Linux-Advocacy Digest #634, Volume #25 Wed, 15 Mar 00 01:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux smp kernel UNSTABLE? (mlw)
Linux Gateway/firewall/etc: Definitions (peter)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Norman D. Megill)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux ("W. Kiernan")
Re: Mandrake=Poison? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Novell + Linux = Two Losers Screwing in a Lightbulb ("W. Kiernan")
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail toW2K) (Matt Gaia)
Re: which OS is best? (Bob Lyday)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Warren Young)
Re: Linux Gateway/firewall/etc: Definitions (Arjan Drieman)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 03:14:35 GMT
On 15 Mar 2000 01:44:30 GMT, Matt Kennel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:02:33 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:On 13 Mar 2000 03:00:10 GMT, Matt Kennel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>:>On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 06:41:05 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>:On 8 Mar 2000 21:32:46 GMT, Salvatore Denaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>:>On 8 Mar 2000 14:06:09 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>:>>Why didn't Apple make a Quicktime player for Linux?
>:>:>
>:>:>Linux has 4% of the desktop and 25% of servers shipped last year. What
>:>:
>:>: A Linux port would also cover the gruntwork for any posix
>:>: compatible system including ALL the other Unixen and quite
>:>: likely BeOS.
>:>
>:>Disagree. POSIX doesn't cover the sort of high-performance graphics
>:>models and bitmap models and color models that a Quicktime player would
>:>need, nor any of the interface.
>:
>: Why? Most of the gruntwork in video and audio decoding is
>: computational.
>
>human programmer gruntwork != computational grunt work
>
>: Bit banging hardware really has little to
>: do with it. Although things like hardware accelerated
>: YUV->RGB host to videoram blits can be quite useful. The
>: shouldn't be a showstopper on current CPUs.
>
>Well the computational parts are probably in portalble ANSI C and
>POSIX doesn't matter anyway. The question is how do you write a
>Quicktime Player of acceptable quality and GUI interface and
>performance? POSIX is nearly irrelevant except for sockets.
These are two completely separate problems. The implementation
of one should not interfere with the other one. There are some
possible hardware exploitation issues in terms of 2D video
chipset features or special microprocessor instructions. They
shouldn't be showstoppers however.
Apple already makes what is being criticized as a mediocre
decoder for Windows already. So being mediocre on another
platform wouldn't be such a big deal.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux smp kernel UNSTABLE?
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:26:34 -0500
Darren Winsper wrote:
[snipped]
> > You have not even verified that the floating
> > point output will match the floating point output of a non overclocked
> > CPU.
>
> No, but this isn't really important to most people who overclock. Just
> so long as their programs/games run correctly they're happy. Nobody would
> overclock something they can't risk failure on.
>
This very thread was started by some guy who over clocked and complained
about the kernel being unstable.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Linux Gateway/firewall/etc: Definitions
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:47:30 -0500
I'm writing a report about the power and usability of linux...
But I'm having a problem,
Every book I look in has a slightly different definition of what a
gateway/firewall/proxy etc is...
My report will focus on setting up a Linux machine to protect a LAN.
Can someone give me the lowdown on; Linux, it's capabilities and the
modern terminology that is used.
Terms I need defined:
Gateway
Firewall
Proxy
Ipchains (how is this defined?)
on a diagram it would be setup like this
"[firewall] - [gateway] - [proxy]" - [hub/LAN]
When you set up a linux firewall/gateway/proxy is it safe to put it
all in one machine ?
I've heard that you might want to have everything sitting behind the
firewall machine...
Thanks for your help,
peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman D. Megill)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 14 Mar 2000 23:06:05 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>On 14 Mar 2000 04:49:58 -0500, someone claiming to be Norman D. Megill
>wrote:
>>Now, to be honest I do not know if you *really* have to reformat and
>>start over - perhaps something could be recovered in Safe mode - but
>>life is short and I have better things to do with my time than
>>experiment with MS bugs.
>
>You misspelled "bugs in the NeoMagic MagicGraph 128XD driver," since
>it is the only driver I have ever run across / heard about with this
>problem.
>
>That being the case, it is likely in the extreme that starting in Safe
>Mode would allow you to correct this problem -- exactly as it is
>designed to do.
Interesting that because you've never heard of it, it therefore can't be
an MS bug. Granted, and also granted that it could (appear to be) fixed
in Safe Mode, how do you really know that some deeper hidden damage
hasn't also occurred that will only show up later? Since you don't have
the source code and don't know the precise nature of the bug, you cannot
know that. I am trying to do a clean install that will hopefully last
at least a month or more, so why should I take the risk, especially
contrary to Gateway's advice? Windows has enough mysterious flaky
problems as it is, so I want to eliminate as many unknowns as possible.
In any case it is irrelevant to my procedure, because it's something I
say NOT to do. I experienced it once, and that was enough for me to
simply avoid it from that point forward.
--Norm
------------------------------
From: "W. Kiernan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:07:05 -0500
Itchy wrote:
>
> As a small business owner I am always interested in ways to save
> money. We switched from Apple to IBM when Apple's pricing became too
> much to handle. I recently tried Redhat Linux in the hopes that I
> could save some money.
>
> Well I spent 11 days messing around with this so called operating
> system and for the life of me can't figure out why in the world
> anyone in business would want to waste time on this obviously hacked
> together, half finished program.
>
> Maybe some day when it is completed I will try it again but for now,
> it has been thrown in the garbage can where it belongs. I have a
> business to run and can't waste time searching the internet looking
> for ways to accomplish simple tasks.
>
> Mr. Gates provides me easy ways of running my programs and as a result
> running my business. Linux had better wake up, fast.
>
> Aimee
OK, on behalf of the Linux developers let me issue an apology and this
check; here's your money back.
___________________________________________________________________
| |
| LINUX DEVELOPERS 1029 |
| 123 Main Street |
| Helsinki, Finland Date _ 14 March 2000_ |
| |
| Pay to the $ ___0.00_ |
| order of: Aimee |
| -------------------------------------- |
| _0_ |
| Zero and 100 -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* dollars |
| --------------------------------------------------- |
| Bank of Finland |
| est. 1827 |
| |
| memo: full refund signed: Linus T&^%$# |
| ----------------- ------------------------ |
|_________________________________________________________________|
Yours WDK - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Mandrake=Poison?
Date: 14 Mar 2000 22:18:32 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>This is getting so skew to the main point as to be ridiculous.
If you want to call your outrageous accusation a 'main point', I
suppose trying to make sense of it would be skewing things...
>All of this is just a way of prolonging your contention with me,
>without addressing reasonable grounds for that contention.
The only reasonable discussion we might have had is about why
your installation had problems that others don't but you did
not seem interested in that or the fact that an updated version
is available.
>With every installation, Caldera, Red Hat, and Mandrake,
>the user is me. With the failures the distro is Mandrake, and
>with the successes, the distros are Caldera and Red Hat. But you
>think that the thing in common with the failures is the user.
>Yeah, that makes sense.
When an installation works initially but later fails it is
usually something someone did wrong running as root. The
software doesn't just wear out.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "W. Kiernan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Novell + Linux = Two Losers Screwing in a Lightbulb
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:23:06 -0500
"Hugh G. Rexshun" wrote:
>
> Now Novell has really scraped the bottom of the barrel. They have
> thrown in the towel and are offering NDS for Linux.
>
> It is like watching two iMac users try to install Quake! Funny as
> shit and a losing proposition at best.
Near as I can tell, the only significant difference between Windows NT
v.4 and v.5 is Microsoft's immature clone of NDS, "Active Directory."
Of course unlike "Active Directory" NDS has been shipping for six years
or so, and unlike NDS, "Active Directory" is rigidly and permanently
tied to one and only one OS: that one manufactured by the predatory
monopoly. If NDS is worthless then there is no real reason for
businesses to upgrade to "Windows 2000".
But as you think "Quake" is so major a component of what one does with
computers, I don't suppose NDS is of any interest to you anyway.
Yours WDK - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail toW2K)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:35:02 -0500
Wow, I even have King Troll, I mean Drestin, making personal insults since
he can't stick to the facts now. Aren't I special? <g>
Matt
P.S. Oh yah, *plonk*
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 20:51:59 -0800
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> What children learning software and games are there for your children
> on Linux?
>
> What do they typically use the computer for? Learning? Playing games?
> Browsing the web?
>
> What type of computer education are you giving them simply because of
> your overly-biased and ignorance-founded hatred for Microsoft?
Yeah, the guy is "overly biased" probably cuz he doesn't want to
buy from an organized crime gang, which is all M$ is. Actually
I have found that the more ignorant a person is, the more they
think Crimosoft is a cool corporation. That's the way I was
until I ran Losedoze for a while and went on the Internet and
found out about how wicked and terrifying this corporation
really is.
Chad, you may be interested to know that that is why a lot of us
hate M$. We don't hate them cuz they are "too successful." We
are not fans of excessive government regulation. We don't hate
them cuz they make lousy products. We don't hate them cuz they
are a monopoly.
We hate them cuz they are an organized crime gang that, through
an illegal monopoly, killed a bunch of superior products, set
computing back 5-10 years, and then rammed their lousy,
overpriced crap down our throats. Why is that "overly-biased
and ignorance-founded"?
>
> Are you sacrificing the well being and mental development of your
> children simply because you're too ignorant?
Yah, Chad, like M$-deprivation is some kind of child abuse....
>
--
Bob
@..@
(--)
(>__<)
""""
(frog)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 21:36:25 -0700
From: Warren Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> >a) There are better tools available for Quick&Dirty font manipulations
> > to help one to *rapidly* create fonts.
>
> Hmmm .. AFAIK, one does not "rapidly" create fonts by any method.
There are tools that take an existing TrueType or Type 1 font and let
you manipulate it quickly in obvious ways. E.g., add a font to a family
with a different weight from the set the foundry gives you, synthesize a
quick oblique version, make a hollow face, etc.
More importantly, you can then tweak the results: perhaps the "embolden"
operation thickened the serifs too much...trim them back with the bezier
editor.
Granted, some OSes and font renderers can do some of this on the fly.
Adobe Photoshop, for example, can synthesize simple bold and oblique
faces. But, sometimes you need a permanent modification. Maybe you
want a Times New Roman Demibold, and want to use it in a newsletter that
you create in a publishing package that can't synthesize the proper face
from the common four faces.
Do programs like this exist for Metafont?
--
= Warren -- See the *ix pages at http://www.cyberport.com/~tangent/ix/
=
= ICBM Address: 36.8274040 N, 108.0204086 W, alt. 1714m
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Arjan Drieman)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Linux Gateway/firewall/etc: Definitions
Date: 15 Mar 2000 04:57:55 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:47:30 -0500, peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Every book I look in has a slightly different definition of what a
>gateway/firewall/proxy etc is...
That's because a gateway often is firewall and proxy too ;)
>Can someone give me the lowdown on; Linux, it's capabilities and the
>modern terminology that is used.
>
>Terms I need defined:
>Gateway
See http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/g/gateway.html
Notice the difference with router,
http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/r/router.html
>Firewall
See http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/f/firewall.html
It's actually a term originating from the car industry, a firewall in
a car is the stuff that protects the inside of the car if the engine
catches on fire.
The firewall in the linux kernel can deny, reject or accept packages
based on the header information, such as source, destination, SYN bit,
whatever.
>Proxy
See http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/p/proxy_server.html
>Ipchains (how is this defined?)
Ipchains is the tool used to configure the kernel firewall chains. It
basically has two functions, configuring the firewall and configuring
ip masquerading. See also
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/IPCHAINS-HOWTO.html
So basically a gateway enables your network to talk to some other
network, a firewall protects it and a proxy enables, caches or secures
certain services.
>When you set up a linux firewall/gateway/proxy is it safe to put it
>all in one machine ?
Yes, it's often even necessary. S'pose you want to block all traffic
from/to a firewall machine, 'cept for http traffic from the local
network going through the gateway (in this case also firewall) to the
internet. One good way is to install a proxy on the gateway, allow
connections to the proxy and deny everything else.
Or suppose you run a web server that you want to protect with a
firewall. You can run a proxy on the firewall to keep the webserver
accessible and even deny traffic based on the *contents* of the HTTP
traffic. (For example to prevend lousy perl scripts from being abused)
>I've heard that you might want to have everything sitting behind the
>firewall machine...
I think they mean that for optimal security, you'll want to run your
services (e.g. mail|ftp|http server) behind the firewall. That way
those services can't be abused to get access to the firewall itself.
Cheers,
Arjan
--
Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:38:59 -0500
> >I have to say I feel Corel traded off stability for ease of use and
> >stability IS the selling point of Linux.
> >Corel 1.0 feels like a sad replica of Windows 9X now.
>
> This sounds like a religious fundamentalist who evaluates
> everything according to how similar it is to his sect's parti-
> cular narrow doctrines. MS-Windows is not the bible, and
> Gates is not God (more likely, the opposite >8^#). The fact
> that some Linux GUIs do things differently than Microsoft
> does not mean they suck or they're sad; it just means they're
> *different*.
Windows 9X is an excellent frame of reference since almost every has used it
and by Y2K
Win95 is a know thing. Where the hell do these strange religious comments
come from??
>
> Jim, you complained that you couldn't copy and paste text, nor
> install deb or tar packages, under Corel Linux, and you claimed
> that therefore "Linux isn't ready for the desktop". After
> having the first operation explained to you in detail, and
> being told that the other two are indeed feasible, you contin-
> ue to maintain the same negative opinion.
The fact that it was not crystal clear means there is a problem.
I was not doing rocket science, just a copy/paste.
>
> You're not the first person to claim that, for various reasons,
> Linux and Unix suck, are useless, aren't ready for the desktop,
> etc.
Notice to third paries reading this: I said only the last of these three
things.
33% is a failing grade in summing up my position on Linux.
I made no reference to Unix either.
This despite the fact that many millions of people are
> already using them, often on desktop computers. Most of the
> other naysayers are also not swayed by having their complaints
> remedied, leading many to think that their purpose is to spread
> anti-Linux propaganda, rather than to participate in an honest
> discussion. I hope it doesn't turn out that way with you.
You're help does not remedy the fact that Linux (the system, not the kernel)
out of the box often sucks as a desktop environment for users.
Fonts are known by everyone to be a problem.
I want people to be damn clear before they start what the issues are.
People have little time, Linux has been overhyped by the media, and that
leads to Linux being a disappoint as a desktop, which everyone should be
more clear Linux is very good. Mostly at being a server OS though.
>
> If you like Microsoft Windows better, and want to stay with
> it, go right ahead. You're welcome to it. Those who want a
> system that's reliable, understandable (even on the inside),
> conformant to worldwide standards of data and program inter-
> change, far less expensive, easier to program for, and avail-
> able on many major types of computers, will choose Linux or
> some other form of Unix.
Actually I use both.
Some people do have high expectations in what an OS provides in desktop apps
and ease.
I clearly have some issues with Linux on the desktop.
I use Linux on the server myself, where it's best suited.
Jim Ross
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:40:24 -0500
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:10:46 -0500, Jim Ross wrote:
> >
>
> >I got it working.
> >Even though I believe it supports the CTRL-C and CTRL-V commands, WRT to
>
> On UNIX ( Motif to be precise ) it's ALT-C and ALT-V. Only recently, we're
> seeing KDE and GNOME move towards the "Windows way" to make life easier
> for new users.
>
> --
> Donovan
Excellent. Thanks, Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:41:06 -0500
Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:11:45 -0500, Jim Ross
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately CRTL-C and CRTL-V doesn't as one may expect.
>
> Actually, it does work with GNOME and KDE apps.
>
> --
> Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
> Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
>
> DVD boycotts. Are you doing your part?
I was referring to Netscape actual. I understand Alt is used in Motif apps
instead of CTRL as I had assumed.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:42:03 -0500
Clifford R Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <4Ldz4.1930$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, jktross@cw-
> f1.umd.umich.edu says...
> > >
> > > : As a result RPM's don't work with deb's,
> > >
> > > You've obviously never heard of "alien".
> > >
> >
> > Alien is my experience typically doesn't work. Not always Aliens fault
but
> > I wouldn't expect Alien to save Stampede from having less software
> > available.
> > Jim
>
>
> Not saying your claim is false or anything, but I've never had a package
> fail using alien.
> Then again, I already have almost every lib and dev package installed
> from debian, so there never seems to be a dependency failure.
> YMMV of course.
> alien foo.rpm
> dpkg foo.deb
> works like a champ for me.
You seem to be the exception then as I would try to convert out of the box.
My fault really.
Jim
>
> -c-
>
> --
> Cliff Wagner ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> Visit The Edge Zone: http://www.edge-zone.net
>
> "Man will Occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
> of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
> -- Winston Churchill
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:42:36 -0500
Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:17:13 -0500, Jim Ross
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If fonts were fixed under Linux/XFree86, I feel many programs would
benefit,
> > starting at AbiWord in Linux.
>
> XFree 4 has decent Truetype support IIRC. I'm waiting for it to appear
> in Woody (Debian's current unstable tree) before I give it a proper
> test drive.
>
> --
> Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
> Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
>
> DVD boycotts. Are you doing your part?
Isn't lack of anti-aliasing the real problem though?
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:46:19 -0500
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:05:25 -0500, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >> >> No, if something were functionally trivial you would neither
> >> >> need any references (bought or installed in the form of man
> >> >> or hlp files) and you wouldn't ever need to expend mental
> >> >> effort on using it.
> >> >
> >> >I disagree. A car is quite complex, but yet quite easy to drive.
> >>
> >> The AAA and my state registrar will surely get a hoot
> >> out of both of those clueless comments.
> >>
> >
> >Not hard to learn at the very least.
> >
> >I'm not talking about the idiots that drink or don't pay attention.
> >It's a testiment to how easy it is the drive the idiots they do so, if
only
> >poorly.
> >
>
> No, you've just lost touch with your inner car novice. You've
> been driving so long that you think that it is a task that is
> both simple and second nature.
>
> It takes effort and practice. It's just something that is
> universally considered worth the effort.
Could be.
I'm talking about the steering wheel and pedals as being obvious at least.
>
> >
> >>
> >> I usually just execute the associated application marked
> >> something like 'install' or 'setup'. The lack of an auto-
> >> mounter is less of an issue than you make it out to be.
> >> Most of the destops work around that at this point.
> >
> >Oh. A good example is Gtkalog.
> >It's a Gnome based cd/disk catalog program.
> >It tries to index /mnt/cdrom if you point it there, but cannot mount it
> >automatically (and should the each program have to? It's the OSes job)
> >If fact a previous version even crashed since their wasn't a mounted cd
> >there.
>
> That's a good example of a bad app, not a bad OS.
>
> First, the app should not be assuming a cannonical
> name when there is a perfectly good 'mountpoint
> database available'. Second, the application is more
> than capable of checking whether or not a particular
> mountpoint is active and if not to activate it.
>
> The GNOME user shell does this infact.
Hmmm. Interesting.
>
> >
> >So are you saying to me to catalog 10 cd's I have to be running a full
> >desktop environment, and mounting in that, catalog, and unmount in the DE
> >10 times, instead of under Windows quickly shuffling the 10 cd's through
> >without the nonsense?
> >
> >I can't believe you think mounting and unmounting removable media to be
> >acceptable. Especially in this case.
>
> I trust developers less than I trust myself. This example
> is a perfect illustration of that. There will always be
> occasion where it is good to have very fine control over
> the system.
Doesn't it seem that the OS should be doing the mounting transparently, and
the app shouldn't worry much about that?
>
> There's no good reason that automation can't deal with this
> complexities. That gmc can is a clear demonstration that it
> is not a showstopper but rather a sloppy developer.
>
> >Not everyone runs a desktop environment, and that is a damn poor place
for
> >that functionally to exist.
> >
> >That doesn't help those without, or in file managers.
>
> Actually the functionality exists at the system call level. The
> desktop just makes use of it. While I can certainly understand
> if some desktop user is not aware of mount & umount, a developer
> simply does not have cause to blame the OS.
>
> --
> |||
> Resistance is not futile. / | \
>
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
Hmmm. I appreciate this thoughtful response.
Maybe some time will clear up these minor issues.
Jim
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
