Linux-Advocacy Digest #582, Volume #25 Fri, 10 Mar 00 11:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ... (Memnoch)
Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next? ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Mike Kenzie)
Re: Why post? ("The Unbeliever")
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Mike Kenzie)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) ("Mark Weaver")
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto ("Nik Simpson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:11:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Darren Winsper
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 10 Mar 2000 15:14:19 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Tue, 7 Mar 2000 14:32:17 -0500, Nik Simpson
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I think the issue is one of features rather than robustness, MS would have
>> to develop COM etc for LINUX just to have the infrastructure upon which to
>> port Word.
>
>Well, they could use XPCOM, but it would be rather embarrasing...
As I understand it, Microsoft has *already* ported a good portion
of COM and other services to Solaris (IE runs there, after all).
This means that it's possible (Linux = Solaris in most particulars,
although there are probably significant differences as well).
There's also the issue of whether this is A Good Thing. :-)
Or whether Microsoft considers this desirable.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- and then there's IE + Wine, too :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:16:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Fri, 10 Mar 2000 06:33:52 GMT
<kH0y4.26531$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote on Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:01:51 GMT
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >10. X-Windows fonts look like shit. Go "borrow" true-type fonts and
>> >they still suck. Mac looks great. Windows looks good. Linux looks like
>> >shit. Not to mention X-Windows is slow as shit.
>>
>> This has nothing to do with Linux, proper. This is an X problem.
>> As for being "slow as shit", that's a bit too vague to be
>> troubleshootable.
>
>Hang on here, Ghost. Without supporting S, or Z, or whatever her name is
>this week, it seems to me that X is the underlying windowing interface on
>Linux, and that you're pretty much stuck with it if you use Linux. So, you
>can't really disown X, can you? Is there any GUI on Linux that doesn't run
>on top of X?
>
>As for the speed issue, around here a few years ago people used to use their
>Sun workstations as X servers (notation being reversed in the X world, the X
>server is, naturally, the client machine in server-client), and log into our
>HP workstations to run X applications. Turned out that Sun's were reasonably
>good X servers (that is, clients), and really lousy X clients (in actuality,
>servers).
>
>So, I suspect that the X speed issue isn't even an X problem - it's a
>problem in the vendor implementation of the X protocol. Of course, that
>brings it back to Sun in the case of my story, or Linux in the case of this
>newsgroup.
There is that, and in this case the "vendor" is http://www.xfree86.org.
Perhaps, if the vaguity can be resolved, the user community can speed
things up, I don't know.
(It works fine for me, but my equipment isn't exactly blazing fast
(PPro 200) to begin with. :-) )
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Memnoch)
Subject: Re: Why Linux is doomed to fail ...
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:23:13 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 9 Mar 2000 00:13:29 +0200, "James McLaren"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well if my own experiences are representative then Linux is doomed. I got
>the impression that the Linux community would descent on a nubi en masse if
>they requested help. Well after several ignored questions on .help I'm
>calling it a day.
>
>How you can expect first time computer recruits to embrace Linux I just
>don't know. Not with the current level of support that's for dammed sure :)
I hear ya, brother.
Really sorry you had a bad experience, but I know what you mean...
I've been there too. I got myself some O'Reilly books, asked my
co-workers (which are all very experienced *nix administrators), and
worked to a good knowledge of this wonderful OS...
Newbies CAN really be trashed good on Linux NG's. For no other reason
than that the self-proclaimed linux-gurus and soooo good at it, they
forget THEY were once newbies too. They've all did their share of
"hello world", if you know what I mean...
Then again, on the other hand, there ARE lots of experienced people
here too, and you CAN get great help. You just have to wade thru the
garbage-I'm-a-Linux-GOD-so-I-MOCK-YOU-with-my-LinuxGOD-pants-like
postings to get to the good, clean, informative an' helpful ones...
Hear that, everyone? Be nice! Help people out!
Remember: YOU WERE NOT BORN A LINUX GURU!
Linux will fail as a whole, if the community will not accept some
constructive critizisms, and acknowledge that we're all in this
together...
_-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-_
Memmie signing off... ;)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL: http://www.spork.tzo.org/~memnoch/
Badgers? We don't need no Steenkin' Badgers!
_-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-__-/\-_
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next?
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:07:22 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Admit it; you're a dinosaur in the fast moving mammalian world of
> technology. NT is old, boring shit, and Linux is new and exciting.
...in implementing even older stuff.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Kenzie)
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: 10 Mar 2000 14:27:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Kenzie)
"ax" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8a9mb8$hra$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <7oXx4.7656$[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.
>
> Believe it or not, owners of non-computer businesses
> really don't want to spend time learning an OS except
> a few simple software applications for accounting, planning
> and word processing. If they cannot get Linux installed
> with a few attempts, they will give up.
Then why don't they give up on the microsoft stuff as well? I sork with
alot of small business people and they're always complaining about being
taken by the computer salespeople, or how poorly their software is or how
badly the network runs. The reason I haven't tried to sell them on linux
yet is that they are using custom software that is not available under
linux. I have talked them out of blindly following the upgrade path. And
am showing them some alternatives.
>> > 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.
>
> Small business owners are very sensitive about the cost
> since every dollar wasted is one dollar lost from his own
> pocket. One small business owner I met lately told me
> that he had invested heavily on the latest Microsoft platforms
> for his entire offices and he wanted to preserve his latest
> technology investment for at least a few years ahead.
> He said it's always a painful feeling to upgrade his computer
> systems. He implied that his situation is non uncommon.
>
> I guess it will take a couple of years for small business owners
> like him to even think about Linux.
If cost is a prime concern then they should be looking at linux. With
linux he can preserve his old hardware investment for years. What he
needs is a good consultant who can show them the upgrade path to the OSS
linux world.
>> If you're a consultant, you're not qualified. If you're only a troll,
>> you're pathetic.
------------------------------
From: "The Unbeliever" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why post?
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:26:05 GMT
> Pro-Linux:
Just 'cause this is the linux advocacy group, anymore reasons aren't
needed, are them ?
a) no to post
b) to post ... then this is the place :)
> Anti-Linux:
The above could be an answer too, just like to discuss about something
when people
is/are? bored.
> As for the anti-linux camp, I am not sure. What motivates anti-anything?
> Usually hate of some kind. Hate is usually irrational, and when it comes
> to inanimate objects like an OS, it must be irrational. The only other
> alternative, and this is falls into the conspiracy theory, is that it is
> an effort which is funded by a corporation, like an astroturf movement.
I do not hate Linux, what's more, I like many of its features, when I
post negative
messages about it ... I've got my reasons. Blind hate is what Linux users
(face it) have
towards Windows and Microsoft, posting stupidities (in some cases) even
without
having tested the product they're talking about.
> I am skeptical of many of the "I tried to install Linux and failed"
> posts because they seem to contain too much information for the person
> to be a newbe, yet anyone with this much knowledge should have no
> problems installing Linux.
That's my case, I've installed Linux hundreds of times, and only a couple
of
easy trouble with it; in fact, installing and botting Linux is a pleasure (I
said I liked
a lot of things about Linux) ... except now, when many distros are stupidily
including graphical installations which fail (except Redhat 6.1 till now).
> (Installation is not a "Usability" issue for the average computer user,
> as they will never install an OS.)
Hmmm ... I accept.
> I have never met a windows user, except for these people, that isn't
> frustrated with Windows' instability and forced upgrade strategy of
> Office. Many windows' users would drop Windows the first opportunity
> they get.
Sure, but you miss to say that they'll drop it away and replace by any
more
stable OS, and that include another Windows too, besides Linux. I guess
most Windows 9x users would love Windows 2000 stability while running
their already known applications. I've tested Windows 2000 and found it
really impressive.
> So why, I ask, would these people go to the trouble that they do, to
> post a negative messages?
Most of the times it is because I do not like the blind hate and false
sentences some linvocates do about Microsoft products, that is, because
I like the truth, if Linux have good things, okay, but do not say that
every M$ product is bad by definition, is that a physic law ? Don't forget
that despite the market operations (I do not like) M$ does, it has a good
programmer's team, and that every piece of code has bugs.
> Are they threatened by Linux for some reason?
> What could be threatening about a PC OS?
Not at all, in fact, I'm liberating next month two applications targeted
to
GNU/Linux at freshmeat : a framebuffer utility and a GTK
ipfwadm/ipchains/iptables
firewalling tool.
> Are they paid by a corporation that views Linux as a threat?
I will it was so ! :-)
Computers up !! (no matter what OS)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Kenzie)
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: 10 Mar 2000 14:29:04 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Kenzie)
Ron House ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try to remember that RH is not linux, all the problems listed here are
with what RH packages with linux.
>> On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 07:26:56 +0000, Ron House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Well, there is one point here: RH distributions contain unproven
>> >experimental rubbish that hasn't had its raw edges knocked off.
>>
>> For example?
>
> RH5.2: Zillions of missing man pages (diff comes to mind).
>
> RH6.0: Bunged up UID numbers that conflicted with lots of software,
> premature version of g++ and all libraries, hopelessly bug-ridden Gnome
> shell.
>
> RH6.1: Installation foul-ups (e.g. if you forget to install all compiler
> libraries and components and install some later, include paths never
> search in the right places).
>
> And these are things I have come across in the normal course of events;
> I am not employed as any sort of RedHat guru.
>
> --
> Ron House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Never fear the truth.
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:00:24 +0100
> Can someone explain how they do this?? I thought that a 32 bit OS on a
> 32 bit chip was limited to 32 bit addresses which corresponds to 2^32 =
> 4.3 billion bytes, or 4 gigs of RAM.
the newer pentia allow larger segments what makes it possible to address
56GB (imho)
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:01:33 +0100
> You can't have it all in one process at the same time, but you can use
> it.
unixware allows nearly all memory in one process (56GB)
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:02:57 +0100
> Show me an x86 system with more than 4 processors please. Win2k doesn't
> support Alpha or PPC therefore it can't run on more than 4 processors
> right now.
there are more-than 4CPU systems based on xeon-cpus available for more
than 2 years ...
------------------------------
From: "Mark Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 15:17:56 GMT
I'm partner in a contract software development company. We do virtually all
of our work for Win32, but we've done a bit of Linux and Solaris work as
well. The most recent *nix work was a port of the server half of a client
server package from NT to Linux and Solaris. But on the client side (except
for one Java-based app) we've done no Linux at all. This is not by our
choice (we're kind of agnostic) but because that's what our customers pay us
to develop. For them, Linux client apps aren't even on the radar screen
yet.
That may change, of course, as the popularity of Linux grows, but I think
that's going to be a slow process. One thing that could accelerate it
greatly, I think, is this. What if the best-of-breed tools available for
building client GUI apps were:
1. Free.
2. Open-source.
3. Generated both Linux and Windows apps from the same source code.
Yes, there's Qt, but it ain't free or open source for generating Win32 apps
(or commercial Linux apps either). And there's WxWindows which I guess is
supposed to be pretty decent, but AFAIK not exactly the best-in-breed of GUI
libraries/development tools.
Wouldn't it make sense for the open source community to focus on producing a
better VisualBasic-than-VisualBasic and a better VisualC-than-VisualC that
produced both Win and Linux apps, so that as developers chose to use these
tools, the Linux versions would fall out for free?
Mark
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:28:56 +0100
this will never happen, because the linux community already perceives
that linux is the best development platform. this is off course far
from the truth, but truth is not important. what is important is what
people think, not what actually is. so, there would be no push to
improve something which is already 'best'.
"Mark Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm partner in a contract software development company. We do
virtually all
> of our work for Win32, but we've done a bit of Linux and Solaris work
as
> well. The most recent *nix work was a port of the server half of a
client
> server package from NT to Linux and Solaris. But on the client side
(except
> for one Java-based app) we've done no Linux at all. This is not by
our
> choice (we're kind of agnostic) but because that's what our customers
pay us
> to develop. For them, Linux client apps aren't even on the radar
screen
> yet.
>
> That may change, of course, as the popularity of Linux grows, but I
think
> that's going to be a slow process. One thing that could accelerate it
> greatly, I think, is this. What if the best-of-breed tools available
for
> building client GUI apps were:
>
> 1. Free.
> 2. Open-source.
> 3. Generated both Linux and Windows apps from the same source code.
>
> Yes, there's Qt, but it ain't free or open source for generating Win32
apps
> (or commercial Linux apps either). And there's WxWindows which I
guess is
> supposed to be pretty decent, but AFAIK not exactly the best-in-breed
of GUI
> libraries/development tools.
>
> Wouldn't it make sense for the open source community to focus on
producing a
> better VisualBasic-than-VisualBasic and a better VisualC-than-VisualC
that
> produced both Win and Linux apps, so that as developers chose to use
these
> tools, the Linux versions would fall out for free?
>
> Mark
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 10:36:49 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
>
>Why is it necessary for a remote control application that does
>not drive a real device to install something at the device
>driver level anyway?
>
My guess is that the only way for pcANYWHERE to wedge itself into the
system at a low-enough level to do its job was to disguise itself as a
device driver - probably a display device driver.
>
>Compare to the VNC server on a unix
>system which simply provides an additional X server as a
>frame buffer accessed by the client(s) over a network. No
>new device-level drivers necessary.
>
Yep, Unix definitely has the advantage here, in that all its GUI apps
talk to the display through a pipe. This allows the display to be
forked or redirected with a user-mode app.
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 10:43:30 -0500
"Sascha Bohnenkamp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Show me an x86 system with more than 4 processors please. Win2k doesn't
> > support Alpha or PPC therefore it can't run on more than 4 processors
> > right now.
> there are more-than 4CPU systems based on xeon-cpus available for more
> than 2 years ...
Actually, the 8-way XEONs were the first >4way XEONs and they only started
shipping late last year. There were 6&8-way Pentium Pro systems from 1996
onward, so your basic contention is correct, just the dates are a little
shaky :-)
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
