Linux-Advocacy Digest #857, Volume #25 Tue, 28 Mar 00 15:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Penquins Forever! Was (Re: A pox on the penguin?) (Robert Heininger)
Re: VMWare vs. Bootmanagers (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Brian Langenberger)
Re: US politics ("John W. Stevens")
Re: US politics ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penquins Forever! Was (Re: A pox on the penguin?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:07:50 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:28:38 GMT,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `ax' wrote:
>: "Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>: > It was the Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:44:59 GMT...
>: > ...and Robert Heininger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: > > On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 01:00:33 +0200,
>: > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Matthias Warkus' wrote:
>: > >
>: > >
>: > > >: It was the Sun, 26 Mar 2000 02:17:46 GMT...
>: > > >: ...and ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: > > >: >
>: > > >: > "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>: > > >: > news:8b62hc$g8p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>: > > >: > > BTW, little known facts about penquins.
>: > > >: > >
>: > > >: > > Penquins are quite clumsy on land.
>: > > >: > >
>: > > >: > > But in the sea, penquins fly like birds when they swim.
>: > > >: > >
>: > > >: >
>: > > >: > But in Linux, all penguins are lazy sitting with round belly.
>: > > >: > They cannot walk or fly. They cannot even stand up
>: > > >: > with fat belly. Linux penguins must have been eating
>: > > >: > too much "free" stuff.
>: > > >:
>: > > >: Ever played "Tux the Penguin: A Quest For Herring"? The Linux penguin
>: > > >: can indeed run, jump and swim. Maybe even fly.
>: > >
>: > >
>: > > Is that a Linux game? Playstion's and Dreamcast's are for playing games,
>: not
>: > > computers. Why even bother, if it is?
>: >
>: > Your lack of clue is cute[0], but your cute signature lacks clue.
>: >
>: > A five-line Figlet signature! Jesus Christ!
>:
>: A really smart signature!
>:
>: - a big "L" shape at the bottom.
>: - a word "Linux" on top of the "L" shape.
>: - a "<" shape at the end of the "Linux".
>:
>: It means, "Linux" is being pushed ("<") to the corner ("L"),
>: which is the choice of the GNU Generation.
>:
>: What about the middle file://_// ?
YIKES! I get the point. Thanks all!
IMO : Playstation's and Dreamcast's are for games, and IMO computers are not.
Fact: My opinion means nothing!
About the `file://_//' : Seems that only happens when my posts are replied
to with Outlook Express. Perhaps someone could explain why?
Robert Heininger
(now .sig less)
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: VMWare vs. Bootmanagers
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:06:47 GMT
In article <8bhgk5$hne$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"gcaldwel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm going to install multiple OSs on my computer, so I nailed it down
to
> uses Partition Magic and Boot magic or VMware.
> Are any of you using VMware for Linux?
I have used VMWare. The advantage of VMWare over a Partition
Magic/Boot Magic is that you can run Windows application WHILE
you are running Linux on VMWare. With the boot manager, you
have to reboot to switch.
> How does the virtual platforms perform.
Linux performance is about the same, Windows is slightly slower,
barely perceptable.
> Is there any problems with performance do
> to running in a virtual window.
You use quite a bit more RAM. If you put up too many windows
applications, you may find yourself swapping more than usual.
> Can files be shared between the installed platforms.
Yes. In fact, you can get to ext2 files from NT and get to
NTFS from Linux. Essentially, Linux serves the ext2 under SAMBA
and NT serves the NTFS file as a share.
> I have 256 megs of ram and a 30 gig drive in my PC
That should be enough. The minimum would be about 128 meg
and a 4 gig drive. I've run it under 96 meg and swaps quite a bit.
The downside is that you do need more memory and more hard drive.
You will often see FASTER NT performance on disk-i/o intensive
systems.
> I'm looking for some pros and cons of each to help me decide which
> configuration I want to use.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:23:05 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:56:37 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > The point being, that with root and rm, you can wipe out an entire user
>> > database in seconds. With WindowsNT, you have to take ownership of each
>> > and every file and folder. This has to be done manually, and cannot be
>> > done by mistake, or on the fly.
>>
>> Which simply proves that NT is less safe than Unix.
>
>Huh?
>
>> With the Unix "admin" account, you *CANNOT* "take ownership" of other
>> peoples files. In fact, you cannot delete/modify other peoples files
>> unless they give you permission first.
>
>An admin should be able to to do whatever he wants in a system. He
>shouldn't be at the mercy of his users.
>
>The argument isn't about security, it's about safety. For instance, suppose
>you run a program as root that has a bug in it, and it randomly writes to
>disk sectors or it accidentally trashes a file it shouldn't be touching.
>Under Unix, a program run under root can do just about anything it likes.
>Now, you can argue that you shouldn't run untrusted or non-thoroughly
>debugged applications under root, but that's just a band-aid. The OS should
...Nope, that's how the system is designed to work. You only
use what you need to. You don't create or give users priveledges
that aren't really necessary. You can completely avoid the root
account if you really want to. Your Unix vendor can set it up for
you that way.
>allow you to do such things unless you specifically tell it you want to do
>them. Note that i'm not advocating removing absolute power. I'm advocating
>removing absolute power without safeguards.
That presumes that the software is infallable enough to in all cases
be smarter than the human operator. This is clearly an absurd point of
view. Thus there will always be some need for absolute access to the
system. That access need not be used in common practice or even be
made visible to most users or admins.
--
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.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: 28 Mar 2000 19:32:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:8bqssr$cop$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> Because Microsoft want the money and their public relations and
:> advertising departments hoodwinked enough of those with purchasing
:> authority to believe that NT server is the only way to go.
: Becase it's the only end-to-end solution that
: a.) doesn't require a Phd to set it up (just some common sense)
How I wish I had a PhD. But setting up Linux is downright simple...
: b.) doesn't require a group of people to maintain
...and I maintain my box without any help.
: c.) supports modern applications (not just text manipulation as you
: illustrated earlier)
I think "modern" applications are a lot like "modern" art.
I don't think either are particularly spectacular compared
to classics that work. The term itself is rather vague too...
: -oh, and it supports more then 2GB of files, unlike Linux (unless you want to
: run unstable kernels on your production boxes)
I have more than 2 gigs of files on my system now.
Oh, but if you mean *individual* files larger than 2 gigs, Linux
supports that now also - just get some real hardware like a nice
64bit Alpha box. If you want to use substandard hardware, you
have to expect some limitations.
: -oh yeah, and it scales well. It actually lives up to the term SMP, unlike
: Linux.
Solaris actually lives up to the term SMP. Think 128 processors.
Linux does well enough considering the hardware, but I don't think
x86 can hold a candle to Sparc in the SMP department. Of course
Linux also runs on Sparcs, but I can imagine it would be difficult
to fully test such monster boxes for SMP bugs given their cost.
But if Sun would be gracious enough to donate one to Linus, I'm
sure he'd have it sorted out in no time.
Does Windows run well on modern hardware (like 64-bit+)?
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US politics
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:29:18 -0700
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 11:55:21 -0500, DGF wrote:
>
> >Oh so you mean they want to force people not to use birth control? If you
> >mean abortion then that is so.
>
> Yep.
Hmm. Seems to me that conservatives want to use force to protect human
life (outlawing abortion). Liberals want to use force to impose their
choices on other people (outlawing guns).
If the Democratic party really were the party that champions individual,
human rights, they'd be fighting against gun control, not fighting for
it.
> >up from your delusion becuase you are an unwitting supporter of
> >totalitarianism. WAKE UP BECAUSE THE LIBERAL MOVEMENT IS TOTALITARIAN.
>
> Again, you are foolish to tar all with one brush. Just because some wacko
> does (X) doesn't mean everyone agrees with them.
You two are arguing different things: he's drawing a statistical
conclusion from a broad sample. You're trying to disprove his
conclusion by point out that individual data points fall outside the
norm.
The problem is, your argument does not address his generalization. You
cannot draw conclusions about individuals from a generalization. But
just as importantly, you cannot disprove a generalization by talking
about individuals.
His conclusion stands as valid: liberals describes a group. His
description of the characteristics of that group, on the other hand, may
be invalid. Find a spokesman who can reasonably be described as a
representative of a statistically valid sample. Say, the Democratic
Parties platform. . .
Your response also stands as valid: you don't happen to support or agree
with some of the groups policies. But you must realize: you failure to
agree does not invalidate his generalization, just as his generalization
cannot be used to characterize you.
> I don't run around
> saying that all conservatives are McCarthysits, cross-burning hoodlums or
> whatever.
Good. After all, that characterization would not fit the statistical
norm very well. A more valid characterization is possible:
conservatives are willing to stand aside and allow human beings to
suffer the results of their own choices. Heartless: that might make for
a fairly valid characterization of the conservative group.
> >No. When conservatives get what they want they don't go on to some new
> >cause.
>
> I don't agree with this. It's a simple fact that any place any time,
> no matter how leftist or rightist, will have those who are more right
> than normal and more left than normal.
Excuse, but he is, in fact, correct. Conservatism is the short label
for: "If it's not broken, don't fix it. If you think it needs fixing,
assume that you made a mistake, then prove otherwise. Make darn sure
that your fix doesn't make the situation as a whole worse than what you
had before you started."
On the other hand, rightists are just he same as leftists, the primary
difference between them is just exactly what causes they are willing to
use violence to support or advance.
The Ku Klux Klan, and Feminism: the primary difference is in the type of
force used to advance their agenda. Both seek to advance the power,
rights and status of a minority over that of the people as a whole.
> In other words, no matter which
> way or how far the pendulum swings, there are those that are trying to
> push it further in the same direction.
But conservatives are, as a group, people who dislike unnecessary or
untested change.
As such, they are not trying to push the pendulum one way or the other,
they are simply trying to stop it from swinging at all.
> >Now you'll say oh look at the EVIL Christian Right how they are out to
> >impose their morality on everyone. Maybe so. That is not the point. The
> >point is that liberals and leftists are out to impose their morality on
> >everyone.
>
> Wait -- does this not imply that the "conservative movement" is out
> to do the same thing?
Yep. Every political movement is out to impose their morality on the
whole. That's the whole point of a political movement, right?
> If you're allowed to tar all with one brush, why
> aren't I?
Feel free. Both rightists and leftists are ready, even willing and
eager to use violence (force) to impose their beliefs on the majority.
Only the Libertarians have even a pretense of being different, as they
mostly want to use violence to prevent *OTHERS* from imposing their
morality on *THEM*.
> >universities. For instance my own aunt was prevented from entering law
> >school because the leftists running the show didn't like her non-leftist
> >views. My mother got in because she kept her mouth shut. Political
> >discrimination.
>
> This is a clear cut case of discrimination. This is why the leftists
> favour anti-discrimination laws ( while the conservatives don't ). This
> way, aberrant behaviour ( even that committed by the leftists ) can be
> kept in check.
Ah, yes. So what do you call a nationally syndicated columnist whose
column, in summary, states that the world would be a better place when
the law is changed to give precedence to the viewpoints and beliefs of
women, over the viewpoints and beliefs of men?
Sexist?
Prejudiced?
Tyrannical?
A violation of the fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the US?
All of the above?
> >what you want is human freedom then you should join the non-leftist movement
> >called Libertarianism.
>
> No thanks. What you're suggesting is that if I don't become libertarian,
> I'll somehow turn into Pol Pot, or at least a Pol Pot sympathiser.
No, but you may end up using force to eliminate personal freedom. Pol
Pot was an extreme example of this.
> I could counter-argue that asw a libertarian, you'd be part of the
> "conservative movement" ( hey , if you have a straw puppet, why can't
> I have one too?)
Be my guest. Take a stab at it.
> and hence you favour lynchings, burning crosses,
> segregation, death camps for homosexuals and Jews, and blah blah blah.
Urrmm . . . no. Doesn't work. The Libertarian party stands for
Liberty. In short, "Libertarianism" stands for: unless you have a very
good, very clear reason for doing so, one that can be constituionally
justified, the government (and/or the majority) has no right to impose
its will on the individual.
> But my counter argument would have no more substance than yours.
Less so, as you used the label "libertarian". The Libertarian party is
to other political parties as the GPL is to other uses of the power to
"license". Sort of.
Now, if you were talking "rightists", then you'd probably have a point.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US politics
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:30:42 -0700
SetMeUp wrote:
>
> What the hell is it this US politics discussion in a Linux advocacy group
> ?
It's just lost, is all.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:40:02 -0700
Leon Hanson wrote:
>
> Okay. I do development (C++ / Java), fine art, 3D animation, graphic
> design, and general web browsing.
Hmm. I do C, Objective-C, assembly, Java, Python and Ada development.
I've seen fine art, 3D animation and graphic design done on Linux.
And of course, web browsing.
> I use Linux as a server, and NT 4 as my current desktop OS.
To each, their own.
> The Linux box is RedHat 6.1 installed on a PentiumPro 180MHz.
> I occasionally launch GNOME just for fun. I find the RAM use for GNOME
> to be a bit high (88MB+).
On a true color card, with background store turned on, and with a lot of
icons/pixmaps/fonts cached up, that's about right.
> I would very much like someone to convince me that I can nuke NT off
> this dual Xeon and install Linux and be happy.
Can't be done. Impossible to do so. Only you can convince yourself, as
only you know what you are willing to do/use/accept.
> I need:
>
> 1. A *serious* paint program (preferably as feature rich but far more
> stable than Painter 6). Needs to be able to read my old .psd files. I
> know I won't be able to use GeniuneFractals and that does suck....but
> if the paint program works very, very well in a gig of RAM....
>
> 2. A *serious* photo package (PhotoShop style). I'm sorry --- I've
> tried GIMP and it doesn't fit the bill, yet. Not performance wise,
> anyway.
See? You just proved my point. I know two computer graphics artists
who just love the GIMP. But it doesn't cut it for you.
> 1. I want to see what a Unix-like OS can do for me, performance-wise,
> compared to NT.
Nothing, since it probably won't run the specific instances of the kind
of applications you demand. As the saying goes in Linux-land: "If you
need to run MS Office, don't install Linux".
As there is nothing more compatible with MS Office file formats, than MS
Office.
Seems the like decision is made for you: stick with NT and MS/Adobe/Etc.
Software.
Me, I use Linux tools to do what you say you need to do, but it seems
pretty clear that you need more than you've been able to communicate.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:49:36 -0700
George Richard Russell wrote:
>
> >E-mail? Good old mutt and elm; Netscape (when it works); emacs.
>
> All lacking in the warm fuzzie ease of use and setup stakes
Elm is a heck of a lot easier to setup and use than any other MUA I've
ever tried. . . ease of use and setup being, of course, subjective.
Run elm. Say yes to the questions it asks. Use it.
> Good GUI X11 mail readers (most desktops these days assume GUI - console is
> just so retro) are Xfmail and Kmail.
KMail?! Barf! Ugly, ugly, ugly.
> 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.
Setup of Emacs is trivial. Learning to use Emacs is not, but then
again, neither is learning to use MS Word.
> >Web browsing? Netscape, kfm, Amaya, a few others such as Mnemonic
> > and Mozilla Real Soon Now(tm). Also, emacs.
>
> Netscape well, sucks.
Netscape is great. As always, YOMV.
> amaya - not really usable
Seems real nice to me . . . you might, possibly, have an underlying
problem that affects both Amaya and Netscape . . .
> >So...why is Linux not ready for the desktop?
>
> 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.
Emacs is certainly an option for desktop usage. It's no more difficult
to learn to use than Word is.
In fact, I gave up on Word. To kludgy, to difficult to learn.
> Most desktop users have never started a text editor, and frankly, a decent
> desktop should remove the need unless their software developers.
Which begs the question: why?
Text is the nearly universal data communication format. . .
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
