Linux-Advocacy Digest #518, Volume #25 Sun, 5 Mar 00 22:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Phreaker/Hacker/Cracker [was: Re: Recent denial of service attacks] (John Hagen)
Re: Giving up on NT (Mike Timbol)
Re: Giving up on NT (dc)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Rob Hughes)
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT (Gary Hallock)
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT (5X3)
Re: Giving up on NT (Joseph)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(John Jensen)
Re: New name: W63K ! ("Dirk Gently")
Re: Salary? ("Christopher R. Carlen")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: 6 Mar 2000 01:30:50 GMT
On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:15:49 GMT, Michael Gu wrote:
>
>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.
I believe any of the KDE/QT apps running under kwm should work fine.
Most of the apps exhibiting the kind of problems you are talking about
( and some more odd behaviours that you don't mention ) are written using
old toolkits.
If you want to be spared these annoying problems, I'd recommend going with
GTK and QT based applications where possible.
>> >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.
I think I see what you mean. I dispute your claim that you need "more pixels"
on Linux though.
>> 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?
I'm not sure what you mean here.
>Loose grid style layout, good idea, so use a 100x100 box if 10x10 doesn't fit,
> and resource is out of question.
I still don't think I understand your complaint about "resource". Are you
saying that X is a memory hog ? This claim has some merit, but I've found
that Linux is no more of a memory hog than say NT, even with X and KDE running
on a 19" monitor.
>Again, good idea not to hard coding, but is it pratically doable and well
>done?
Yes, certainly. When an application does something really dumb, such as take
up more screen space than you have available ( like xfig or xdvi ), it's
simply because the developer couldn't be bothered coding for people wih
small screens.
This kind of UI design glitch is almost always due to bad code, possibly
helped along by a bad toolkit.
> I guess I am not stupid enough not to be able to find out that windows
>display is much better than X.
The toolkits ( such as MFC ) for Windows are much slicker nicer than the older
toolkits for UNIX. However, KDE and GNOME are changing this. IMO,
KDE/QT and GNOME/GTK will be *the* toolkits for Linux, at least as far
as end user apps are concerned. Everything else is on its way out.
We've already seen two major apps, Netscape/Mozilla and Applixware making a
move to GTK.
>to something he believe in. However, all these font thing are to be applied to
>a X server,
I'm not sure I get what you're saying. If you are implying that you
need to do everything in my font HOWTO to get your display to look OK,
no, that is not true. If you are just concerned about on screen quality,
the thing to do is add some good scalable fonts ( Type1 or TrueType ) to
your font server. That is, you only need to do go through the proceedure
outlined in "Making fonts available to X". The rest deals with specific
applications. You may want to follow the instructions re: Netscape, because
it draws the fonts too small by default.
> 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?
The only inadequacy with X is that the font system doesn't support
anti-aliasing, ie "font smoothing".
There's also a somewhat deeper
problem with font handling in that writing code that prints and displays
the same font is not easy ( because X will not tell the developer where
the outline files are, and there is no font management system behind X )
This is what makes adding fonts to applications like Linux office suites
somewhat tricky.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 6 Mar 2000 01:33:51 GMT
On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:58:58 GMT, Sal Denaro wrote:
>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.
With the caveat that IIRC, Mac OS X ( contrary to it's name ) is not
using X under its GUI. Unless "OS X server" has an "X server" running
on it, it'll have a hard time with KDE and GNOME apps.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 17:00:46 -0800
From: John Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Phreaker/Hacker/Cracker [was: Re: Recent denial of service attacks]
Curly++ wrote:
>
> I've really enjoyed this thread, but I have to say that I don't
> think "hacker" means today what it meant back in the 60's when
> I was tickled pink to hear someone call *me* a hacker. I wasn't
> that good with a soldering iron then, but I sure was happy to
> have someone think so.
>
> If a language is in use, then it's words change. This word has
> gone over to the dark side and there's no way to bring it back.
> I first debated the meaning of "hacker" back in the mid
> seventies, when I *was* good with a soldering iron, but I soon
> found that I didn't want to be called a "hacker". By then, I
> think more people knew the dark meaning than knew the b'right
> one.
According to Cheswick and Bellovin (who wrote the seminal work
"Firewalls and Internet Security : Repelling the Wily Hacker") the
meaning of this term has indeed changed and not for the better.
Not that C&B is the only opinion, but those constructive individuals who
revel in the appelation "hacker" are using a term that has negative and
criminal connotations for the general public. Sadly, times have changed
and no one knows or cares about the meaning of "cracker".
Like it or not, popular opinion decides the use of new terms in the
language - unfortunately. :-[
Cheers,
--
john hagen ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Timbol)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 6 Mar 2000 01:43:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think there's something wrong with whatever setup you're using to
post to USENET. Note the "=20=" strings at the end of your lines.
FYI, I'm using trn (a simple text-based, threaded newsreader) running
on SunOS.
>The PC market is going to shrink and or at best emulate/copy console=20=
>content.
A bold statement, since there's no sign of that happening right now.
Most games that are available on both platforms either come out
simultaneously, or come out first on the PC (sometimes taking many
months to reach the console).
>As the game technology increases so do production costs. "Newsweek"=20=
>cites disturbing statistics. SEGA Saturn games were ~$400,000 to=20
>produce. Today a top game title costs 2 million to produce, 4 million=20=
>for the PSX II. =20
>
>The PC game publishers are cutting titles, moving to consoles and=20
>there is no way a Windows 2000 PC is going to compete for UNIQUE=20
>development.=20
Actually, I would predict that PCs will have *more* unique development
because there is a lower cost of entry into the PC game market than
there is in the console market.
PC games don't cost 4 million dollars to make. At that price, a game
maker needs to have phenomenal sales to even recoup their investment.
On a PC, the break even point is far lower, which means that games which
appeal to a smaller niche may be economically feasible on a PC, but
not on a console. Thus, you'll see less choice on consoles, not more.
- Mike
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 19:50:34 -0600
On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 23:29:17 GMT, "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Win2K Pro averages about 20MB, Win2K Server default (no ADS) seems
>to average 30-36MB. Still not terribly bad. Expecting an enterprise
>server like Win2K Server to work under 32MB is just rediculous these
>days. RAM is dirt cheap, expecting 128MB isn't asking much.
I just installed a basic setup of Win2k Advanced Server. It's at 46MB
now, after bootup, on my Mac G3/450.
I have 384M of RAM in this Mac. Strangely, I can only get VPC to use
128MB of it in the actual emulation itself. Hmm....
------------------------------
From: Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 19:51:04 -0600
Even if it asks, couldn't it break something?
On 04 Mar 2000 15:43:44 +0100, Michael Wand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
:> You've never installed an app that required updated libs, and then had
:> the updated libs cause something to break? WOW!
:
:No installer updates the libs without asking me.
:
:Michael
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 21:07:19 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
5X3 wrote:
> 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.
>
Certainly, you must have a need for a lot of horsepower before considering
using S/390. But once you start talking about installing a few hunderd or
1000 x86 based servers to handle the load S/390 looks pretty good. Anyone
know how many machines MS has for their web sites? I seem to remember it
was in the range of 1000 or more. Maybe they could switch Hotmail to
S/390 :-)
Gary
------------------------------
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 02:14:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 5X3 wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Certainly, you must have a need for a lot of horsepower before considering
> using S/390. But once you start talking about installing a few hunderd or
> 1000 x86 based servers to handle the load S/390 looks pretty good.
I would say that the number exceeds 1000 by quite a bit...And other things
must be taken into consideration too; how many of these sites utilize
frontpage? How many need a good oracle backend? There are lots of questions
to ask before one decides to implement linux on a very, very broad scale,
even if it IS on an S/390.
Again, im not saying that its a bad idea or that it wouldnt work, I'm saying
that its market is *extremely* unique and very, very small.
> Anyone
> know how many machines MS has for their web sites? I seem to remember it
> was in the range of 1000 or more. Maybe they could switch Hotmail to
> S/390 :-)
If you could run W2K on an S/390, which you cant. Though I do admit that
that would be a helluva trick for IBM to pull...
Seeing as how theyll never get OS source from MS to do it. :)
p0ok
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 18:18:30 -0500
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Mike Timbol wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think there's something wrong with whatever setup you're using to
> post to USENET. Note the "=20=" strings at the end of your lines.
> FYI, I'm using trn (a simple text-based, threaded newsreader) running
> on SunOS.
>
> >The PC market is going to shrink and or at best emulate/copy console=20=
> >content.
>
> A bold statement, since there's no sign of that happening right now.
> Most games that are available on both platforms either come out
> simultaneously, or come out first on the PC (sometimes taking many
> months to reach the console).
Bold? Did someone miss Newsweek's cover story.
And the argument that consoles get ports of PC titles is a PC perspective. Final
Fantasy is a popular title by any measure and it's a PSX title. Zelda64 has no PC
port.
> >As the game technology increases so do production costs. "Newsweek"=20=
> >cites disturbing statistics. SEGA Saturn games were ~$400,000 to=20
> >produce. Today a top game title costs 2 million to produce, 4 million=20=
> >for the PSX II. =20
> >
> >The PC game publishers are cutting titles, moving to consoles and=20
> >there is no way a Windows 2000 PC is going to compete for UNIQUE=20
> >development.=20
>
> Actually, I would predict that PCs will have *more* unique development
> because there is a lower cost of entry into the PC game market than
> there is in the console market.
There are also higher costs associated with supporting a PC platform. Younknow what I
mean - DLLs drivers and installing and etc. All the headaches with tech support not
found with a console.
We'll need to separate out quality from diversity and specaulte that there can be more
diverse games due to lower tool costs and more kids and folk authoring games for PCs
but the production quality and money inverstments HAS to be less since the market is
less profitable. It is that way now and there is no reason to say otherwise since the
PC has always had your advantage. As game prodcution costs universially increase the
barriers to entry increase and the tools become less of a factor, a smaller precentage
of the game investment.
We can also say that the talent for the PC market is going to be less and we can again
go back to the Newsweek article and read about the $$ spent to obtain and use creative
talent for making new games. We know cash rich companies can hire away talent and
talent wants to go where their work can make a big impact. Possibly we'll see new raw
untapped talent use PCs until they are discovered and hired to work on equipment to
make titles for more profitable systems.
> PC games don't cost 4 million dollars to make. At that price, a game
> maker needs to have phenomenal sales to even recoup their investment.
> On a PC, the break even point is far lower, which means that games which
> appeal to a smaller niche may be economically feasible on a PC, but
> not on a console. Thus, you'll see less choice on consoles, not more.
Pick up the Newsweek cover story (a majority of what I read I found agreeable).
You'll not find the kind of data to support your speculation. As games look more and
more like movies, the costs for producing them increase and the PC has no advantage
over consoles in this area. We'va also seen data posted that show less money per PC
title so this direct evidence stands against implied evidence that suggests a PC
advantage.
Newsweek throws around some numbers for game production costs with 4 million the
estimate for a PSX II title (and games competitive to PSX II titles) and newweeks
quotes game publishers about the increasing costs for producing games with figures
approaching a ten fold increase in costs from a SEGA GENESIS console. There are some
harsh predicitons about increasing consolidation in the business as costs increase.
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: 6 Mar 2000 02:41:19 GMT
Sal Denaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: 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_?
Linux is interesting as a kernel, but it is also interesting for the
variety of hardware, software, business, and social structures that have
been built up around it.
: 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.
If I may say so, I think a narrow focus on Linux-the-kernel clouds the
issue. We should be honest about the hardware, software, business, and
social structures that Apple desires to build up around Darwin, and how
they will differ from the Linux (or even free BSD) counterparts.
: >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.
Other companies have successfully engauged the Linux community, but I can
see elements of the Apple culture that would have made this difficult.
: 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.
I won't cry over spilt milk.
: > 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.
Generally speaking, more is better.
john
------------------------------
From: "Dirk Gently" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New name: W63K !
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 02:51:40 GMT
What's a killfile?
--
Jeff Lacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:D%Hq4.20062$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when [EMAIL PROTECTED] would
say:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3) writes:
> >> > *sigh* I probably would do better if I just killfiled him....
> >>
> >> Yes, and then we could get rid of the "so-and-so is a proven liar"
> >> threads as well.
> >>
> >
> >If only one person on C.O.L.A puts only one person in his killfile, then
> >_all_ of the "so-and-so is a proven liar" threads will go away?
> >
> >Why do I think this statement might be a lie?
>
> If one *POSTER* on COLA puts one other poster into his killfile, this
> is likely to *diminish* such futile threads.
>
> Will it outright eliminate this? Doubtlessly not.
>
> But until there is an interface between the GNUS scoring mechanism and
> a blood pressure reader, peoples' heads are likely to continue to
> explode...
> --
> "Computers let you make more mistakes faster than any other invention
> in human history, with the possible exception of handguns and
> tequila." -- Mitch Radcliffe
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: "Christopher R. Carlen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 18:52:32 -0800
Try somewhere in
$45000 <= salary <= $75000
Pretty wide range, but it seems about right, from what I know, which
isn't much :-D
_____________________
Christopher R. Carlen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux 2.2.10
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
