Linux-Advocacy Digest #584, Volume #25 Fri, 10 Mar 00 16:13:08 EST
Contents:
X toolkit wars -- what's the point? (Donn Miller)
I need Linux for Morons... (Sage Kim)
Re: XFree86 v. 4.0 hits the street. (Darren Winsper)
Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next? (Darren Winsper)
Re: Steve/Keymaster/etc. is violating AT&T usage policy (was: As Linux Dies a Slow
Death.....Who's next? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next? ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: BSD & Linux (Peter da Silva)
Re: BSD & Linux (Peter da Silva)
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (Peter da Silva)
Re: BSD & Linux (Peter da Silva)
Re: I need Linux for Morons... (Craig Kelley)
Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
("Charles W. Swiger")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 14:22:00 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: X toolkit wars -- what's the point?
Really, folks. We unix guys are supposed to be open minded. I agree
that the Xt interface to tookits like Motif is kind of klunky, but
surely there's some advantages in there someplace. For example, a lot
of people are still familiar with the Xt API. Also, the API for
various Xt based toolkits are the same, except for specific widget
functions. Who are we to say what sucks and what doesn't? This is a
very Microsoft way of thinking. "I don't like Motif, Qt programs are
shorter, so don't use Motif."
Who honestly gives a shit if anyone thinks Motif or Xt sucks? Maybe
some people like it. I think Xt is klunky too, but the whole idea of
using/programming a computer is to get work done. You can program
with the best toolkit with the best themes in the world, but the only
thing that counts is how good the "beef" of the program is, not how
good the app looks.
As long as we can create apps with a good, clean user interface design
and good core code, really, it doesn't matter one whit which toolkit
we use, does it? What really matters is that the program does what
it's supposed to do. So, if Xt is klunky, and Qt is very clean and
efficient (and it probably is), it really doesn't matter, as long as
the resulting app functions great. Not that I'm one of those people,
but I think some people are in this situation.
Unix is all about choice -- Qt and Gtk are decent toolkits. But, if
someone can do a job better using Athena, who are we to argue? People
worry too much about what's "modern" or what's "in".
I dont hate or love any toolkit -- I'm just defending people's right
to use whatever they want, and I see people slamming Motif/Xt all the
time, so that's why you saw me defending Motif/Xt. I'm not an Xt
advocate, and I *do* think Qt, Gtk is "better". But, let the people
be free, and stop advocating this or slamming that.
I'm not an Xt advocate, but telling people not to use Xt because it's
"old fashioned" or it "sucks" is like telling people what clothes to
wear or what car to drive. People just have to use what THEY are
comfortable with, and what will enable THEM to get the job done.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: Sage Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: I need Linux for Morons...
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:16:21 GMT
I did it. I bit the bullet, and decided to run Linux, and installed
Linux Mandrake 7.0 w/o problems on a computer that I made from leftover
parts from the attic (Pentium 233, 256MB, 10GB HD, etc).
Thank the Lord Network card was auto detected, and it works, but I am
now sitting infront of this computer which has a "successful
installation of Mandrake 7.0", but when I log in, it just throws two
terminal windows on blue desktop, and I do not know what to do other
than some very basic unix commands (telnet, ftp, quota, etc...).
I managed to run natescape (by typing in "netscape", wow...). But at
this point, I do not even know how to move or resize the netscape
window. My question is, isn't there control panel utilities or anything
of that nature that I can d/l and install to run on this manchine? So
as subject states, I need something even more basic than "Linux for
dummies". I did find some utility, but couldn't even figure out how to
download it...
Thank you for any helps,
--
-Sage
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: XFree86 v. 4.0 hits the street.
Date: 11 Mar 2000 03:43:28 GMT
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:47:19 -0600, Bobby D. Bryant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Use caution before jumping in; they've done some substantial
> restructuring of the internals, which means new drivers are required and
> your current card might not be supported yet.
Indeed. It should be interesting to see how painful the migration will
be when the packages arive in Debian unstable. I know my card is
supported since I tried some of the 3.9 releases, so that's one less
problem to worry about.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your part?
"Microsoft is estimating that 28,000 of these [bugs] are likely to be 'real'
problems [in Windows2000]."
-http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2436920,00.html?chkpt=zdhpnews01
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next?
Date: 11 Mar 2000 03:43:40 GMT
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 08:19:21 GMT, Alan Sugar fix my mind
<[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.
>
> NT and 2000 can do whatever Linux does, and better in many
> cases (note that I do not say at every case)
Oh really? Show me a software installation system as painless as
Debian's apt.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your part?
"Microsoft is estimating that 28,000 of these [bugs] are likely to be 'real'
problems [in Windows2000]."
-http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2436920,00.html?chkpt=zdhpnews01
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Steve/Keymaster/etc. is violating AT&T usage policy (was: As Linux Dies a
Slow Death.....Who's next?
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:48:13 GMT
The email account is real...you're welcome to try it if you like.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 10 Mar 2000 02:21:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
> http://www.att.net/general-info/terms.html
>
> Welcome to AT&T WorldNet Service -- Terms and Conditions
> ...
>
> Be honest
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 13:51:21 -0600
ax wrote:
> You remind me of another reason why the business owner I met
> refused to upgrade to Linux. He was not happy with Microsoft
> solutions due to the frequent crashing. But he was sort of pushed
> by the situation his upline suppliers were upgrading to newer
> Microsoft products and the e-transaction software from his
> suppliers were not backward compatible.
That's why it is absolutely essential for the public to standardize on
communication/transaction protocols without IP encumberment. Otherwise someone
has you by the yarbles and will use it to keep you and everyone you do business
with on an upgrade merry-go-round.
But if you use open protocols, you can switch vendors at will, and go with
whichever one provides the best combination of 'cheap' and 'reliable'.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next?
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:29:15 -0300
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8a9qn4$l0a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Eerrrr, you're confused. The death of UNIX has already occurred. What
> you're witnessing is the resurrection (roll stone away from tomb; cue
> heavenly choir...)
Night of the living dead?
Francis.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: 10 Mar 2000 20:16:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 03:34:01 -0500,
Stephen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My favorite, is that even if you tell RH to install KDE it will install
> Gnome.
Not to defend RH, but you know that KDE and Gnome are related in
the same way as X and a window manager? Gnome != WM. KDE == WM.
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: 10 Mar 2000 20:22:12 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 04:38:47 +0000,
Ron House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Oh, forgot to mention: RH6.0: takes 5 minutes to mount an NFS partition
> from a Unix server.
Now you got me interestred: Is/was that an NFS problem, a RH
problem, a problem of some stuff like DNS not working, a
misconfiguration on the Unix-Server, a network cabling problem, almost
borken HW on which the NFS partition resides (bad termination,
dying HD, cabling), or what else?
Have you solved it, and if so, how? Did you recheck if it workes
with RH after fixing?
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
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: 9 Mar 2000 05:12:14 GMT
In article <01bf894a$06a19060$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Noah Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And, speaking of FreeBSD, how does it fare in compatability with Linux?
> Can the two live together on the same drive with Win98? NetBSD destroyed
> all the partitions I had. I can't say I am impressed with the *BSDs so
> far....
Well, I had Win95, NT, Red Hat 4.1, and FreeBSD 2.1.5 all on the same
disk at once. I can't say I'm much impressed with LILO... having to
reconfigure the boot manager when you go to a new kernel is something I
thought had been happily lost in the mists of time. The NT boot manager is
surprisingly nice, though, considering where it came from.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
`-_-' Ar rug tú barróg ar do mhactíre inniu?
'U` "The Windows Perl motto: It's just as well there's more than one
way to do it because most of them don't work." -- Simon Cozens.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
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: 9 Mar 2000 12:13:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dbt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which is funny, because Debian is working on the opposite, because they
> like the performance advantages of the FreeBSD kernel.
More power to them. I wouldn't use it, but debian seems a lot less screwed
up than most.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
`-_-' Ar rug tú barróg ar do mhactíre inniu?
'U` "The Windows Perl motto: It's just as well there's more than one
way to do it because most of them don't work." -- Simon Cozens.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
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: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux)
Date: 9 Mar 2000 12:18:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alexey Dokuchaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter da Silva wrote:
> > If I could get a Linux kernel with FreeBSD userland I'd probably be happy
> > with that.
> Actually, Linux kernel is pretty lame (don't bash me on that ;-) compared to
> FreeBSD one. fBSD's is much more organized, logical... (i love that
> /usr/src/sys/ make stuff and editing congif files by vi) + fast, neat, and
> well-optimized.
Oh yes, I agree, I really hate the Linux "interactive makefile" approach... it
reminds me of building an RSX-11 system image. Still, I could deal with that.
It'd only have me imagining unusual tortures for $DISTRIBUTION developers once
in a long while instead of every day.
> It makes use of many algorithmic advantages, unlike linux,
> since fBSD has very deep academic root behind it. Maybe the only thing fBSD
> lacks is decent modules support (like in linux).
Personally I don't trust modules, and I had a hell of a lot of trouble getting
Red Hat 4.1 installed because their SCSI module stuff didn't actually work on
a number of Adaptec controllers... you needed a kernel with the Adaptec drivers
compiled in to get it installed.
But $PFY does, and he's set up systems with pretty much all the non-boot
drivers in modules, and they seem to be pretty solid. I was dubious at first
but nothing horrible seems to have happened as a result.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
`-_-' Ar rug tú barróg ar do mhactíre inniu?
'U` "The Windows Perl motto: It's just as well there's more than one
way to do it because most of them don't work." -- Simon Cozens.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
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 00:26:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Noah Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Second major problem, NetBSD fdisk likes to fuck up partition tables.
Then don't use it. FreeBSD's plays nice with other operating systems, and
IIRC the ID numbers are the same so NetBSD should happily use them. But if
you're running FreeBSD's fdisk, why not install FreeBSD?
Look, there's 3 BSDs you can install on that machine. You know the one you're
using has problems. Why not try one of the others?
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
`-_-' Ar rug tú barróg ar do mhactíre inniu?
'U` "The Windows Perl motto: It's just as well there's more than one
way to do it because most of them don't work." -- Simon Cozens.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: I need Linux for Morons...
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 Mar 2000 13:47:32 -0700
Sage Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I did it. I bit the bullet, and decided to run Linux, and installed
> Linux Mandrake 7.0 w/o problems on a computer that I made from leftover
> parts from the attic (Pentium 233, 256MB, 10GB HD, etc).
>
> Thank the Lord Network card was auto detected, and it works, but I am
> now sitting infront of this computer which has a "successful
> installation of Mandrake 7.0", but when I log in, it just throws two
> terminal windows on blue desktop, and I do not know what to do other
> than some very basic unix commands (telnet, ftp, quota, etc...).
There should be a "K" menu in the lower left-hand corner, just like
the "start" menu under Windows.
You can try changing resolutions by holding down ctl-alt and then
pressing the + and - keys on the keypad.
Why did you post this to the .advocacy group?
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 Mar 2000 13:48:30 -0700
"Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8a9qn4$l0a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Eerrrr, you're confused. The death of UNIX has already occurred. What
> > you're witnessing is the resurrection (roll stone away from tomb; cue
> > heavenly choir...)
>
> Night of the living dead?
No, it's more of an "Army of Darkness" :)
Shop smart.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
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: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux)
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 10 Mar 2000 13:59:37 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva) writes:
> Oh yes, I agree, I really hate the Linux "interactive makefile"
> approach... it reminds me of building an RSX-11 system image. Still,
> I could deal with that. It'd only have me imagining unusual
> tortures for $DISTRIBUTION developers once in a long while instead
> of every day.
So.... don't use it.
Use vi or joe or ed or pico or NOTEPAD.EXE under Wine. You could even
be a Real BSD Man(tm) and pipe together some head and tail.
> Personally I don't trust modules, and I had a hell of a lot of
> trouble getting Red Hat 4.1 installed because their SCSI module
> stuff didn't actually work on a number of Adaptec controllers... you
> needed a kernel with the Adaptec drivers compiled in to get it
> installed.
The 2.0.x Linux kernels all had problems with Adaptec controllers,
especially with the aic7xxx chipset.
> But $PFY does, and he's set up systems with pretty much all the
> non-boot drivers in modules, and they seem to be pretty solid. I was
> dubious at first but nothing horrible seems to have happened as a
> result.
Our RH6x boxen even have boot drivers in modules; they reside in an
initrd. Very slick.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
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: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:00:56 GMT
In comp.sys.next.advocacy Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aaron J Reichow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> And the root-less X server thing is an "if." But what we have now is both
>> a free (Xfree86 derivative) X server being done by John Carmack as well as
>> a shareware version one should be able to find at the Peak or Peanuts
>> archives. The drawback to these, is that one would have to switch to the
>> X environment, not unlike switching to the Blue Box in Mac OS X Server.
>
> John Carmack?
Yes.
> Did I miss something? This sounds very interesting; please elaborate.
John decided he wanted to get X working under Darwin, so he's been working on
the port. The earlier versions of ID's products were developed and written
under NEXTSTEP, so perhaps John had some fond memories of the platform and
the technology.
Consult the darwin-development mailing list archives on Apple's website for
details....
-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
******************************
