Linux-Advocacy Digest #578, Volume #25 Thu, 9 Mar 00 22:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: BSD & Linux (5X3)
Re: BSD & Linux (5X3)
Re: Salary? (Steve Mading)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Mike Galos")
Re: Disproving the lies. (Christopher Browne)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Christopher Browne)
Re: The Windows GUI vs. X (Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Disproving the lies. ("Drestin Black")
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Mike Kenzie)
Steve/Keymaster/etc. is violating AT&T usage policy (was: As Linux Dies a Slow
Death.....Who's next? (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ... (Nabeel Kandah)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
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: 10 Mar 2000 01:05:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tore Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> dbt wrote:
>>
>> 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>> >> - OpenBSD: all the rest: programming, developping, writing papers, listening
>> >> to mp3, playing with pictures...A
>> >
>> >You're using a server operating system for light workstation duties. Theres
>> >nothing WRONG with that, but there are better decisions to be made.
>>
>> Unix is a general purpose operating system. The fact that it's an
>> excellent server OS doesn't preclude the fact that it's also an
>> excellent workstation OS.
> Maybe so, but I would still like to hear what 5x3 considers to be the
> right OS for "light workstation duties".
It depends squarely on what you're doing. Each OS has its niche. For
cheap desktop publishing and graphics manipulation, macos is pretty good.
For expensive graphics manipulation, IRIX is rockin. For general home
use (super light office duties, games, word processing) win98 is ok.
For multimedia work (development, etc) BeOS is primo. I think that an
excellent "all around" workstation OS capable of handing medium
applications is linux, specifically mandrake.
Then theres the server side. For light to medium duty, dull learning
curve applications, NT is nice. For medium duty all-purpose server
apps, linux is pretty good. For medium to heavy duty all-purpose
server applications, FreeBSD is quite nice. For extreme stability
w/good load handling capabilities (database management, mail servers
, etc), solaris would be my choice. For public shells, I like OpenBSD.
I'm sure theres lots I missed, but thats pretty much the gist.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
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: 10 Mar 2000 01:07:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Marc Espie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8a8rba$12gl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I think that its much more likely that you just like saying that you
>>run a bunch of different operating systems because it makes you feel
>>31337.
> No, this is just not true.
> I gave you my reasons why I run those OSes.
> There are probably some facts you're missing, like, I happen to be an
> OpenBSD developper. I am more or less in charge of a few details in that OS.
> Running several OSes on one machine to appear like `eleet' to doodz like you
> is really the least of my preoccupations...
Ahhh, alright then, I take it back. Being an openbsd developer is an
entirely different story.
p0ok
p0ok
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 10 Mar 2000 01:08:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: So he pulls up the behind the cop car, get's out and strolls up to cop
: car and just as he got to the drivers door, the cop slammed the door
: open and pointed a gun at my dad telling him to get down slowly, etc..
: So after being frisked against the side of the cop car my dad managed to
: explain that he was just a tourist who needed directions. The cop
: apologised but explained that he had been suspicious cause in the US
: people just don't stroll up to the cops like that!!
Depends on location, and style of police beat. In high-crime areas,
the police tend to get a bit touchy and jumpy, because the criminals
*do* shoot at the cops, and just might stroll up to the side of the
car and shoot. People get mad at the police over mistaken shootings,
but I just get mad at the situation. The police are stuck in a really
horrible situation, where they have to make character judgements about
people in a matter of less than a second. Innocent until proven guilty
is an excellent motto for the courtroom, but for the police, that
attitude would get themselves killed the first time they guessed wrong.
It's a really terrible situation to have to pick between:
a) harassing innocent people some of the time, and
b) getting yourself killed by being too trusting
But away from the high-crime areas in the poor core of cities, it's
quite different. People do wave at cops and talk to them.
It's a really terrible situation when the lives of the police
depend upon them having to be paranoid and suspect everyone.
--
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
From: "Mike Galos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 17:08:04 -0800
> If I still had the link to the site that certified linux I would have bet
> you 2000 USD. But I can't find the original link anymore...However I would
> stake 2000 USD that Linux was certified. You prove the contrary.
>
> Michael
Actually, this negative CAN be proven.
The list of all products that have ever been evaluated is at
http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/epl/historical.html and if there's a Linux
on there I can't find it.
Mike
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 01:28:56 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Drestin Black would say:
>"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8a6phv$dpt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
>> I/T Architect, MIS Director
>> http://www.open4success.com
>> Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
>> and growing at over 1%/week!
>
>holy shit - what is this? a *** 5 0 % *** drop in linux growth?! DAMN! Looks
>like a HUGE slow down has occured in Linux growth. What happened? Run out of
>computer users in the US to count cause they at one time or another visited
>a website that mentioned the word "linux" so you counted them? And still,
>you dare to claim that there are 6,000,000 new linux users every week?
>6,600,000 the next week? Where DO you find these people? Cause they sure
>ain't on any map that anyone else can document...
1% of 60 million is 600,000.
You're off (of what I'd certainly admit is a flimsy estimate in the
first place) by a full order of magnitude.
Did you flunk math?
--
It is interesting to note that before the advent of Microsoft Windows,
`GPF' was better known for its usage in plumbing: "Gallons Per Flush"
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dean Edmonds)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 01:29:00 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Donovan Rebbechi would
say:
>On 8 Mar 2000 00:58:42 GMT, David T. Blake wrote:
>>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On 7 Mar 2000 22:35:34 GMT, David T. Blake wrote:
>>
>>> >Even though we're unable to tell for now whether FreeType
>>> >violates them, this could mean that the free use of the library
>>> >could be illegal in the US or other countries like Japan, be it
>>> >in commercial or free projects.
>>>
>>> Wrong. It would mean that freetype would have to license the patent.
>>
>>Well, it is unclear whether this could ever happen. Apple
>>would be unlikely to
>
>Speculation. You said that Apple were planning to kill TrueType
>on Linux, and haven't offered any supporting evidence.
How could we prove that there are people paid by Microsoft to badmouth
Linux in public fora?
That's another question for which there is unlikely to be any
conclusive answer forthcoming, albeit for somewhat different reasons.
>>What is more likely is that Apple would propose a licensing
>>plan that is untenable for the Freetype developers,
>
>Again, pure speculation. And what would apple do by proposing that
>anyway ?
>
>>forget, metafont rendering PRECEDES TrueType by some time, and
>>is actually a bit nicer.
>
>Metafont is actually a vastly superior technology to TrueType *or*
>Type1.
I've used Metafont fonts for *years,* and have actually written some
Metafont code, which I'd hazard gives me the right to *some*
opinion...
Metafont is superior *in some ways* for *describing* fonts than any of
the other font description schemes thus far discovered by man.
It is not, however, an unambiguously superior *technology* to TrueType
or Type 1 fonts.
a) There are better tools available for Quick&Dirty font manipulations
to help one to *rapidly* create fonts.
b) Metafont is not a particularly fast rendering scheme; it was
designed to create bitmaps that would then be reused as needed.
While this provides *appearance* that may be determined to be
optimal from a mathematical standpoint, there is no corresponding
proof that the *speed* of rendering will be optimal, or even
satisfactory. I can remember times when I did font generation
overnight because I was regenerating a font family, and expected
this to take 7-8 *HOURS.* That is utterly unsatisfactory for real
time rendition of documents. (And was the case for a dramatically
obsolete 8MHz 68K machine with 2MB of RAM.)
>>The whole point of their patent was the same reason for
>>developing any patent - protection of innovation for a fixed
>>length of time through a legal granted monopoly. They enjoy
>>this protection with TrueType fonts and make a lot of money
>>from it.
>
>Yes, IOW when someone makes money off it, they want some of it.
That is an exceedingly naive view of things. Money is important, but
is secondary to *CONTROL.* In the long run, power is the thing of
value, as it allows one to get money, and licenses are power.
>>any form of contract. LZW has certainly not been licensed on a
>>royalty basis - but on a per use basis.
>
>Actually, I believe LZW is free if your software is. This is why
>programs like GIMP can legally use gif format. The patent only gets
>expensive if you want to make money.
>
>The main problem is that you're supposed to pay if you use the GIFs
>on a commercial website.
You think incorrectly.
"Unisys has frequently been asked whether a Unisys license is
required in order to use LZW software obtained by downloading from
the Internet or from other sources. The answer is simple. In all
cases, a written license agreement or statement signed by an
authorized Unisys representative is required from Unisys for all
use, sale or distribution of any software (including so-called
"freeware") and/or hardware providing LZW conversion capability
(for example, downloaded software used for creating/displaying GIF
images). In certain cases, no license fees may be required, but
this needs to be evidenced by a written agreement or written
statement signed by an authorized Unisys representative."
The web site "thing" is that Unisys offers you the option of paying
$5K for a license that allows you to not worry, for the purposes of
your web site, about whether or not the suppliers of software that you
use have licensed their software with Unisys.
--
Obversely, a lot of verbal mileage can also be gotten by sending out
incomprehensible, cryptic, confusing or unintelligible messages, and
then iteratively "correcting" the "mistaken interpretations" in the
replys.
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Windows GUI vs. X (Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 01:23:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthias Warkus wrote:
> >
> > It was the Wed, 08 Mar 2000 13:19:52 -0500...
> > ...and Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Guys, it's OK to like Motif.
> >
> > You are missing an important point. Compared to GTK+ or Qt, Motif is
> > medieval technology. It's a pain in the rear to program. Ever
> > contemplated how many lines it takes to write a simple GUI "hello,
> > world" program in Motif, as opposed to GTK+ or Qt?
>
> Hmmm - here's my version:
>
> #include <Xm/Label.h>
>
> XtAppContext context;
> XmStringCharSet char_set;
> Widget toplevel, label;
>
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> Arg al[10];
> int ac;
> ac=0;
>
> toplevel=XtAppInitialize(&context, "", NULL, 0, &argc, argv, NULL,
> 0, 0);
> XtSetArg(al[ac], XmNlabelString,
> XmStringCreate("Hello, World!", char_set)); ac++;
> label=XmCreateLabel(toplevel, "label", al, ac);
>
> XtManageChild(label);
> XtRealizeWidget(toplevel);
> XtAppMainLoop(context);
> return 0;
> }
>
> $ wc -l hello.c
> 23 hello.c
>
> I agree with you to an extent that it is "medieval technology". But,
> it kind of has that "Athena++" sort of look. The "Classic X toolkit"
> look can be kind of cool in a retro sense.
#include <qapp.h>
#include <qpushbutton.h>
int main (int argc, char **argv)
{
QApplication a(argc,argv);
QPushButton *b=new QPushButton("Hello World!",0);
b->show();
connect(b,SIGNAL(clicked()),app,SLOT(quit()));
a.exec();
}
11 lines, and it even exits when you click the button.
It can be done shorter, of course.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 20:15:10 -0500
"Matt Gaia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : you have the same opinion of rexes crap as I do... what you wrote above
is
> : what I've been trying to hammer into the linvocates heads and they just
> : don't get it. the price of the OS is insignificant except to single PC
home
> : users (well, less than middle-class income ones at least). I mean, if
you
> : can't afford a $300 OS - how can you possibly call youself a computer
> : professional?
>
> The question is not really can you afford it though. It's more like
> "Unless you're a brain-dead lemming on crack, why would you spend $300 on
> an OS when you can a different, better OS for free?"
>
If I COULD get a *better* OS for free (different is effortless and not
necessarily anything other than just different) then I would - but as there
ISN'T a better OS for free, I pay for the better one.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Kenzie)
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: 10 Mar 2000 01:59:45 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Kenzie)
"ax" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> If someone tells a business owner that he has to learn a lot
> in order to use Linux, the business owner will lose interest
> on Linux right away. Business owners are only interested
> in getting their daily jobs done taking computers as tools.
>
> If someone tells a business owner that he has to buy
> new computers in order to get Linux up and running,
> the business owner will give up on Linux since preserving
> current technology investment is business owners' high priority.
Well that would rule out the last several MS products. I have linux
running on everything from a 386-33 and up. OS/2 and win95 were painfully
slow on the 486-33 with 4 meg.
If a business owner can make more money by learning a better way to do
something then that's what a smart business person will do. A business
person who thinks they know it all isn't a business person for very long.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Steve/Keymaster/etc. is violating AT&T usage policy (was: As Linux Dies a
Slow Death.....Who's next?
Date: 10 Mar 2000 02:21:18 GMT
http://www.att.net/general-info/terms.html
Welcome to AT&T WorldNet Service -- Terms and Conditions
...
Be honest
...
3. Unless you're participating in an area of the Service
that requires or encourages anonymity, use your real name
in online communications.
According to AT&T WorldNet customer service at 800-400-1447-2-0,
posting under multiple false identities violates their usage
policy, and, upon presentation of evidence, would result in
a fine or closure of the account.
I did not report Steve, and I won't, since it might be seen
as a personal vendetta. Maybe people would like to discuss
the pros and cons of such action. My position is that parti-
cipants here ought to be intellectually honest, and not post
the same lies over and over again after they've been refuted,
especially using a new name each time to make it appear that
lots of people agree with them.
So, Steve, or Mike, or whoever you are, I think you ought to
pick one name and stick with it. Don't try using your ibm.net
account and its fake IDs, like "mcswain", either; we're on to
that one as well, and that ISP has a usage policy also. They
all do, and if you get an account somewhere else, we'll know
it's you -- you're really not very good at this.
How about just being honest for a change?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Linux?
>
>Dead at the starting gate..Horse fell over...Don't bother...
>
>Not convinced?
>
>http://www.corel.com
>http:www.redhat.com (better have your barf bag ready)
>http://www.suse.com
>http://www.freshmeat.net is there a translator in the house? I don't
>speak geek.
>
>Try it and find out for yourself how much it sucks....
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 02:23:40 GMT
In article <7oXx4.7656$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If someone tells a business owner that he has to learn a lot
> in order to use Linux, the business owner will lose interest
> on Linux right away. Business owners are only interested
> in getting their daily jobs done taking computers as tools.
Nonsense. Technical expertise is required to use any server operating
system effectively, be it W2K, NT, or Linux. A business owner could
care less whether you're an MCSE or an RHCE. They are, by your own
argument, only interested in getting the job done.
> If someone tells a business owner that he has to buy
> new computers in order to get Linux up and running,
> the business owner will give up on Linux since preserving
> current technology investment is business owners' high priority.
Tripe. Business owners are accustomed to the upgrade treadmill. They
do it every couple of years to support the next behemoth from Redmond.
It's already in the budget. It is more likely that you will be able to
tell a business owner that he does NOT have to throw his current
investment down the drain in order to run Linux. He can take his
upgrade money and give his employees bonuses.
If you're a consultant, you're not qualified. If you're only a troll,
you're pathetic.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nabeel Kandah)
Subject: Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ...
Date: 9 Mar 2000 20:19:00 -0600
Brian Langenberger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: <snip>
: : WHY do people keep posting `Linux will fail' gibberish? There some very
: : good reasons why it wont (to winvocates: this has *nothing* do do with
: : replacing windows, so don't bother replying along that line)
: Linux has obviously intimidated or threatened these people in some way.
: Perhaps it threatens their favorite OS. Perhaps they wanted to get
: involved but found it too difficult to use and felt dejected. For
: some reason Linux has given these people grief.
This is exactly the response people give me when they know what I am
doing with my time: learning a new OS. They have tried it they don't like it
then they begin a minor FUD campaign against my inclinations. I have attained
more with linux/unix than with anything else, and I won't let a bunch of sour
pusses spoil my fun. Everyone says I am wasting my time, except engineers and
systems administrators and programmers, and I say, in the words of Jimi Hendrix,I am
the to die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to.
Linux rocks my plimsoul, baby
------------------------------
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: 10 Mar 2000 02:55:39 GMT
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 01:29:00 GMT, Christopher Browne wrote:
>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Donovan Rebbechi would
>say:
>>On 8 Mar 2000 00:58:42 GMT, David T. Blake wrote:
>>Speculation. You said that Apple were planning to kill TrueType
>>on Linux, and haven't offered any supporting evidence.
>
[ snip ]
>That's another question for which there is unlikely to be any
>conclusive answer forthcoming, albeit for somewhat different reasons.
My point is that in this instance , speculation was presented as
fact. He said previously that Apple had plans to kill TrueType on Linux.
>I've used Metafont fonts for *years,* and have actually written some
>Metafont code,
Ditto, though admittedly,. I haven't written much metafont code.
>a) There are better tools available for Quick&Dirty font manipulations
> to help one to *rapidly* create fonts.
Hmmm .. AFAIK, one does not "rapidly" create fonts by any method.
>b) Metafont is not a particularly fast rendering scheme; it was
> designed to create bitmaps that would then be reused as needed.
>
> While this provides *appearance* that may be determined to be
> optimal from a mathematical standpoint, there is no corresponding
> proof that the *speed* of rendering will be optimal, or even
> satisfactory.
Point taken. If it really was better in all ways, we'd probably all be
using metafont. As it is, it still takes a fair while to generate fonts
on my pentium 133.
>>Yes, IOW when someone makes money off it, they want some of it.
>
>That is an exceedingly naive view of things. Money is important, but
>is secondary to *CONTROL.* In the long run, power is the thing of
>value, as it allows one to get money, and licenses are power.
However, it's not clear that Apple will use this control to "kill TrueType
on Linux"
In any case, this will hopefully become irrelevant if FreeType's Type1
rasterizer turns out to be any good ( it appears that the XFree86
Type1 rasterizer either hints badly or not at all )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
