Linux-Advocacy Digest #608, Volume #25 Mon, 13 Mar 00 07:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator! (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator! (david parsons)
Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
(Darren Winsper)
Re: The Windows GUI vs. X (Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable) (Klaus-Georg Adams)
Re: LINUX = COMUNISM more... (Truckasaurus)
Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more... (Truckasaurus)
Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator! ("xxx")
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Linux is a lamer (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: BSD & Linux (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(Sal Denaro)
Re: A Linux server atop Mach? (Sal Denaro)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator!
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 06:13:32 GMT
Like, WOW man, are you on drugs??? Netscape is not owned by ANY of the
Linux companies! IE IS owned by MS. THUS NO parallel. The Linux
distributors (NOTE The 's' on the end of distributors) several browser
including but not limited to: lynx, Netscape and the KDE file manager...
*IF* MS were to come out with a free browser for Linux, I'm sure it
would be included in some distributions.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (hot_offer) wrote:
>
> Everyone complains about Microsoft putting the Internet Explorer icon
on the
> desktop and including it with the installation of their operating
system.
> Monopolistic and controlling. And they give it away for free.
>
> Yet, install any distribution of Linux and they put the Netscape
Navigator icon
> on the desktop and it is included with the installation of the Linux
operating
> system. It is installed by DEFAULT. And they give it away for free.
>
> Hmmm....see the obvious parallel. Amazing similar isn't it? And yet
every
> Linux Lacky will claim this is TOTALLY different. No it's not. Same
thing,
> same reasons, same way. But denial is far easier to swallow in the
Linux camp
> apparently.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator!
Date: 13 Mar 2000 07:12:12 GMT
>Yet, install any distribution of Linux and they put the Netscape Navigator
>icon
>on the desktop and it is included with the installation of the Linux
>operating
>system. It is installed by DEFAULT. And they give it away for free.
Depends on your installation options and distribution choice. The Slack 3.2 I
got in a book last milennium didn't have it, and I don't have to install it on
7.0. If you know enough not to have formed a decision not to want Netscape,
you're obviously intelligent enough to navigate the pkgtool menues and remove
it, or choose not to install it at install-time. Remember: the linux base
non-easily-removable system is much less broad than the Win9x one.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
members.xoom.com/marada Colony name not needed in address.
"New Windows feature: distributed.microsoft.com-- Fifty million machines
generating random C code in an attempt to produce the next version of Windows."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator!
Date: 12 Mar 2000 22:49:00 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
hot_offer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yet, install any distribution of Linux and they put the Netscape Navigator icon
>on the desktop and it is included with the installation of the Linux operating
>system.
ANY distribution of Linux?
Umm, no, it would be illegal for me to include netscape in my
distribution of Linux unless I arranged some sort of licensing
agreement with whoever owns the Netscape copyright this week.
If Microsoft offered IE for Linux, and it worked as well as the
Windows version (seems simple enough, doesn't it? But from the
sounds of the Solaris port, they didn't manage to do it there.)
I'd try to get that bundled with Mastodon, because it's as good
as Netscape and the company that wrote it still exists.
____
david parsons \bi/ Nice troll, though.
\/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
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 16:02:44 GMT
On 12 Mar 2000 19:36:10 GMT, 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
I'd like to see figures showing that.
> Its got a
> MUCH better tcp/ip stack.
I can't really comment there.
> Its got a Ports tree and an automated cvsup.
Wow, it's not like Debian has apt or anything.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your part?
------------------------------
From: Klaus-Georg Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows GUI vs. X (Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable)
Date: 13 Mar 2000 09:45:47 +0100
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > But, of course, maybe motif is
> > going to be outdated soon, I don't know. But, I think you'll have to
> > admit that, as someone who really doesn't like Motif, that Lesstif is
> > a great thing. :-)
>
> I fail to see a practical use for lesstif today. What applications
> do you run linked to it? What nice application is in development that
> you could link to it?
OpenDX springs to mind (www.opendx.org). A Great Program (TM). It's
actively developed with lesstif in mind.
On the other hand I'm trying a commercial CAD program (DeskArtes,
www.deskartes.fi) Its running with lesstif (sort of), but a couple of
things don't work. Actions on popup menus don't do
anything. Textfields are too small. But in the whole I was surprised
that it worked at all. Another problem with the program is of course
the sad state of GL and 3d in Linux.
--
MfG, Klaus-Georg Adams
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers
Subject: Re: LINUX = COMUNISM more...
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:52:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 09:07:38 GMT, Truckasaurus wrote:
>
> >Look up communism;
>
> Where ? A dictionary isn't sufficient.
Fill the gaps left open by dictionaries with brainpower.
> > it's an order of society, where *the means of
> >production* are owned by 'the people', or by the government on
behalf of
> >'the people'.
>
> There are several definitions of the word "communism".
> The one you offer is insufficient at best.
The main idea is covered in that definition - joint ownership of means
of production. If you can produce/add value, then you're in business.
If everybody owns means of production, everybody is in business,
all men are equal.
> One I have in front of me is
>
> "a political theory derived from Marx, advocating
> class war and leading to a society in which all property is
publically owned
> and each person is paid and works according to his or her needs and
abilities"
If all property is publically owned, then why are people paid? Money is
just 'terms of trade', but if I own every hamburger in my communist
society (together with all other members in my communist society), then
I don't need terms of trade.
So 'all property is publically owned' and 'each person is paid' are
mutual exclusive in this context. The definition you bring up doesn't
work...
It doesn't work unless you exchange 'all property is publically owned'
with 'all means of production are publically owned' - which is the
definition I presented to begin with.
> This is also wrong -- the correct word for this definition
is "Marxism".
> Marx did not invent communism. My point is that dictionary
definitions
> are somewhat naive.
Dictionary definitions cover the concept on a very general level.
Since I can't guess what definition of communism some guy was thinking
of when he posted 'Linux=communism', I must turn to the broadest
definition known - which can be found in a dictionary.
And from that dictionary definition, I can easily see that
Linux!=communism.
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your new you packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers
Subject: Re: Clarification of the word "communism", re LINUX = COMUNISM more...
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:06:06 GMT
In article <89kjb1$p3n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
> In article <89j3hp$5kk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Niall Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hm, I would say that something can be so capitalist that is becomes
almost
> >Comunist.
>
> I disagree; I think such a statement results from a very under-
> standable confusion about the meaning of the word "communism".
>
> It originally meant a system in which the people, by truly
> democratic processes, own (control and benefit from) the means
> of production (the physical equipment, land, knowledge, organ-
> izations, etc., by which goods and services are created).
> That's the concept to which we should assign the label
> "communism".
Exactly!
> On the other hand, in capitalism, the means of production are
> owned by a small subset (class) of the population, the capital-
> ists, who seize for their own benefit a large portion of the
> value of the goods and services that are produced by the rest
> of the population, the workers. This seizure of wealth is
> called exploitation; it's the reason why, in the US for
> example, the wealthiest 10% of the population own 90% of
> everything, and the poorest 90% own 10%. Thus the average
> member of the wealthy 10% owns 81 times as much as the average
> member of the non-wealthy 90%.
No. The definition of capitalism doesn't require that the means of
production are owned by a 'small subset', only that it is owned by
individuals. That it is owned by a few fat, cigar-smoking,
champain-drinking exploiters, is just the horror-picture that communists
created in order to scare people into communism.
Look at the people today - a big percentage of the society own shares in
som company; this makes them capitalists!
> >Ie. MS taking over the computer world where everything is a
monopoly, ie no
> >competition
>
> Approximately true, except for Unix, and now GNU/Linux/*BSD.
>
> >which is sort a part of comunism
>
> Not necessarily. First of all, the Chinese and (no longer
> existing) Russian economic systems are not communist, because
> the people do not control, through democratic structures, the
> means of production. Those means are controlled by a small
> subset of the population, the Communist Party, which also
> seizes a disproportionate amount of the value of the goods
> and services produced by the rest of the population, the
> workers, thus exploiting them.
The russian and chinese versions of communism aren't communism at all.
The power corrupted the leaders, and the people were stuck with
despotism (Stalin) and a new kind of nobility (high ranking members of
the communist party).
Let me restate, that 'communism' and 'capitalism' are old and rusty
concepts, that don't fit into the modern way of software development.
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your new you packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "xxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator!
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:20:12 +0200
By the way, I forgot to mention.... If you do not want it to install under
RedHat 6 you just don't specify it during the installation process.
AND
RedHat 6.0 gives you other browsers as well, like LYNX and KFM...
Now, why don't M$ ship with other alternatives as well.
POP goes the PARALLEL...
hot_offer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Everyone complains about Microsoft putting the Internet Explorer icon on
the
> desktop and including it with the installation of their operating system.
> Monopolistic and controlling. And they give it away for free.
>
> Yet, install any distribution of Linux and they put the Netscape Navigator
icon
> on the desktop and it is included with the installation of the Linux
operating
> system. It is installed by DEFAULT. And they give it away for free.
>
> Hmmm....see the obvious parallel. Amazing similar isn't it? And yet
every
> Linux Lacky will claim this is TOTALLY different. No it's not. Same
thing,
> same reasons, same way. But denial is far easier to swallow in the Linux
camp
> apparently.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
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: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 23:27:15 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 11 Mar 2000 20:21:50 GMT...
...and Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8ach6b$1tk6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Incidentally, how do you go about specifying things like default IRQs in the
> > >Linux config file? That's part of your configuration documentation as well.
>
> > I take the easy way and fill in the form in 'make xconfig' for that.
> > The X setup is a bit more event-driven and lets you go directly
> > to the component you need to configure. Do you ever make syntax
> > errors when you edit the kernel file directly?
>
> Yes, but a lot less often than I make mistakes filling in interactive forms,
> and MUCH less often than I make mistakes going through a bunch of prompts.
>
> "config ... syntax error ... fix ... done" is a lot less annoying than "y ...
> y ... y ... n ... n ... whoops, that should have been yes ... ^C ... make ...
> y ... y ... y ... n ... y ...".
I usually do a make config and if entered anything wrong, I correct it
with make menuconfig. Unless I'm updating a kernel, that is, then I
use make oldconfig.
mawa
--
Of course this is pretentious. The temple of the goddess of humility
was struck by lightning last week.
-- Diane Wilson, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Linux is a lamer
Date: 13 Mar 2000 11:10:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
codifex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ Stuff that doesn't matter elided ]
> That is your opinion. You are welcome to it and all it entails.
^^^^^^^
Maybe it's just me, but when I misread the above as "entrails" it
seemed wildly appropriate...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
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: 13 Mar 2000 11:37:40 GMT
In article <8a7bre$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
It all depends on whether you build understanding of the filesystem
into the boot loader (if the understanding is there, you can dispense
with reconfiguration at kernel build time since you can find the info
at boot time.) In any case, it's not as if LILO is the only boot
loader on the Linux block, and I've heard some nice things said about
GRUB in the past...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sal Denaro)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:58:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 03:29:25 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>And what percent of the desktop market is that? I think if you added
>>BeOS desktops, all *nix system on the desktop, and all Linux desktops,
>>you'll still be looking at a maket that is less that 1/10 the size of
>>the windows desktop market.
>
> The rest of the desktop sans MacOS isn't a half bad chunk
> of the pie actually.
For the effort needed to get onto the market it sounds like a very
bad business decision. Lots of effort for 1/10 the potential market.
>Plus there's cross compatibility with
> the PSX/2, imbedded systems and anyone else platform not
> owned by a company that annoyed the FSF too badly...
What does the PSX/2 have in common with *nix/X11?
> Then why should the rest of us non-mac users put up with
> Quicktime at all, if apple can't be bothered to make at
> least halfway decent vendor-lock decoder?
Well MPEG4 should be pretty open. The MPEG4 file format _is_ QuickTime
so I think it is pretty safe to assume anything produced in QuickTime
could be published in a version that would support any MPEG4 capable
client.
>>They opened up a little bit more than just Mach+BSD. QTSS, NetInfo
>>OpenPlay. Maybe something else I missed.
>
> Like I said: MOST of what Apple tooted it's own horn about
> giving away was corporate welfare from others...
<sarcasm>
Yeah... it's almost as bad as Redhat/Corel/SuSE et al taking all that
open source from around the world, sticking it on a CD and selling it
for profit.
</sarcasm>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Salvatore Denaro
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sal Denaro)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Linux server atop Mach?
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 11:58:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 00:30:03 GMT,
Charles W. Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
That and Linux supports hardware you'd actually _want_ to run a real database
on. (And by _real_ I mean 2GB+) Does Apple sell a machine with redundant power
supplies? Rack mountable? Anything close to real server hardware?
I wouldn't trust OSX on a g4 for anything more than a development database
right now.
Secondly, client access on OSX is sub par. Linux will connect to just about
_any_ database out there. And while I think EOF is a killer data access lib,
how many of the _big three_ databases can you connect to via EOF on OSX Server
right now? One?
>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.
The tarball and autoconf system isn't enough IMHO. Both the .rpm and .deb
methods are better. Heck, why doesn't OSX support the FreeBSD ports tree?
That would be a hell of a lot better than using rpm's.
And why is Apple still using pax for its packages instead of rpm's, deb's
or something else?
>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.
I'm still of the opinion that most of the people advocating Linux over
BSD for OSX are the ones that know the least about BSD and Linux.
It's like a technical comparison between 3m sticky pads vs scotch taping
a note in place. Sure there are a few differences, but for the most part
people are more interested in the _note_ than the mechanism used to attach
it to the monitor.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Salvatore Denaro
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
