Linux-Advocacy Digest #641, Volume #25 Wed, 15 Mar 00 17:13:10 EST
Contents:
10,000 apps coming soon! (Mike Kenzie)
Re: Giving up on NT (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote ("mr_organic")
Re: Giving up on NT (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next? (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail toW2K) (Wolfgang
Weisselberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Kenzie)
Subject: 10,000 apps coming soon!
Date: 15 Mar 2000 20:40:48 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Kenzie)
At a recent Borland/Inprise preesntation it was announced that there were
10's of thousands of applications just waiting for the release of Kylix to
be ported to linux. For the most part why would we want them?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 15 Mar 2000 20:47:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 08:08:39 -0500,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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'll let the proof that correct reading seems not to be a required
skill for OS-advocacy stay ...
> 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.
Up to here I actually tend to agree with you. Switching can be
very expensive. That's why vendor lock-in is evil: it raises your
costs to new heights if you were to switch, on the other hand you
must pay your vendor through the nose. I think that's called
"between a rock and a hard place" or "between upgrading ALL OS and
apps to their latest versions and retyping all your data".
> So xNIX is not an option in the REAL WORLD, Dave.
Yesterday, the internet crashed. When asked, the backbone
providers would not comment, but disgruntled workers told the
press that "suddenly, most routers and backbone computers simply
disappeared and those that did not, had no operating system left
on them." According to undisclosed sources, the internet was
mainly built on a family of hypothetical OSses called Unix.
For unknown reason said OS simply disappeared. End of the world
groups and mathematicians voiced that someone must have
accidentally bust a logic bubble wherein Unix was contained.
Asked about dangerous commerce practices the speakers of well
known vendors as SUN and HP disavowed all knowledge of such an
OS.
Meanwhile people are freezing as electrical power fails
worldwide. Air traffic came to a crushing halt, not because the
aircraft tracking systems failed as some alluded, but simply
because the automatik booking terminals were unable to contact
their servers, if they were working at all, as a PanAm spokesman
stated.
The nuclear commission was heard sighing but contemplated
themselved that "without power, the regulatory neutron catchers
will drop into the reactor and stop the reaction, unlike some
Russian reactors. Luckily [the GUS] does not use computers much."
When confronted, Bill Gates of MS-Fame would simply grin, but no
comment was heard. A reporter from NBC claimed that Bill was
looking strangely blue under the makeup and that there were tiny,
white hexadecimal figures in his eyes. Microsoft speakers denied
any action against Unix, but claimed that their sites were working
perfectly: "Only a couple of people have jumped from [the
Microsoft building]'s roof, so it can't be that bad."
Police still investigates how these employees managed to force
their way through the bolted and locked roof access door, while
several insurance companies went into bancrupty both on account of
their non-working computers as well as from substantiated rumors
about massive glass breakage in nearly every floor of the
Microsoft buildings.
A reporter from ABC however claimed that he was unable to login
into Hotmail and just came back to the login screen. "But that's
impossible, Hotmail runs under Solaris, you could not even get
that screen after ..." exclaimed Frank Wilboro, a young
MS-Spokesperson before interrupted by an elder speaker, who
explained that with all internet down, their sites "of course
served each visitor as good as possible under the circumstances,
in other words: they have almost zero problems right now."
Later that day a very mutilated body of a young male was found
just outside the Microsoft Campus. Allegations that this was
Frank Wilboro were feverently denied, but we were not able to
speak to Mr. Wilboro himself, since "he departed to a place
unknown ... to the public" as the PR-Agent Dr. Spin told us.
Frank's boyfriend could not explain that behavior, since nothing
was packed and they had planned a picknick later that day. He
asked us to stop by and see for ourselves.
However once we tried to contact him again he said that he was
terribly sorry that he could not help us and would we please
fsck[sic] off. Neighbors reported they saw some black clad people
enter the house shortly before our arrival.
An inside contact from microsoft reported that many computers had
a practically blank HD and many others were not exactly working.
"Try a type file1 > file2 under DOS, or even a type file | more.
Watch what happens. Now think of which other things under NT
might have stopped working. I am sorry that I cannot say more,
but there's an NDA ..." were his last words.
Preliminary investigative reports link the disapperance of Unix
and all their variants to someone uttering the magic words "xNIX
is not an option in the REAL WORLD". However, some sources claim
this was a terrorist act from sympathisants of ITS, a former
unknown terrorist group. Edgar J. Hoover commented on this: "We
do not know anything about ITS, it was in another country and
besides, the PDP 10 is dead, babe."
> he would have to spend money for an office suite for four workstations.
KOffice will change that. Not today, though.
> workstations. He would need a new fax program at an unknown cost. He would
HYLAfax should be investigated.
> Now tell us again how your beloved Windoze and/or xNIX is a viable
> solution.
Why don't you just say: "The spec says: must use OS/2." It's
trivial to find similar circumstances where the solution can
only be Linux, DOS, Windows, HP-UX, RISCos, cp/m, etc.
However, anecdotal evidence does not prove "superior" in any way.
Which you should have noted.
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: "mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:32:27 -0600
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:h1Rz4.428$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > This is a true story:
>
> But horribly biased.
>
> > This in my mind is a paradigmatic example of why Linux (or *BSD, or
> > even other Unices) are a Good Thing for hackers to learn, even if they
> > don't use it every day. Learning Unix requires mental discipline and
> > problem-solving capability, and that's *before* you begin to code.
> > And when you code, you *can* use fancy GUI tools like Glade or
> > KDevelop for your apps, but you still have to know a great deal about
> > the toolchain and associated utilities to produce workable programs.
>
> The tool has little to do with your skill as a programmer. Either you
have
> the discipline or you don't. The tools you use will not change that. I
> know crappy unix coders and experts in C or C++ that use windows and
nothing
> else.
>
> Learning Unix doesn't require discipline, it requires a masochistic bent.
I
> know this, since I spent the better part of 3 years writing code on a
DG/UX
> system.
>
I'd disagree here, but this seems to be more of a religious issue than a
technical
one, so I'll let it pass.
>
> > Now, Windows/Mac folks hate this and shout, "Who wants to learn all
> > that crap?" Unix people roll their eyes because they know that the
> > Windows/Mac "developers" will come crying to them for help when their
> > fancy IDEs barf out cryptic error messages.
>
> This is overly generalistic. There are probably orders of magnitude more
> Windows developers than there are Unix developers. That means you're
going
> to have many more idiots in sheer numbers simply because of the larger
base.
> And since Windows is the most common platform, it's the platform targeted
by
> those that are in the business for the money rather than as a career.
>
I'd simply reply that the average skill of a Unix hacker is orders of
magnitude
greater than that of an average windows coder. Make of that what you will.
>
> > It never fails to amaze me how little many Windows developers know
> > about "real programming". Many of them have no conception of how to
> > write common computer algorithms (if I see another badly-coded
> > bubble-sort in $LAME_DEVELOPMENT_ENVIRONMENT, I'm going to start
> > shooting). They don't know how to intelligently optimize code.
> > Modular coding seems to be beyond them. They spout a lot about OOP,
> > but can't seem to implement it very well (if at all). Their skills do
> > not translate well across tools -- they may be proficient at
> > $LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL, but be utterly useless at
> > $OTHER_LAME_DEVELOPMENT_TOOL. They are not, in short, *hackers*.
> > They are the modern equivalent of those old-time card-wallopers who
> > are now (thankfully) nearly extinct.
>
> What you are describing is programmers that have a job. Not programmers
> that have a career. Like any field, those that take their career
seriously
> have pride in their work and work to better themselves. It doesn't matter
> what language, OS, or development tool you use, if you are a professional,
> you'll learn to use what you have to the best degree possible.
>
> *hackers* have no monopoly on good code. In fact, most of them write
pretty
> shitty code. They solve the problems and then move on to the next
> challenge. To a hacker, it's simply not a worth their time if they aren't
> doing something challenging and unique (as your attitude appears to
convey).
>
I'd disagree again. True hackers, as opposed to script-kiddies and
dilettantes,
tend to write very good code. I'm thinking of people like ESR, RMS, Bill
Joy,
or Linus. The fact is that to write good Open Source code, you have to have
good coding skills -- clarity, good commenting practices, and (most of all!)
a eye towards "correct" programming. Windows programmers -- even good
ones --
tend to be afflicted with all kinds of bad habits formed by years of using
braindead IDEs -- leaving out INCLUDEs, lousy commenting pracices, and the
endlessly irksome habit of using Hungarian notation on non-Windows code.
As to writing "boring" code -- it's true that hackers love a challenge and
tend
to get bored when the challenge fades. But most true hackers also have
discipline and know that its often the unlovely and unsexy parts of code
that
make it work. That's why Unixes tend to be models of stability and uptime
whereas Windows is often a crash-prone mess.
>
> > No. Computer programming is an art as much as a craft, and I take it
> > very seriously. I've spent years refining my skills, learning from
> > the masters in the field, and writing reams of really shitty code
> > before I got passably good at it. But I always knew, right from the
> > start, that I had a lot to learn and that there were no shortcuts if I
> > really wanted to gain mastery over my craft.
>
> There is a serious effort under way to push programming from an art to a
> profession, similar to doctor, lawyer, or engineer. It's this "art"
aspect
> which makes software development so risky, difficult to predict, and high
> cost.
>
Wrong again. Computer programming can only be taught up to a certain point.
After that, it's a talent, like playing basketball or throwing a
major-league
fastball. Some folks got it, and some don't. That's why I have to laugh
when I see those stupid "Learn C in 21 Days" books. You might as well buy
a book called "Learn Brain Surgery in 12 Easy Steps!".
>
> > Many of the Windows developers I come into contact with, though, seem
> > to be innocent of even rudimentary hackish knowledge. By this I mean
> > that while they know how to "code" in the formal sense, they have no
> > real problem solving skills. What happens if the code compiles okay
> > but the linker barfs on an unknown symbol? They have no clue. It's
> > like a decree from the gods. Which header file needs to be included
> > for the standard C library? No idea; if the IDE didn't put it in
> > there, they're lost.
>
> And you've never run into a Windows programmer that knew his shit? Ever?
>
Let me put it this way: all the really good coders I know learned to code
on Unix before moving to Windows, or still code on Unix along with Windows.
I have never personally met a really adept Windows coder. That doesn't mean
there aren't any; just that I haven't met any.
>
> I submit to you that you would find the exact same people writing Unix
code
> if it had 90% of the market share. It has nothing to do with the tool and
> everything to do with what attracts incompetant people.
>
> > Linux (and other Unixes) are far from perfect. It is indeed hard
> > to learn -- but to learn Unix is to gain an appreciation for the
> > enormous power and flexibility the system gives you. If you don't
> > like something, you are free to change it to work exactly the way you
> > want it to. Windows, on the other hand, is pretty much static -- you
> > take what you're given or you do without.
>
> How many people actually change the source code of the Linux system to
suit
> their needs? Why would you do this, the next release will have changes to
> the same source you modified? You'll spend days or weeks trying to
repatch
> your systems to get it back to where it was.
>
More people than you obviously realize. The Beowulf project is a case in
point -- some NASA hackers needed a cheap parallel computer, and they
modified
Linux accordingly and released it back to the community. Embedded Linux is
another example: companies strip out the kernel pieces they don't need and
only leave in core functionality. Or the customized Linux distros put out
by colleges, tuned to their students' needs.
Can you imagine this
sort of thing *ever* happening with Windows NT? Not bloody likely. Windows
NT
users remind me of the IBMers of years past -- to them an OS was a closed,
inviolable system which you as a programmer were expected to subordinate
yourself
to. Think JCL is stupid? That REXX has extraordinarily lame syntax? Well,
too bad. You are a mere aspirant to the system. But Unix works *for* you,
not
the other way around.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 15 Mar 2000 21:24:31 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11 Mar 2000 23:41:03 -0600,
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> > > Here's a cut & paste from a telnet session from this
> > > laptop into my Linux box in the main "computer room" that has 64 megs
> > > ram on a Pentium 233:
> > > [root@system2 /]# free
> > Irrelevant. Linux uses all the memory it gets for buffers and
> > cache, no matter if you have 8 or 2048 MB. You ought to know
> > that.
> I know that. The original post (the part you *didn't* quote) makes that
> point. Win2000 does the same thing - as any decent OS should. It
> should then give it up as applications need it.
My point was: The amount that the OS uses should be small. If
the basic OS uses 30 MB out of 64 and you cannot switch stuff
off or swap it out (like X and gnome), you got effectively 34 MB
for your apps.
> The point is the more physical ram you have The more it *should* use.
> NT4 on the same hardware showed about 30 meg total ram usage.
But not for unswappable kernel space and not for crap.
> > > Seems pretty reasonable to me. In fact it's pretty much identical to
> > > Linux. So much for Win2000 "bloat" and "lean and mean" Linux!
> > In percentiles, both use about 50% for programs. Having half
> > the memory in the Linux machine does not count. Yep, so much
> > for bloat and leanness. :-)
> Yes exactly. Remember there were *no* user applications running on the
> Linux box at the time.
Ah, so X is no user app, cron cannot ever be a user app, gnome is
no user app ... top and free are not user apps either ... funny
that you should count that way. And don't complain that MS
implements that as kernel stuff, that's bad design.
> Yes. But I wasn't comparing Linux to Win2000 Advanced Server. You did
> that. Load up a Linux box with Gnome GUI, DHCP server, FTP server,
> cable modem sharing/firewall via 2 NICs and an X Server (Terminal
> Service equivalent - telnet isn't a fair comparison) and tell me how
> much memory Linux uses in that configuration.
That's trivial. Just see that they are unused, allocate and use a
couple of 100 MB memory, then free it. Presto, everything swapped
out. (And the FTP server? inet.d will start one on the fly.)
Your method of measuring is inherently flawed.
As for the Terminal Service: No, X is not an equivalent: The X
server runs on the *client* connecting to the server. Thus 10
clients running X on the server will not provoke 10 X servers on
the server.
> > > Keep in mind that each
> > > Terminal Service user adds around 8 - 10 meg to the ram usage.
> > Uh? HOW MUCH? What's it doing, running NT all over again?
> > in.telnetd needs about 600 *k*B.
> Terminal Services is a far cry from text mode Telnet. Each user gets a
> full Windows desktop where they can install their own programs, have
> their own email accounts/browser settings, customize the desktop, etc.
> When telnet does that let me know. This ain't your fathers Remote
> Terminal anymore! ;-)
Ah, you mean an old-style X-Terminal as e.g. made by Tectronics.
Hardware, 4 or 8 MB RAM, colour or b/w, boots e.g. via TFTP over
the network. Yep, they have been phased out over the last 5+
years. Not that X cannot do the same. No, they don't need more
than a couple of KB on the server, unless you count all the
programs you run on the server through them.
And for their own programs, settings, email accounts ... well,
that's what $HOME is for, which just takes disk space.
Actually, $HOME works under telnet as well, allowing me to have my
own email account, my own settings, installing my own programs ...
just the desktop is a bit more difficult, since that's:
1. A microsoftish thing (the imagery, that is, not the GUI itself)
2. needs graphic, and the AAlib is not *that* good
3. you'd want X for that, anyway, because of reason 2
Oh, and BTW: Telnet works well over a 14.4kbit/s line.
> 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.
And that's the reason the kernel should not waste unswappable
space. Waste 20 MB (instead of using 2 MB) and you have 42 MB
left instead of 62. That can be a *huge* difference.
> 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.
So has the 640k barrier. :-)
But still, seeing the "specials" with a PIII-700 or something and
just 64 MB ram lets me wonder if they should not rather downgrade
the CPU and upgrade the RAM. But then I remember that's that just
for the stupid people out there who think that their PIII makes
their internet faster. Sure. The processor waits faster for
their modem.
> In the future,
> though, more ram will always be needed. Hell, the machines we got at
> work last *October* have 256 meg!
So what's special about that? In front of me sits a machine
(not mine) with a mere GB. Yep, it's a server.
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Subject: Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next?
Date: 15 Mar 2000 21:30:50 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:42:00 GMT,
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Microsoft is in a constant state of war against all
> other available choices. This is merely a state of
> things that any OS other than WinDOS has to deal with.
Microsoft is, but I don't feel like having to dance to *their*
music. MS is having a hard time with a contender they cannot buy
or undercut price-wise. If the competition forces MS to produce a
great, well performing and usable OS, it still won't hurt Linux.
And even the MS-advocates may win something that way.
-Wolf"Fighting drains power. Better use it to improve."gang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail toW2K)
Date: 15 Mar 2000 21:37:52 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:16:45 -0500,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maybe linux companies aren't in it for the simply making money. They (and
> > developers) are in it to simply make a better product. So would you
> > rather get stuff from someone who wants to make money or someone who wants
> > to make a better product?
> and... you... actually... believe... that???
The companies exist because they can make money, but doesn't it
break the nice picture when someone for once will not walk over
piles of dead to make a single $ more?
> Oh my god.
Your worst fear came true? You are not worried that the quality
of a "labour of love" could possibly be better than that of more
or less disgruntled MS employees, are you?
> ahh... pine... .edu...
> kids...
And again, our hero comforts himself in his misunderstanding of
email addresses. But what should one expect from a home.com or
a home.com.nospam address? (That's called tit-for-tat)
-Wolf"Yep, MS has Quality(tm). In it's own way."gang
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
