Linux-Advocacy Digest #682, Volume #25 Sat, 18 Mar 00 05:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure. (Donn Miller)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Donn Miller)
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote (Artur Bartnicki)
Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure. (abraxas)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: C2 question ("Bill Sharrock")
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote ("David D.W. Downey")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Jim Ross")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Jim Ross")
Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure. (Terry Murphy)
Re: Make linux primary OS at work? (Lee Sau Dan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:15:44 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure.
[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
>
> Excellent book!
>
> I got a real kick out of that GreenBlatt guy.
>
> Steve
Check this posting out. First, the name in the headers is
"heather69". Then, the person signs it "Steve". Steve, you'll have
to get a newsguy account or something. With newsguy, people can only
trace your posting back to Newsguy's servers (which is newsdawg,
iirc), and not to your ISP.
I've noticed that newsguy's servers are called "Newsdawg". Maybe the
people at newsguy are Browns fans? LOL
- Donn
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:23:10 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
mr_organic wrote:
> FreeBSD and NetBSD (and maybe OpenBSD too, I don't know) can run some
> Linux binaries. I'd doubt that Borland would start separate trees,
> though -- I don't think the current *BSD userbase is big enough.
Linux binaries run pretty well on FreeBSD, I've noticed. RealPlayer 7
runs on FreeBSD. I don't really like RP7, though -- did you notice a
problem with the sound being out of sync with the video at times?
It's like watching those old Edison movies, where he had a phonograph
syncronized to a projector with some mechanical device. People hated
it.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: Artur Bartnicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: 18 Mar 2000 00:04:05 +0100
Mark Hamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze, co następuje:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK) writes:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Terry Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Just a heads up - using environmental variables in news posts is Unix dweeb
> > >rule number three, surpassed in pure annoyance only by using "fsck" as
> > >a swear word, and calling "X Windows" anything besides "X Windows".
> >
> > I note that there is no such thing as "X Windows"... it is called X,
> > period.
>
> Not quite; X Window, or the X Window System work fine too.
It does not, at least in "X Window" part.
man X clearly states that
The X Consortium requests that the following names be used when
referring to this software:
X
X Window System
X Version 11
X Window System, Version 11
X11
so "X" as well as "X Window System" is fine, but "X Window" is not.
--a
___ ___ -------------------------------------------------------
/ _ | _ ) Artur "Archie" Bartnicki tel: (0-71) 342 68 22
/ __ | _ \ (0-601) 79 88 72
/_/ |_|___/ -------------------------------------------------------
And on the seventh day, He exited from append mode.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure.
Date: 18 Mar 2000 07:53:43 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gary wasn't interested. It was his own fault he missed out on it. Even so,
> given Gary's previous liscensing habits, he probably would not have struck
> the kind of deal that Bill Gates did, and thus DR would never have become
> the company that Microsoft did.
You do realize that "Gary" [sic] has no clue in the world of who
you are, eh? :)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:26:39 -0500
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jim Ross wrote:
>
> > > >I did a simple reboot from the Login box and Corel would hang
frequently.
> > > >One time it locked and I had to do a reset (I'm not on a network so
> > telnet
> > > >was not possible) to reboot.
> > > >Apparently that really screwed up the system and would not boot after
> > that.
> > > >I hadn't stressed Corel 1.0 up till that point, thus giving no reason
to
> > do
> > > >that.
> > >
> > > Ross appears to be saying that he rebooted the computer
> > > multiple times, without synching the file system, until he'd
> > > caused enough corruption that it would no longer work. How
> > > clever! (But hitting it with a hammer would have been quicker.)
> >
> > So I can't even reboot now without doing extra commands. That blows
chunks.
> > That seems insane if I must sync and the system doesn't take care of
that
> > itself.
> >
>
> You can reboot with no problem. Mark is wrong or else he is assuming
that by
> "reboot" you meant hit the power button. But clicking on the reboot
button
> from the login box should cause no problems.
>
> Gary
I was worried as I do reboot alot since I switch between Linux and Windows
frequently.
Thanks for that info Gary.
------------------------------
From: "Bill Sharrock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C2 question
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:01:26 -0600
<removed coma>
"George Marengo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've read recently that in its current form, Linux not only isn't C2
> compliant, but that it cannot be C2 compliant because it doesn't
> have Access Control Lists and auditing on ACL's -- it only has file
> based permissions.
>
fwiw, the NSA has contracted out development for a secure linux system.
IIRC, Secure Computing, http://www.securecomputing.com , will GPL the kernel
modifications but keep their Type Enforcement technology closed.
------------------------------
From: "David D.W. Downey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 08:55:10 GMT
What's brought on the following was that it sounded like mr_organic was
saying that anyone who didn't know assembler really didn't know what
they were doing, though he did target Windows programmers specifically.
If I'm wrong then delete this post and think of it no more. if I'm
not...
As an Engineer (Technical/Network/System i.e non developer type), I
don't do much in the way of coding except for shell or perl scripts as
needed. Usually a modification to existing scripts is about the farthest
that I get into it. This, i suppose, differs from engineer to engineer
depending on what management throws on his/her plate.
I know very little Assembler and am probably more dangerous to the
machine than a help if I were to attempt it. This doesn't make me any
less of an administrator or an engineer. I'm only 29 so I can't say
"Back int he day", yet I can say that from what I've read and from folks
I've talked to from the early years of computers you NEEDED to learn the
close-to-the-heart-of-it languages if you expected to get your job done.
Today, we have C, C++, perl, and other languages. Unless you are coding
something like a real time driver or for an embedded device you really
have no need for something like Assembler. My lack, or anyone else's, of
Assembler know how doesn't stop me from knowing my job. I am quite
intimate with how hardware works, the various
implementations/specifivcations, integration problems (like mixing SCSI
with IDE for a very basic example), and the many problems that afflict
hardware. Usually the affliction is caused by an application. For this I
consider the kernel an application since it is soft and not hard.
There are many highly competent Engineers and Administrators that know
very few languages. One trend that i have noticed. especially with my
age group, is a tendancy towards code reuse. Identify the problem, see
if anyone else has come up against it themselves (which is most likely)
find out how they fixed it and if it's a software solution, adapt their
solution to your problem. 99% of the work is already done. They've don
it, I've done it and folks have done it with things I've written. Sort
of a hand me down of solutions. :-)
Basically what I'm trying to get at is that there is no need in today's
computer world for everyone to go bone deep. With the myriad of problems
faced in a day, I definitely do NOT have the time to go learning the
deeper core of things. I've learned what works and what doesn't. Some
thijngs I get totally and helplessly lost on and I hit up the gurus.
They point me in the right direction and I get the job done from there.
I do have this to say about the comments towards Windows programmers. I
agree that they are completely IDE bound (or the majority are) and care
very little about what lays outside the confines of the language
construxts they work with. These are the ones that perpetuate the bugs
and the inefficiencies in the codebase because they don't take the time
to see if what they've been handed was right to begin with. The younger
ones aren't taught that. They're taught deadlines and budgets, and "Blow
the user away with features"ware. BUT, buried within that writing mass
of conformity at any cost, are the older guys. The ones that know how to
code cleanly, that took the time to actually read the specs about the
hardware they're writing for. Those are the ones that give us the decent
drivers and the semi decent code (Semi cause it usually gets bastardizd
by the next line up.)
But, I'd be willing to bet money that hardly half of them know the
intricacies of hardware like an Engineer or a Systems Administrator
does. They know the specs and they know the language (which don't always
meet). It's not a matter of how deep you get into the machine, it's
about how well you understand the 'want' and the 'can do'!
--
David D.W. Downey - Red Hat Certified Engineer
Assistant Site Manager - http://www.linuxnewbie.com
Resume - http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=96113
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:37:55 -0500
> > : good is because it's all free
> > : but to anyone with a job, W2K is not expensive.
> >
> > Heh again. $319 for a license for the desktop version of Windows 2000
> just
> > feels like gang rape. Done much time, Drestin?
>
> When you pay an admin $100,000 a year, $319 is not very much.
$319 doesn't sound appealing to a home user though.
Emachines computers can be bought for that now I believe.
> >
> > I installed Windows 2000 on my mother's computer, rather than subject
her
> > to the crashing nightmare that is Windows 98. She wants to change ISPs,
> > so I told her to run the Internet Connection Wizard so she can get
> > all of her settings changed. She can't do it. She's a normal user,
> > not a power user, not an administrator.
>
> normal users are restricted from making changes to network protocols or
file
> shares. Why would you want your normal users screwing around with that?
> The idea of a normal user is that they aren't allowed to change any
> administration settings.
I feel Linux allows one to stay in user more that W2K since it is easier to
pop into
root to do a root type activity since Linux has the su command.
> > Which is why there are maybe 5 or 6 viruses that affect Linux/Unix
> systems,
> > but thousands that can affect Windows 95/98/NT/2000? Hmm.. Sounds like
a
> > haven to me...
>
> Very few viruses effect NT/2000. More than Linux, sure. But a tiny
> fraction of those that effect 95/98.
You're right.
Unfortunately there are a whole new class of viruses that do affect NT/2000
I believe.
I'm referring to the cross-platform Word 97 macro viruses.
I would think the Outlook address book viruses could still operate too.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 03:44:56 -0500
> > W2K is expensive to buy,
>
> depends if you live in your mom's basement and think the #1 reason linux
is
> good is because it's all free
> but to anyone with a job, W2K is not expensive.
>
I have a job. $319 seems expensive.
Emachines sells whole computers for that price I believe.
In addition one can get what I consider a very quality OS for free.
> >and is an administrative nightmare of endless
> > clicks and check boxes.
>
> as opposed to an administrative nightmate of endless command lines,
scripts
> and man lookups?
Isn't that the point of writing a script is that you do it once and then
forget it.
The computer can be made to do the routine stuff for you.
GUI stuff isn't as easy to redirect output or automate as far as I'm aware.
I would much rather administer a command line system remotely than a GUI
system (my modem thanks me).
Jim Ross
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Murphy)
Subject: Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure.
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 09:31:49 GMT
On 17 Mar 2000 21:58:46 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Really good programmers hardly ever need a debugger.
You don't program for a living, do you? You've never worked on
a project with more than a quarter million lines, either, have
you?
>A good tracing tool and loggin subsystem is much more valuable. And
>the best debugging tool is code review and good design.
How do you step through assembler output to locate compiler bugs?
How do you examine/change variables during runtime? How do you
trap acceses to specific memory locations? How do you call a random
function at a random point with specific arguments? How do you place
breakpoints in a specific exception handler? How do you trace
the stack to see where you are in the program? How do you do
thread specific debugging so you can debug different threads? No
programmer worth his office space attacks these types of problems
without a debugger.
>One sign of less experienced programmers is the large amount of debugging
>they do. Notice how good programmers seem to do little debugging.
In my experience, the competence of a programmer is directly
proportional to his efficieny of using debugging tools. It
may be true that competent programmers spend less time debugging
overall because they are efficient enough that they can quickly
debug programs, whereas the less experienced programmers just step
through the code, adding lots of printf's, and waiting for the problem
to reproduce.
>One good use for a debugger is to learn how a software works by stepping
>into it. This is one way a new programmer comming to a new project can
>learn how the program works from the inside. However, good design documents,
>and good logging system remains the best tool to debug with and to learn
>how a complex system is working.
Good design documents are integral, but having nothing to do with
debugging.
------------------------------
From: Lee Sau Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Make linux primary OS at work?
Date: 18 Mar 2000 17:29:12 +0800
>>>>> "redhouse" == redhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
VMWare (http://www.vmware.com/) may satisfy most your needs: Install
Linux and VMWare (for Linux) on your machine and run NT on top of
VMWare. If you have a fast enough processor (Pentium 200MHz+) and
enough RAM (96+ MB), performance would be OK.
redhouse> Problems: 1. Palm synch support.
Does KDE have a "kpilot" for that? I have no experience, though. I
don't own a Palm.
redhouse> Can I get Avantgo from
redhouse> Linux? Could I have done my PalmOS 3.3 upgrade without
redhouse> using NT? Can I synch my Palm with Meeting Maker from
redhouse> Linux?
If you could do all these under NT, you could do so under NT/VMWare,
provided that you're linking your Palm to the machine via a serial
port. This is because VMWare does emulate serial ports. It now
supports bidirectional ECP parallel ports, too.
redhouse> 2. Good integrated mail reader/browser required:
redhouse> Is there a good linux browser/mail client out there?
For mail and USENET news, I use Gnus/Emacs. Gnus is the news/mail
reader that is the most customizable and provides the most
capabilities I ever know. It does take some time to adjust to the
Emacs idioms, but I think it worths a lot to learn Emacs. I now do
Java development (writing code, Javadoc-based documentation,
compiling, debugging, version-controlling), directory browsing, FTP
(anonymous or not), mail and news, unzipping, etc. all in Emacs for a
simple reason: a simple and consistent interface. All features (Emacs
packages) are orthogonal to one another and it's too easy to
"multiply" them together to get lots of useful hyperfeatures!
For web-browsing, I use Netscape-navigator or Lynx, sometimes with the
help of 'wget' (for offline reading or overnight downloads). Emacs
does have a web-browser package "w3", but I don't like it. (Recent
versions of w3 must have got lots of improvements, but I'm too lazy to
install it. :P)
redhouse> hate to admit it, but IE is a superior product to
redhouse> Navigator.
Microsoft did release a Solaris/SPARC version of IE sometime ago. It
supports Java!
redhouse> I am a total XEmacs geek, and
redhouse> I would love to be able to M-C-<whatever> my heart away
redhouse> while I compose messages, but I'm not sure I'm ready to
redhouse> give up rich text composition.
Why not use VM or Gnus, then, given that you are already know Emacs?
(To me, _rich text_ is not any more useful than *this* kind of text
markups, given that you often can't predict what is displayed on the
reader's screen -- e.g. lines breaking at inappropriate places.)
redhouse> 3. Good and reliable
redhouse> window manager required. The version of enlightenment
redhouse> packaged with RH6.0 froze on me way too much.
That's why I put up my ~/.xinitrc and ~/.xsession files to use fvwm2
instead of the default Enlightenment.
redhouse> I just
redhouse> ordered mandrake and I will be giving KDE a try.
Don't forget to try 'kpilot', then.
redhouse> 4. Browser plugins. If I browse in linux, I'll be
redhouse> missing out on certain multimedia stuff, right?
Yes. You know, so many computer-incompetent people are writing
web-pages nowadays. Many of them can't even imagine computers not
running Windows/Intel. So, they put up lots of "cool" features that
require plugins which are available only on the Windows platform.
(Adobe is doing the right thing: They do offer $0 Acrobat reader,
which includes Netscape plugin support.)
BTW, if you run IE on NT/VMWare, you'd be able to get all that you
want.
--
Lee Sau Dan §ő¦u´°(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
