Linux-Advocacy Digest #693, Volume #25 Sun, 19 Mar 00 09:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was ("John C. Randolph")
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was ("John C. Randolph")
Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work.... (mlw)
Re: Why waste time on Linux? (root)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Norman D. Megill)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Norman D. Megill)
Re: Salary? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Make linux primary OS at work? (ken klavonic)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John C. Randolph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 11:11:15 GMT
JEDIDIAH wrote:
[re: Mike Paquette's credibility, vis-a-vis Podlipec]
> I'll take his word on the matter over some wanker like you.
Kid, it's pretty clear that you have no idea who Mike Paquette is, and
are completely unaware of just how big an ass you're making of yourself.
Why don't you go and do a bit of research, and then come back here and apologize.
-jcr
------------------------------
From: "John C. Randolph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 11:25:58 GMT
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 11:58:00 GMT, Sal Denaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:16:28 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Oh how assinine. We're not talking about just another open standard
> >> in this case. That is what Motif is, and what OpenStep is. THAT is
> >> why it is reasonable to expect a few college kids to get together
> >> and clone the things.
> >>
> >> Apple is shoving content down our throats that some of us can't
> >> decode and won't bother to provide the tools or the information
> >> to decode that information.
> >
> >Did you read Mike's post? _he_ wrote a clone of QT for Unix with three
> >other programmers using information published by Apple. It took him
>
> He did NOT write a complete replacement for Quicktime in 1.5
> weeks.
Oh yes he did too, and I have a copy on one of my old NeXT systems.
> You are a sleazy piece of shit for trying to claim he
> did.
And you're an ignorant prat for trying to claim that he didn't.
> The 'wrapper' bit of Quicktime has been accessable for
> years. NOONE is complaining about that bit.
Okay, since you want to take that kind of tone: Listen up, ASSWIPE.
NeXTTime plays QT movies. NeXT didn't get any help from Apple to make
this happen. This was during the time when Apple wished NeXT would dry
up and blow away, since they were making Apple's technical incompetence
so blindingly apparent.
Mike Paquette was a principal developer of NeXTTime, which sure as hell
*was* a replacement for quicktime. (except that it performed much
better, and had a far cleaner API.) FYI, NeXTTime was also the first
multimedia framework which inclueded wavelet compression for video. The
man knows the math, he knows the code, he's done this *particular*
reverse-engineering task before, and he has several orders of magnitude
more coding cred than you.
Now, if you want to quit bitching and start coding, I strongly suggest
that you apologize to Mike, and to the rest of the people on these
newsgroups who are better-informed than yourself, so that you might be
able to get some help from your intellectual superiors if you can't
handle the video math yourself.
-jcr
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work....
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 06:44:31 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:XZIA4.7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Just got the news from our support people that Windows 2000 is not
> backwardly
> > compatible with NT. Case in point is Core Technologies BRIDGE software
> which
> > is capable of poll-select via a com port under NT, doesn't work under Win
> 2000.
>
> Win2k is very backwards compatible with NT. There are some exceptions
> though. Specifically in areas relating to drivers and low-level hardware
> access. This is most likely where you're running into problems. Windows
> 2000 has an entirely different device driver model than NT did. The old
> device driver model is still present to some degree, but is not fully
> backwards compatible. This was a choice between stability and
> compatibility. MS chose stability.
This is patently false marketing propaganda. Microsoft has never chosen
stability of ease of implementing features. Name one feature that was
added to NT that "improved" stability.
>
> > Reason is the Microsoft team didn't thoroughly test their product!
>
> Not in the slightest. Win2k is the most thoroughly tested product of this
> magnitude ever developed.
More marketing propaganda. End unit testing is useless on an OS. Only
component testing, core reviews, and peer review can find the real hard
to find bugs.
>
> > TRUE, Windows 2000 is almost 2 years behind their original lofty
> schedules.
>
> Primarily because MS chose stability as the primary goal of Windows 2000
> over ship dates.
More marketing propaganda.
>
> > TRUE, they have had 2 years extra to develop and test their product!
>
> Which they did.
badly.
>
> > TRUE, it costs over $300 a copy to get it.
>
> Who cares? The cost of the product is miniscule in it's Total Cost of
> Ownership, which includes training, support, maintenance, administration,
> etc..
More marketing propaganda. The latest TCO research seems to indicate
that NT is one of the more expensive operating systems. Even more
expensive than UNIX.
>
> > TRUE, all we can do is tell our customers we DON'T KNOW WHEN MICROSOFT
> WILL FIX IT!
>
> Why not tell your customers that YOU will fix it, instead of pointing
> fingers?
Because NT is closed source and there are something's ISVs can't do.
>
> > God I'm sick of Microsoft. I'm so tired of the moronic stupidity...
> > The cost. The cost. The cost... The cost....
>
> The cost is miniscule.
Compared to what?
>
> > Why is it ! Why can't Microsoft make a backwardly compatible product????
>
> That's what Windows 9x is. And that's why it's so unstable.
Windows 9x in unstable because of its core design. NT is unstable
because of what MS has added to the core design.
>
> > Not even in VB can they make a backwardly compatible product!!!!
>
> VB is quite backwards compatible.
Really? Hmm.
>
> > Why is it that a group of part time programmers can make Linux which is
> backwardly
> > compatible for 9-10 years now and yet a bunch of BIG-BOYS working for
> MICROSOFT can
> > not.....
>
> Linux has the advantage of source code for everything. When you have to
> maintain binary compatibility with your old systems, things get much harder.
> I doubt that binaries from Linux .90 still run in today's Linux.
The way in which the product has been distributed is compatible. Binary
products (Applix) from RedHat 5.x days still runs, Older netscapes still
run.
>
> > The "BIG-BOYS" are having problems!
> >
> > And because the "BIG-BOYS" are having problems, I'M HAVING PROBLEMS!!!!
>
> Grow up and fix the problem with your software.
If a facility is given to you in an API from a vendor. One should be
able to rely on that API to remain workable. I do not know what the
persons exact problem is, but I have been down this road with MS myself
with the magic disappearing API being replaced by something totally
different, and not being updated on previous versions of the OS. The WFW
networking API is one off the top of my head.
If a major design strategy was designed around an API set there can be a
significant cost associated with changing the design. You must admit
that MS offering and documenting a public API, and then changing it such
that it no longer works as previously documented, is a very bad thing.
Many smaller companies can't afford to redesign a major product with out
letting other development slip. This can be a huge problem from some
ISVs.
>
> > I am pissed!
>
> It's called progress. Things change, you need to stay up on it. It doesn't
> matter if it's OS's or languages.
One can hardly call Windows 2K progress.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why waste time on Linux?
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 07:07:21 +0100
Brian Langenberger wrote:
>
> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : proculous wrote:
>
> :> When there are so many great windows and mcintosh programs out their
> :> what is the point of wasting time on a build it as you go along system?
>
> : Gee, all those applications, and Microsoft didn't even include TeX,
> : emacs and gcc. Yes, it's so hard to check the "Install Everything"
> : box during Red Hat setup.
>
> Egads, I wouldn't advise *that*. Red Hat installs best for me
> using the text installer (super fast) and the "custom" installation
> choice. Linux isn't likely to need reinstalling, so take the time
> to know exactly what you're putting on your hard drive.
> Just a few minutes saying "I don't need this, or this, or this..."
> can save a lot of space and keeps your system more secure -
> since you'll know which daemons and services you've got ahead of
> time and you can maintain them accordingly.
>
> And if you miss anything you wish you had, it's easy to pop the
> disc in again and add a few packages.
I agree. Same goes with SuSE. YaST 2 sucks INHO
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman D. Megill)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 19 Mar 2000 08:15:34 -0500
In article <8b0amn$4mb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
doc rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8ar214$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Well, hi "doc"! My, five different posts responding to mine over a
period of two hours (9:30 AM - 11:30 AM) on a Saturday morning. I am
flattered.
To save you time, I'll respond all at once and try to make it somewhat
brief.
Everything I said is accurate and stands as is. I never claimed my
procedure was absolutely optimum but neither you nor anyone else has
shown (nor can show) how, for this particular machine (Gateway Solo
2300XL) and its Windows 95 software (version 4.00.950 B), as provided by
the manufacturer, the installation can be made significantly shorter
overall.
>I don't have your document in front of me at the moment, but lots of it
>wasn't necessary, and there were all kinds of judgmental statements in it
>that definitely wouldn't be in a Gateway publication.
It is not a Gateway publication. As I have said more than once, it was
written by me for my own use, guided by several Gateway technicians over
a period of time.
>The general procedure (details differ slightly depending on the Windows
>version . . . for instance, Win2K requires 4 boot floppies) on an empty
>machine, or one in which you are reinstalling Windows over a previous
>installation is:
This is completely incorrect for Windows 95 on the machine I described.
But anyway let me make a general comment on steps 6 and 7:
>6. Hit Enter/Click okay a bunch of times when Windows tells you to.
>7. Make a cup of coffee. Keep hitting enter/clicking okay
"Hit Enter/Click okay a bunch of times"... "Keep hitting enter/clicking
okay"... If this is so simple why isn't it automated? Why do you have
to babysit the machine? With Linux instead of "Make a cup of coffee.
Keep hitting enter/clicking okay" it would be "Get some other work done
while you wait".
BTW why does Win2K require 4(!) boot floppies?
>Now, that may not install every driver you need...
Well, that is probably the biggest part of my procedure.
>By the way, most OEMs provide restore disks.
Which is fine if you haven't changed the original hardware
configuration. But anyway Gateway doesn't provide one for this machine.
>I seriously thought it was written as a joke. It sounds like something I
>would write if I was trying to be humorous through mockery and exaggeration.
Sorry to disappoint you, but it is the precise procedure that I use to
reinstall the OS on this machine. As I said before and say again it
does have an occasional redundancy that you and your friend "Roger" seem
to love nitpicking to death.
>> Version 1.4
>> Disk 1 or 1
>
>What is Version 1.4 and Disk 1 or 1?
Sorry, a typo. I meant Disk 1 of 1. This is just part of the label
printed on the diskette.
> > NOTE: DUE TO BUGS IN MICROSOFT FDISK, BADLY >CORRUPTED DISKS CANNOT BE
>> PARTITIONED. IN THAT CASE INSTALL LINUX TEMPORARILY >UP TO FDISK,
>
>In that case install Linux???? This is where I began to think that this was
>a joke.
Yes, it is exactly what I mean: in that case install Linux. Linux fdisk
will recover corrupted disks whereas MS FDISK will not.
>What is telling you to install Linux? Gateway's literature? lol
Gateway did not tell me this. I discovered this on my own after a
similar experience with eMachines (Windows 98), where the tech actually
told me (because of the MS FDISK bugs) that my corrupted disk had to be
replaced. And without Linux or possibly some third-party software that
I do not own, he was right.
>So your machine came with Linux, too?
No. I purchased it separately.
>Uh, how are "fdisk bugs" installing Windows? What does it have to do with
>installing Windows?
It has everything to do with installing Windows from scratch. Unless
you consider Windows just an app on top of DOS.
>> Says:
>> System will now restart
>> Insert DOS system diskette in drive A:
>> Press any key when ready...
>
>Insert DOS system diskette??? That's another reason I thought this was a
>joke. Now you're running Win95, Linux and DOS?
This is exactly what FDISK displays on the screen. Have you ever used it?
[big set of commentary, opinions, and speculations omitted, most of it
showing you have not experienced installing the OS on this machine.
This is getting boring and I don't have time to explain each one - in
some cases a 2nd time. If something *particularly* interests you as to
"why", please ask again and I may explain it.]
>> http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=343048337
>> http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=344029166
>> http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=344214952
>
>What are these, old newsgroup posts of yours from deja? None of the links
>worked.
Yes, they are my old newsgroup posts. I tried them again and they
worked for me. Anyway after "AN=" are the deja article numbers which
you can look up with some other method.
[...]
>I thought you claimed that these were Gateway's instructions? Are these
>published by Gateway somewhere? Do you have the name of someone at Gateway
>who specified all these steps?
As I explained earlier, more than once, this is the procedure I
documented while working with Gateway support over the phone on several
occasions. If you would like I can provide the Gateway event numbers as
well as the first names and badge numbers of the support techs I worked
with.
[...]
>The more I read your comments, the more I'm sensing that this should have
>been called "How to Install Windows 95 on a machine with new hardware if
>you're a paranoid with control issues"
[...]
>>Windows has enough mysterious flaky
>>problems as it is, so I want to eliminate as many unknowns as possible.
>
>Sounds like a control issue. They have doctors for that.
Sounds like common sense to me. Your ad hominem remarks are amusing
though.
Regards,
--Norm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman D. Megill)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 19 Mar 2000 08:21:41 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>On 16 Mar 2000 11:27:16 -0500, someone claiming to be Norman D. Megill
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>
>>>On 14 Mar 2000 23:06:05 -0500, someone claiming to be Norman D. Megill
>>>wrote:
>>>[...]Unless you have made changes to your BIOS setup, which you don't
>>>mention having made elsewhere, 5 6 and 7 can be eliminated altogether.
>
>>I do often make some changes after installation. So I want to get
>>everything back to a known state to be on the safe side. Anyway these
>>steps consume a trivial amount of time.
>
>What changes do you make to the BIOS / how are you certain that these
>are not contributing to your problems?
E.g. power management tailoring to my liking / there is no easy way to
tell without source code.
Look, if Windows seems "more flaky" than usual I'm not going to waste
hours with statistical charts on crash frequencies to try to correlate
them with my BIOS settings. Just putting EVERYTHING back to its
original state and starting over saves me a lot of time.
>>>> fdisk /mbr <- if boot sector is corrupted
>
>>>And since you have not mentioned that the boot sector is corrupt, this
>>>could be skipped in any case.
>
>>Again, this is almost instant. So why not do it anyway - how do I know
>>it's not corrupt? I am doing a clean reinstall because the computer
>>won't boot, or Windows crashes every hour instead of once a day, etc. -
>>I have no idea what is corrupted and what isn't. It also gets rid of
>>any boot sector viruses. But yes, sometimes I do skip this.
>
>You know, based on the behaviour of the box / the error message you
>get. If, indeed the boot sector is simply corrupt, likely none of the
>rest of this is needful.
You cannot determine this by the behavior of the box / the error
messages in general, only in certain cases. A corrupted boot sector can
in principle cause a number of strange behaviors. That's how boot
sector viruses work. Since no source code is provided there is no way
to identify what the problems are and what causes them. When some
Windows app starts to behave strangely or no longer runs even after
reinstalling it, or Windows crashes more frequently than usual, etc.
just putting EVERYTHING back to its original state and starting over
from scratch saves me time and guarantees a predictable result (for a
while anyway). That is just plain common sense in the MS world.
>>>> 4 (Delete Non-DOS Partition - says: No Non-DOS Partition to delete)
>
>>>If you know that there is not a non-DOS partition, why would you try
>>>to delete it?
>
>>Precaution. With a badly corrupted disk, who knows how FDISK will
>>interpret it.
>
>You do, if you use FDISK /STATUS.
Yes, but that now is 14 keystrokes instead of 2, plus reviewing the
screen and making a decision vs. a simple linear process.
>>>> copy *.* c:\cabs
>
>>>Not necessary -- Win95 installs just fine from CD.
>
>>This is to avoid constantly swapping the "Windows 95 CD" and the
>>"Multimedia Notebook System CD" later on.
>
>I know why you're doing it, but it is not "necessary,' as you claimed.
But we will then constantly swap the CDs later on, making the overall
procedure much less efficient. In that sense it is "necessary". If I
*didn't* put this step here you would probably go on and on about how
inefficient my procedure is because I omitted it. I can't win.
[Remaining nitpicking bypassed; I'm getting bored. My procedure works
just fine, thank you.]
--Norm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: 19 Mar 2000 13:45:06 GMT
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 06:38:04 GMT, Action wrote:
>Only since the industrial revolution 150 years ago, has the practice of taking
>the losers of a war as slaves, regardless of color, lose a following...
>I'm as sure my descendants were at some point slaves as Dr. Martin Luther
>King, Jr was sure of his descendants when he was with us.
>a better agruement could be used here..
Keep in mind that segregation was practised in the South up until the early
60s IIRC. Until fairly recently, the US was a *very* racist country.
>>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.
>
>I believe the race card is too generously tossed about, by all sides of the
>racial spectrum... after all, how would KKK members or Louis Farakhan (sp?)
>have a job if everyone were living happily ever after? in my experience, a
>claim of racism is a very self-fulfilling prophecy.. thats my two cents.
Well you know, that's a two sided coin. I've already shared my view about
"institutionalised racism" -- the point is that people are more comfortable
with their own ethnic group. This gives the white male an advantage --
it's easier for him to "network", and hence his opportunities for
placement and advancement are better. An example in point -- many minority
women have observed that white people will treat them better if they're in
the company of a white boyfriend.
I'm not trying to argue that there are cross burning hood wearing nuts
everywhere. This is (mostly) behind us. But it's all too easy ( and
expedient ) for white males to pretend that discrimination doesn't
exist ( often while practising it )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: ken klavonic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Make linux primary OS at work?
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 09:00:37 -0500
Lee Sau Dan wrote:
>
> >>>>> "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.
>
<snip>
No, it won't. I've got VMWare on this box (Linux 2.2.5, P233, 128M), and
it takes no less than 10 minutes to boot Win98. I shudder @ the thought
of what NT or *gasp* Win2k would look like...
I did this @ work with a PII-400, and Win2k performance was *acceptable*
- it wasn't great, but it was usable. I'd say that a pII350-400 would be
about minimum for NT4.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
