Linux-Advocacy Digest #517, Volume #25 Sun, 5 Mar 00 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (5X3)
Re: Linux is a lamer ("Nathan S. Grey")
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Michael Gu)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Michael Gu)
Re: Drafting a brochure (Simon Brooke)
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT (5X3)
Re: Salary? (5X3)
Re: Salary? (5X3)
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT ("Nathan S. Grey")
Re: Salary? (Rod Roark)
Re: Kerberos Caught In Microsoft's Deadly "Embrace" (Jeremy Allison)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(Sal Denaro)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: 6 Mar 2000 00:13:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Nathan S. Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > That's certainly a possibility, but I can't imagine
>> > the money they're spending right now to keep that hacked
>> > system and globbed-together technology running under
>> > that kind of load.
>>
>> hmmmmmm....... last time I bothered to check, Hotmail was run on SPARCs
>> with Solaris as the OS.
>> Sun Microsystems is not a company I'd associate with "hacked system" and
>> "globbled-together technology".
>> Especially considering the fact that Sun was building ultra-fast
>> workstations and servers when 386dx's where brand new.
> I don't consider Sun or Solaris "hacked together" either, but in this
> case, Solaris had to be gutted (well, the TCP/IP stack at LEAST)
Wrong. And at this point im going to have to ask for your credentials
as a "computer expert" and specifically someone who understands solaris.
And then after that, im going to have to ask you for details on exactly
how they "gutted" the TCP/IP stack and exactly what is different about
the current one than the one before the "gut".
> to
> get it to be able to handle the load that Hotmail does. The process had
> already begun before MS had got their hands on it. When MS bought them
> their load increased even more, and therefore required a reengineering.
Let me ask you this, and if you have any brainmatter in your head at all
you will understand exactly what im saying:
If you were Sun Microsystems, would you hand over the source code to ANY
part of Solaris to Microsoft for ANY reason? Or would you make damn good
and sure that the contracts covering this issue that you had with Hotmail's
previous owners were nullified with the sale?
Ask around. I'm sure you know someone who knows someone...who has some
information about exactly what happened (besides me of course). Someone
of your caliber in this field certianly has those kinds of contacts.
Dont you?
p0ok
------------------------------
From: "Nathan S. Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is a lamer
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 17:14:52 -0700
Donn Miller wrote:
>
>
> I've gotten Solaris x86 to boot up on one of those Windows Compaqs
> with the hundred-something internet access buttons on the keyboard.
> Pretty amazing when you can get Solaris to boot up on a machine that
> was "specially designed for Windows" (it even says so on the case).
> Solaris sure is picky sometimes, though, on which x86 machine it wants
> to run on. The damned thing wouldn't boot on my custom-built, made
> for FreeBSD and Linux machine. This must be one of the great ironies
> of life.
>
> Another thing that was weird is that Windows 98 crashes in 20 minutes
> on the specially designed for Windows, hundred internet access button
> on the keyboard Wintel Compaq. Meanwhile, on my custom-built, made
> for FreeBSD and Linux machine, Windows 98 would stay running for 2-3
> days EASY. Is this one of life's great mysteries? Yes, FreeBSD and
> Linux would happily stay running for days as well on this machine.
> Couldn't get Solaris to install on it, though. Solaris x86 sure is a
> strange beast.
>
> As an aside, I've heard that XFree86 is planning on doing something
> with those many strange internet access buttons in future versions of
> XFree86. I've got my "Windows key" mapped to "meta" in XFree86, as
> it's a regular Windows keyboard (no strange buttons).
>
> - Donn
getting those keys to work would definately be cool, now you just need to find a tiny
tux or
daemon logo to go over the winblows logo on the key. This would effectivly excorcise
all M$
demons from your system
-NateGrey
You are either one faithless priest, or one mean mother fscker servant of god - From
Dusk
til Dawn
------------------------------
From: Michael Gu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:15:49 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 23:39:25 GMT, Michael Gu wrote:
>
> >Consider such a senario, a application like to create a area of a size just
> >to fit in certain text. And the application does not want a dynamic sized
> >area, because the area is part of a pixel based layout. Now, if the
> >application does not know the exact size of the font, how can it achieve such
> >a goal. I have seen countless applications that either have a botton that
> >does not have all characters displayed, or the botton is truncated because it
> >exceeds the frame border and all sorts of bad displays.
>
> What toolkit was the app written in ? Sounds like a combination of bad code
> and a bad toolkit.
>
OK, let's try this. Can you show me some GOOD X application that runs well on ANY
standard-conforming X server and let's see how it does.
>
> >Besides, the font on X windows are so bad, it wastes display resource. Why,
> >because it need more pixels to achieve the same result.
>
> Not clear on what you're talking about. Are you complaining about TrueType,
> Type1 or bitmap fonts ? Your complaint doesn't make any sense.
>
I think all the pixels that can be displayed on screen at once is your display
resource. Anyway, it probably doesn't matter for people who have 21" 100 DPI
screens.
>
> Actually, the biggest problem with X fonts is they *don't use enough
> resources* ie they insist on sticking to 1bpp rendering.
>
So, if an application displays in 1bpp, it must have used that efficiently, right?
>
> >So, I believe X need to include a basic set of font as part of its standard,
> >if my speculation of the way it works is correct, otherwise, you will always
> >see broken bottons, truncated texts, and ... frustrating users.
>
> I think you're wrong -- the widgets should be able to help that, at least
> partly. Using a loose grid style layout, the buttons should just expand
> to swallow the available text.
>
Loose grid style layout, good idea, so use a 100x100 box if 10x10 doesn't fit, and
resource is out of question.
> Further, I'll say that hard coding in particular font choices, as you seem
> to be suggesting is a stupid idea. Users should be able to set this kind
> of thing.
>
Again, good idea not to hard coding, but is it pratically doable and well done? I
guess I am not stupid enough not to be able to find out that windows display is
much better than X.
BTW, I have read your font HOWTO. I have to say it's a nice document, and I can
understand the feeling and way of thinking of someone who has contributed so much
to something he believe in. However, all these font thing are to be applied to a X
server, which makes me wonder what kind of X server do I need in order to get the
good displays (don't mention the hours I will need to do that)? And, does that
mean the X standard itself is inedequate?
>
> --
> Donovan
------------------------------
From: Michael Gu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:27:40 GMT
Darren Winsper wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 23:52:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > X looks like crap no matter what you do to it.
>
> That's like saying art looks like crap no matter what it is.
>
What kind of logic are you using to get that conclusion?
>
> > Installing pirated True-type
> > fonts from Windows helps, but it still lacks the smoothness that Windows
> > has and even more so that Mac has.
>
> Considering Windows has a worse font engine than that which RISC OS 2
> had, it's still crap.
>
So, anything that is not the best must be crap.
>
> > When I have to look at a screen all day, especially a 19inch state of the
> > art monitor/video card combination it better look good. X hurts my eyes and
> > while the themes are nice the meat and potatoes (the applications) look
> > horrible in my opinion.
>
> That makes no sense. If you install a Gtk theme, all Gtk applications
> take up that theme. To say the theme looks nice but then the
> application doesn't is a rather odd statement.
>
You mean theme = application?
>
> > >Besides, the font on X windows are so bad, it wastes display resource. Why,
> > >because it need more pixels to achieve the same result.
> >
> > It also seem sluggish to me, even running a Matrox G400. Dragging Windows
> > around produces "shadows" and remanent's of destroyed Windows. Sucks if you
> > ask me.
>
> Is this a known bug? Driver bugs should not be blamed on X.
>
> > It lacks crispness. I am talking about
> > kde/Windowmaker/Enlightenment and worst of all Gnome/Enlightenment.
>
> Gnome, with a decent theme looks much nicer than Windows IMHO.
>
> > See the above. Putting Linux side by side with other OS's is a real joke as
> > far as display is concerned. Sure the themes look nice but what happens
> > when you launch the applications?
> > Boxy, fuzzy and generally cheap looking.
>
> Fuzzy? Boxy? Would you care to post screenshots?
>
> --
> Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
> Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
>
> DVD boycotts. Are you doing your part?
> "Microsoft is estimating that 28,000 of these [bugs] are likely to be 'real'
> problems [in Windows2000]."
> -http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2436920,00.html?chkpt=zdhpnews01
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Drafting a brochure
From: Simon Brooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:32:47 GMT
Simon Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Kew) writes:
>
> > I'm looking at promoting - and commercially supporting - Linux locally,
> > for values of local in the far south-west of England.
> >
> > I've done some draft scribbling for a brochure, aimed primarily at those
> > poor benighted souls caught in the Evil Empire. The purpose of the
> > brochure is to explain "why Linux?"
> >
> > I'm looking for comments on what I've written. I'm not going to post
> > a machine-readable URL (I don't want to encourage it to get spidered)
> > but it's at http://www.webthing.com and its name is /tux.html .
>
> Have you seen Linuxmanship? (http://zgp.org/~dmarti/linuxmanship/)
While we're on it, any of these sites which you haven't previously
seen might have useful material:
FUD and Counter-FUD
Application Development: Piecing together Linux (Datamation, September 1999):
http://www.datamation.com/PlugIn/workbench/appdev/stories/9909linux1.html
CONTENTS - Linux Today Counter-FUD Site:
http://noFUD.linuxtoday.com/MainTOC.html
Fud-counter site: http://fud-counter.nl.linux.org/
Linux Myths : [Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0, Linux myths,
Windows NT vs Linux, compared with Linux]:
http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/news/msnw/LinuxMyths.asp
Linux Case Study: http://www.spence-n.demon.co.uk/wcnn.htm
Boycott Microsoft: http://www.vcnet.com/bms/
Government expert backs open source:
http://212.187.198.142/news/1999/50/ns-12266.html
Uptimes Project: http://www.uptimes.net/
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Morning had broken, and there was nothing we could do but wait
patiently for the RAC to arrive.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
Date: 6 Mar 2000 00:34:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mark Hamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Perhaps for one large scale site that is easily partitioned, but not
>> for tens of thousands of smaller sites.
> You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? Tens of
> thousands of smaller sites are *already partitioned* by their very
> nature, and thus very easy to load balance across a server farm.
I do, because I deal with this sort of thing every single day.
>From the nature of your statement, I guarantee that you have never
run tens of thousands of virtual hosts on a single NT cluster,
because if you had, you would know what an enormous pain in the
ass *everything about it* is.
I'm not saying that it doesnt work; im saying that NT cannot
compete. You arent understanding what im saying.
I'm saying that the reason that NT cant compete in this area is
because its TOO FUCKING EXPENSIVE TO BABYSIT, AND TOO FUCKING
EXPENSIVE TO BUY. With two or three free alternatives which
will generally run on identical hardware and require much cheaper
babysitting, the decision is clear.
>> > For such an approach, Linux works very well.
>>
>> I didnt say that it didnt work, I said that it couldnt compete.
>> IMHO, solaris and freebsd to a much better job.
> And I think you're making this up as you go along.
Have you ever even used solaris or freebsd?
Freebsd is a *dream* to use. I can uncrate a brand new machine and
have it up and running and serving thousands of websites in an
HOUR. Do you understand the importance of that statement? Have
you any idea?
We used to have load races with solaris at a previous place of
employment. The first to ONE THOUSAND and BACK won. Do you
the importants of THAT statement? Have you any idea?
>> Absolutely--if an IBM S/390 is in your budget.
> It is in the budget of a large site,
Hahahahahahaaa...
Oh my dear god...Sweetie, do you know how much an IBM S/390,
fully loaded costs? I admit that being able to run 63,000 virtual
linux machines on one of the newest IBM S/390s fully decked
(before running out of memory) is pretty cool, and that being
able to host about a thousand medium-traffic sites on each one
is pretty cool too. Thats alotta sites. (or virtual interfaces,
etc). Real neat.
Now think about the sorts of companies who would need such a
thing, and think about what theyre running already, and how
much THAT cost.
> and is at least as good an
> option for such a site as Solaris or FreeBSD -- arguably, the
> mainframe approach is much better than the traditional Unix server
> approach.
"Arguably". I think im going to remember that you said that
when I read your next line:
> Therefore, your claim that Linux cannot compete for
> large site hosting is false.
"Arguably" does not seem to jibe with your "therefore" there
bub. At best, you could say that my claim that linux cannot
compete for large site hosting is "arguably" false. You
should have stayed in school.
And it cant. In the real world, it DOESNT. Show me how many
large scale sites (lets start on the order of Exodus and Verio)
use linux for webhosting.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 6 Mar 2000 00:35:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <eqnw4.142594$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "The Gimme A Buck Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Let's hope your future employer is not reading this newsgroup!
> Why?
> I probably should have been more clear.
> I'm *not* looking to gouge my future employer. I *am* looking
> to avoid selling myself short. I simply don't want to be in a
> position in a few months or a year where I realize that others,
> doing the same job, are being better compensated. (Had that
> happen. Really sours one on the experience.) The whole "same
> work, less pay" thing.
Depends on where in S.C. Generally, 60K would be a little bit
low, but pretty much guaranteed. Unless its an ISP; then dont
expect a dime over 40K for a starting salary.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 6 Mar 2000 00:36:45 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tim Hockin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Peter Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Having said that I'd guess that as you've left school and it's an
> : admin job I'd go for about GB20K which would be about US$30K which
> : works out at about ....oh dear, US$10.27/hr. Perhaps I have my sums
> : wrong.
> IT folk are underpaid in GB or overpaid in US :) Starting admin job in CA
> 40-60k, depending on experience (maybe more for high-power jobs) and
> depending on stock options/benefits. less than 40 is crazy - especially in
> California.
Hi tim. Get the hell out of my newsgroup, bitch. :P
p0ok
------------------------------
From: "Nathan S. Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 17:54:36 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
>
> And we all noticed you did neither, disprove or ignore... It must be
> true.
>
> >
>
I don't see you offering "proof". Me, I use the OS that does the job,
and for me, and my business, that is Linux. Quite simple. I have had
numerous bad experiences with windows, hence I use what does the job,
does it superbly, and does it reliably. For my business, and myself,
that is Linux. All I've seen the winvocates put forth are benchmarks
that openly admit their results are dubious at best. My primary concern
is real-world results, and Win2K just doesn't have them. As far as I'm
concerned, Win2K is unproven, if it turns out to be a good product,
great, M$ finally turned out something that wasn't a worthless piece 'o
shite, if not, it doesn't effect me, because I choose UNIX/Linux. We
have more customers wanting to convert their server systems to Linux or
UNIX, the primary reason they desire such a conversion, is security.
Properly configured, Linux and UNIX offer proven, effective security.
Our customers want to see real-world results, not marketing hype. When
the bottom line of a business is riding on the stability and security of
a data processing system, it is unconsionably irresponsible to use a
solution that has no track record. From our real-world results, UNIX
(namely Solaris and Tru64 UNIX) and Linux have provided us with uptime
of around 2 years, and in that time we've had no security incidents.
The other strength of Linux, and one which we have determined is a
definate boon to our customers, is that Linux supports a wide range of
platforms. This allows us to tailor a hardware solution that fits a
customer's needs, be it x86, Alpha, SPARC/UltraSPARC, or PPC. Yes, Linux
may have some issues regarding scalability, but by the time the 2.4
kernel is released, those will be resolved. Until then, for scalable
applications, we offer UltraSPARC/Solaris, and Alpha/Tru64 systems for
our high-end.
To wax philisophical, the Closed Source/Open Source war is just an
extention of one of the oldest conflicts in human history. Most Closed
Source advocates tend to be of the MBA persuasion, while most Open
Source advocates tend to be of the CompSci/Research persuasion. MBAs are
only interested in how much profit a product can generate, and how to
keep other companies from releasing similar products. The
CompSci/Research mindset is to create the best code humanly possible,
co-operating with others to do so.
M$ tends to muddle standards, look at their Visual Java for an example.
They took a standardized system, and added so much of their own
proprietary junk, that they rendered it incompatible with the standard,
this btw was in the FoF. I don't know about the winvocates, but to many
in the open source community, honor still has meaning. And honor is
something which Mr. Gates (Gatan!!!!) appears to lack.
To my fellow linux users, pay no heed to the winvocates rantings and
ravings. They attack us, because they fear us. Our skills with a
decidedly superior OS threatens their job security, I mean, in a world
without market domination by M$, what job prospects are there for a
MSCE?
So, in closing, this is my view, and guess what? I'm entitled to it. (as
long as Gatan doesn't buy the UN)
-NateGrey
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and
then, you win." - Ghandi
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rod Roark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 6 Mar 2000 00:58:33 GMT
On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 22:40:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <eqnw4.142594$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "The Gimme A Buck Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Let's hope your future employer is not reading this newsgroup!
>
>
>Why?
>
>I probably should have been more clear.
>
>I'm *not* looking to gouge my future employer. I *am* looking
>to avoid selling myself short. I simply don't want to be in a
>position in a few months or a year where I realize that others,
>doing the same job, are being better compensated. (Had that
>happen. Really sours one on the experience.) The whole "same
>work, less pay" thing.
>
>I'm not looking for more than I'm worth, just trying to get a
>feel for what I am worth. Does that make any sense?
Here's a suggestion. Of course find out what you can about the
market, but then when you go into salary negotiations say "Look, I'd
like you to help me figure this out. I think I'll really like working
here and don't want to settle for something too low and then have to
jump ship just to get what I'm worth."
They'll get the point.
-- Rod
======================================================================
Sunset Systems Preconfigured Linux Computers
http://www.sunsetsystems.com/ and Custom Software
======================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Allison)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kerberos Caught In Microsoft's Deadly "Embrace"
Date: 6 Mar 2000 01:00:56 GMT
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Exactly. They had to change it. What would you rather have? An open
>protocol that is slightly modified or an untested protocol?
>Microsoft made the right choice.
Actually, I would have preferred that they did what the DCE spec did,
which is to add an additional "privillage" server, which issued its
own tickets. No need to add *anything* into the Kerb5 TGT.
Or, alternatively, I would prefer that they *docuement* what they
added (as I have been requesting for over two years now...).
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sal Denaro)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:58:58 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 5 Mar 2000 02:22:22 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But I'm not suggesting that Apple go with Linux ... I'm just explaining
>why I think Apple's choice is less interesting than Linux ;-)
What is it about the Linux kernel that is more interesting than Mach+BSD?
Both are open source. Both run on many platforms. Both can be extended
and redistributed by 3rd parties.
What's the big deal about it being done on _Linux_?
The really interesting stuff is _above_ the kernel; things like Apache,
egcs, MySQL, Postgres, KDE and/or GNOME. These are not _linux_ projects
as much as they are OpenSource projects. And I'm sure they'll all run
on OSX just as well as they run on Linux.
>I mean, things might have been different if Apple had consolidated their
>position as the first major corporate sponsor of Linux (MkLinux), and
>carried that through to leadership in today's Linux world,
What leadership? Apple had _ZERO_ credibility in the Unix world in
'95-'96; let alone the chance to have leadership. And if they did develop
any credibility they would have lost it as soon as companies like RedHat
and VA started to go public.
Apple _could_ have done something like MkLinux+X11+Carbon/BlueBox rather
than Mach/BSD+Quartz+Carbon/Cocoa/BlueBox but I don't see how the prior
is more interesting than the later. Feel free to point out anything I
might have missed.
> but that's not
>what happened. Apple canceled MkLinux, and developed this plan of Darwin
>and Mac OS X.
You are more than entitled to your opinion, but I don't see how one is
more interesting than the other. Personally, I would rather competition
between five or six open source kernels than competition between one or
two open source kernels and four or five closed source ones.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Salvatore Denaro
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
