Linux-Advocacy Digest #702, Volume #25 Sun, 19 Mar 00 21:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (Tim Kelley)
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (Dr Sinister)
Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work.... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
("Christopher Smith")
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (rob)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (Gary Hallock)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(ZnU)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (Ilya Grishashvili)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 19:24:11 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeff Greer wrote:
>
> Gnu programmers don't suck, but they really piss me off. I believe they
> are being really irresponsible towards the linux community by releasing
> programs which are so hard to install. Has anyone tried installing
> Gnucash? This bastard appears to require the installation of six other
> packages: XmHTML-1.1.5.tar.gz, eperl-2.2.14.tar.gz, guile-1.3.tar.gz,
> lesstif-0.88.1.tar.gz, nana-2.3.tar.gz, swig1.1p5.tar.gz. WTF! If a
> program requires this much bullshit to install it should not have a
> version number of 1.x. A version number this high is very misleading to
> anyone who want to install this software. A program in not complete or
> deserving of a 1.x version until there is a relatively easy way to
> install it. It seems that the Gnome programmers are focusing too much
> on technical coolness while leaving the user behind.
Well, I think GNU programmers are some of the coolest folks in the world, but
yes, compiling some programs can be a total bitch, trying to track down what
headers and development libraries you need, or whether there in /usr/local or
/usr (generally where their expected to be). Most of my stuff is in /usr/local
so I tend to have to tweak most ./configure scripts to get them to work.
All I really ask is that they provide links to the relevant sources on which
their programs depend on their home pages. That would alleviate a lot of
suffering. Very few people do this. It is genuinely frustrating when make
spits out something like "blah.h: file not found." Sometimes one can guess at
what one needs. Sometimes not.
However, note that sources are really meant to distribute to programmers, not
end users, but there are a lot of non-programmers and
"admin-but-just-barely-progammers" (like myself) compiling linux software these
days. So perhaps things will change a bit in the future.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
From: Dr Sinister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 19 Mar 2000 20:22:39 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED],net wrote:
(snip)
> I find updating Linux to be more often than not a hodge podge of
> technospeak that requires an interpreter who speaks geek to translate.
>
> Windows by contrast is fast and easy.
Perhaps you meant to say "Install Shield by contrast is fast and easy."
--
GUIs make you stupid.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work....
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 19:27:24 -0600
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
Did you read what I wrote?
It's not what they added. It's what they didn't add.
> > > 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.
And how do you know this wasn't done? In any event, it doesn't invalidate
the statement.
> > > 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.
You're claiming this is not true?
> > > TRUE, they have had 2 years extra to develop and test their product!
> >
> > Which they did.
>
> badly.
You have examples?
> > 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.
Reference?
> > > 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.
The problem was not with NT, it was with the end user code.
> > > 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.
And it's core design is to be backwards compatible. Right?
Please explain why Windows 2000 is more stable than Windows NT 3.51, which
was before the changes you speak of.
> > 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.
Were those compiled under the .90 kernel? I don't think so.
> 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.
Win16 and Win32 are different API's. They are not simply "new versions" of
the same API. This would be like expecting the same API to exist in BSD
versus System V. Many of them do, but not all.
> 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.
Device drivers are always the most likely to change in any OS. Are you
telling me that Device drivers from Linux 1.0 are the same as they are
today?
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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 Re:Darwin or
Linux
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:23:08 +1000
"Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I would much rather have the real player than quick time. Quick time for
> windows is way over rated and it's no wonder why Apple is still far
> behind Real and Microsoft among Windows users. Of course Windows users
> have no taste I suppose since they are using Windows.
Realplayer and Quicktime both suck under Windows IME.
Realplayer is unstable. Added to that it often gets out of sync between
video and sound and it adds things to run at startup in a way that makes
them a pain to get rid of.
Quicktime is unstable. Added to that it's slow, does something weird to the
display while it's playing, has no fullscreen option (on the free version at
least) and has that awful interface.
I hate em both and only use either under extreme duress (read: I can't
locate a version of whatever it is in any other format and I really want to
watch it).
------------------------------
From: rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 11:04:24 -0700
The worst part is when you finally fight your way through it and
the application resembles a sloppy, scripted application prototype.
I don't think you or any of us have a right to be angry at GNU
Programmers;
it's not their fault when somebody accepts and attempts to use
what they offer for free. GNUCash itself, however, I found both
difficult to install and non-worthwhile afterwards. I'm sure GNUCash
meets somebody's needs precisely, but my wife refused to use it so
we picked up Quicken Basic 2000 and we use that now. I sure wish
quicken would just make a linux version. Having a non-free alternative
would not preclude continuing development on free alternatives like
gnucash. (Or maybe I should work on my own? Hmm, that might be a
fun project... :)
Jeff Greer wrote:
>
> Gnu programmers don't suck, but they really piss me off. I believe they
> are being really irresponsible towards the linux community by releasing
> programs which are so hard to install. Has anyone tried installing
> Gnucash?
<snip>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 20:31:14 -0800
In article <ZZIA4.966$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:YeHA4.2633$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> > 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.
>
> Such a program could operate under Unix as well. Your mail aliases are just
> as accessible to a binary program (and more and more binary releases are
> coming out these days).
>
Can you give me an example of such a virus running under linux?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 01:31:42 GMT
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 11:04:24 -0700, rob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The worst part is when you finally fight your way through it and
>the application resembles a sloppy, scripted application prototype.
>I don't think you or any of us have a right to be angry at GNU
>Programmers;
>it's not their fault when somebody accepts and attempts to use
>what they offer for free.
Getting angry at the programmers is definately NOT the solution. They
provide programs that are useful for some folks out there and
certainly the price is right.
Unfortunately your description of sloppy, scripted application
prototype so accurately describes the typical Linux program.
Linux users are willing to put up with crap like this. Others are not.
GNUCash itself, however, I found both
>difficult to install and non-worthwhile afterwards. I'm sure GNUCash
>meets somebody's needs precisely, but my wife refused to use it so
>we picked up Quicken Basic 2000 and we use that now. I sure wish
>quicken would just make a linux version.
GNUCash and Quicken are in completely different ballparks. There is
one Linux idiot in this group (Terry are you there?) that actually has
the audacity to suggest CBBD or something like that (a basic check
book balancing program) as a solution to TaxCut and Quicken.
Having a non-free alternative
>would not preclude continuing development on free alternatives like
>gnucash. (Or maybe I should work on my own? Hmm, that might be a
>fun project... :)
If you can do it, folks are out there that would love you for it :)
>Jeff Greer wrote:
>>
>> Gnu programmers don't suck, but they really piss me off. I believe they
>> are being really irresponsible towards the linux community by releasing
>> programs which are so hard to install. Has anyone tried installing
>> Gnucash?
><snip>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 19:37:32 -0600
A transfinite number of monkeys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 14:53:57 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> : > What color is the sky in your world? For two months after MSFT bought
> : > Hotmail, they tried in vain to do this. They've tried on at least two
> : > other occasions that I know of. All miserable failures.
> :
> : Provide some proof of this. Any proof.
>
> If you're looking for eye-witness accounts, I can't provide that. I can,
> however, provide press coverage of their attempts.
>
> http://www.vnunet.com/News/52704
>
> Even if you discount the "source close to Hotmail", consider the
statements
> later in the article by Judy Gibbons, a higher-up at MSN:
The article is filled with many inconsistencies and is typical of someone
trying to make hearsay sound like fact.
The fact is that there was no "leaked report". The "sources close to
Microsoft" were claimed to be actual people talking anonymously in a
different article. The fact that this "reporter" decided to add the little
bit of embellishment of it being a "leaked report" shows how reliable this
information is.
> "We looked at all the on-line mail services and Hotmail was far and away
> the best. It has the most proven and scalable architecture."
Says nothing about the OS or hardware it runs on. She's talking about the
architecture of the application.
> : Then make her a power user. You've deliberately restricted her access
then
> : you're complaining when she can't do stuff. This is YOUR fault.
>
> How is that "my fault"? There's a Microsoft Q article on it, so that's an
> admission on MSFT's part that there's a defect.
No, Q articles can be anything from "how-to's" to bugs. This is a "How-to".
> : Well then, explain the steps to installing the latest Voodoo3 driver on
your
> : Linux system instead of using the stock one that comes with it.
>
> 1) Go to http://linux.3dfx.com/open_source/download/voodoo3_banshee.htm
> 2) Download the four files for my system
> 3) Install the X server, and two glide components (rpm -Uvh)
> 4) rpm --rebuild then install the device driver module
> This one gets built from source because it has kernel dependencies.
>
> It's STILL easier.
You're glossing over a few details.
> Besides, my choice, Mandrake 7.0, comes with the 3dfx provided X server
> on the CD. It's the server that gets installed automatically when the
> system detected the presence of the Voodoo3. You can't get much better
> than vendor-supported drivers that are installed automatically.
Except when the vendor supplied driver is no longer current, as is the case
with Windows 2000.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:36:15 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:17:42 -0500, Gary Hallock
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > Installing an application on
> >Linux is trivial. I find it quite easy with Redhat.
> Assuming you have all the dependencies, which is highly unlikely, it is.
If you only use one or two apps, perhaps. But most distributions (certainly
Redhat) come with most libraries already. I have found it rare that I don't
already have the dependencies either installed or on the distribution disk.
When I do have to download a library, it is then available for many other apps
and it is one less thing to worry about for the next app.
>
>
> > But, from what I
> >understand, Debian is even easier since it will go out to the web and grab
> >dependencies if you ask it to.
>
> Sure it will 3.5 days later on a dialup connection. I can grab the
> entire Windows update as well and spend an equally wasted amount of
> time. Difference is I don't NEED the Win update in order to run
> programs.
>
This is a totally illogical statement. You seem to want it both ways. If the
app comes with all dependent libraries then your download time will be huge for
each and every app. But that is what you are advocating. If the libraries are
packaged separately then you only have to download them once, not a separate copy
per app. So the linux way saves on download time.
Gary
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or
Linux
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 01:37:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:10:52 GMT, Rex Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In <8athfr$l0r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Jensen wrote:
> >> Rex Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> : The <rant> in MP's post had an aire of frustration at the obvious.
> >> : MP
> >> : reframed the solution everyone was making for a QuickTime problem -
> >> : that
> >> : wasn't.
> >>
> >> : I didn't read any elitist whiner "we got ours - now here's how you
> >> : get
> >> : yours" posturing. It's disengenious packaging BSD+Gnu with MP's
> >> : observation making Apple out the moral hypocrite.
> >>
> >> : Any *attitude* ... was the temerity of condemning Apple closed
> >> : source
> >> : when it suits Linux philosophy and ignoring Apple open source when
> >> : it
> >> : doesn't.
> >>
> >> I think I started this, actually. In replying to mbkennel's question
> >> of
> >> what Apple could do to enguage the Linux movement, I wrote:
> >>
> >> "Or 'Why, exactly?'
> >>
> >> Why didn't Apple make a Quicktime player for Linux?
> >>
> >> They certainly didn't owe it to anyone, but why did they decide
> >> not to make friends?"
> >>
> >> We were discussing how Apple could build bridges to the Linux
> >> community,
> >> and I was suggesting that Apple simply didn't want such bridges. The
> >> first answer I got to the QuickTime question was that it would take
> >> too
> >> long and be too costly. Later we were informed my Mr. Paquette that
> >> it
> >> was actually pretty easy.
> >>
> >> (It is amusing that at least one other person in this group who
> >> earlier
> >> said "too hard" has now shifted seamlessly to "too easy". Ah well,
> >> this
> >> is *.advocacy and consistency is a little too much to expect.)
> >>
> >> It seems to reinforce my feeling that the Apple culture is
> >> uncomfortable
> >> with the Linux movement, when they will cast about for any reason not
> >> to
> >> help them.
> >>
> >> I'll say it again, lest there be confustion "They certainly didn't owe
> >> it
> >> to anyone, but why did they decide not to make friends?"
> >>
> >> If the answer is that Apple doesn't want those kind of friends, we can
> >> take that information and move on.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Insanity is asking the same question over again expecting different
> >answers.
> >
> >
> >This philosophical matrix you work at constructing around Apple has
> >no tenets upon which to host logical debate. Unilaterally assigning
> >malappropriation of thought and non-actions on Apple's behalf is the
> >Justice Clarence Thomas dilemna. Accused, maligned and painted a
> >turncoat on the Linux revolutionary forces - Apple cannot disprove
> >the falsehood?
>
> They give lip service to openness and then turn around and
> encourage everyone to join their 'windows only club'. They
> choose to treat smaller competitor systems just as Microsoft
> would prefer to treat Apple.
>
> This is why we chuckle at Apple when they claim to give away
> BSD and not their hypocrisy when they do so the day after the
> first TPM trailer was snugly vendorlocked away from anyone
> who contributed to the BSD codebase.
>
> Nevermind Linux, Apple is excluding the exact same people that
> they sponged their OS core off of.
The BSD people knew what they were doing when they placed their code
under BSDL. If any of them has a problem with Apple's actions, they
should have used GPL.
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 19:42:32 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:bEYA4.357$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Such a program could operate under Unix as well. Your mail aliases are
just
> > as accessible to a binary program (and more and more binary releases are
> > coming out these days).
>
> Can you give me an example of such a virus running under linux?
Typical attitude. Because it hasn't been done, means it can't be done.
------------------------------
From: Ilya Grishashvili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:38:44 -0800
Jeff Greer wrote:
>
> Gnu programmers don't suck, but they really piss me off. I believe they
> are being really irresponsible towards the linux community by releasing
Well, I don't know guys, this is my opinion you don't have to agree.
But IMHO...
If you want to use this err... hm.. GnuCache ... whatever... may be
better
use M$. Same if you need Excel or PowerPoint ...
I'm a real Penguinist, but I have to admit:
LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
AND NOT FOR EVERY NEED.
If you're a secretary who only needs email and office tools, linux is
not for
you! Same for this cache program. Same for children who want to play
Quake.
Same for those who use their computers mainly for browsing web or for
chats.
I feel sorry when I see that Linux more and more looks like M$ Windoze
(understand me right, I mean user interface, all the fancy buttons and
stuff).
Unix (Linux) is an operating system developed by programmers and for
programmers or researchers !!!
If you're doing a real development like file/mail/web/database servers ,
or
developing some new network protocols, or calculating some huge
(~Tbytes)
data of statistics, or some intelligent pattern recognitions e.t.c
(endless list)
the Linux is what you need. But trying to install Linux with intention
to use
it as an mp3 player (substitute here by GnuCach or whatever) this hurts
my feelings.
Anyway, my point is:
DO NOT try to install GnuCache on Linux
--
================================================
Ilya Grishashvili
Computer Systems Group
Ph.D. CS Department
Marlan & Rosemary Bourns College of Engineering
University of California, Riverside
Office: Bourns Hall B246
Phone: (909) 787-2893
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: mirage.cs.ucr.edu/~elias/
================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
