Linux-Advocacy Digest #606, Volume #25 Sun, 12 Mar 00 21:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: A Linux server atop Mach? ("MJP")
Re: 2000 The year of the Linux... (Kool Breeze)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (5X3)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (5X3)
Re: Disproving the lies. ("2 + 2")
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) ("Mark Weaver")
Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
(5X3)
Re: Mandrake=Poison? (Robert Morelli)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "MJP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Linux server atop Mach?
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 18:51:01 -0600
"Charles W. Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:fEWy4.266$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Shit, I just knew I couldn't help myself. This was the funniest thing I've
seen or heard all weekend. I think we can safely apply this new definition
of "portability" to Microsoft Windows 98 -- the most "portable" operating
system in the world. Hallelujah!
MJP
> That's an interesting proposition. Let me approach it by thinking about
this
> at the various layers.
>
> GUI apps
> --------
>
> MacOS provides support for running Mac software as well as things like
> VirtualPC and the Connectix PlayStation emulator; Linux lets you run
X11-based
> GUI apps (both native and binaries from related platforms like FreeBSD) as
> well as limited PC emulation.
>
> To an end-user, portability means "can I exchange documents with my
clients or
> with my officemates" and "can I run the programs I want to use".
Obviously
> the existing Mach-kernel based MOSXS or MacOS X developer previews which
let
> people run MS-Office, IE, the Adobe suite and so forth (*); as well as Mac
> games (**) has got better portability than a Linux kernel which did not
host
> Mac platform apps.
>
> Of course, Apple could do the work to make Linux provide the Carbon API's
and
> Toolbox support but this would be a company-critical multiyear development
> project which would probably add two years to when Apple can ship a new
OS.
>
> (*): If you happen to be a frothing-at-the-mouth Linux zealot, yes, Adobe
> offers Acrobat for Linux and FrameMaker is in beta, but most of the Adobe
> suite is not available for Linux. Sorry, StarOffice just doesn't cut the
> mustard if you actually exchange documents with other people. Some people
> need IE to do their jobs, certainly anyone creating web content. Finally,
> let's note that you can run X on top of Mach (and the MacOS), which means
that
> if anyone can think of a GUI Linux app which does not already exist in
better
> form for the Mac, how hard would it be to port it (if a port hasn't
already
> been done, too)!
>
> (**): And the above goes twice for games. I mean, you have to look pretty
far
> to find a traditional Unix game like NetHack, Rogue, or Angband...or GUI
ones
> like xmille and xconq...which do not have a Mac version.
>
>
> Server apps
> -----------
>
> For the most part, this is a wash-- both platforms can run Apache, an FTP
> server, mail, POP/IMAP, ssh, NFS/SMB/AppleShare filesharing, print
sharing,
> and so forth.
>
> Linux does have a noticable advantage in databases with Oracle and Sybase
> ports; it will be interesting to see whether either company adds MOSXS or
X to
> the platforms their databases run on.
>
> ( I suppose Mach + MacOS X has better Apple-specific support for things
like
> AppleTalk, but what Linux has [ie, CAP, netatalk+sun, and so forth] works
> fine. )
>
>
> Unix/CLI
> --------
>
> Again, this layer is mostly a wash. Pretty much the entire GNU suite is
at
> the "./configure ; make install" level of compatibility. Ditto for all of
the
> common tools like BIND, sendmail, Apache, Perl, and so forth. From
> Darwin-development and from individual ChangeLogs, we've seen that Apple
is
> actively supporting GNU autoconf and providing configuration feedback to
make
> sure packages and build easily. Much credit for this (and many thanks)
> to Wilfredo Sanchez.
>
> It's worth noting that there are some exceptions, and you may have to do
some
> porting work sometimes. One area where Linux is doing much better is in
the
> packet filtering, NAT, PPP, and related technologies-- the Linux Router
> Project is a good example.
>
>
> Kernel
> ------
>
> Linux has got more extensive driver availability (particularly given the
> status of Darwin for Intel) and more loadable kernel modules around for
it.
> It will be interesting to see how compatible Apple's new driver layer it
and
> how easy it is to port open source drivers.
>
> > Is it not quite possibly to implement a Linux atop Mach in a way like a
> > BSD server was implemented? Or in a way that a Linux server is running
> > on top of Mach in MkLinux? Is this Linux server that comes with the
> > MkLinux distro open source?
>
> The Mach personality support is intended to allow Mach to run programs
which
> have very different kernel interfaces and process semantics. The BSD
4.4Lite
> API over Mach is so close to the API hosted off Linux that I doubt many
> people can actually name a single system call or standard library function
> which differs between the two.
>
> [ About the only significant chunk is SysV shared memory, and there is
already
> a freely available portability layer, as well as commercial product, which
> translates shm stuff into Mach messages. ]
>
> -Chuck
>
> Chuck 'Sisyphus' Swiger | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Bad cop! No Donut.
> ------------------------+-------------------+--------------------
> I know that you are an optimist if you think I am a pessimist....
------------------------------
From: Kool Breeze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2000 The year of the Linux...
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 00:56:02 GMT
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 21:40:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I just compiled 2.3.51 on my PIII 2 processor system... Cool, very
>quick, 2.4 is going to be a GREAT kernel, but wait there is more... A
>new xfree86 is out, along with a Gnome and KDE2.0 with free office
>suites from both! Of course, there will be Correl Office for those who
>need to pay to feel like they got something. The Desk top is coming
>along fine. The server side has the new Apache2.0 just announced. Add
>Novel's NDS beats the tar out of mSAD (microSoft Active Directory). All
>in all, it looks like a very good year for Linux!!!
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Looking forward to it!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 13 Mar 2000 01:19:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you ever set up a computer before, po0k? Or do you just use l33t
> sH3lLz that other people set up for you?
Actually, I work in the industry, just like you. Except I know how
computers work.
>> > Which youd know if you knew anything at all about computer security.
> HAHAHAHA... that's extremely amusing, coming from you.
Why? Show me that I know nothing about computer security.
> Can you say "Discretionary Access Control"? No, I didn't think you could.
Can you say Access lists? Can you say host allow/deny? Can you say
NIS? RPC? Can you say PGP based trusted packet and packet header
encription? Can you do anything except point and click?
>> > 3. There are lots of other system configurations that are not C2
>> > certified that are nearly infinitely more secure and useful than NT
>> > is.
> Oh yeah. I provide concrete, profressional tested and certified proof,
> and you make ignorant conjectures "nearly infinitely [sic] secure" and
> I'm supposed to believe that BS?
Break Inferno and then tell me how you did it.
> You have no other argument to make besides NT's more logical interface
> or that you have a choice of a highly efficient GUI (unlike Linux's
> pathetic attempt at administration controls in X)
You obviously havent used X, or at least havent in quite some time.
> _AND_ a highly scriptable
> object model
Script? Korn, bash, zsh, tcl, perl, python, etc.
> _AND_ a highly scriptable command line (CScript, JScript, VBScript,
> REXX, Python, Perl, the list goes on...).
And this is different from linux how?
>> > But you dont, because you know nothing about the way computers
>> > actually work. I'm continually shocked and amazed that anyone has
>> > even let you have a job in this industry
> haha... how funny. I provide facts, proof, independant review, you make
> silly, baseless and ignorant conjectures, yet somehow I'm the ignorant
> one? Where do you work, po0k, seriously? Do you flip hamburgers? Are you
> upset because you can't seem to hold a job because the medication
> makes you feel "weird"?
Theres an argument.
>> >---until I realize that you have a job administrating NT, which explains
>> > quite alot about the quickening inundation of mediocrity into the industry.
> inundation of mediocrity? You mean having a green screen with an ancient,
> archaic
> and overly, impossibly complicated command infrastructure that is completely
> unusable to all but the most masochistic is "innovation" and "advancement"?
Impossibly complicated command infrastructure? It sounds to me like you're
validating your own extreme stupidity. Unix is simply not too terribly
difficult to understand. If you're having a problem understanding it, the
problem is YOURS.
> po0k, until you get your head out of the sand, and the green out of your eyes,
> you'll never go anywhere in life until you open your mind and use what is the
> best for most tasks: the most scalable, the highest performing, and the highest
> security: Windows 2000.
Ahh. I'll be sticking that on an S/390 right away. Whats that? You say
it doesnt scale that far?
Hmmm.
> Until then, you'll be stuck with your pathetic Linux (which LinuxToday has
> even admitted is not scalable, had terrible performance, and has ways to
> go before it's "Enterprise Ready")
Mind quoting them directly?
>> > (that means dipshits like you who dont understand computers are making
>> > it worse for everyone)
> Well, while you sit stewing in your infinite ignorance, I'll be out deploying
> world-record setting scalable ecommerce sites with certified and independantly
> audited and review enterprise level security and making a fortune at it.
Its interesting that you think you know what sort of money im making for
the job I do. :)
>> well said - there are too many dipshits like Chad about....
> Oh, that's a convincing argument, Alison. And, exactly, what have you
> contributed to this group? So far, only adolescent idolatry and ignorant
> rantings with no substance or mannor.
Alot of people feel this way, chad. Not that youd ever admit it.
> Let me guess, you're using Linux, right? No wonder your brain has been
> so demented.
She understands linux in all likelyhood, and you do not.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 13 Mar 2000 01:25:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8aguji$23eq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> In article <8agho5$ema$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> doc rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>That wasn't the procedure for installing Windows is what is funny about it.
>>>>Had you never installed Windows before and someone was pulling your leg?
>>>>
>>>>--doc
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Well, "doc", obviously you don't know what you are talking about,
>>> because it is *precisely* the procedure (show me what's wrong with it -
>>> you can't, because it works, and each step is necessary).
>>
>>Well...
>>
>> It *does* work, but each step isnt exactly nessesary, depending on the
>> kind of hardware you have.
> For the hardware I described every step is necessary. Please tell me
> what step is not necessary if you think I am wrong.
You didnt have to go through all that partition crap. Theres a lot of
partition software out there thats much easier than what you used. You
also didnt have to remove the pcmcia stuff to install. Even if you had
removed the pcmcia stuff to install, you wouldnt have had to have put them
back and configured them individually. I make a habit of out of using
pcmcia hardware that is supported completely by windows98 (much easier
now with win2000) "out of the box". That way, when I reboot windows just
installs the proper drivers all by itself. You might have to click "ok"
on a dialog box or two though.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 20:37:52 -0500
A transfinite number of monkeys wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 00:57:14 -0500,
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Visit the dell site, signed livewire 2.2 drivers for Live cards... Dell
>: didn't wanna wait... it was a good moment in teaching CL a lesson... can
>: give you the link of you need it but you can find it pretty easy.
>
>Not everyone owns a Dell... Besides, the download is over 90 MB. Over
>90 MB for a *sound card* driver and some tools??? I'll wait for the
>CL release, thanks.
>
>: they didn't claim symbolic links, they claimed something much
>: better/different.
>
>Back this claim up. I read their report. What they described was
>nothing more than symbolic links.
There's already a "transinfinite" size thread on this.
2 + 2
>
>--
> Jason Costomiris <><
> Technologist, cryptogeek, human.
>jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
From: "Mark Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 01:39:50 GMT
> The original question was whether there will be
> development tools for Linux of the same quality (or better (!)) as the
leading Windows
> development tools.
No, as the poster of the original question, let me clarify, since most folks
seem to be missing the point. What I'm thinking about are not just open
source tools that run under Linux and generate Linux apps and that are
best-of-breed. What I'm looking for are open-source tools that run under
both Windows and Linux and generate both Windows and Linux apps, AND are
best of breed.
Imagine a compiler, a set of class libraries (thinking C++ for the moment)
and an IDE (for those millions of developers who work that way) which is
open-source and also the standard, the default, the obvious choice for
developing a GUI client application. So that even those companies who were
not particularly interested in Linux would end up with Linux versions of
their apps at very little additional cost.
The idea is to steal the loyalty of Microsoft's developers--those huge
numbers of VB and VC++ coders--by giving them a cheaper (as in free, open
source) and better way to build *windows* apps (and, as it happens,
generates Linux versions for free).
What I'm thinking is that, on the client side, you're not going to convert
the Windows users until the applications are available (no surprise), and
the applications aren't going to become available until you provide a way
for ISVs to build Linux apps at little marginal cost above and beyond what
they're already spending on their Win32 apps.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for
DumbAsses
Date: 13 Mar 2000 01:42:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3) writes:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Darren Winsper
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > What can FreeBSD do that Linux can't?
>>
>> It loads better and handles very high loads much more easily. Its got a
>> MUCH better tcp/ip stack. Its got a Ports tree and an automated cvsup.
> I haven't had any experience running FreeBSD and Linux on a highly
> loaded server, so I really can't comment much. I guess it would
> depend on the distribution of Linux you're using. For heavy loads, I
> would prefer Slackware or Debian. It would be interesting to see how
> RedHat fares as a highly-loaded server. I guess RedHat would be ideal
> for low-to-medium load servers.
I think the problem lays in kernel i/o, resource and memory management,
which should be pretty consistent across the linux spectrum. Ive noticed
load problems on RedHat, Debian and LinuxPPC that simply dont exist
under FreeBSD. FreeBSD does have its own kernel problems though, namely
an infuriating little i/o bug that occurs under *extremely* heavy
(more than 60 megs a second on multiple interfaces) network loads. I'm
pretty sure this bug exists in 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, though I havent seen
it at all in 4.0 (which until it becomes stable has a whole slew of
other problems...:))
But I still prefer FreeBSD as a workstation operating system (cvsup
kicks ASS. Debian is close, but I like FreeBSD's system better) and
as a heavy server OS. As long as you arent pushing multiple network
interfaces past 40 megs or so (which you should be offloading somehow
anyway if you know whats good for you; I never claimed I knew what was
good for me :)) everything is just peachy.
> As for FreeBSD -vs- Linux, I run FreeBSD all the time, and it is my OS
> of choice. I think that Linux does pretty damned well for a free OS,
> though. So, I won't comment, because I haven't compared the two in an
> actual server usage environment. I've heard that, in the the wake of
> the Mindcraft tests, that FreeBSD had similar flaws to Linux that were
> exposed during the test. Of course, I think that Microsoft had
> Mindcraft tailor-make the "tests" specifically to known NT strengths,
> so that both FreeBSD and Linux would "fail". This is the epitomy of
> FUD, IMO. It is the very pinnacle, the epitome of all that is FUD.
Agreed. From what I know of the test, it seems to me that all of the
BSD derivatives would have failed in similar ways.
> I've talked to a person in the ISP and web hosting business, and he
> said that Win 2000 was pretty nice and stable. He also says that NT
> 4.0 wasn't all that stable in terms of stability. Hmmm -- could it be
> that NT 4.0 actually... dare I blaspheme Microsoft... sucked?
> (Gulp.) Maybe it wasn't the bad HW after all? Of course, any OS can
> stay up for long periods of time if you have the right combination of
> HW. When NT 4.0 crashed, it was the hardware's fault. Either that,
> or the administrator. How the hell could an administrator make a
> machine crash? This one is beyond me.
In my experience, win2000 actually is pretty stable, but it does have
a whole bunch of little annoying flaws. Gui stability needs some work,
its "out of the box defaults" suck ass, and im sick to freaking death
of entire directory trees suddenly moving.
> I think that MS finally has a decent, truly stable, product in Win
> 2000. However, Linux or FreeBSD is a much better choice on
> underpowered, modest-memory HW, because you can shut down the X server
> to free up some CPU and memory cycles. This is one strength of UNIX.
> Of course, Win 2000 is good, I'm not denying that. It's just that
> Linux or FreeBSD will run on lower-end HW more efficiently.
And I think that FreeBSD and Solaris will handle high end server load
far more efficiently.
> There. I gave MS its due and called the shots as I see it. I prefer
> UNIX over Windows 2000 as well, because it's much easier, IMO, to use
> scripting and command-line tools (such as perl, sed, awk, sh, ksh,
> etc.) on UNIX. You can use scripting tools on 2000, I could imagine,
> although the UNIX environment seems much better suited for it.
And as an added bonus, UNIX scripting is consistent. A kornshell
script is a kornshell script and will work on any UNIX platform thats
got kornshell on it. The same cannot be said of Korn for windows,
which the actual writer of kornshell called "a half assed attempt".
p0ok
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 19:09:20 -0500
From: Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mandrake=Poison?
Ferdinand V. Mendoza wrote:
<snip>
> BTW, I would say that your conpiracy theory is farfetched.
> Do you have shares in Caldera or Redhat?
Shares in Caldera or Redhat? Would attacking another Linux distro
actually help those shares? Hey, that makes my theory look
pretty sane.
>
> Ferdinand
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
