, Volume #25 Thu, 2 Mar 00 11:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Anders Larsen)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Dell picks Linux over Windows 2000 for dellhost.com (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Mr. Rupert")
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Ian Molton)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (Greg Yantz)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid?? (Wolfgang
Weisselberg)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (Seán Ó
Donnchadha)
Re: Day One (ndg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anders Larsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 15:01:01 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Wait, wait! There are other scary items forthcoming:
> >
> > a) Resolution of the 2038 problem. 2^31-1 seconds from Jan 1, 1970
> > happens to be in 2038. Stuff Will Break Then.
> >
> > This is the end-of-epoch that is the UNIX equivalent to the "Year
> > 2000 cliff" that everyone worried last year about.
> >
>
> I've alway wondered about this one. Is there any reason we can't
> just agree that the world actually began in 2000 and modify a few
> system calls? I suppose that anyone who has a file laying around
> since pre-2000 will get the wrong timestamp, but will anyone really
> care in 2038? Are there any programs out there that code dates as
> the number of seconds since 1970? Is there any significance to
> 1970 other than reminding Thompson how old he's getting? Inquiring
> minds want to know:)
In the *N*X-world, coding "...dates as the number of seconds since 1970"
is the norm rather than the exception, to say the least.
And it's really quite common to store dates in that format in databases
etc., so IMHO it would be next to impossible to change the starting
point.
It might be true that in 2038 most people don't care about what happened
before 2000-01-01, but the *transition* would be tough anyway.
One could, however, perhaps consider changing time_t from signed to
unsigned - that would add another 68 years to the life-time of the
32-bit time_t.
I did a couple of quick tests on my QNX box (Watcom 10.6 C-Compiler) to
theck the rollover of the time_t sign bit, and - lo and behold! - it
turned out that mktime(), gmtime() and localtime() already internally
treat time_t as UNsigned!
Well, I really don't care that much, however - I believe 64+ bit
machines will be the norm before 2038 (and I'll be eighty by then ;-)
--
Anders Larsen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:36:16 GMT
Followups.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:04:02 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 02:52:34 -0000, "John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
[context: 16+-CPU boxes/SMP]
>>
>
>>Something that several UNIXes have been doing for years.
>>Still, whilst you MS zealots continue to pay I guess NT might
>>catch up (although its taking its time).
>
>Linux is NOT UNIX...
>
>Linux always seems to be playing catch up in some form or another.
>
>Linux is truely a luser.........
>
>Buy MSFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Free yourself from that stinky Linux.
>
>pickle
Hi S!
Taken care of that Microsoft jellybrain yet? :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dell picks Linux over Windows 2000 for dellhost.com
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:40:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 02 Mar 2000 06:04:01 GMT <89l08g$u66$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In a stunning blow to Microsoft, Dell has picked Linux over
>Windows 2000 for dellhost.com
>
>Windows advocates like to point to Dell as an example of a successful
>e-business running on Windows 2000. (What these Winvocates don't tell
>you is that Microsoft paid Dell to get them to switch from Apple's
>WebObjects to Microsoft technology.)
>
>What does Dell really thing of Windows 2000? Dell's choice of Linux
>for dellhost.com is very telling.
>
>Source: Dell advertisement in major newspapers, March 1, 2000
>
>Dell has four web hosting solutions:
> 1. Basic web hosting solution ($17.95/mo) Oper. System: undisclosed
> 2. E-Commerce solution ($99.95/mo) Operating System: undisclosed
> 3. Dedicated server D3100 ($299/mo) Operating System: RED HAT LINUX
> 4. Dedicated server D3300 ($575/mo) Operating System: RED HAT LINUX
>
>What does this say about Dell's confidence in Windows 2000?
>
>On the low end systems Dell may be using Windows, but Dell apparently
>doesn't think they should advertise that fact!
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
When is this going to be delivered?
(begin insert)
bash$ telnet dellhost.com www
Trying 209.235.96.6...
Connected to dellhost.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.0
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
Content-Location: http://209.235.96.29/index.html
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:28:58 GMT
Content-Type: text/html
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Last-Modified: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:10:16 GMT
ETag: "0243d77cf82bf1:9c4"
Content-Length: 13183
Connection closed by foreign host.
bash$
(end insert)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- for what it's worth
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 14:48:22 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Work, serious work, is needed on overcoming the problems caused by these
:>sorts of changes, or the potential user base will go elsewhere.
: Make all the threats you like on behalf of the "potential user base". But
: the existing trends seem to go against what you're saying.
: By the way, what do you mean, "the potential user base will go elsewhere" ?
: You make it sound like they will be migrating, neglecting the fact that any
: migrating they do will be most likely *towards* linux.
Actually, I think that within the Linux world there is a growing
divide between those who want "bleeding edge" and those who want
"maximally stable." We might see some migration between the two.
Mandrake is perhaps the distro that caters best to the "bleeding edge"
crowd. I'm a Mandrake user myself, and have found it flexible enough
to meet pretty much all of my needs, although not always without some
problems.
Those who value maximum stability seem much better served with
something like Debian, or one of the *BSDs.
There are strategies that aim to keep the best features of both, and I
predict they will become much more popular, but for the time being, I
deploy something very stable for firewalls and servers, and let as
much "bleeding edge" onto the desktop as I can afford to.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 08:49:35 -0600
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> absolutely moot. MS is runnig UNIX at their hotmail site.
> > >-- because that's what it was running when they bought it.
> > >
> > Why doesn't matter.
>
> Of course it does. Maybe not to you, because it helps your
> FUD argument, but large organizations aren't quick to change
> huge operations like Hotmail, even if there are benefits
> involved.
>
> Let me explain common sense and logic to you, since you
> guys seem to be completely void of it...
>
> MS hasn't ported it yet, because it's going to be a major
> project, and when they do it, they better do it right
> because many people depend on them for email.
>
> MS isn't going to migrate to NT 4.0, just to migrate
> again to Windows2000, just to migrate again to Windows2000
> Datacenter Win64.
>
> It would be the most wise for them to port it to
> Win2K-64 when it is released (perhaps even before).
>
Chad, you have presented an excellent argument for any
organization to not migrate to any form of NT, ever.
If MS is waiting and waiting, then it logically follows
that the rest of the business world should also wait.
If MS can't migrate to their own platform, no one can.
---
The always friendly, always lovable, and highly presentable,
Mr Rupert
.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 14:58:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Gregory Neil Bastow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I think many people mistakenly think that RMS wants personal recognition
: for the success of GNU/Linux. Everything he has ever said or done
: suggests otherwise. The problem, as he sees it, (and I see it this way,
: too) is that in the success of GNU/Linux, people are forgetting that the
: Free Software Foundation (which is probably 75% responsible for the fact
: that we have such a kick-arse system) is doing things a particular way to
: prove a particular point and to allow people to use the software they need
: without compromising the principles that FSF is trying to evangelise.
Just as a personal aside, I find systems without GNU tools to be
intolerable. The very first thing I do when confronted with an
otherwise Unix-like system that doesn't have at least bash and emacs,
or something emacs-like, is to go out and get both.
: It is unfortunate that after finally succeeding in proving their point,
: and succeeding in their 10-year-old mission the FSF have been robbed of
: the chance to make people associate the success of the project with their
: principles and their methodologies by simple whims of nomenclature.
That irritates me a bit as well. There are a LOT of folks who don't
understand that without RMS and GNU, there would be no Linux, and that
freedom is about much more than just price.
: Right though he may be, RMS's subsequent attempts to close the stable door
: after the horse had bolted have done nothing but detriment his/our cause.
I certainly think he could have handled it differently, but I
understand his frustration. I credit him more than any other single
person for helping to create not just GNU/Linux, but the Internet as
we know it, and, hence, a big part of the direction of both the
economy and the culture of the rapidly expanding developed world.
History may well look at RMS as one of the most influential (and
perhaps underappreciated) individuals of the late 20th century.
Linus, ESR, Larry Wall, and various others have been as well, but I
believe all of these folks have acknowledged that but for RMS and his
work, theirs never would have happened.
Joe
------------------------------
From: Ian Molton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 15:12:15 +0000
Mario Klebsch wrote:
>
> Gregory Neil Bastow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >Just make sure you say GNU/Linux when you mean more than the kernel, boys
> >and girls.
>
> What the hell is GNU/Linux? YALD (Yet Another Linux Distribution)?
I think this /proves/ its a troll...
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
From: Greg Yantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 02 Mar 2000 10:24:58 -0500
"Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chad Myers wrote:
> > "Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> absolutely moot. MS is runnig UNIX at their hotmail site.
> > > >-- because that's what it was running when they bought it.
> > > Why doesn't matter.
> > Of course it does. Maybe not to you, because it helps your
> > FUD argument, but large organizations aren't quick to change
> > huge operations like Hotmail, even if there are benefits
> > involved.
> > Let me explain common sense and logic to you, since you
> > guys seem to be completely void of it...
> > MS hasn't ported it yet, because it's going to be a major
> > project, and when they do it, they better do it right
> > because many people depend on them for email.
Uh, sure. If NT is so good, why does MS have to wait for a
next-generation product to come out in order to "do it right"?
> > MS isn't going to migrate to NT 4.0, just to migrate
> > again to Windows2000, just to migrate again to Windows2000
> > Datacenter Win64.
So you're saying that MS is smart enough to avoid stepping
onto their *own* upgrade treadmill? Heh. Others should
follow that wise example.
> > It would be the most wise for them to port it to
> > Win2K-64 when it is released (perhaps even before).
So, Win2K-64 is going to be the "End of Windows", the
Last OS You Will Ever Need? More like just another
rung in the upgrade ladder...
> Chad, you have presented an excellent argument for any
> organization to not migrate to any form of NT, ever.
Indeed.
> If MS is waiting and waiting, then it logically follows
> that the rest of the business world should also wait.
Sure, if MS itself needs to wait for a new product to
come out to do the job right (NT not good enough?)...
as well as being wise to wait because it lets them avoid
needless "upgrades" (instances of planned/forced obsolescence)-
well then, we should all heed their lesson.
> If MS can't migrate to their own platform, no one can.
Follow where MS leads. Postpone any NT-migration plans
indefinitely.
-Greg
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 15:28:04 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 06:23:12 GMT, Peter Seebach wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>They're good approximations, certainly. I've had some fairly impressive
>disconnects occasionally.
You'll occasionaly get some problems if your printer has a font installed and
you've installed a screen font with the same name and different metrics.
>Still, I'm not sure how much worse Ted is than anything else. I just took a
The main problem with Linux apps is that you either can't (easily) add new
fonts, or it doesn't print the right fonts reliably. Try adding some TrueType
fonts and get them to display and print with Ted. This is not a problem
with each and every app, it's a problem with the way UNIX works.
>>You are deliberately trying to distort things by trying to push the (bogus)
>>claim that other platforms don't do WYSIWYG, then holding up something that
>>is not even close as an equal on the grounds that they are "all approximate".
>
>No, I'm just pointing out that WYSIWYG is a pretty ill-defined term at the
>best of times, and it's hard to tell what exactly your expectations are that
>aren't being met.
The main problem is the fact that on Linux, writing a program that does
something that should be easy -- display a font and print the same font --
is actually quite hard. This in itself earns the OS an "F" for WYSIWYG. Sure
there are applications that do a reasonable job at it ( Star, Applix ), but
they need to provide their own font handling mechanisms to do it.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 15:35:04 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 06:16:56 GMT, Peter Seebach wrote:
>There's a couple layers of disconnect here; in particular, X has some of the
>underlying features you need (awareness of DPI, for instance) fairly well
>down, but, unfortunately, the default fonts may not be the same.
The problem is that the X API doesn't let the developer get at the shape files
and the metrics. There's a very good reason for this -- in general, the X
server is running the machine that the font files are sitting on, and the
Xclient is sitting on another machine. This means there's no easy way for the
X Client to access font outline files ( which is what it really needs to
do to print )
>That said, I get just as good results with StarOffice or WordPerfect on my
>NetBSD laptop as I have with word processors on my Mac. Now, those aren't
>open source, but they are running on Unix, so it can't be impossible...
Not impossible. Merely quite difficult. Star Office uses its own private
font handling mechanism to kludge its way around the inadequacies of UNIX's
font management.
>Really, though, Unix doesn't handle fonts; X does,
X doesn't handle fonts very well -- because it ignores printing entirely.
A *real* font handling system includes some mechanism of getting the shape
and metric files to the developer.
>day. True enough, but I can wait a while for it. In the mean time, I haven't
>had any trouble at all with WYSIWYG printing from Unix, but I admit I'm hardly
Try adding some fonts to Star Office. Actually, I explain how to do this
in my font HOWTO. Adding fonts to Star Office is possible, but somewhat
harder than it should be, especially if you're adding TrueType.
And none of what you say alters the fact that it's a PITA for the people
who develop the application ( the koffice guys are having fun with this
kind of thing right now ... )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid??
Date: 2 Mar 2000 15:38:58 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:58:08 -0600,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[on OSS software development]
> He has nothing to lose/gain, he's trying to solve HIS problem in
> HIS own way with little reguard to usability, accesibility, or
> anything else that doesn't directly benefit him.
> Honor may, in some cases help him develop something a little better
> than he would have normally, but then, there's little incentive to
> do that.
You seem to think that coding is a chore. You seem to allude that
there's no joy to be gotten from well-working and aestetically
written programs. You seem to believe in a dog-eat-dog world
where only the individuum thinks of himself with little regard to
users or anyone else.
This might be an accurate description of corporate world ... I
cannot tell. If it is so, (with s/individuum/corporation/ and
s/himself/itself/) that would explain the quality of quite some
'professional' software out there.
People writing OSSoftware do so for different reasons. They have
been much better explained in Homesteading the Noosphere (read it
at http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/) than I could ever explain
it. But in short form: They do write it because
- it's a labour of love, not a chore, they really want to do
something right (something which is not always possible on their
day job as a ... programmer(!)), they want to show what they can
(without resorting to bragging), they have a personal itch they
need to scratch (compare The Cathedral and the Bazaar, same
source) and decided they might as well share what they did
(nothing to loose, everything to gain), ...
or
- (see The Magic Cauldron, at the same source) there's nothing to
be lost but everything to be gained by going opening up the
source code, especially for corporations.
Especially your picking on the single programmer shows that to you
the OSS culture is alien and that you have not yet grasped the
concept of a gift culture (you are measured by what you give away,
not by what you have) ... or have failed to apply your knowledge
to the values surrounding 'Free[1] Software'.
[1] Speech, not Beer!
> OR
> A company who makes money by making a customer happy and pays developers
> good money and treats them well to make the customer happy.
A company who makes money by charging the customer. Who pays the
developers well[2] and treat them well[2] to be able to charge the
customer more or more often.
Happyness of the customer does never enter the formula. It might
be a sideeffect (happy customers may come back). "We don't have
to care, citizen. We are the phone company. This has been a
recording."[3]
[2] for some values of well ... it differs from place to place!
[3] In other words: If you have a monopoly, you are not required
to have happy customers. They have no alternative. All you
gotta do is deny anyone getting/develloping an alternative.
Can you say DR-DOS?
> The developer's focus is always on the customer, because that's why
> he gets paid,
yep, that's where his pay comes from.
> because if he makes the customer unhappy, he gets fired
> or doesn't get a raise.
[6]; and nope. If he makes the customer stop spending money,
he'll get fired, and if he doesn't make the customer pay (more)
money (again), there won't be a raise. Happyness won't enter the
equation.
Also there's this alien concept that people might be motivated
by something else than money: Religious zeal, hating, fear,
love, respect[4], ego gratification, elegance, etc.
Ask any artist if they do their stuff just for money!
Actually, studies seem to show that paying off creativity (and
programming is an act of creativity ... anyone to deny that?) with
monetary values instead of just advancing the creativity just
because of itself ultimately destroys creativity.[5]
[4] Noone can (successfully) proclaim themselves to be a guru or a
hacker. Only other people can do that.
[5] Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator:
http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~trent/gnu/MOTIVATION [6]
Problems with extrinsic motivation (with quite some pointers
to studies):
http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~jimbo/RIBARY_Folder/resource.htm
what is intrinsic motivation:
http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~jimbo/RIBARY_Folder/whatis.htm
[6] "Offering a flat fee for participating in an experiment -
similar to an hourly wage in the workplace - usually does not
reduce intrinsic motivation. It is only when the rewards are
based on performing a given task or doing a good job at it -
analogous to piece-rate payment and bonuses, respectively -
that the problem develops.
The key, then, lies in how a reward is experienced. If we
come to view ourselves as working to get something, we will no
longer find that activity worth doing in its own right."
Draw your own conclusions!
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 10:42:39 -0500
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 08:49:35 -0600, "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Chad, you have presented an excellent argument for any
>organization to not migrate to any form of NT, ever.
>
For once I agree with the Microsoft bashers, to an extent.
Migrating Hotmail to NT is not something Microsoft really has a choice
about. It doesn't matter how difficult the move is or how little sense
it makes. It simply *MUST* be done, for no other reason than to save
corporate face. In this particular case it's even more urgent, because
Microsoft is pushing NT for precisely Hotmail-style deployments.
Personally, I am 100% convinced that NT could handle the job, but
that's irrelevant. If Ford bought a trucking company that used Chevys
and didn't switch it immediately to Fords, they'd be a laughingstock.
It doesn't matter whether the switch is wasteful or difficult. It's
just good business.
------------------------------
From: ndg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Day One
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:49:48 GMT
Thanks for your helpful responses. Appreciated and remembered.
ndg wrote:
>
> If one were starting computing at day one and wanted to learn Linux;
> what advice would you give?
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
