Linux-Advocacy Digest #761, Volume #25 Wed, 22 Mar 00 22:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Terry Porter)
Re: They say it can be done...Can it? (LFessen106)
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! (NY Tech)
Re: They say it can be done...Can it? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: They say it can be done...Can it? (mws)
Re: From the Horse's Mouth (Roger)
Re: Packaging Tools (Christopher Browne)
Re: Feature set: Kerberos, IPSec (Jeff Hall)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 23 Mar 2000 10:14:53 +0800
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:14:22
GMT, George Richard Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 , The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Well, those are server tasks. I the subject of this thread is "Linux
>>>on the desktop" which, in my mind, refers to Linux being used to run
>>>conventional desktop applications.
>>
>>Like spreadsheets? Gnumeric.
>
>Call us when it reaches a release version, comes out of alpha and beta testing,
>and has functionality equivalent to Windows 3.1 Works Suites.
No we wont call you George, no one is going to dumb Gnumeric down to
"Ms Works", which is a buggy piece of crap.
>
>>Word processors? Lyx is pretty good, so I've heard; AbiSoft; StarOffice.
>> Emacs (sort of).
>
>LyX - is emphatically not WYSIWYG. Its more a document formatter / typesetter.
Who said WYSISYG ??, that is a MS retrograte offering,.... keep it.
With WYSIWYG you also have WYSIWYT, and the work that entails.
What You See Is What You Typeset.
Lyx is WYSISYW, way better imho, have you ever actually used Lyx George ?
I'm always amazed when someone writes of Lyx as a document formatter/typesetter
when it's a GUI frontend for Latex and very easy to use, it has a spellchecker
formulae facility, help, templates etc, the list is huge.
>
>AbiSoft - Wordpad on windows is free and better. When AbiWord reaches a mature
>tested release, let us know.
I dont use it Lyx is all I need.
>
>StarOffice just is horrible. Usable, sure, but not nice.
Yeah another MS alike.
>
>You should mention kword, WordPerfect and Applixware if you wanted to make an
>argument of it. Fwiw, kword is alpha, Wordperfect is only in 3rd place on
>Windows Word processors, and Applixware is a niche product that existed since
>for years, nothing better could be had for Unix.
Yeah but Wordperfect isnt 3rd place on Unix wordprocessors.
>
>>E-mail? Good old mutt and elm; Netscape (when it works); emacs.
Pine, Xfmail, and others
>
>All lacking in the warm fuzzie ease of use and setup stakes - Netscapes client,
>essentially the same across platforms, sucks, and uses Motif.
Netscape does suck bigtime.
>
>Good GUI X11 mail readers (most desktops these days assume GUI - console is
>just so retro) are Xfmail and Kmail.
Pine is cool in a Eterm, with a nice background. Linux is NOT GUI *or* CLI
George.
>
>>News? slrn, tin, trn. All pretty basic, but they do the job nicely.
>> Netscape (when it works) if you absolutely, positively
>> need pictures (such as viewing
>> alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bestiality.hamster.duct-tape,
>> or something like that :-) ).
>> Also emacs.
>
>Emacs is simply not an option for most casual users - the effort to learn to
>use and setup emacs outweighs the benfits to the casual users. i.e Desktop.
>
>Gravity and Forte have no mature equivalent on X11 - but Xagent, PAN, krn, knode
Bullshit, George.
Slrn works nicely in a Xterm, mouse, colors the lot.
>etc are getting closer. Also, SOffices newsreader. Its a browser / mail / news
>reader as well as an Office suite. Shame it wants about 90Mb RSS.
>
>>Text editing? vi, emacs, jed, joe, ked.
>
>More comfortably, Nedit, gvim, kwrite
>
>>Development? make, g++, emacs.
>
>Kdevelop
>
>>Web browsing? Netscape, kfm, Amaya, a few others such as Mnemonic
>> and Mozilla Real Soon Now(tm). Also, emacs.
>
>Netscape well, sucks.
True
>kfm - for light usage, no java / javascript / plugins / funky layouts
>amaya - not really usable
>mnemonic - alpha, source tree currently not compilable.
>mozzila - soon to be beta. Just like always. in 24days or less, now, though.
Shows potential I hear.
>konquerer looks to be good too.
>
>>Java? www.blackdown.org, kaffe/guavac.
>
>Slow or incomplete or both. Lags behind Suns releases for Win32 / Solaris.
>
>IBM do a JDK, GCJ is showing promise.
>
>>LISP? Emacs. In fact, about the only thing emacs can't do is
>> display dirty pictures :-) ) (and it probably could if
>> someone codes up a LISP procedure that calls an external
>> image viewer! :-) ).
>
>How is lisp relevant to desktop usage? As a scripting language, you'd
>give novices the fits.
Yeah hahahah, it gave me fits.
> BASIC / python is much better for beginners.
>
>Xemacs can load pictures, btw, just look at the splash screen.
>
>>Games? Well, that's where Linux falls down, but there's a few
>> out there: Quake III (available at Fry's Electronics!),
>> Doom, and Quake I source code (which I for one haven't
>> tried to compile yet). Linux would make a great
>> gaming/server platform when Open/GL gets hot, though.
>
>And he support is moer complete, the gaming API;s completed etc.
>Things like ClanLib, the 3d sound API etc.
>
>>So...why is Linux not ready for the desktop?
It is of course!
>
>Too much like Unix of course. I mean, if you don't realise Emacs is not an
>option for desktop usage, then you won't realise why linux isn't ready for the
>desktop.
I believe Linux is as ready for the desktop as Windows ever *was*.
The "Windows is a good Desktop" sentiment is a myth.
Does a good Desktop crash, or lock up ?
Should a good Desktop, be able to run remote GUI or cli apps on another
box, easily ?
Should a good Desktop, offer many Window managers, instead of just the one?
We are not all alike, hence different cars, colors, etc.
Should a good Desktop allow me to log into it, if I'm away from my pc ?
>
>Most desktop users have never started a text editor, and frankly, a decent
>desktop should remove the need unless their software developers.
Again I disagre George, unless we are talking Desktops for Dummies. If thats
the case, let them have Windows.
>
>George Russell
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (LFessen106)
Subject: Re: They say it can be done...Can it?
Date: 23 Mar 2000 02:18:20 GMT
>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
Correction, it's a 386sx20 4Mram and an 85 meg hdd....
Makes it even MORE interesting doesn't it?
-Linc.
------------------------------
From: NY Tech <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 02:31:52 GMT
In article <8arsa4$1if6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : That's funny, I see the endcaps in CompUSA decimated. The number
>
> Enlighten me - what does "endcaps" mean?
That is the small shelf across the end area of the long shelves.
You know, where they always put the "For sale" items and stuff.
It is a very important placement in those stores. Sell, sell, sell.
>
> : of titles being sold in CompUSA is on the rise as is the number
> : of titles in BestBuy.
>
> : This is not consistent with lukewarm sales results.
>
> --
> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
> Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
>
--
Does anyone really read these things anymore?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: They say it can be done...Can it?
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 02:41:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (LFessen106) wrote:
> I have heard that Linux can be run on
> a 386 with 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?
The short answer - yes it can be done.
> You tell me (please!).
> What distro should I use?
Slackware gives the most bang for the buck - they offer
the installer a choice of kernels. The IDE with no network
boot and no SCSI is about 750k with no modules. You then
explicitly add the module for the Network card you are using.
The whole thing should fit in under 1 meg.
> What in the world can I do with a 386 12 running Linux?
Don't expect dazzlingly fast response if you want to use 24 bit
color with KDE and Word Perfect.
On the other hand, you can use TWM, Xemacs, and most of the GPL
applications in either 16 color mode or monochrome. 256 color
will be a bit slow, and Netscape will paint your desktop wierd
colors, but it does work. You might want to try Arena as a
browser.
Of course, you could also use it as a light server - as a firewall,
load balancer, for IP masquerading, for prototyping your web
site, for running CGI applications, and as a file server. I've
seen some people use this configuration to connect NetWare, NFS,
and SMB networks and make the networked file systems look like one
huge SMB file system.
> What would it be good for (if anything)?
It's a good learning tool, you can use it for very light loads,
for prototyping, and as an X terminal and/or as a thin client.
You can even run Java or quavac and kaffe.
> This is just a fun project and I just *hate*
> throwing good hardware away.
It's also getting harder to do these days. The EPA now has
dozens of regulations restricting the disposal of computers.
> The pc is runnnig win3.11 happily right now,
> but I am SURE that we could make better use of it
> that that right?
I know of some ISPs that started out with little more than
this configuration. They added a digiboard, an X.25 card,
and made their system a pop. The dial-up users could use
the POP like a UNIX box (usually they made "pine" the greeting
shell, and they could use the PPP port to get access to the web.
These days, with 56kb links (these old sites ran 9600 and 19,200)
and T1 trunks (the old sites ran 56Kb X.25) you might need a little
more dynamite.
> -Linc.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: mws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: They say it can be done...Can it?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 21:59:10 -0500
You may get away with it as long as you don`t use any X Windows.
But a 200 meg hd is too small.It will still be slow as hell if it works
at all.
LFessen106 wrote:
> 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: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: From the Horse's Mouth
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 03:04:16 GMT
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 12:43:37 -0500, someone claiming to be doc rogers
wrote:
>Below is the response I received from Gateway's techs.
>
>Note that since T. Max kept talking about a Gateway 2600 and having
>experience installing Windows on it, that was the model I asked for, which I
>was told was non-existant.
Our regular viewers may not be, but * I * am surprized. Wrong for Max
is pretty much old hat, but * this * wrong is rare.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Packaging Tools
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 03:04:31 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when JEDIDIAH would say:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 01:18:51 GMT, Christopher Browne
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when JEDIDIAH would say:
>>>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 02:56:52 GMT, Christopher Browne
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Dr Sinister would say:
>>>>>Perhaps you meant to say "Install Shield by contrast is fast and easy."
>>>>
>>>>Of course, what is more precisely correct is that
>>>>
>>>> "InstallShield is, in contrast with downloading tarballs, and then
>>>> configuring, compiling, and installing them by hand, fast and easy."
>>>>
>>>>Which all adds up to an overall useless observation.
>>>>
>>>>It makes sense to compare the use of an RPM or dpkg package with the
>>>>use of an InstallShield package.
>>>>
>>>>Of course, this is a .advocacy group, where comparisons are made when
>>>>people feel like making them, where reason plays little role...
>>>
>>> Even the tarbal vs. rpm argument is useful. Tarballs have the
>>> benefit of being much more flexible with respect to dependencies.
>>> If you happen to be a minor version behind on some library, a
>>> recompile can be simpler. Besides, most tarballs are just a matter
>>> of regurgitating a couple of standard sequences.
>>>
>>> ./configure
>>> make
>>> make install
>>>
>>> These are all fairly descriptive and intuitive (given the
>>> activity) mnemonics. They should be easy enough to remember
>>> after the 5th or 10th time.
>>
>>A major merit of Ports, dpkg, and RPM are that they can be set up to
>>*not require that the human remember anything.*
>
> They still have to remember the package command syntax.
> 'packages' don't get you away from there. Whereas, the
> typical GNU build commands are VERY intuitive. This is
> especially true for source rpms.
No, it's *NOT* intuitive. Not reasonably *at all.*
If you sit someone down at a computer, and suggest that they type in
whatever comes to mind, it is not likely that they'll come up with the
GNU build commands.
The GNU build commands may be *readily learnable* by those that are
literate with UNIX. Unix is *not* particularly intuitive. It has
built up over time, having complexity that arises from its history.
It has got a steep learning curve which tends to discourage many; the
"upside" is that being steep, those that *do* climb the hill can
quickly get at powerful functionality.
That is quite a different thing from being "intuitive."
--
"X is like pavement: once you figure out how to lay it on the ground
and paint yellow lines on it, there isn't much left to say about
it. The exciting new developments are happening in things that run ON
TOP of the pavement, like cars, bicycles, trucks, and motorcycles."
-- Eugene O'Neil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Jeff Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Feature set: Kerberos, IPSec
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 22:06:53 +0000
mlw wrote:
> Jeff Hall wrote:
> >
> > Here are a couple quick questions. A Federal government contractor has
> > mentioned that he has specified Windows 2000 because of its "free"
> > support for Kerberos security and an secure ip protocol called IPSec
> > (?). Two questions: Is there an open-source alternative
> > that I should recommend, perhaps involving Linux? Also, are these
> > truly part of the feature set of W2K that make it a compelling purchase?
> >
> > Thanks, Jeff
>
> First of all, nothing in Win2k is free, so forget that argument.
>
> Kerberos is part of most Linux distributions, so that is not an issue.
>
> The only issue is secure sockets for IP security. You have two choices,
> download the secure sockets layer (openssl) and pay some licensing, or
> purchase a "licensed" encryption version of your favorite distribution.
>
> Either way, it will cost you much less than Win2k. IMHO opinion, there
> are no "compelling" reasons for purchasing Win2k. You want to run
> Windows applications and play games? Buy Windows 9x, you want to run a
> real server environment, run a UNIX.
>
> --
> Mohawk Software
> Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
> Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Thanks to all who responded. To Emelio Ganzales, especially, who suggested
FreeSwan at www.freeswan.org.
Here is a follow-up. I suggested the free alternative, and my client did not
even want to follow up by looking at the website., which was a little
disappointing to me. Because I was working with him to the the Windows 2000
to work. (W2K is quite quirky in case you didn't know. As an aside, I was
trying to set it up as a stand-alone server. And W2K demanded that its NIC
see a network hub before it would complete without giving a cryptic,
indecipherable error message.) I suggested to client that the W2K help
system said that both ends of the communication link (using Microsoft's
IPSec) would have to be Win 2000 machines. And so there would have to be an
expense of putting another unit at the client site to use it. Since the Fed
client is a unix shop, I suggested that the remote site's existing hardware
could probably run an IPSec-encrypting program to communicate with us, using
open-source software.
(He and I set up a Linux box to use as a CVS server for our developers, who
are designing java clients on Oracle JDeveloper using NT workstations. So it
wasn't as if this client hadn't seen Linux in action firsthand).
Then, today, we were discussing database design to support this application,
which serves up mildly secure data to a US Government agency. And he let it
slip that he thought one of the design points was favorable, because it would
make it easy if they wanted to go with a different database later, like SQL
Server. I almost gagged (quietly to myself) because I've been called in to
straighten out at least three buggy, crash-prone, high-transaction
SQL-server systems. It seems ironic, I run Linux at home, and look for
places to use it on every client-site I work. But it seems as if I spend 90%
of my time (and make 99% of my income) by diapering MS systems. Its been
said that I've personally been responsible for saving some large Microsoft
installations.
My question is: What is it that makes people become such Microsoft
advocates. This is something I've seen several times, there is a perfectly
good system running under Oracle, or using a non-Microsoft tool, or even a
Microsoft way of accessing database that is considered a little dated by
Microsoft's PR department (like dblib). And there is a certain type of
person who wants to rip out the non-Microsoft stuff, and spend many
thousands of dollars struggling to make the Microsoft technology work. Is
there a way I can counter this, pro-Microsoft tendency, and still remain
within the bounds of my consultant role?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
