Linux-Advocacy Digest #601, Volume #25 Sun, 12 Mar 00 09:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Drestin
Black")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Random Liegh)
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (Marc Espie)
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) (Loren Petrich)
Re: A little advocacy.. (Gooba)
Re: In the middle of it all... ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: In the middle of it all... ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob Germer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 01:33:56 -0500
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8aeasa$3oq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Go ahead and post some more microsoft URLS that swear up and down that
> the win2000 tcp stack can throw 2.4 gigs per second over a single
> interface.
>
hmmm... hows stuff like this hit ya?
http://www.unisys.com/events/comdex99/presentations/uis-ms.asp
or
http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1018161,00.html
or
http://www.winntmag.com/Articles/Content/7704_01.html
As you can see, it's easy to document claims... now, here is one claim from:
http://www.washington.edu/hdtv/sc99/
"Microsoft and the Alliance and the partners demonstrated that it is now
possible to send a gigabit-per-second TCP/IP stream from one Windows 2000
workstation to another over a WAN. Microsoft teamed with the Alliance's NT
cluster development team and with the National Laboratory for Applied
Network Research (NLANR) to verify that Windows 2000 TCP/IP software
performance scales at Gbps rates on long-distance networks. This work
demonstrates speed breakthroughs in end-to-end workstation internetworking
and shows the capabilities of Windows 2000 TCP/IP."
now - is it your claim that MS conspired with all these people to make shit
up and then paid off the press to misreport what they saw?
if you'd like, here are some names and contact info for those responsible -
check it yourself:
Jennifer Todd
Waggener Edstrom/Microsoft
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
425-637-9097
David Richardson
University of Washington
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
206-543-2876
Karen Green
NCSA/Alliance
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
217-265-0748
Susan Brandt
ResearchTV
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
212-414-4672
Lisa Young
Sony Electronics
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
408-955-5683
Jacqueline Brown
P/NWGP
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
206-685-6238
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: 12 Mar 2000 06:59:26 GMT
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 06:41:01 +0000, The Scotts wrote:
>Umm, I wasn't the one who couldn't cut and paste. My post also said
>Netscape allows it and that I did it to verify it. Thought it was
>pretty clear.
Doh ! I completely misread your post. Sorry.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Random Liegh)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 07:36:24 GMT
[header snip]
>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.
True; alot of the X apps /do/ look like shit. This is better as more theme
-oriented window managers come out, with their accompanying applications.
"slow as shit"? I use fvwm95 on my 486/66 ....loads faster than the GUI
for winblows or os2
>
>9. Sound Blaster Live is supported in an abortive manner, if you can
>even make it work at all. Top selling card for over 2 years and still
>semi-supported. Corel announces alliance with Creative to develop
>multimedia applications (ala Sound Forge, WaveLab, Cakewalk etc) and
>yet Corel still can't provide a binary on their website that works.
>Damm shame, but typical "wait till it's obsolete to support it" Linux
>fluff.
Can't say about the 'live'; but I have a SB that I bought last year wich I
have never had problems with. I was in the same store I bought it in last
week and they were still selling it (so one can only assume it's
more-or-less current :).
Can't say about scanners or printers, as I don't use either
[snip]
>6.Dial up's and Free ISP's as well as AOL. First point AOL does not
>work. That automatically eliminates millions of users from using
>Linux. Secondly, most Free ISP providers require surveys and scripts
>to be run that only run under Windows or Mac. Linux does not work and
>no amount of begging will change anything.
I have used 4 isps over the last 2 years; I have managed to get /All/ of
them to work using the pppsetup script that comes with slackware (3.5 then
7.0)
'surveys'...? What the hell are you talking about, junior?
>
>5.Netscape. If you hate Netscape, you'll hate Linux cause you have no
>choice except KDE, a poor substitute or a text based browser, and
>believe it or not there are folks running these. Mostly in the Linux
>community, because that's the best they can do. Opera will be
>out....anyday....anyday......anyday.......
>Mozilla.....anyday.....anyday.....anyday........
And if you hate Netscape on windows, you're in even *deeper* shit, as the
only replacement is IE, wich is far, far worse than Netscape ever could
conceive of being (wich is the exact reason they have to sneak it in the
back door---who would *pay* for it?
>4.Compatability with the rest of the free world. No Lotus Notes
Define 'free' world, bud.....linux /created/ the 'free' (ie
non-propreitary) world ;P
Seriously speaking, linux complies with *many* standards (wich is a point
that has already been refuted)...Posix, etc. Just not /M$/ standards.
>3. No real group ware. Star office is ok for a single user and one
Prolly right on that one; but that is changing day by day.....
>2. Multimedia is way, way behind even the crudest Windows
>applications. Want to use a far outdated Real Player? Try Linux cause
>that's what it uses. DVD? Coming real soon now...yea right.....
How many times, junior, does this /specific point/ have to be refuted
before you give it a rest?
>
>1. Fragmentation of the various distributions. Red hat, Corel, SuSE
It's called /diversity/, alternately /competition/. Two words a M$phile
would not understand.
>
>Linux sux, it always has, it always will and we will make certain
>everyone we come in contact in the computer field knows that.
"We" who? You and the other personality fragments inside your head?
>
>The organized assualt has begun. Shields up cause we're gonna blow
>this baby wide open!!!
>
Go to bed. Now. with out dinner.
>Good Luck LinoNuts cause you will need it. We are out there to
>disprove each and every idiotic claim you make to try and support that
>miserable OS called Linux.
If it's as awful as all that....it will collapse on it's own. So
explain why you feel a need to lead an 'organized assualt' (HA!) However,
it's hard to find entertainment alone in your room on a dateless night,
isn't it? I suspect that's the Real Reason you and your personalities are
frothing here.
>
>
>z
>
>
--
/*************************************************
* "Well people look and people stare *
* well I don't believe that I even care *
* you work your life away and what do they give? *
* You're only killing yourself to live........" *
* -Black Sabbath "Killing yourself to live *
*************************************************/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc Espie)
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: 12 Mar 2000 11:30:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
William Burrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 11 Mar 2000 20:16:20 GMT,
>Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Indeed. It definitely doesn't scale. That's where BSD wins hands down.
>So, why is it that to upgrade from OpenBSD 2.5 to 2.6 I had to run
>tkdiff, read through the whole config file line by line and create a
>merged file? What a pain.
Don't know why, you tell *me*.
It was totally painless on my side.
OpenBSD config file is pretty easy to read; if you don't want to go there,
use GENERIC. Especially with config -e, you don't even have to re-compile
kernels anymore, unless you want to. In which case you are usually happy to
read through a new config file and find out what changed exactly.
--
Marc Espie
|anime, sf, juggling, unicycle, acrobatics, comics...
|AmigaOS, OpenBSD, C++, perl, Icon, PostScript...
| `real programmers don't die, they just get out of beta'
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: 12 Mar 2000 12:22:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[Windows with its poor scripting support...]
>By the same token, I don't praise Apple for weak networking support and
>cooperative multitasking. Mac and Windows are brain dead systems in numerous ways,
>and I don't use them for much.
I agree that MacOS multitasking and memory management leave much
to be desired; the MacOS might best be described as brittle -- stable as
long as one does not do certain things.
However, the MacOS does have something *very* nice --
AppleScript. One can control a lot of GUI stuff from AppleScript,
including the Finder. One can even record GUI actions with AppleScript
and then play them back or add control statements or whatever. However,
AppleScript support is not automatic; an app developer has to build in
scriptability and recordability, but the Finder is scriptable, which
should be suitable for many uses of scriptability. Also, AppleScript can
readily accept a variety of extensions, such as extensions to read
resource forks of files (something like OS/2's Extended Attributes).
> If you ask a typical UNIX bigot why >you can't load a file into Emacs by
dragging a file object onto the Emacs window, he'll >smugly answer that
UNIX people wouldn't use such a capability even if it were there. These
>people are actually proud of their insularity and lack of sophistication.
That's like the way that some people are actually *proud* of
Unix's often-cryptic command-line tools. I remember preferring VMS,
because of its more conveniently verbose tools. Although some Unix lovers
have been known to despise VMS for that reason.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: Gooba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 03:46:33 -0800
Don't take this personally. Terry's style is to tear down anyone who
doesn't agree with him on every portion of his views. You gotta believe
what he does, why he does and how he does to be safe from his rants.
Richard wrote:
>
> Hey! I'm on your side. You're so eager to argue with someone that you
> don't even see my point.
>
> "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:55:01 -0800, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >Has anyone noticed that all "reasons" given about Linux being inferior to
> > >Windows just don't make sense?
> > >
> > >Sure Linux requires more study.
> > Not if pre installed like most Windows installs
> >
> > > I don't mind using my brain. If you do,
> > >then stick to windows.
> > >
> > >True, it doesn't support a lot of hardware.
> > Ho hum, totally untrue
> >
> > > Keep in mind it's original
> > >intended purpose.
> > What was that Mr Anonymous ?
> >
> > > It supports enough for what it was intended.
> > Which is ?
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >Not a lot of commercial software availabe? True.
> > LOTS of NON COMMERCIAL software though, thousands of them, and more every
> day.
> >
> > > At least not software
> > >suitable for home use.
> > Bull.
> >
> > > Again, remember it's intended purpose.
> > I'm trying, but you havent said what that is yet !
> >
> > > 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?
> > Who knows ?
> >
> > >
> > >Hard to find hardware that works. See above.
> > Nope, there are thousands of programs for Linux, and 20 to 30 are released
> > EVERY DAY.
> >
> > >
> > >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.
> > At last some accuracy, but nothing we dont know already.
> >
> > This is a trolls post.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Kind Regards
> > Terry
> > --
> > **** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
> > My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
> > up 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours 46 minutes
> > ** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: In the middle of it all...
Date: 12 Mar 2000 12:52:40 GMT
Davorin Mestric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: can you be more specific about reasons the nt application took so much more
: time than linux version?
It's pretty well known that Win32 is designed and optimized for
desktop use while UNIX is designed for server and workstation use.
This makes server-side programming inherently more difficult and less
efficient in Win32.
Note that this is not *necessarily* a limitation of NT or W2K, but
rather of the Win32 subsystem. Both OSen have robust kernels which
probably could support a robust and efficient implementation of POSIX
or some other server-friendly API if anyone felt a need to write one.
Furthermore, server products written expressly for Win32, such as IIS
and MSSQL7, do seem to perform better than ports of comparable UNIX
products to NT. Server code must be expressly written and optimized
for NT in order to run efficiently there.
There's absolutely no question what I would use as a server today; it
would almost never be NT. But that doesn't mean it and W2K might not
have potential, if it should become realistically feasible to access
both Win32 *and* a server-friendly API at the same time, or,
alternatively, to extend Win32 so as to make it more server-friendly.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: In the middle of it all...
Date: 12 Mar 2000 13:05:14 GMT
I hate having to see Drestin's garbage quoted by others, but oh well,
life sucks sometimes . . . .
If an NT-to-Linux port goes well, he says the NT programmers suck and
the Linux programmers are wizards, that it isn't a fair comparison of
the OSen, etc., or that we're lying. If it doesn't go well - and I
can surely see how a "solution" that heavily relies upon VB/IIS/etc.
might not be terribly easy to port - then he would be touting this
fact as evidence for the superiority of NT.
He has no sense of honesty or fair play, and not even a minimal sense
of the relativel strengths or weaknesses of each platform.
Linux and UNIX are very good server/network OSen. NT is not, although
it is slowly getting better. Conversely, NT is perhaps one of the
best desktop/workstation OSen, and Linux/UNIX are playing catchup
albeit for reasons not of their own doing (most popular 'Doze apps are
written nonportably, making them a pain to port to any other OS).
Joe
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 08:08:39 -0500
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
On 03/11/2000 at 11:41 PM,
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> That's why the Linux/Win98SE dual boot box has only 64 meg - it's an
> Intel 430TX chipset MB. It will take more ram but only caches 64 meg.
Unless, of course, you are running OS/2. Then all the ram can be used
provided you tell the Bios you are smart enough to run OS/2. I have Warp
running on a 430TX motherboard with the Award Bios set for using OS/2.
When thus set, all 96 megs are available and the swapfile never grows
beyond the allocated size.
When I tell it I am not running OS/2, the swapfile grows and grows since
the memory above 64 megs is not used for programs, etc.
>
> Unless you're doing heavy graphics or somesuch, 64 meg is enough for
> most PC users now and has been standard for a long time. In the future,
> though, more ram will always be needed. Hell, the machines we got at
> work last *October* have 256 meg!
Oh? Then how come it is that when I boot into Windows 98SE, Lotus Domino
Server on a machine with 128 Megs of Memory constantly is writing
to/reading from Win386.SWP and takes 8 minutes to compact a 0.6 gig
database but when the same database is compacted when running Warp,
swapper.dat doesn't get used and the database is compacted in under 4
minutes?
We constantly run such REAL WORLD tests here, Dave. That is why we sell
and recommend Warp vs. Windows. Windows is SLOOOOOOWWWWWW compared to
Warp. Time is money for us and our clients.
> It's never going to end. 5 years from now we'll all have 1 gig ram on
> our desktop machines and we'll wonder how we ever got along with "only"
> 256 meg! :-)
To what end? Windows 2K may use all the memory. Since the USERS will be
upgrading to Windows Millenium (likely to be Windows 2001 by the time it
gets released) which will be built on the current Win9x model, it likely
will also be a pig due to real use of only 64 megs of ram.
Since our clients do not have thousands to tens of thousands of dollars to
throw out the window, xNIX is not an option. To switch to xNIX would cost
them that for new applications to replace the ones they own, employee
training time, lost productivity, etc. So xNIX is not an option in the
REAL WORLD, Dave.
Take the case of one of our newest clients we just finished setting up.
His is a personal lines insurance agency with five workstations. He
formerly owned another agency for which he and we designed a complete
record keeping, accounting system, prospecting list, etc. under Notes 4.0.
He then sold the agency and became an executive of a larger company (into
which we introduced Notes which they are still running). That company was
bought out by a much larger company which dispensed with the services of
all the senior management of Mike's firm including Mike. So, after a
fruitless five month search for a management position, Mike decided to
open a new agency of his own with his wife who is also a licensed agent.
They hired two telemarketers and bought phone lists.
Now, Mike owns Notes and ten client licenses. He owns many software
packages including multiple copies of SmartSuite for OS/2. He owns
FaxWorks. He owns multiple copies of Relish, Inimaint, etc. He owns
multiple copies of Warp 4. We built him five machines with no operating
system, something he couldn't buy at CompUSA, Dell, Gateway, IBM, etc. He
owned multiple licenses for Lantastic for OS/2 which gave him all the
security, etc. he needed and far superior to any peer to peer networking
included in Warp or Win9x. He owned a voicemail program which ran under
Warp. He owned BackAgain 2 Professional.
Now why in hell would he want to switch to Linux, RedHat or any other for
that matter? True Domino would run on that platform. But he would need a
dedicated server, server software, client software etc. Even if he used
Netscape without paying for it as he should in a commercial environment,
he would have to spend money for an office suite for four workstations.
Even asssuming that Corel makes an office suite for Linux (which I imagine
but don't know they do since they have their own version of Unix), the
cost of the suites would likely run well over a thousand dollars for four
workstations. He would need a new fax program at an unknown cost. He would
need a new voicemail program at an unknown cost. And, of course, he would
need a network server and a domino server instead of just a Domino server
(actually, not really required with Warp, but highly recommended given the
use). The server would add another $1,800 to the cost since Mike will only
use SCSI drives and SCSI Dat Tape backup.
Now tell us again how your beloved Windoze and/or xNIX is a viable
solution.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.08 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
