Linux-Advocacy Digest #841, Volume #25 Mon, 27 Mar 00 19:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Bob Lyday)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Giving up on Tholen (Marty)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Marty)
Re: Weak points ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Weak points ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Daniel O'Nolan)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Victor Wagner)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Victor Wagner)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Gary Hallock)
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (Steve Mading)
Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:38:14 -0800
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 00:56:11 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
> >On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:07:51 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
> >Devlin wrote:
> >
> >>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:28:17 GMT
> >
> >>>On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:13:09 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
> >>>Devlin wrote:
> [deletia]
> >>Well, didn't you just say that they didn't? Who did *you* have in mind that
> >>develops anything other than Windows drivers? (Not counting the Linux
> >>development community, of course.)
> >
> >It is your contention that MS pressure is the reason why manufacturers
> >do not support other OSes, and since you have now ducked the question
> >of who is being so pressured, a single example will suffice to
> >disprove it.
The court cases involved stem from 1995, so the data may be hard
to dig up. You could search on the Internet...
Another reason HW makers will not write drivers for other OS's:
M$ writes 90% of the drivers out there. Microtrash forces HW
makers to sign non-compete agreements (whatever that means) and
non-disclose agreements (apparently they cannot disclose the
source code of the driver). Then it locks them into very long
agreements, say 10 years. I know some people who work for HW
companies and they have told me that these agreements are what
keep them from writing drivers for other OS's. They are
uncertain that the driver they produce will be different enough
from the Windows driver. M$ lawyers wear *big* glasses and they
might get sued. A number of these companies would love to
produce drivers for other OS's.
>
> Microsoft was sued by the Department of Justice over this
> before. This is where their relationshipo began.
>
> Also:
>
> Ralph Nader actually got quite a bit of press last year with
> this issue. His organization tried to purchase prebuild PC's
> from several large, visible distributors and was stonewalled
> with exclusive (buy only from us or we'll put you out of
> business with high licence prices) being cited as the barrier
> present at the VAR's.
>
> Contracts stipulating ALL units shipped have WinDOS were replaced
> with contracts doing the same thing but only doing so one product
> line at a time.
>
> [deletia]
>
>
> --
>
> It is not the advocates of free love and software
> that theare the communists, but rather those that |||
> advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
> one option among many, like in some regime where
> product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
--
Bob
"We believe that OS/2 is the platform of the 90's." Bill Gates,
1989 (on videotape).
Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:46:11 GMT
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:40:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert
Heininger) wrote:
Well I have 128mb on a PII 450 and I think SO runs like crap. I have
to keep looking at the hard drive light to avoid clicking on things
twice because it is so damm slow.
Steve
>
>Heck, WindozeNT chokes-n-pukes all over itself when confronted with 64mb ram,
>too. I have 128mb of ram in a 300mhz PII, and Star Office runs just fine.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:39:27 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> No. What I mean is, I want to force the administrator to go out of his way
> to delete files he doesn't own, not just issue a callous command line.
No problem. Create a new account, using the "admin" login name, create
the appropriate group, add admin to all of the appropriate groups, then
set permissions correctly, and voila! You have an administrator account
that allows you to restrict the administrators access.
> Much
> like having a keylock on the self-destruct switch of you bomb.
Hey, if you're that careless, go do what I suggested, OK?
> rm -i isn't all that great anyways, since if you do it on lots of files, you
> have to acknowledge each one.
When you are removing multiple files, you get the first interactive
message, then say to yourself: "Duh! I forgot!", then edit your command
to use -f, and all is well.
> You can sit there typing yes repeatedly and
> accidently hit yes when you didn't mean to because you've had to say yes to
> 50 other files before it.
See the man pages. Or better yet, simply admit to yourself that root is
just to much power for you to handle, and create that admin acccount.
Then never, NEVER logon as root again.
> > what is your problem? If you don't like rm, then go find something else.
>
> I have, it's called NT.
Which is somewhat like saying: "I don't like the word "Start" on that
menu, so I'll scrap Windows and go with Linux".
Overkill, you see?
> They buy you protection from accidental mistakes. That's a big "something".
Hey, if 'tis important to you, then do it under Unix as well.
Me, I make typos, but I never destroy my system, 'cause I've learned to
think before I hit return. Especially if the command I'm typing is
potentially dangerous.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on Tholen
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:52:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> You've suddenly stopped following-up after I pointed out that
> inconsistency of yours.
How ironic, coming from someone who stopped following-up after I pointed out
the inconsistencies of his.
--
The wit of Bob Osborn in action:
"Perhaps it something you should try to your kids don't end up as stupid as
you."
"There is an old saying fartface."
"Not only are you a filthy low-life lying bastard pig, you are too stupid to
know it."
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:54:07 -0700
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> You can provide a list of other vendors willing to give competing products
> "a chance" ?
Sun, IBM, HP, to name a few. In fact, any vendor of "Unix", as "Unix
servers", for example, constitutes a real market that has real
competition.
Want a Unix server? There are multiple independent vendors to choose
from. Want a Windows 2000 Server? There are multiple hardware vendors,
but only one vendor of the OS.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:59:37 GMT
Jack Troughton wrote:
>
> Joe, Esther has been covering IT for many years; I think that when
> she says "bottom line" she knows exactly what she's talking about. I
> think it's safe to say that IBM profited to the tune of around 92
> million last year from sales of OS/2 warp.
Just to put that figure into perspective, IBM profitted to the tune of 2
*billion* from "wired technologies" and servers. That's 2000 : 0092.
--
The wit of Bob Osborn in action:
"Perhaps it something you should try to your kids don't end up as stupid as
you."
"There is an old saying fartface."
"Not only are you a filthy low-life lying bastard pig, you are too stupid to
know it."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Weak points
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:18:11 GMT
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:03:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 01:21:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I'll agree with that statement. If you want beeps and squeeks and the
>>ability to play a CD and are not really into what's going on with DVD
>>then go buy a $20 SoundBlaster-16 and Linux will work fine.
>
> I can do considerably more than just beeps and squeeks as is
> on a SB16/IDE. Beyond S/N, you've not demonstrated WHY most
> common consumers (the ones that use Windows for ease, not
> 'power' or the sort that would shop in CompUSA for their
> software and soundcard rather than a music store) why they
> would care about Linux's current faults.
S/N, Distortion, digital outs, environmental audio (that actually
works), front and rear speakers (that work), MIDI that doesn't require
editing yet another file before compiling the driver and so forth.
Bottom line is that even YOU, with one ear plugged with a cotton ball
can hear the difference between a quality audio card and the typical
junk supported by Linux.
Listen to some quality cards and then come back and respond.
> As far as DVD goes, unless you're doing something that the MPAA
> would dissapprove of then you're just using the PC as a very
> expensive DVD console anyways.
Typical Linux supporter "we don't have it so it must suck" answer.
When the DVD mess is finally resolved you bet that Linux will be last
in line to support it properly.
> Nevermind that you're lying and/or misinformed when it comes to
> Linux support of quality consumer audio hardware, enviromental
> audio & DVD.
Yawn..............
A SB-16 is a piece of junk, just like every other sound card supported
or half supported by Linux.
You have ONE game that is PROMISING env. audio. The SBLive driver (as
of last month) does not even support it (env audio) yet.
So how ya' gonna play the game?
When it is delivered and has a setup script that involves one command
that makes everything the card is capable of doing work under all
versions of Linux come back and talk to to me.
It works like that with Windows. Setup.exe and away it goes.
Until then, you can keep your 15 different versions of the driver, (1
for each distro and some thrown in for rpm's, deb's and so forth) your
5 different web pages devoted to JUST MAKING THE DAMM THING WORK and
the rest of the Linux scam, because that is what it is. Linux promises
all kinds of things but fails to deliver fully on most of them. SBLive
support is typical. The card is 1/3 functional under Linux but works
100 percent under Windows, and this is after, refresh my memory
please, 2 years or so?
So much for all of these "alliances" with hardware vendors and the
Open Sores movement.
Linux: Eternally behind the 8-ball. Or eternally behind......
Steve
>>
>>If you want state of the art in digital audio go with Windows or a
>>Mac.
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>
>>On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 21:45:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> The real question is: Are those toys enough? For whom are
>>> they enough? For each platform, the answer to that is going
>>> to be highly individualistic.
>>
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 27 Mar 2000 23:20:36 GMT
John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
: >
: > No. What I mean is, I want to force the administrator to go out of his way
: > to delete files he doesn't own, not just issue a callous command line.
: No problem. Create a new account, using the "admin" login name, create
: the appropriate group, add admin to all of the appropriate groups, then
: set permissions correctly, and voila! You have an administrator account
: that allows you to restrict the administrators access.
Yet, the root account still exists on the system. You seem to have
overlooked that little fact. The very existence of root is a problem.
[SNIP]
: See the man pages. Or better yet, simply admit to yourself that root is
: just to much power for you to handle, and create that admin acccount.
: Then never, NEVER logon as root again.
Oh, for Christ's sake, get over your UNIX-elitist attitude already.
Erik isn't saying that root is too much power to handle. He's saying that
it doesn't make sense that some sysadmin, drunk on power, can just
carelessly delete data files of other users at random, if he/she so
wishes. As Erik stated, root does not make sense.
You see, people like Erik could probably be trusted with root. You, on
the other hand, seem to have something to prove... in which case, I
wouldn't give you root under any circumstances.
: > > what is your problem? If you don't like rm, then go find something else.
: >
: > I have, it's called NT.
: Which is somewhat like saying: "I don't like the word "Start" on that
: menu, so I'll scrap Windows and go with Linux".
No, it's nothing like that. It is very easy for a UNIX admin to abuse rm.
: Overkill, you see?
: > They buy you protection from accidental mistakes. That's a big "something".
: Hey, if 'tis important to you, then do it under Unix as well.
: Me, I make typos, but I never destroy my system, 'cause I've learned to
: think before I hit return. Especially if the command I'm typing is
: potentially dangerous.
I see. You never make mistakes. Well, then you must not be human.
So, what planet are you from?
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Weak points
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:20:57 GMT
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:05:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On 25 Mar 2000 11:23:54 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:45:29 GMT,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:12:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 23:19:00 GMT,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>On 23 Mar 2000 23:00:51 GMT, Brian Langenberger
>>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>SetMeUp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>:> You can't possibly
>>>>>>:> be serious about the "suck"ness of Postscript printers.
>>>>>>:> The price is higher in some cases, but so is the quality
>>>>>>
>>>>>>: Exactly, higher enough that home users prefer other
>>>>>>: printers just like Canon, HP, Epson, ... no postscript,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So what "sucks" about them, except for a modest increase
>>>>>>in price?
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't call a couple of hundred dollars, to essentially perform the
>>>>>same function ie:print, a "modest" increase in price.
>>>>
>>>> For a serious printer, a couple hundred dollars really
>>>> isn't much of an added cost. Fortunately, your assertion
>>>> that only postscript printers are supported under linux
>>>> is a LIE. It is fortunate for those of us that have been
>>>> using non-PS printers for years.
>>>
>>>So you won't spend $89.00 for a real, working, supported in mass
>>>operating system but you will blow a couple of hundred EXTRA dollars
>>>on a printer that doesn't do anything better than any other $99.00
>>>printer on the market.
>>What utter nonsense, how about 10 pages per minute at 600*600 dpi ?
>>how about lower cost per page, than your $99 Winprinter ?
>
> Halleluiah! The $300 laser printer I alluded to (Brother 1240?)
> I am looking at primarily for the combination of cost vs.
> print speed & resolution.
I send my condolences if you purchase ANYTHING from Brother....
The are the AMC-Pacer of the printer/fax etc industry.
It will be broken 2 days after it's warranty expires...
>>
>>Steve as usual is stretching the facts right thru Wonderland and back.
>[deletia]
>
> Mind you, what is essentially my 6 year old color deskjet is onsale
> now at compusa under some other model name and retails at ~ $99.
Linux and old crap hardware are a match made in heaven.
Steve
------------------------------
From: Daniel O'Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 18:39:55 +0200
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> Robert Heininger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [SNIP]
>
> You'd think, for a moment, that the reason said CompUSA employee would
> have said what he/she did, was because they were assuming that Linux needs
> LBA in order to correctly determine a fixed disk's geometry (AFAIK, no
> UNIX variant depends on LBA mode for large media), as Windows9x operating
> systems do.
>
> But what's sad, is that they are typically clueless about Windows
> environments as well, so that theory goes out the door immediately.
True. I know know exactly how they can be. In fact, I used to be a
conputer store tech, though now I'm going to collage for networking.
The real difference here being that I actually DID know about with
DOS/WIN enviorments. I challanged the courses for them in collage, and
easily passed. But some of the people that I worked with, were VERY
clueless.
-Dan O'Nolan
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
> | = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
> | | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
> |_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 27 Mar 2000 22:19:22 +0400
Chris Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>: In article <8bakec$vou$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
:>:>In that case you should. Goodness knows why redhat seem to think that
:>:>you should work as root. It's incomprehensible.
:>
:>: I don't use sudo either. Why should I when I can just use su to do things
: as
:>: root from my user account on my personal machine? sudo is basically a
: silly
:>: pain-in-the-ass.
:>
:>Because it means you are encouraged to stay as root if you use su. And
:>what's the PITA in typing sudo foo instead of su; foo ?? (or su -c foo,
:>or whatever). The real benefit of sudo is:
:>
:> 1) you don't have to know the root password, only yours
: Dumb reason. If I want to operate as the root user, I should *know* the root
: password. Besides how am I encouraged to stay as root? I su, do whatever I
: have to do as root,and then exit back to my user status.
:> 2) you don't have to retype your blinking password every time
:> (it's good for 5 mins of repeat uses, at least)
: I think retyping the blinking password is a good idea, since it reminds you
: that you are operating as root, so you had better be fucking careful about
: what you are doing.
With you arguments you've clearly turned su vs su2 case into yet
another vim vs emacs war. But sudo, which provides finegraned access
to privilegied commands is another issue. It should be compared with
suid executables/perl scripts, not with su.
Suppose you have to let your webmaster to restart Apache. Of course,
this doesn't imply letting her know root password.
You actually have two choices
1. Rewrite apachectl on Perl or C, make it suid root and executable
for group which includes webmaster.
2. type visudo and add just one line
webmaster: ALL=(root) /usr/sbin/apachectl
or, for better security:
webmaster: her_windows_workstation=(root) /usr/sbin/apachectl
Which solution is simplier? Note also that if you choose first approach,
you have to add logging capability to each and every setuid wrapper you
use, while sudo provides logging for you.
Suppose that besides webmaster you have several other users, some of
them should be able to shutdown server if logged from console,
some should be able to format floppies in server floppy drive or use
cdrecord on server CDRW, others have to be able to create users and add
them into group, and yet another should be allowed to build packages.
With such a "demanding" user community you quickly begin to appreciate
sudo.
:> 3) every command is logged, so you can check up
:> 4) it's got a wonderful rant by RMS in the manoage
:> 5) you can control capacities finely, if you feel like, not
:> that I do.
: Somehow this still doesn't inspire me to use sudo instead of su.....
--
Предпочитаю надпись "Вход воспрещен" надписи "Выхода нет".
--- С.Е. Лец
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 27 Mar 2000 22:22:12 +0400
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: THis is only true if you have only one systems administrator.
: If there's only one admin, I really don't see anything wrong with them
: opening up a root shell at the console the whole time.
: But what if you
: have more than one person who needs to do sys admin tasks ? Do you give
: 10 different people the root password, or have them all use sudo ?
Note that typically number of people who actually know some secret, is
proportional to squared number of people whom secret was told.
:>I think retyping the blinking password is a good idea, since it reminds you
:>that you are operating as root, so you had better be fucking careful about
:>what you are doing.
: I think typing "sudo" also should remind the user that they are operating
: as root.
And sudo in Debian actually _does_ remind.
It writes couple of lines before prompting for user's password
where it warns user that he is doing something as root and his mistakes
can affect other people.
--
break; /* don't do magic till later */
-- Larry Wall in stab.c from the perl source code
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: 27 Mar 2000 23:30:47 GMT
Daniel O'Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
: >
: > Robert Heininger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >
: > [SNIP]
: >
: > You'd think, for a moment, that the reason said CompUSA employee would
: > have said what he/she did, was because they were assuming that Linux needs
: > LBA in order to correctly determine a fixed disk's geometry (AFAIK, no
: > UNIX variant depends on LBA mode for large media), as Windows9x operating
: > systems do.
: >
: > But what's sad, is that they are typically clueless about Windows
: > environments as well, so that theory goes out the door immediately.
: True. I know know exactly how they can be. In fact, I used to be a
: conputer store tech, though now I'm going to collage for networking.
: The real difference here being that I actually DID know about with
: DOS/WIN enviorments. I challanged the courses for them in collage, and
: easily passed. But some of the people that I worked with, were VERY
: clueless.
Yes, this is what typically happens. It's actually quite handy to use
such a job to test your abilities. When you find that they are way above
par, you leave, and set out to make a lot more money. :-)
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 18:43:12 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:40:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert
> Heininger) wrote:
>
> Well I have 128mb on a PII 450 and I think SO runs like crap. I have
> to keep looking at the hard drive light to avoid clicking on things
> twice because it is so damm slow.
>
> Steve
>
>
Well, that's what you get when you insist on using Windows 98. I have 128MB on
a PII 400 and SO runs just fine. Of course I use a real OS.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: 27 Mar 2000 23:42:46 GMT
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 02:56:52 GMT, Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
:wrote:
:>
:>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.
But those are properties of source vs binary installs, not
tarball vs RPM. Some tarballs are binaries and some RPMs are
source code, so what you gave wasn't really a tarball/rpm
comparasin.
--
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude
Date: 27 Mar 2000 23:56:58 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : > "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : > news:8bnqg8$n6l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : >> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : >>
> : >> >> "W. Kiernan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : >> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : >> >>> Mark Hamstra wrote:
> : >> >>> >
> : >> >>> > "W. Kiernan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : >> >>> >
> : >> >>> > > Was it really Chad Myers who wrote?:
> : >> >>> > > >
> : >> >>> > > > ...NTFS, which has journaling.
> : >> >>> > >
> : >> >>> > > It does? That's news to me.
> : >> >>> >
> : >> >>> > You shouldn't be so quick to broadcast your ignorance.
> : >> >>>
> : >> >>> I shouldn't ask questions, you mean. I should learn by telepathy,
> : >> >>> osmosis, however you do it, you bigdeal genius you.
> : >>
> : >> >> Of course! <grin>
> : >>
> : >> >> NTFS 5 (which is implemented in Windows2000 and read by NT 4.0 SP4 and
> : > higher)
> : >> >> has a change journal.
> : >>
> : >> > Neat. Now its just like MacOS 7.5.1.
> : >>
> : >> Oh, and BeOS DR3.0, IRIX and Purgatory/Inferno.
> : >>
> : >> Catch up microsoft! Catch up! Tell us you invented it! We'll believe
> : > you!
> : >>
> : > maybe Linux will catchup some day later too and claim Linus wrote it.
> : Yes, that would happen...except that people who use linux consistently understand
> : the way computers work and where their software comes from.
> Then please tell us, what is your excuse?
Ahhh...
I find myself continually surprised by your innovative and witty replies, steve. Can
I call you steve?
Please, continue.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
