Linux-Advocacy Digest #524, Volume #25 Mon, 6 Mar 00 10:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT (Gary Hallock)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (George Marengo)
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (George Marengo)
Re: A little advocacy.. (mlw)
Re: Salary? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Giving up on NT ("Todd")
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Salary? (Desmond Coughlan)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(John Jensen)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: BSD & Linux (S Telford)
Re: BSD & Linux (Lorens Kockum)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
("Charles W. Swiger")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 08:19:37 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: Put A Fork In IT
Mark Hamstra wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3) writes:
>
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 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...
>
> You're getting your x86 servers and administrative help way cheap,
> then.
>
Either that or IBM is making a lot more money than they tell me. Perhaps it's time
for me to ask for a raise :-)
Of course S/390 comes in all sorts of different sizes and costs. For the really
low end, you could just plug a P390 card into your PC .
Gary
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 13:29:57 GMT
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 01:07:29 -0500, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<snip>
>> Did you forget? NT's C2 certification does not allow networked
>> connections. Any bug in windows2000 (which of course could allow
>> the same certification, as chad has said a couple of dozen times)
>> which would be remotely exploitable doesnt count and therefore
>> wont be mentioned.
>
>That is incorrect. NT3.51 was not network C2 rated but NT4 IS network
>C2 rated.
>W2K is even more secure than NT4 could ever dreamed of being.
4.0 is network C2 certified? The only link I could find about 4.0 and
C2 was that it was still being tested.
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 13:48:10 GMT
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 01:32:15 -0500, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:89u1nn$594$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
>> Just because you installed W2K yesterday and it has not crashed yet does
>> not mean it is stable.
>
>really? then you now know what winvocates think when we hear shouting about
>"years" of uptimes. After maybe allowing it's possible we think; who would
>ever have a system running a whole year without an upgrade?
If you really ask yourself who would "ever have a system running
a whole year without an upgrade" maybe you can explain why under
the guise of Alex Boge you claimed to have a Windows9.x system
running voicemail for 331 days when I asked for uptime.
Hell, with stability like that, why would you need Win2K, much less
WinNT? Of course, nobody else can achieve anywhere near your
claimed stability.
http://x37.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=518851113&CONTEXT=951639847.186056751&hitnum=1
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 08:50:11 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
[snippage]
>
> > True, it doesn't support a lot of hardware. Keep in mind it's original
> > intended purpose. It supports enough for what it was intended. It's
> > working it's way into homes because people are tired of problems with
> > Windows and are looking for an alternative. Remember when computers were
> > only used in companies. They eventually made it to homes.
>
> Computers were *NEVER* "only used in companies". They've been used in homes
> since the late 60's, and they began life in educational and military
> situations. But even so, they were still hobyist systems, which is what
> Linux primarily is in the home today. If you use your computer to get work
> done, rather than as a fun experiment, you'll find Linux to be not worth the
> effort.
Please tell me what computers were available for home use in the late
'60's?
>
> > Not a lot of commercial software availabe? True. At least not software
> > suitable for home use. Again, remember it's intended purpose. Software
> > companies will make software for the popular OS regardless of it's
> quality.
> > Look at Macintosh. If you go to most retail stores that sell software,
> > you'll see several hundred titles for the PC and just a little corner for
> > the Mac. Why is that?
>
> Linux advocates say it's intended purpose is to replace windows. You seem
> to be saying otherwise. Perhaps you should get together with the others and
> get your stories straight.
There is no unified voice in Linux, nor society in general. To assume so
would be silly. Each person has their own opinion.
>
> > Hard to find hardware that works. See above.
> >
> > The bottom line is use whatever you like. There is no need to put down
> > something you don't like. My Linux system wouldn't run with any version
> of
> > Windows (95, 98, 98SE, NT 4.0) for more than a few minutes without locking
> > up. Linux runs for days with no problems on the same hardware. There are
> > definitely several advantages using Linux over Windows. People wouldn't
> > spend their time learning something more difficult unless there was a
> valid
> > reason.
>
> I can guarantee that I can configure your Linux system to run only for a few
> minutes and lock up.
Windows 9x does lock up. Windows 9x does crash. These are undeniable. NT
is a bit better, but even Microsoft admits it is not as stable as it
should be. Linux is very stable, verifiably more reliable than NT.
>
> Windows is not as unstable as you claim except when improperly configured,
> much like Linux. (No, i'm not saying Windows is as stable as Linux, I'm
> saying it's not as unstable as your claiming) But for the majoroity of
> people that run their computer for a few hours then shut it off, Windows
> never or almost never crashes for said people.
Windows is quite unstable, I agree in that I have seen Windows machines
remain working for over a month, but never much more than that. The more
normal Windows experience, in a well used Windows box, is a three day
max and a one reboot a day average. (FYI, by Windows, I mean the 9x DOS
version, not NT. NT is a bit better.)
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 6 Mar 2000 13:52:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jose Luis Domingo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Here in Spain, if you have just finished your career and ask for a
: salary starting at 7M pesetas ($45K) you will probably end in a mental
: institution.
Even in the U.S., which is one of the highest paying countries in the
world (both in absolute dollars, and as a proportion of the cost of
living), most recent college graduates do not earn $45K per year. But
we have a major shortage of computer professionals in much of the
U.S., and thus salaries, especially in the areas where the shortages
are the worst (the East and West Coasts), are much higher.
: I finished my career in telco's less than a year ago, and what I've been
: told by
: colleagues the same age is that the starting salary is around 3M pesetas
: ($18K). It seems we have to go US or UK to get a decent salary...
This would be barely a living wage for a single person in most of the
U.S., due to the high cost of living. After taxes, it would not be
sufficient to make the mortgage payment on an average home in most
markets, or *any* home in the more expensive parts of the country such
as Silicon Valley or New York City.
Most of the IT people I know earn between $50-$250K per year. The
President of the United States earns only slightly more than that. My
salary is closer to the low end of that range, but I live in an area
with moderate cost of living, so it is reasonably adequate and
comfortable for me.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 21:59:47 +0800
"Mike Timbol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89v2fr$nl0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
Hey!
I thought Joseph was using a strange News reader... I saw that same string
also... it seems to prevent proper quoting.
I thought there was something wrong with my NewsReader, but if you are
getting the same thing on SunOS as me on NT, then it must be Joseph :)
-Todd
> >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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: 6 Mar 2000 13:54:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Michael Gu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Darren Winsper wrote:
>> 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?
I doubt he means that. You're not doing yourself a favour making
statements like that. Well, not unless it is your goal to look like a
foolish ass. But I doubt it. YMMV.
Themes control the look of the components used by (suitably aware)
applications. Hence, a substantial proportion of the look (and
presumably feel) of the apps is plug-and-play, so to speak, but not
everything (e.g. basic widget layout, underlying data model.) However
that does not mean that the theme *is* the application. Each theme
can be applied to many apps, and each app can use many themes (though
typically only one at a time.)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Desmond Coughlan)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 6 Mar 2000 14:06:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6 Mar 2000 13:52:53 GMT, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Here in Spain, if you have just finished your career and ask for a
> : salary starting at 7M pesetas ($45K) you will probably end in a mental
> : institution.
[snip]
> Most of the IT people I know earn between $50-$250K per year. The
> President of the United States earns only slightly more than that. My
> salary is closer to the low end of that range, but I live in an area
> with moderate cost of living, so it is reasonably adequate and
> comfortable for me.
I think it's a myth that wages are higher in the United States, at least
when the high cost of living is taken into account.
I presently earn a tad under 500,000 FFr a year, which I think translates
into about 73,000 US$ per year. That doesn't seem much, but I live in
a relatively large flat, and only pay 4,000 FFr a month (580 US$).
So the wages are lower in Europe, but the cost of living is lower, too.
--
Desmond Coughlan Network Engineer Forum des Images Paris France
***************************************************************************
The views expressed in these articles are my own, and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Forum des Images.
***************************************************************************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] + 33 (0)1 44.76.62.29
------------------------------
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 14:10:22 GMT
Sal Denaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[Sal points me to:]
: http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/EdMcKenna/EdMcKenna2.html
: http://www.macintouch.com/mx_linux.html
I think these guys suffer from a worldview that Apple does all that is
good:
Linux is good.
Apple does all that is good.
Therefore, Apple must do Linux.
It seems silly to pin all your hopes and dreams on one company. If they
accept that Apple does some good, but good also exists elsewhere, they
wouldn't have to get caught up in that logic. They could take good things
where they find them.
: >My subject today is why I personally find Linux to be
: >more interesting.
: Yawn.
: Linux testimonials are starting to get a little boring. We've all read
: them many of us have written them. I'm starting to think there should
: be a Linux corollary to Godwin's Law on usenet. Given enough time, every
: thread will eventually contain a Linux testimonial or an attack on Windows
: and/or Bill Gates.
This is USENET, and everybody's got their own gig. I personally find the
many threads in cs[mn]a discussing and disecting Mac OS X screenshots
(smuggled out from under the NDA) to be pretty boring.
But I don't spend a half-dozen posts disagreeing with them before I say
so :-)
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: 6 Mar 2000 14:04:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mattias Dahlberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> if Steve Jobs think Microsoft Windows is 'absolutely tastless' , i
>> really would like to know what kind of words will he be using
>> regarding X windows, Motif or CDE.
>
> First he says M$ ripped MacOS's interface right off, then he says it looks
> tasteless.
You have got a little confused. A more appropriate interpretation is
that "M$ ripped MacOS's interface right off" but managed to make a
hash of it. Like that, Mac people can still delude themselves into
thinking that their UI is the best, while claiming that 'Doze is an
el-cheapo ripoff...
> That guy needs to talk less.
Sounding off seems to be one of the things he does best. (No shortage
of that round here!)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 14:16:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 6 Mar 2000 00:02:12 GMT <89usi4$2eqd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> How good is Linux's multiple monitor support? Oh wait, that'd be useless,
>> I guess. I mean, how much benefit does watching the kernel compile
>> on two screens really provide?
>
>More evidence that youve never actually used linux. Exactly how stupid
>do you wish to appear?
>
>Because at this point, its generally the case that pretty much everyone
>you're talking to thinks you're a pinhead.
But the question is still valid. How good *is* Linux's multiple
monitor support?
I do know that Linux can support monochrome and CGA simultaneously,
but that's so old that everyone's probably laughing at me now :-).
I could see multiple monitor support being very useful in specialized
contexts, e.g. multiple-monitor simulator units.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (S Telford)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 6 Mar 2000 14:27:23 GMT
Alexey Dokuchaev ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Hi!
> There was orginal Linus' posting to that Minix newsgroup on the Net
> somewhere.
> If someone could post it here, that'd be real fun to read ;-)
OK, you asked for it 8-)
===============================================================================
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Free minix-like kernel sources for 386-AT
Keywords: 386, preliminary version
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 5 Oct 91 05:41:06 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 55
Status: RO
Do you pine for the nice days of minix-1.1, when men were men and wrote
their own device drivers? Are you without a nice project and just dying
to cut your teeth on a OS you can try to modify for your needs? Are you
finding it frustrating when everything works on minix? No more all-
nighters to get a nifty program working? Then this post might be just
for you :-)
As I mentioned a month(?) ago, I'm working on a free version of a
minix-lookalike for AT-386 computers. It has finally reached the stage
where it's even usable (though may not be depending on what you want),
and I am willing to put out the sources for wider distribution. It is
just version 0.02 (+1 (very small) patch already), but I've successfully
run bash/gcc/gnu-make/gnu-sed/compress etc under it.
Sources for this pet project of mine can be found at nic.funet.fi
(128.214.6.100) in the directory /pub/OS/Linux. The directory also
contains some README-file and a couple of binaries to work under linux
(bash, update and gcc, what more can you ask for :-). Full kernel
source is provided, as no minix code has been used. Library sources are
only partially free, so that cannot be distributed currently. The
system is able to compile "as-is" and has been known to work. Heh.
Sources to the binaries (bash and gcc) can be found at the same place in
/pub/gnu.
ALERT! WARNING! NOTE! These sources still need minix-386 to be compiled
(and gcc-1.40, possibly 1.37.1, haven't tested), and you need minix to
set it up if you want to run it, so it is not yet a standalone system
for those of you without minix. I'm working on it. You also need to be
something of a hacker to set it up (?), so for those hoping for an
alternative to minix-386, please ignore me. It is currently meant for
hackers interested in operating systems and 386's with access to minix.
The system needs an AT-compatible harddisk (IDE is fine) and EGA/VGA. If
you are still interested, please ftp the README/RELNOTES, and/or mail me
for additional info.
I can (well, almost) hear you asking yourselves "why?". Hurd will be
out in a year (or two, or next month, who knows), and I've already got
minix. This is a program for hackers by a hacker. I've enjouyed doing
it, and somebody might enjoy looking at it and even modifying it for
their own needs. It is still small enough to understand, use and
modify, and I'm looking forward to any comments you might have.
I'm also interested in hearing from anybody who has written any of the
utilities/library functions for minix. If your efforts are freely
distributable (under copyright or even public domain), I'd like to hear
from you, so I can add them to the system. I'm using Earl Chews estdio
right now (thanks for a nice and working system Earl), and similar works
will be very wellcome. Your (C)'s will of course be left intact. Drop me
a line if you are willing to let me use your code.
Linus
PS. to PHIL NELSON! I'm unable to get through to you, and keep getting
"forward error - strawberry unknown domain" or something.
===============================================================================
--
Scott Telford "If 386BSD had been available when
Edinburgh, UK. I started on Linux, Linux would
probably never had happened."
- Linus Torvalds
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lorens Kockum)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 6 Mar 2000 14:41:55 GMT
In a whole lot of groups, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>
>I don't think that is an accurate account of the birth of Linux.
Let's have it (more or less) from the horse's mouth.
http://www.river-valley.com/tux/history.html
Follow-ups set appropriately (to groups I don't read, though).
------------------------------
From: "Charles W. Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 15:06:36 GMT
In comp.sys.next.advocacy Aaron J Reichow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Sal Denaro wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Perhaps they went with Mach/BSD because the NeXT people know/knew it *far*
> better than Linux,
In hindsight, the few legacy NeXT users haven't made any noticable impact upon
Apple's directions.
In fact, some people at Apple were pretty clear that preserving the MacOS
userbase was so much more important than the BSD/Unix stuff that they
considered re-rooting the filesystem after boot to make the kernel and Unix
single-user mode stuff completely untouchable. (Check the darwin-development
list archives.)
-Chuck
Chuck 'Sisyphus' Swiger | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Bad cop! No Donut.
------------------------+-------------------+--------------------
I know that you are an optimist if you think I am a pessimist....
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
