Linux-Advocacy Digest #758, Volume #25 Wed, 22 Mar 00 21:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Bsd and Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Bsd and Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux... (Codifex Maximus)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Leon Hanson)
Re: Linux sure is coming around... (Ciaran)
Re: To all Windows 2000/98/95 Fans (George Richard Russell)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (JEDIDIAH)
They say it can be done...Can it? (LFessen106)
Re: Bsd and Linux (I R A Darth Aggie)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (Tony Houghton)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (David T. Blake)
Re: Bsd and Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 22 Mar 2000 23:37:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:> In comp.os.linux.development.apps Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> : On 21 Mar 2000 20:26:50 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
:>
:> :>Put the ulimit in /etc/profile if you want it to be global.
:>
:> : Better -- if you're smart enough to use Redhat (-; you can use
:> : PAM to do this.
:>
:> That's not better, it's worse. Would someone mind telling what use is
:> pam except for introducing another layer of redhat-style obsucrantism
:> that is likely to break at any moment.
:>
:> Suuurrre I want my login to call a dynamic library, oh yeah. Like NOT.
:> Just say no.
: That's funny, both BSD and Solaris use it as well.
And so? What for? A quick scan of your disk will show you that only
su, passwd, login and xdm are linked to libpam or whatever it is.
These utilities are only used to let you login. If you want to do
tricks then, put them in the appropriate system scripts.
: PAM is incredible; I can change from DES3 to MD5 to SMB to NIS
: without much hassle at all.
And why would you want to? Please keep passwd in crypt format. There's
nothing wrong with it. And as for switching to NIS .. whether you use
NIS or files to keep your passwd in is none of the business of login
or anything else. It's a function of the getpwdentry() calls in libc.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 22 Mar 2000 23:43:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 22 Mar 2000 14:15:57 GMT, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
:>: Better -- if you're smart enough to use Redhat (-; you can use
:>: PAM to do this.
:>
:>That's not better, it's worse. Would someone mind telling what use is
:>pam except for introducing another layer of redhat-style obsucrantism
:>that is likely to break at any moment.
: Whatever. It's not Redhat-specific. I believe it was originally on
: Solaris, and now it's available on several UNIXs. Which UNIX do you
This does not make it good. Sun has invented other mostrous
imbecilities before. NIS+ springs to mind.
: use ? I bet they have it.
I use linux, and I do not have it or want it. I just took the trouble
to compile it OUT of the suse 6.3 I installed somewhere.
:>Suuurrre I want my login to call a dynamic library, oh yeah. Like NOT.
: It's awfullly nice to have centralised control over both the login
: proceedure and session management. Suppose you want everyone to authenticate
That's called /etc/csh.login and /etc/profile.
: against one server ( rather than requiring seperate user accounts on
That's called NIS.
: different machines ). You can do it with PAM. Suppose you want to set user
: limits without having to close all loopholes ( ie the login files for
That's called quota.
: every user shell, plus X sessions ). It's one file with PAM. Suppose
: you don't want anyone logging in between 1-2am on Sundays. PAM makes this
That's called userctl (or whatever it is called .. I've never used it).
: easy.
Oh yes? The configuration file is absolutely incomprehensible,
and I AM an expert, and I _have_ even managed once or twice in my life
to manage NIS+ passwds. I can tell you that the solaris manpage for
passwd was evidently written by the same monkeys.
So what does PAM buy you that isn't already there? Bear in mind that
only su, login and xdm use it!
Peter
------------------------------
From: Codifex Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux...
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 17:52:32 -0600
piddy wrote:
>
> 1. It's buggy.
> 2. It's ugly.
> 3. It's slow.
> 4. Netscape is owned by AOL
> 5. It has no useful GUI
> 6. Programmers who work free are bad programmers.
> 7. Corel makes a version
> 8. No one has ever made money on it.
> 9. No one will ever buy Linux apps.
> 10. Greenspan wore a green tie on St paddies day
> 11. Apple is about to release OSX
> 12. Beos is about to release 5
> 13. Windows 2000 is.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> piddy
Please dont' feed the trolls.
Codifex Maximus
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leon Hanson)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:58:04 GMT
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:51:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leon Hanson)
wrote:
Well, since no one has been able to provide any answers to the seven
items I want on a Linux desktop, I guess Linux isn't ready for my
desktop.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux sure is coming around...
From: Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:00:06 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter) wrote:
>On 22 Mar 2000 21:21:42 GMT, JoeX1029 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>i think you may have missed my point some what. I'm simply
saying that Linux
>>is begining to become a "legitimate" OS meaning that instead
of only finding it
>>in specialized comp stores and the net, it can be bought
everywhere.
>
>Sorry JoeX1029, I did see your point, and of course your right,
Linux *is*
>appearing everywhere these days, even here in Australia.
>
>For those wo are willing to put in a bit of effort, learning
Linux
>or who already have some idea about it, this is definetly a
good thing.
And speaking of Australia... they are selling linux in Harvey
Norman stores round here. Its bizarre. I was looking at what
they had there(Corel, RedHat, some old archived Infomagic ROM of
linux stuff) and a "Friendly Harvey Norman Sales Bot"(TM)(for
non-Australians just translate this into another store of your
choice) came up to me and asked me if I needed help(which I
obviously do).
I pretended to not know anything(not difficult for me) and
listened in stunned amazment to a long prolinux diatribe from a
guy who obviously didnt know what the hell he was talking
about... I asked if you could run MS office on it and he said
yes ??? Scary. No wonder you get people that are pissed off at
linux.
Cheers,
Ciaran
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Subject: Re: To all Windows 2000/98/95 Fans
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 00:02:01 GMT
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:22:03 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>3. Unix has been around for over 20 years thus making it a superior
>operating system. If Microsoft believes they can cram 20 years of
>devlopment into 9 years then I must be a millionaire!
1)DOS has been around for 20 years, and Linux only for 9 years.
2)Therefore, DOS is superior to Linux
3)Bollocks.
Age indicates nothing about the worth of an Operating System.
BeOS is new and cool - CP/M is old and crap.
Unix is old and good - Windows 2000 is new and ????
George Russell
--
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:59:24 GMT
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:41:42 GMT, George Richard Russell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 21:41:06 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 21:15:26 GMT, George Richard Russell
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:39:59 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:17:31 GMT, George Richard Russell
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>Because a free stable and released spread sheet that is equivalent to Win 3.1
>>>>>era spread sheets doesn't exist?
>>>>
>>>> That's nothing more than repeating an unsupported assertion.
>>>> Repeating something over and over again doesn't, by itself,
>>>> make something true.
>>>
>>>What free spreadsheet has equivalent functionality to Lotus 123 from SmartSuite
>>>96, the last 16 bit windows 3.1 version?
>>>
>>>Go on, list them Jedi.
>>
>> I've already stated that a bulletpoint by bulletpoint comparison
>> is meaningless. You have no apparent awareness of how you, or how
>> you presume others, use a spreadsheet.
>
>Its meaningless because you'd lose such a comparison Jedi. No more, no less.
>You'd crow it from the rooftops if the boot was on the other foot.
No, it's meaningless because it's not at all obvious that all,
or even most of those bulletpoints are relevant to the typical
end user. This is akin to Beowulf in Linux terms or that spiffy
BeOS spinning cube with the mpegs playing on each face.
>
>I am quite aware of how spread sheets are used, thank you. And I've even seen
>how others use them too. And guess what Jedi, your precious, idealistic software
>community hasn't written one as good as the evil monopolistic company's, or
>its competitors, or the commercial Unix ISV's spreadsheets.
All hot air and no substance.
You can drone on and on for eternity about how something is
inferior. However, until you actually fill in the details
you are just a crackpot spouting propaganda.
>
>There is a reason why Miguel is shamelessly copying the UI and features of
>Excel in Gnumeric.
He could be copying the current version of 123 or Quattro
and you likely wouldn't be asare of it.
>
>> So attempting to discuss any arbitrary spreadsheet as not
>> 'featured' enough is meaningless.
>
>Oh yeah, how do you compare two pieces of software written for the same task,
>on the basis of which one looks prettier on the screen? Maybe you do.
>
>Feature comparisons allow users to see if their needs are supported. You seem
>to want people to switch blindly, unheedingly, and to unstable alpha software
>too.
No, feature comparisons allow for mindless marketing.
They don't necessarily address the needs of actual users.
Nevermind that you never BOTHERED to even indulge in a meaningful
feature comparison. Made more broad statements about types of
features.
>
>> I would also like to reiterate the point that you are grossly ignorant
>> or just a plain liar when it comes to certain aspects of older Unix
>> tools to begin with nevermind gnumeric.
>
>Feel free to iterate whatever you wish. You have, however, demonstrated
>absoloutely no knowledge of the features available in Windows spreadsheets.
I hack *iqy files. Can you tell us what an *iqy file is and why
or why not I might be editing one with a text editor, or how I
might be utilizing it once it's been dinked?
>
>Examples of my ignorance of "older Unix tools" is welcome, as well as evidence
>of your knowledge of "Unix spreadsheets vs Windows spreadsheets"
>
>Have you ever even tried Gnumeric? Or say, Excel? For non trivial tasks?
>I doubt it.
What's non-trivial? Be specific.
Why would should most people care about your definition of non-trivial?
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (LFessen106)
Subject: They say it can be done...Can it?
Date: 23 Mar 2000 00:35:07 GMT
I have heard that Linux can be run on a 386 wityh 4 megs of ram several
times... WELL, I'd like to test that theory, and I happen to have an old
working 386 12mhz with 4 megs of ram and a 200 meg hdd. Can it be done? You
tell me (please!). What distro should I use? What in the world can I do with
a 386 12 running Linux? What would it be good for (if anything)? This is just
a fun project and I just *hate* throwing good hardware away. The pc is runnnig
win3.11 happily right now, but I am SURE that we could make better use of it
that that right?
-Linc.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I R A Darth Aggie)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 23 Mar 2000 00:30:44 GMT
Reply-To: no-courtesy-copies-please
On 22 Mar 2000 23:37:59 GMT,
Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
<8bblgn$928$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+ In comp.os.linux.development.apps Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+ : "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
+
+ :> In comp.os.linux.development.apps Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+ :> : On 21 Mar 2000 20:26:50 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
+ :>
+ :> :>Put the ulimit in /etc/profile if you want it to be global.
+ :>
+ :> : Better -- if you're smart enough to use Redhat (-; you can use
+ :> : PAM to do this.
+ :>
+ :> That's not better, it's worse. Would someone mind telling what use is
+ :> pam except for introducing another layer of redhat-style obsucrantism
+ :> that is likely to break at any moment.
Actually, PAM is a Sun-ism...
+ : That's funny, both BSD and Solaris use it as well.
+ And so? What for?
solaris_7 % man pam.conf
A PAM module provides functionality for one or more of four
possible services: authentication, account management, session
management, and password management.
James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
The Bill of Rights is paid in Responsibilities - Jean McGuire
To cure your perl CGI problems, please look at:
<url:http://www.perl.com/CPAN/doc/FAQs/cgi/idiots-guide.html>
------------------------------
From: Tony Houghton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: 23 Mar 2000 00:26:40 GMT
Reply-To: Tony Houghton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In <8bbgdq$80u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's too bad that people are still hanging on to physical media. But then,
> with all the bloatware around and limited bandwidth, it's hardly a surprise.
> I hope that will change in the future. Won't be good for your business, though...
As long as Internet access isn't included in the BIOS, people will still
want their OS on disc :-).
--
http://www.caspian.uklinux.net
Use the address in the Reply-To header to avoid a spam trap when
emailing me. Your newsreader should automatically do so.
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 20:04:46 -0500
Damien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | Yes, which is one of the things that makes Linux installation more
difficult
> | for most newbies.
> The only difficult part of a Redhat install is partitioning. Of
> course, that is skipped if you don't choose a custom install. The
> rest of it is ridiculously easy, mostly done unattended, and only
> requires one reboot.
I agree Red Hat installs are pretty easy, and very cool. I still haven't
installed without choosing custom, I have to try that sometime.
The last time I installed Red Hat on one of my machines I had my wife do it,
just out of curiosity to see what her reaction would be (yes, I even
experiment on my wife, bwahahahaha!). Just for some background, she works
part time with me, but she also works in project management for a banking
software developer. She has spotty computer knowledge, as in she might know
a bit of Java, but she has to ask me questions about formatting in Word
documents.
Basically, all the instructions put her off a bit (she's one of those people
who doesn't have the patience to read things like that), and since we did a
custom install she was stumped a couple times (I'm sure she would have
figured it out on her own, but it was easier to just ask me what to do) but
she did okay.
--doc
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: 22 Mar 2000 14:36:14 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bilge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only need for truetype fonts was that adobe is just like
> many other companies and are in general,
Or, in this case, Apple, who owns 3 patents on TrueType
fonts.
> The way to fix everything and to even acheive TRUE wysiwyg (if
> I spelled it right) is to implement display postscript. Then, all
> screen display is just rendered postscript.
Naw. Font anti-aliasing would be enough to give X the same
capabilities of Windows and Mac OSs. Alpha-rendering would
put it in a class by itself. Note that these are not
difficult and area already done in X - see www.freetype.org,
for an example see www.enlightenment.org, and
http://www.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/ini/PEOPLE/rmz/t1lib/t1lib.html
t1lib, a Type1 rasterizer with antialiasing and alpha rendering. It
is used, for example, in xpdf. The issue is in the X server design.
> There is supposedly a project to do this, but
> I dont know if anything is going on with it currently. Display
> postscript, as I understand it was given or (licensed with no
> real restrictions) to the X consortium ages ago, adobe has a lot
> of documentation and example
> code and DEC is at least one company that's used it.
Let me tell you, Dec's display postscript revolutionized
my life. After that came out, I could use it instead of gv/gs
for viewing postscript on the screen.
True 'display the same anywhere' technology has been around for
a LONG LONG time in the form of TeX/DVI. It is a low level goal
of that project. It is not a prioritized enough goal for
postscript or pdf to make it really happen.
--
Dave Blake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 23 Mar 2000 01:01:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps I R A Darth Aggie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: solaris_7 % man pam.conf
: A PAM module provides functionality for one or more of four
: possible services: authentication, account management, session
: management, and password management.
And what exactly does that gibberish mean? "provides functionality for"
means "enables". "possible" is a word that doesn't mean anything.
All the mentioned "services" are more than adequately catered for
already. Authentication is the job of login (or kerberized login).
Account management is quota. Session management is kdm. Password
management is passwd.
Take pam away and you lose nothing and gain robustness against failures.
login should _never_ be dynamically linked.
Peter
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
