Linux-Advocacy Digest #769, Volume #25 Thu, 23 Mar 00 11:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Bsd and Linux (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Christopher Browne)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Dale Pontius)
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1] ("Eric
Peterson")
Re: Bsd and Linux (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (Nick Kew)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Donovan Rebbechi)
Kernel Implementation Languages (Christopher Browne)
W95 "easy" install (was Re: From the Horse's Mouth) (No Name)
Weak points ("SetMeUp")
Re: They say it can be done...Can it? ("SetMeUp")
Re: Bsd and Linux (Paul Jakma)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 23 Mar 2000 14:11:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Grant Edwards <grant@nowhere.> wrote:
:> In article <8bb42m$tr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian Langenberger wrote:
:>> dvipdfm keeps the fonts looking nice onscreen, whereas making
:>> intermediate Postscript tends to result in jaggy fonts (tho the
:>> printouts look as good as ever) because of the scaled-down
:>> bitmapped-ness of them.
:>
:> I've never noticed any jaggyness as long as I use standard
:> postscript fonts by doing a \usepackage{times}. Using CMR fonts
:> does result in on-screen ugliness.
: Apart from the actual look of the fonts themselves (which is the
: subject of holy wars, and not rational debate) how do CMR look ugly?
: Assuming you've got metafont set up right for the output technologies
: you're trying to use...
The ugliness comes from acroread's inability to scale down the CMR
fonts properly for onscreen viewing. But when acroread prints them
out, they look as pristine as ever. I'm not certain of the
underlying technology involved, but dvipdfm alleviates this problem
and generates good-looking acrobats from dvi source whereas
distill does not.
In short, the fonts are fine but acroread wasn't built to handle them.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 14:21:25 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Brian Langenberger would say:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>: Grant Edwards <grant@nowhere.> wrote:
>:> In article <8bb42m$tr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian Langenberger wrote:
>:>> dvipdfm keeps the fonts looking nice onscreen, whereas making
>:>> intermediate Postscript tends to result in jaggy fonts (tho the
>:>> printouts look as good as ever) because of the scaled-down
>:>> bitmapped-ness of them.
>:>
>:> I've never noticed any jaggyness as long as I use standard
>:> postscript fonts by doing a \usepackage{times}. Using CMR fonts
>:> does result in on-screen ugliness.
>
>: Apart from the actual look of the fonts themselves (which is the
>: subject of holy wars, and not rational debate) how do CMR look ugly?
>: Assuming you've got metafont set up right for the output technologies
>: you're trying to use...
>
>The ugliness comes from acroread's inability to scale down the CMR
>fonts properly for onscreen viewing. But when acroread prints them
>out, they look as pristine as ever. I'm not certain of the
>underlying technology involved, but dvipdfm alleviates this problem
>and generates good-looking acrobats from dvi source whereas
>distill does not.
>
>In short, the fonts are fine but acroread wasn't built to handle them.
The problem is thus:
The metafont-generated fonts that are getting pushed into the .ps file
are bitmaps.
When you change resolution, acroread has to scale them, which is a losing
proposition.
Conclusion: Don't try to scale bitmapped fonts.
There are some non-bitmapped Type 1 versions of the CMR fonts, called
"bakoma," which could scale well. Unfortunately, they're a recent
innovation in the TeX world, being only a few years old (circa 1995), and
thus are not widely deployed. Certainly not the way the "Adobe 35" are.
--
As of next Thursday, ITS will be flushed in favor of TOPS-10.
Please update your programs.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 23 Mar 2000 09:22:59 -0500
On 23 Mar 2000 08:41:54 GMT, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>This is great until your server suffers a power cut while reading libpam.so and
>comes back up without it, and won't let you log in even if you are sitting next
>to it!
(a) Boot into single user mode, fix it, reboot.
(b) It won't "come back without it" unless it's writing it.
(c) I don't see how it'd be any different if it was /bin/login
>Losing /etc/passwd is a horror. That's essentiully what losing _any bit_ of pam
>amounts
>to.
Not true.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Pontius)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: 23 Mar 2000 14:23:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne) writes:
...
> If you avoid those issues, you are still likely to jump onto the horns
> of "problem d):"
>
> a)-c) aren't defined in a formally standardized way that can be
> considered portable.
How about Ada?
There's even a GPL Ada compiler available, GNAT. (not the firewall)
Take a look over on comp.lang.ada for more.
I know none of this language shift will likely ever happen. To go
from a model much different from C, you'd have to spend a LONG time
reimplementing - time that might well be better spent supporting new
hardware or new features. About the only way any alternate language
could be introduced into the kernel is if it 'played well with C',
and could be used to implement new features or new hardware support.
Then, as language bigots had time, they could reimplement existing
features.
But truly, it seems like more pain than it's worth.
Dale Pontius
NOT speaking for IBM
------------------------------
From: "Eric Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 08:28:49 -0800
Nope. You got it backwards.
Windows sets up fine (usually) but then crashes a lot when you try to run
it.
Linux is (still) tough to set up properly, but once it is, it NEVER
crashes.
Which would you prefer? Personally, if everything I wanted to run had a
Linux version, I doubt that I would EVER boot Windows again.
Eric Peterson
Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3ApC4.63209$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Funny, windows runs fine but linux takes 4 hours of setup to get a printer
> and a usb mouse working.
> Become superior before claiming you are.
>
> ----
> IBM: Iconoclastic Bilateral Monopoly
>
> "crashed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Just to clarify
> > Windows 2000 has potentially 63000 bugs. This number was generated by a
> program
> > auto-scanning the source code which also included 10000 lines of code
that
> was not
> > used in the final release-
> > I am by no means a Microsoft supporter but the distribution of FUD is
> > counter-productive.
> > Linux will eventually surpass Microsoft in the server market based on
it's
> own
> > merits, not propoganda. The way it should be
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 23 Mar 2000 09:37:54 -0500
On 23 Mar 2000 08:34:23 GMT, Peter T. Breuer wrote:
>I have NO trouble doing so!
You have no trouble with redundant configuration but you have trouble
logging into single user mmode ? Hmmmm ...
>: I am not clear how you're going to "lose" it all. Since there are
>
>Try a system crash.
A system crash is unlikely to hose files that you aren't writing to.
>leaving nobody, not even root, able to log in. (midn you, you'd
>achieve the same effect with rm /etc/passwd! Try it! - that is a bug
>in libc. Root must always be able to log in).
Try single user mode.
>: you could get back in, but it would require booting into single user
>: mode.
>
>Single user mode won't work without login. It requires a passwd, normally!
No, it does not. Not on Linux, it doesn't.
>No, I don't understand a word of it. What does "auth" mean? Surely the
>whole point is to control authorization! Why have a keyword? And
So you understood "auth" ! Yes, auth means that the module in question
is an "authorisation" module. Other types are "session", "account",
and "password".
>what does "required" mean? And which docs would you recommend?
"required" means that the module in question is required in order for to
authentication to succeed. An example of something that *isn't* required is
xauth ( ie when you log in via ssh, you should still be able to log in
even if xauth fails ) Another example is that if you're root, you can
run chsh for any user without enterring the root password.
Start here
>/usr/doc/packages/pam/html/index.html
and go to the part that says system administrators manual. Then go to
where it talks about the config file format. Wasn't too hard, huh ? (-;
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Kew)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 12:34:17 +0000
[Posted and mailed]
In article <8baq2v$uq0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Tom Steinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A couple of weeks ago, I sent out a set of questions about the history and
> role of Linux,
You did indeed. I see already a number of followups making good points,
and I'm going to make a conscious effort not to duplicate them too much.
> Below decks, a different kind of revolution is quietly but quickly gaining
> ground. These revolutionaries are short on capital, but are dangerously
> armed with a real understanding of the nature of the on-line world.
I think this may be missing a rather important point.
The Internet itself is a product of Open Source. That is exactly what
distinguishes it from all the alternative proprietary networks, mostly
now integrated into the Internet itself (e.g. Compuserve and AOL - the
most successful commercial networks before the mid-1990s).
The Internet is a close cousin to Linux.
I subscribed to a private network in the '80s before getting onto the
Internet itself in 1990. Similarly, I was a software engineer on a
proprietary system (VAX/VMS) before moving to Unix and later Linux.
In both cases, Open Source has proved to be the sustainable option.
> They
> have been around online longer than most e-investors and they have, by and
> large, a much greater level of technical knowledge.
Indeed. Some might make reference to Suits and Anoraks, but that would
perhaps not sit well in your article.
Firstly, congratulations on introducing your subject as Open Source,
and giving Linux a proper context.
> Now they think that they
> have discovered something that could destroy the software industry as we
> know it.
That wording makes me uneasy. The software industry is quite happy with
Open Source. Look at IBM, which has successfully defined a new role
for itself since the big collapse of its old business.
> Their claim is that the best software costs nothing to produce, is
> free to distribute and free to modify. Moreover, they claim that the profit
> motive theoretically cannot, and empirically has not produced software of
> the same quality as can be had for free, all over the internet. They are the
> many individuals who constitute the Open source software community,
You need to be absolutely clear on the Free Beer vs Free Speech distinction,
as it can cause endless confustion. Free Speech is the core of what sustains
Open Source. Free Beer is double-edged: on the one hand it may attract
hobbyists, some of whom will become significant contributors in due course.
On the other hand, it is food for FUD.
> and
> their standard bearer is Linux.
Eeek! Linux the Standard Bearer? Then what do you call the Internet?^M
OK, let it pass: changing that will only cause confusion.^M
> If their claim is true, it could mean a huge number of the most highly
> valued tech firms, those that produce software professionally, are about to
> be faced with competition that they can neither beat in terms of quality or
> price, nor destroy through merger or acquisition. For major economies
> increasingly built on technology, this is a serious threat.
Look at IBM again. There are others, but they're the biggest and
best-known example of a company to have made the transition.
--
Nick Kew
We're so advanced here ... our nearest main road is A 386
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 23 Mar 2000 09:42:33 -0500
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 01:43:45 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>Sure they will. Root regularly goes in and deletes user directories
Not true.
> or
>makes changes (say a user screws up their configuration scripts). It's
In this case, root won't be doing a recursive delete of the users directory.
>pretty easy to conceive of root thinking they're in one users directory,
>only to be in, say /home.
No, it's not, especially when your current directory is part of the root
prompt.
In any case, if root really does want to be cautious, they can always become
that user, and take it from there. If they don't want to be cautious, they
are not going to fix the broken NT default permissions in the first place.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Kernel Implementation Languages
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 14:42:28 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Dale Pontius would say:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne) writes:
>...
>> If you avoid those issues, you are still likely to jump onto the horns
>> of "problem d):"
>>
>> a)-c) aren't defined in a formally standardized way that can be
>> considered portable.
>
>How about Ada?
Ada != Pascal.
My criticisms were very specific to Pascal, and are not applicable
to Modula-2, Oberon, Ada, or Modula-3, all "Wirth-inspired" languages
which *do* offer more than does Pascal.
>There's even a GPL Ada compiler available, GNAT. (not the firewall)
>Take a look over on comp.lang.ada for more.
Also not the same as GNATS, the bug tracker...
>I know none of this language shift will likely ever happen. To go
>from a model much different from C, you'd have to spend a LONG time
>reimplementing - time that might well be better spent supporting new
>hardware or new features. About the only way any alternate language
>could be introduced into the kernel is if it 'played well with C',
>and could be used to implement new features or new hardware support.
>Then, as language bigots had time, they could reimplement existing
>features.
>
>But truly, it seems like more pain than it's worth.
The problem is that even with something as intentionally similar to
C as C++, it's problematic to "play well with C" and actually make
use of the extended features of the language.
Your comments above represent decent pragmatic reasons to not bother
with the reimplementation. It would take a lot of work just to regain
what Linux does *now* in another language.
What's likely to be prohibitively discouraging to such a project is
the fact that there are such an immense number of device drivers
written in C for Linux and *BSD. People trying to build other OS
kernels [Hurd and OSKit leap to mind] wind up designing their systems
so they can take advantage of Linux and FreeBSD device drivers.
Write a kernel in Modula-3 that doesn't basically head to LCD of having a
C-dependent base and you'll have to recreate from scratch device drivers
for every kind of device you ever want to use.
The body of device drivers is the main strength that Linux has over
nearly all its possible competitors, which actually may include W2K,
to some extent...
--
Rules of the Evil Overlord #16. "One of my advisors will be an average
five-year-old child. Any flaws in my plan that he is able to spot will
be corrected before implementation."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Name)
Subject: W95 "easy" install (was Re: From the Horse's Mouth)
Date: 23 Mar 2000 14:47:23 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 12:43:37 -0500, doc rogers said:
>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.
>
>I noticed after I received this response that Norm specified a Gateway 2300,
>but the procedure that Gateway gave me, which covers installing Windows plus
>configuring everything sounds like it's probably the procedure per Gateway
>for that laptop and similar laptops.
>
>Some of the stuff that you wouldn't have to do like copying the cabs is in
>there, but you'll see it is much more concise than reported.
>
>As for T. Max's vehemence about installing Win95 on Gateway 2600's, you make
>you mind up about that. One mention could be excused as a typo, but . .
>
>===================================================
>===================================================
>
>****************************************************************
>Hello Doc,
>
>Thank you for your e-mail. The closest thing to a 2600(non-existant)
>model would be a solo 2500.
>
>This document contains the instructions to format and reinstall the Solo
>2500
>
>Perform the following steps to format your hard disk:
> <deleted around 60 easy steps needed to install W95>
Oh boy! I hope the winvocates stop that crap about easy installation
after reading the previous posting...
------------------------------
From: "SetMeUp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Weak points
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 15:50:48 GMT
1) Serious and easy modem/fax and printer support.
(sendmail makes me laugh, postscript printers suck)
2) Coherent window manager configuration files and behaviour.
3) If easy installation methods are to be so, better go back text mode
installations or else improve the so called "easy" installations, because
really suck.
4) Apart from saying that there's decent software lack, just point that
the tries to make it (aka Staroffice) produce such a bloated software as you
claim Microsoft Office and the kind are. I disagree, Microsoft Office is far
ahead from Staroffice, not to mention Applixware, LyX (huuhuhu), ...
5) Games ... yeah yeah, not every one like the 10 decent games. And
besides, X11 was awful and slow, perhaps XFree86 4.0 get it closer to
Windows desktop, though I don't think so. KDE ? Don't make me laugh, have
you ever tried to change an icon on a 350MHz and 256MB SDRAM machine, hehe,
pitiful.By the way, I do not like Quake, any more ? Huhu
6) Serious internet tools : pine sucks, Netscape breaks more than Windows
3.11 and is awful and slow. Nothing like IE 5 (the browser) and Outlook
Express (yeah yeah, virus are a problem ... but prefer them than slrn, tin,
krn and such sucky tools).
7) Yeah yeah, Apache runs very well under Linux ... but do not forget
that under Solaris, FreeBSD, and even NT/2K too, and besides, home users
don't really need a web server. Is Linux offering anything to home users ?
And be serious, do not tell me about BSOD's evey 5 minutes because Windows
2000 (and NT almost) has never frozen.
8) I am going to stop in here, and wait for your answers, I hope you to
do it without FUD and with real arguments (if any).
------------------------------
From: "SetMeUp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: They say it can be done...Can it?
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 15:59:31 GMT
When Linux advocates claim that, it just means it is possible, just like
Windows 95 could be run on a 4MB machine (in fact, I did for a time). And
even running Windows on 4MB machine is easier than what you want. You will
need compiling the kernel on another machine, and fine tune installation a
lot. Sure it will work, but try it only if you have time.
------------------------------
From: Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 16:02:03 +0000
"Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>
> 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.
>
PAM is actually a solaris-ism.
> Suuurrre I want my login to call a dynamic library, oh yeah. Like NOT.
> Just say no.
>
PAM is a good idea. with one change in config file you can affect the
security behaviour of a whole bunch of apps. Want to have xdm
authenticate against NT domain controllers, or against NIS, or against
LDAP? not a problem...
i take it you are against the NSS dlls aswell?
why should every app have its own authernification code? sounds like a
wasteful replication of effort to me..
> Peter
-paul jakma.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
