Linux-Advocacy Digest #690, Volume #25 Sat, 18 Mar 00 22:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Salary? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Robert Moir")
Re: Disproving the lies. (Johannes Nix)
Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure. (Alan Boyd)
Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure. (Loren Petrich)
Re: Windows 2000: download bog (abraxas)
Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure. (Loren Petrich)
Re: Windows 2000: download bog (abraxas)
Re: Bsd and Linux ("John S. Dyson")
Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 19 Mar 2000 01:13:03 GMT
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 22:09:01 GMT, Stewart Honsberger wrote:
>On 18 Mar 2000 17:57:31 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>How very tactfully put.
I'm sure I'm not the first to call him a jerk.
>>You would have been wiser not to cite him.
>
>Why, because you don't agree with him?
No, because he is not an authority on the subject at hand. He is just an
obnoxious jackass. Citing him simply shows that your sources are not terribly
credible. You may as well cite Homer Simpson.
>>I will assume that you are merely faithfully conveying Mr Stern's ignorance.
>
>You mean you disagree? You believe that advantages should be given to
>a person merely because of their skin colour?
In terms of scholarships, I believe that it can be beneficial to help the
minority communities. Giving these people scholarships has the end result
that there are more scholars in that community, and their communities will
hopefully become better educated as a whole as a result.
I object to your claim that it's just about skin color. It has more to do
with the environment that these communities have lived in. How many white
Americans are descendents of slaves ?
>When did I say that poor white people are the only ones who should be
>helped? I was merely stating that assistance should be given to those
>in need, rather than those with a particular skin colour.
I say there's also a good argument for purely needs based scholarships.
Of course, the ideal situation would be one where there were enough funds
to help everyone with both the needs and the ability.
>Racism, just as sexism, are both two way streets. It is my belief that
>we as a society are over-compensating for years of injustice. I say the
Well I don't see white males suffering too much as a result. I don't
naively asume that AA always works, but for scholarship funds, I believe
it has some merits.
>playing field should be leveled -
That's all well and good, but if you dispossess one group, *then* level the
playing field, it's not really helpful, and it's not really sufficient enough
to get the dispossessed group back on track.
And your "level playing field" theory totally ignores the fact that
institutionalised racism does exist, and conveniently avoids questions
as to how to address this.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 01:23:03 -0000
<bob@nospam> wrote in message news:8avsak$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Why does one have to install IIS on win2000 to simply use ftp?
>
To use W2K as an FTP server? Because IIS is the internet server components
for W2K / NT and so obviously thats where the FTP server went. Where would
you suggest it should of been?
You don't have to use the FTP server in IIS either. Feel free to use a 3rd
party product. I hear talk of a good FTP server from Ipswitch but never
tried it myself.
To use W2K as an FTP client? You *don't* need IIS to use W2K as an FTP
client. Internet Explorer will sort out FTP connections "out of the box"
Don't want to use IE to handle your FTP connections? (Don't blame you!) then
by all means download another client. WS_FTP LE works fine for me.
Don't want to do that? Fine, open a command prompt, and type in "FTP" -
welcome to NT's command line style FTP client.
Rob Moir.
------------------------------
From: Johannes Nix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: 19 Mar 2000 02:26:54 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Murphy) writes:
> You really think Linux applications are more reliable than Windows
> applications? Give me a break. It is a well known fact that Netscape
> for Linux is one of the least reliable pieces of software around.
> I have not used Star Office (my only Linux machine is an Alpha, not
> Intel), but I understand that this is extremely buggy also.
>
You cannot generalize from Netscape to other applications.
> Remember - a user's total productivity is only as high as the
> stability of the applications. From the user's perspective, an
> OS crash is not more detrimental that an application crash, when
> both take down the document he was working on all morning.
>
I am using XEmacs and Latex for large works of several hundred pages
in total and never have seen them crashing in more than two years of
work. XEmaces even preserved my documents when the network connection
was lost.
I was working with the framemaker beta the last three days and it
didn't crash either.
I agree that Netscape is one of the worst and unstablest pieces of
software that runs under Linux. Now I run it seldom, I use Konqueror
to browse and it works well. It's almost sure that the final release
of Opera for Linux will be an exceptional commercial success.
I wouldn't buy any Linux application that crashes.
(I wouldn't buy any OS that crashes either.)
>
> I am much more interested in it from the hardware perspective, with
> very cheap computer technologies coming in the future. I do not agree
> with the notion of giving cheap, used PC's (essentially, our garbage)
> is the right way to approach the problem. I would like to look at
> previous technology penetrations. A few years ago, somebody invented
> a short wave radio which ran with no electrical power (it was wind-up),
> and it was considered a great ahchievement because it gave access
> to the radio to people with no power. Likewise, I think that the
> telephone infrastructure technology has done a lot more for telephone
> penetration than something like discarding old telephone equipment on
> poor people. Cars penetrated the masses by being cheaper to manufacture
> instead of the rich giving their old cars to the poor.
>
That's silly, the price curve for computers is completely
different. Never before technology has been so powerful and so
misused. And electronics, contrarily to cars, hasn't so much wear.
My wife which is itself latin american is considering in giving a P60
or such like to their nephew in Colombia, because he will hardly be
able to afford any university (He wants to study computer
science). With the Linux online documentation, this would be as
valuable as some semesters in university; he will teach himself.
The problem is that shipment is quite expensive and complicated. I
think as he knows the english language it would be an excellent chance
for him.
J.
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure.
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 20:18:01 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > A rare few Windows programmers (usually the hardcore
> > driver-writers and system-programmers) read Petzold's mammoth
> > "Programming Windows" book, but almost none have dipped into The Lion
> > Book, the Demon Book, or the Dragon Book. (Or even know what those
> > books are, or where they can be found.)
>
> Considering that Petzolds book is ranked #1398 in Amazon.com's sales
> rankings of all books, I'd say that quite a few read it. By comparison,
> Programming Windows with MFC is ranked #2102, Professional MFC with Visual
> C++ 6 is ranked #14,272, and Introduction to MFC programming with Visual C++
> 6 is ranked #26,585.
I had to check. "Programming Windows" shows (when I checked)
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 1,612
When I looked up Matt Welsh's book "Running Linux" I found:
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 1,237
Hmmm, ranked higher than "Programming Windows". A sign of the times.
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure.
Date: 19 Mar 2000 02:38:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... Is it *possible* for a Windows-only programmer to truly
>embrace the hackish spirit? What does the term "hacker" mean, anyhow?
>For a good grounding, the curious reader should consult some
>background material: "Hackers", by Steven Levy, which covers the early
>days of SAIL and MIT's AI lab ; the Jargon File, maintained by Eric
>Raymond; and "In The Beginning Was The Command Line" by Neal
>Stephenson. "Open Sources", published by O'Reilly last year, is also
>very good.
I'm familiar with "Hackers" and the Jargon File, but not with the
others.
>It should be clear that hackers, first and foremost, know their own
>history. They have a sense of people who came before them and who
>helped create a culture with its own customs, language, and ceremonies.
>Most Windows coders I know aren't even *aware* of the Jargon File;
>they have no idea such a thing exists. Few even know the names of
>Richard Stallman or Eric Raymond; fewer still the names of Bill Joy,
>Marshall Kirk McKusick, or other pioneers of the field. They know who
>Bill Gates is, but not Gary Kildall, who might have won that long-ago
>IBM contract for the PC operating system had things turned out a bit
>differently. A rare few Windows programmers (usually the hardcore
>driver-writers and system-programmers) read Petzold's mammoth
>"Programming Windows" book, but almost none have dipped into The Lion
>Book, the Demon Book, or the Dragon Book. (Or even know what those
>books are, or where they can be found.)
Sorry, I'm not familiar with any of these books.
However, I do know most of the names you've mentioned, except for
Petzold's.
And about Mr. Petzold -- is it true that he had recommended not
checking to see if a window handle or whatever had gotten allocated
because doing so would take too much time? That seems like a horrible
programming practice, and I'm reluctant to believe that the author of a
voluminous and detailed tome would be willing to make such a gross
blunder.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: download bog
Date: 19 Mar 2000 02:48:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Interesting that you know exactly where the problem was.
> Jumping to biased conclusions is simply ignorant. Simply because
> B&N got overwhelmed and had a download queue that got exceeded does
> not mean that Windows2000 has a flaw. It's simply ignorant conjecture
> that you even propose that. You didn't say it in so many words, but
> your implied meaning was obvious.
Apparantly not, because thats not what I did. And jumping to
conclusions was *exactly* what you did. I did not comment on the
reason that windows failed at all. You did.
> Windows2000 and consequently IIS 5 does not have download limits
> or queues natively. They must be implemented through code, just
> like on any system (yes, even Solaris).
I understand this. And actually, download limits and queues do not
have to be implemented through "code" under any circumstances. If
the software that youre using does not support it (but every mail
system for unix I can think of does, except perhaps Netscape
Suitespot--I dont know about that one) the operating system most
certianly does--as well as a host of other applications.
> That is a fact. If you don't believe me, then you are merely
> beFUDed and I cannot help you.
Of course I believe you. What I do not believe is that this was
the definitive reason behind the failure. It *may* have been, but
there are occluded details which *may* show otherwise.
>> And what about my requests for your opinions on a few posts over
>> the last couple of days? Would you rather keep silent than admit
>> that you actually dont have any facts to back up your arguments?
> You attempted to argue that *nix's archaic permissioning bits scheme
> was better than DAC.
You are clearly getting me confused with someone else, because I
absolutely did NOT. I offered facts concerning UNIX's security model,
and that is all. I corrected you on a couple of points concerning
UNIX's security model, and if you found that offensive, tough tits.
> There's really no reply to that, as you obviously
> have no clue.
You are basing this opinion on an untrue requisite. I did NOT argue
against DAC. You are wrong.
> Again, there's nothing I can do to help. It's best just
> to ignore you and let you live in ignorant bliss than attempt to
> explain to you why you are wrong.
Its beginning to become clear why you appear to have so many enemies
on this newsgroup. You MAKE them by consistently misunderstanding
what is being said.
>> I see. "Probably" what happened, eh. Thats a very strong argument
>> youve got there, Chad.
> Windows2000 doesn't have the restriction. So B&N had to put it there.
> That's a fact. I was merely speculating as to WHY.
Speculation is not the same thing as fact, yet you continously claim
that it is.
>> Indeed you can. Yet Solaris and "any other system" continually do
>> not break in this manner.
> This was not a "break" in Windows2000, this was a break in B&N's
> designed implementation of Win2K. I could get Solaris to break too,
> does that make Solaris bad? Of course not.
Do you know the details of B&N's designed implementation of W2K? Care
to offer up some details to the class so that we can ALL consider it?
> Your biased FUD makes me sick. If you want to argue that it was stupid
> for B&N to implement it in that way, I would most likely be on your
> side, but for you to imply that this is a flaw in Win2K in any way
> is just plain stupid.
I would argue it if I *knew the details*. As I do not know the details,
I cannot in good conscience do so. Though im not surprised that you
can.
> Slashdot is poorly implemented, it's down frequently or just plain
> slow all the time. Is it fair to blame that on Linux? Of course not.
> It's Slashdot's choice of how they implemented Linux.
Agreed.
> Likewise, HP's site runs Apache on HP-UX and is eternally slow, is
> that a failing in HP-UX or just a design flaw?
Thats arguable. I wouldnt run a busy public site using HP/UX and
apache myself, but thats simply my opinion. I prefer solaris.
>> Sure do. "Maximum simultanious connections exceeded" is a much
>> more acceptable error than "the page you requested cannot be
>> displayed" though, wouldnt you say?
> I don't recall that ever being said. What the reporter said is
> that the site had exceeded it's download queue and that the
> book would be sent via email, and then he received an email stating
> that the site was overloaded and they were unable to process his
> request.
What was said may or may not have to do with the details of the
actual breakage. Certianly someone in your position understands
that what is told to the customer doesnt always have much to do
with what is actually going on.
> Where did it say "the page you requested cannot be displayed"?
I dont know that it did, I was comparing errors between IIS and
apache.
>>
>> > C'mon guys... even this is beneath you.
>>
>> Facts, Chad.
> Exactly, so far, you have not presented any and have drawn large
> sweeping ignorant conclusions from one simple implementation of
> Windows2000.
Ive presented quite a few in my posts that have nothing to do with
opinion, and nearly none in the ones that do.
And apart from that, you might be interested to know that I
actually use windows (among other things) in both a professional
and private capacity. I prefer other operating systems for
specific functions, but again, it is simply a matter of opinion.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure.
Date: 19 Mar 2000 02:54:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My point here is that Windows programmers are most often careerists
>who only want to get on the gravy train. This is not a bad thing; we
>all have to make a living. But many if not most of these folks do not
>learn the most rudimentary aspects of software or system design; they
>have no skills at debugging complex systems; and they are trained to
>use "packaged" solutions rather than figure out things for themselves.
That's a rather strong charge.
>I blame a lot of this on the whole mindset of Windows programmers.
>They are never taught precepts that are second-nature to most Unix
>programmers -- that stability and "correctness" are not features, but
>core assumptions from which all else must flow. ...
[on Unix being the favorite sort of OS of "real" programmers...]
> ... They are not taught to design first and code later; they
>are not taught to code around data structures and not the other way
>around; they are not taught to debug. And this is why Windows is
>flooded with millions of lines of badly-written code.
I don't know how fair these charges really are, but I'd like to
give some of my own experience.
I had started out on an IBM mainframe doing scientific-type
programming (number crunching, that sort of stuff); eventually I moved to
a VAX running VMS.
My first contacts with Unix were not very pleasant -- I couldn't
*stand* vi, and Unix commands were cryptic and poorly documented compared
to comparable VMS ones.
In most recent years, most of my "work" programming has been done
on some Unix systems, though most of my hobby programming is done in
(don't laugh!) the MacOS. To date, this has mainly been some game
utilities (Marathon, Quake, Tomb Raider), but more recently, I have made
significant improvements on the recently-released Marathon 2 source code.
But I do agree with mr_organic that there must be something wrong
with programmers who are unwilling to design before they code.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: download bog
Date: 19 Mar 2000 02:56:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suspect it's actually above them. After all, the Solaris systems they
> admin in their bedroom and college dorms do not exactly need bandwith
> throttling to deal with both connections when they are operating at peak MP3
> leeching capacity.
Ever build a news system out of two Enterprise 450s, each with
two 100base interfaces pushing 20-30mbps a piece?
I didnt think so.
I'll save the impressive bits for later, as im quite certian
they'll come in handy.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "John S. Dyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 22:05:48 -0500
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On 17 Mar 2000 07:37:09 +0300, Victor Wagner wrote:
>
> >Changing only a kernel doesn't abolish you from GNU license. Especially,
>
> THis was my point exactly.
>
> >BSD vs Linux is not licensing issue, it is architecture and development
> >model issue. BSD is basicaly cathedral, while Linux is bazaar.
>
> I'd agree. This is indeed the main difference.
>
Linus has full control of Linux, and is indeed a single person
cathedral with spin that implies a bazaar methodology. The
FreeBSD developers can commit directly into the tree, only
with the risk of the commits being rescended. Under Linux, you cannot
even get your changes into the kernel "tree" without Linus
doing/allowing it.
It is a severe fallacy to suggest that FreeBSD is 'cathedral' when
Linux is 'bazaar', unless the definition of the words is reversed.
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | it makes one look stupid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | and it irritates the pig.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows is a sickness. Unix is the cure.
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 03:07:34 GMT
In article <8b1ek3$lm2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> ... Is it *possible* for a Windows-only programmer to truly
>>embrace the hackish spirit? What does the term "hacker" mean, anyhow?
>
>>For a good grounding, the curious reader should consult some
>>background material: "Hackers", by Steven Levy, which covers the early
>>days of SAIL and MIT's AI lab ; the Jargon File, maintained by Eric
>>Raymond; and "In The Beginning Was The Command Line" by Neal
>>Stephenson. "Open Sources", published by O'Reilly last year, is also
>>very good.
>
> I'm familiar with "Hackers" and the Jargon File, but not with the
> others.
>
>>It should be clear that hackers, first and foremost, know their own
>>history. They have a sense of people who came before them and who
>>helped create a culture with its own customs, language, and ceremonies.
>>Most Windows coders I know aren't even *aware* of the Jargon File;
>>they have no idea such a thing exists. Few even know the names of
>>Richard Stallman or Eric Raymond; fewer still the names of Bill Joy,
>>Marshall Kirk McKusick, or other pioneers of the field. They know who
>>Bill Gates is, but not Gary Kildall, who might have won that long-ago
>>IBM contract for the PC operating system had things turned out a bit
>>differently. A rare few Windows programmers (usually the hardcore
>>driver-writers and system-programmers) read Petzold's mammoth
>>"Programming Windows" book, but almost none have dipped into The Lion
>>Book, the Demon Book, or the Dragon Book. (Or even know what those
>>books are, or where they can be found.)
>
> Sorry, I'm not familiar with any of these books.
Lion Book -- Lions' Commentary on Unix 6th Edition (John Lions) This was
the first real code-level commentary on the Unix kernel, and could only
be distributed by samizdat for a number of years. Recently it was
republished.
Devil Book -- The Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System
(McKusick, Bostic, et. al.) (So called because of the picture of the BSD
demon on the cover.) (Interesting footnote: John Lasseter, of _Toy Story_
fame, drew the demon on the cover.)
Dragon Book -- Fundamentals of Compiler Design. So called because of
the picture of the dragon on the cover.
>
> However, I do know most of the names you've mentioned, except for
> Petzold's.
>
> And about Mr. Petzold -- is it true that he had recommended not
> checking to see if a window handle or whatever had gotten allocated
> because doing so would take too much time? That seems like a horrible
> programming practice, and I'm reluctant to believe that the author of a
> voluminous and detailed tome would be willing to make such a gross
> blunder.
>
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
I don't have my Petzold handy. I'll look it up and get back to you.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
