Linux-Advocacy Digest #909, Volume #25 Sun, 2 Apr 00 08:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped ("Rich Cloutier")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Perry Pip")
Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped (Kurt)
Misleading advertisement about linux and redhat !!! (Syed Farhan Ali)
Re: Linux vs Windows development man-hours? (Kool Breeze)
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" ("Serge Luca")
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" ("Boris")
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. (Ultar Dragon)
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" (Andy Newman)
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" ("Boris")
Re: Linux vs Windows development man-hours? (Robert Morelli)
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" (Tim Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rich Cloutier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 03:03:51 -0400
"Douglas E. Mitton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Yes, I agree with some things on your list ...
>
> - Windows users never have to deal with partitioning. That is one of
> the toughest concepts the new Linux installer has to contend with.
> Now, buy it pre-installed and its as easy as buying a computer with
> Windows pre-installed! :-)
When did Windows users get so stupid? I remember when there were all kinds
of tips in PC Magazine and others about how to partition your hard drive to
save space and to protect your data and so forth. I still partition my hard
drives into a system drive (for windows) and a data drive for programs and
data. Then i can just format c: to reinstall windows and not lose anything
else.
>
> - Knowing your hardware. The typical windows user has no idea what
> hardware is inside the box at all. They know the general stuff,
> speed, processor, HD size, CD, floppy and sound. Linux users
> generally have to know what is "in" their "box"!
What did all these people do before Plug and Pray? I can't believe they were
all paying computer repair shops in cash or relatives in beer just to get
that scsi scanner card installed with windows 3.1.
>
> The biggest solution to these problems that I've been able to see is:
>
> - Don't buy an old Linux book from a discount book store that may be
> 5+ years out of date and try to install that distribution. Definetly
> don't think thats state-of-the-art for Linux. Have you ever used
> Windows 3.0? <shudder> :-)
Actually, the distribution and the book should be pretty much in sync. What
you definitely should NOT do is download a current version from the web and
try to use the book.
>
> - Get a recent distribution, a few minutes research on the net will
> get you that. Pick up a Linux magazine (or 2 or 3). Lurk in the
> Usenet groups for awhile.
(Just not this one. There is no practical knowledge to be gained here.)
> Get involved with your local Linux User
> Group or cultivate a friendship with someone with some experience at
> Linux.
Good idea! (We take payment in beer too.)
>
> - Expect to do some research to learn how your new system works. No
> one is born comfortable with Windows. Generally, you just don't
> remember the long painful learning curve you had. A typical Linux
> distribution is huge and there are many things that you have to get
> working. Windows doesn't come "stock" with nearly as much "stuff" as
> Linux. Linux tries hard to be everything to everyone and so it is a
> little more complex. I personally found the work worth it.
>
> Good luck!
>
Hear hear!
[snip]
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 01:20:19 -0800
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8c3dhk$qvo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > > If the OS is not portable, stop
> > > > calling it portable.
> > >
> > > Portable does not imply ported.
> >
> > Portability is a claim that must be proven. If you can't prove it, you
> > ought not claim portability.
>
> It's been proven in the past. NT was ported *to* it's primary platform.
Yes, it's been proven in the past. So that proves it *was* portable.
You weren't try to say that it currently is portable were you?? The current
version, Win2K, has many new features and therefore it's portability needs
to be reproven.
Perry
------------------------------
From: Kurt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 03:29:47 -0400
> >
>
> Even IF you do a "Stupid" Linux install, you need 2 partitions: one for swap
> and one for your files.
>
> -- Rich C.
> "Great minds discuss ideas.
> Average minds discuss events.
> Small minds discuss people."
Never tried it, but if you have a decent amount of memory, you don't
need a swap partition.
Also, I think you can create a swap file that resides on an ext2
filesystem. Didn't look like something worth trying.
- Kurt
------------------------------
From: Syed Farhan Ali <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Misleading advertisement about linux and redhat !!!
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 12:16:52 +0500
Hi,
I live in Karachi, Pakistan. Today (Sun April 2, 2000) an advertisement
appeared on page no.5 of 'Dawn', a local english news paper
(http://dawn.com) . I think the news gives out the wrong message as to
what linux really is. The text of the advert. is as follows:
"....
Introduces
redhat
... the only authorised distrobuters of redhat Inc. for linux, is proud
to introduce this high-tech power operating system in pakistan for the
first time.
redhat is a powerful, extremely stable, next generation operating system
that provides a high performance computing environment for both server
and desktop PCs
..."
IMHO this advert. depicts redhat as an operating system, which it is
not. It also gives the imperession that redhat linux is a proprietery
software.
If my perceptions are wrong, then I apologise the advertisers.... and if
my perceptions are right then I urge the community to take appropriate
action.
Thanks
Farhan Ali
------------------------------
From: Kool Breeze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs Windows development man-hours?
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 07:55:44 GMT
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:16:01 -0500, Robert Morelli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Does anyone have a comparison of the amount of development time that is
>currently going into developing Windows versus Linux? I'd prefer not to get
>responses that point out the obvious, that it's hard to make a direct
>comparison. I know that but I still consider the question interesting,
>because the bottom line here is which OS will evolve and add new features more
>quickly.
>
I have been lucky enough (due to timing of our companies' buy-out)
been able to compare.
I took two programmers two years (4 man years) to develop a Linux
solution at my office. Some of that time was spent building a windows
front end (BTW Im one of the programmers/Project Manager). I had to
learn Win32/MFC aas I went. Mostly 50-90 hours/week for my part. The
other programmer was a 40 hour (leave at 5pm sharp) kinda guy.
Our parent company has had 5 years and 5 programmers and are just now
starting to roll out a pure-NT solution. 25 man years. They will spend
another year working out major bugs and adding enhancements as I did.
The products have the same functionality.
IMHO, it takes many more lines of code in Win32. There is no
core-dumps that pinpoint the problem on Win32 (Unless you run Dr
Watson or some util...)
The functions in Win32 are cumbersome and the Win32 API is changing
(at a slower rate, but now there's W2K to deal with...)
IMHO it takes about twice the resources (time OR programmers) to
develop in Win32 and/or C++, twice the hardware and twice the support
resources of a *NIX application. You more than likelly will have twice
the turnover and twice the initial installation costs. Oh and twice
the downtime. NT development requires lots of knowledge about threads,
fibers (ok...maybe not fibers) and such since you need advanced
programming techniques to get around the bloat of the OS itself.
Of course, your support contracts aren't as easy to since most
customers think they can administer NT (false sense of security made
by the knowledge of how to handle a dialog box/menu system).
Yup. I am dealing with this all now. Of course in some cases above
twice is a little high depending on your application/system, but then
again twice can be way low. Eg. In our case we run 6 apps on one Linux
box. We run one of those apps on 6 NT boxen for the pure NT solution.
One advantage of NT/W2K for any project, is that it's an easy sell.
Perception of NT/W2K overrides the realities. This means after the
sell, large amounts of down time is tolerated as well. It's often
blamed on the poor programmers (and the main one on that project is
VERY good...I can tell from what he says). BTW: I have met about 3
good programmers in my 12 professional years of experience. The rest
are mediocre at best.
Most people out there have blindly bought into the MS marketing.
People believe.
------------------------------
From: "Serge Luca" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 10:42:52 +0200
. I
<<I have work with Microsoft, they really do believe that "There is no time
to do it right, but there is always time to do it again.">>
When and where ? which building & unit ?
Strange indeed, many people have worked with MS here ...
------------------------------
From: "Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 00:50:16 -0800
Your are an idiot and a loser. If you weren't you wouldn't make a big deal of problem
which prevents using W2K domain controller as web server (with multiple virtual web
servers). Domain controller is part of internal LAN. Basic rules of network security
say
that internal LAN should be protected from external web servers by firewall or by
router.
Putting those 2 applications on the same machine is palin stupid. If it's internal web
server (for intranet), It shouldn't need that many IP addresses. Probably, that's why
beta
testers didn't discover that problem: because that's such an unlikely scenario.
Boris
"Robert Morelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> How shall I say this delicately? Well, to borrow Microsoft's own words,
> Windows 2000 has "issues." Now, let's not be judgemental of those less
> fortunate. Every OS has emotional needs, and Windows 2000 is not the only
> OS with problems "adjusting." DOS had "issues." Windows 3.1 had "issues."
> Windows 98 and Windows CE have "issues."
>
> One "issue" that Windows 2000 has just unrepressed, is a killer defect
> that "poses a potentially devastating threat to ISPs, point-of-sale (POS)
> systems and small- to midsize businesses." See,
>
> http://www.crn.com/dailies/digest/breakingnews.asp?ArticleID=15279
>
> It seems Windows 2000 has an "issue" with IP addresses that only allows it
> to handle up to 51 of them. Remember how Windows 3.0 had an "issue" with
> icons that only allowed it to put 26 in a folder? Remember how we
> speculated that the programming wizzes at MS used the letters of the
> alphabet to index the icons? You don't think they're using the weeks of
> the year to index IP addresses, do you? Who knows? Maybe something
> traumatic happened in that 52nd week, which would explain everything.
>
> You know, I got an electronic rolodex once for $14.95 that could only
> store 50 names and addresses, and the next year they came out with one that
> could do 100. So, if you thought it was a cool idea to migrate from Solaris
> to Windows 2000 and you're business depends on this, don't panic. They'll
> probably have the 100 IP version out next year.
>
> By the way, this isn't one of the 63,000 bugs Win2000 shipped with. Get this
> clear; it's an "issue," not a bug. The mere fact that an undocumented
> limitation causes your server to crash, doesn't make it a bug. In fact,
> this "issue" was mistakenly reported to Microsoft as a bug by at least two
> of its customers. Microsoft took 5 days to acknowledge the "issue," after
> which an MS rep informed:
>
> "Microsoft would not likely produce a hot fix for this, given that none of
> our customers have reported the issue. If a customer does report this,
> however, we will take it very seriously."
>
> May I ask that we try to be compassionate? Yes, Microsoft is in denial.
> And yes, they may lash out at those who threaten their defensive facade.
> But try to imagine how much hurt and insecurity they feel. On the outside,
> Windows 2000 pretends to be mighty and stable and scalable, but inside
> it feels as infantile and unstable as NT. Remember, there is usually a stage
> of denial that precedes the healing process.
>
------------------------------
From: Ultar Dragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 09:44:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> There should be a law that a customer must have a right to buy any PC
> without any operating system installed.
> This will give a customer choice of any OS, or if someone aleady have
> Win on desktop, why he/she have to pay to M$ an additional fee for OS
> on laptop?
>
> Zalek
>
That's a great idea. I wonder what that would do to the price of
Windows. I just noticed that the Winows 98 full version (not an
upgrade) cost just short of $200 at Compusa. That is quite ridiculous.
Just imagine how many copies of Windows 98 that MS is selling. They are
selling it on a new computer for roughly one quarter of that or less.
The true price of Windows 98 to a buyer of a new computer is probably
about 30-50$. Why should I pay $200 for the full program or $90 for the
upgrade when someone who buys a new computer gets it for next to
nothing.
The way I see it, a $200 retail price for Win98 is a prime example of
profiterring by Microsoft. It's not worth it and if people actually
boutght it at that price, they would make nothing short of a killing.
BB
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
Date: 2 Apr 2000 01:47:49 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Boris" says...
>
>Basic rules of network security say
>that internal LAN should be protected from external web servers by
>firewall or by router.
huh?
you really have no clue what you are talking about.
You protect internal LAN from external "web servers" ?? you mean if
I am running anything other than a web server, I can access your
network, but only if the request comes from a "web server" you
will not allow the traffic in?
and you want to protect the internal LAN by using a router?
How does a router alone protect a LAN?
NOw you use the word "firewall", good. but all the other things
you said do not make sense, which means to me you are just
repeating words you hear, and you really do not understand
networking and security.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 17:02:22 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> You have to put limits on things. There simply was no way to make DOS
>> extendable beyond 640K in a forward compatible way.
>
>As for DOS, this is blatantly false. LIM was an example of how to make
>DOS get bigger than 640K. In essence, Windows 9x is nothing more than a
>DOS extender, so again, the argument is incorrect.
MS-DOS was fine with more than 640K. It was the IBM PC's memory map
that got in the way. Other, not totally compatible, 808[86] machines
existed that made more memory available to programs. It was the h/w
specific-ness of programs - as most had to bypass MS-DOS and the BIOS
to do anything "fancy" or get decent performance - of programs that
killed these machines.
--
Chuck Berry lied about the promised land
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 13:17:51 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne) wrote:
>
>
> Um. I can't decide. Does this mean that 51 is arbitrary? Or not?
>
> If you can explain why the number is 51, rather than being 50, 52, or 49,
> that would "break" the contention that 51 is arbitrary.
>
> If you can't explain why the number is 51, then the "null hypothesis,"
> which is that 51 is an arbitrary limit, persists with no reason to believe
> it to be false.
How they got the number as 51 is obvious:
#define MAXIP 50
for (i = 0; i <= MAXIP; i++)
Makes perfect sense to me. :-)
------------------------------
From: "Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 04:28:02 -0700
I'm not security expert. However, I have enough knowledge to understand that this whole
issue is NON-ISSUE.
If company has web servers exposed to Internet, they usually reside in smthg called
demilitarized zone: they are just behind screening router (which fights IP address
spoofing and possibly some other attacks) from Internet. Internal LAN is protected from
DMZ by firewall or proxy server (you are right: the word "router" was inapproriate
here).
The main point is that NT/W2K domain controllers are part of internal LAN; they
contains
some very sensitive data like user names and password hashes. External web servers, on
the
other side, are part of DMZ. The only likely scenario when server on corporate
intranet is
configured for web services is when it's "internal" web/ftp server. But it's highly
unlikely that such a server would host 50 or so virtual domains.
Boris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8c7505$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Boris" says...
> >
>
> >Basic rules of network security say
> >that internal LAN should be protected from external web servers by
> >firewall or by router.
>
> huh?
>
> you really have no clue what you are talking about.
>
> You protect internal LAN from external "web servers" ?? you mean if
> I am running anything other than a web server, I can access your
> network, but only if the request comes from a "web server" you
> will not allow the traffic in?
>
> and you want to protect the internal LAN by using a router?
>
> How does a router alone protect a LAN?
>
> NOw you use the word "firewall", good. but all the other things
> you said do not make sense, which means to me you are just
> repeating words you hear, and you really do not understand
> networking and security.
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 05:15:24 -0400
From: Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux vs Windows development man-hours?
This doesn't really address the question I posed. I'm not asking about developing
Linux software versus developing Windows software.
Kool Breeze wrote:
>
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:16:01 -0500, Robert Morelli
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Does anyone have a comparison of the amount of development time that is
> >currently going into developing Windows versus Linux? I'd prefer not to get
> >responses that point out the obvious, that it's hard to make a direct
> >comparison. I know that but I still consider the question interesting,
> >because the bottom line here is which OS will evolve and add new features more
> >quickly.
> >
>
> I have been lucky enough (due to timing of our companies' buy-out)
> been able to compare.
>
> I took two programmers two years (4 man years) to develop a Linux
> solution at my office. Some of that time was spent building a windows
> front end (BTW Im one of the programmers/Project Manager). I had to
> learn Win32/MFC aas I went. Mostly 50-90 hours/week for my part. The
> other programmer was a 40 hour (leave at 5pm sharp) kinda guy.
>
> Our parent company has had 5 years and 5 programmers and are just now
> starting to roll out a pure-NT solution. 25 man years. They will spend
> another year working out major bugs and adding enhancements as I did.
>
> The products have the same functionality.
>
> IMHO, it takes many more lines of code in Win32. There is no
> core-dumps that pinpoint the problem on Win32 (Unless you run Dr
> Watson or some util...)
>
> The functions in Win32 are cumbersome and the Win32 API is changing
> (at a slower rate, but now there's W2K to deal with...)
>
> IMHO it takes about twice the resources (time OR programmers) to
> develop in Win32 and/or C++, twice the hardware and twice the support
> resources of a *NIX application. You more than likelly will have twice
> the turnover and twice the initial installation costs. Oh and twice
> the downtime. NT development requires lots of knowledge about threads,
> fibers (ok...maybe not fibers) and such since you need advanced
> programming techniques to get around the bloat of the OS itself.
>
> Of course, your support contracts aren't as easy to since most
> customers think they can administer NT (false sense of security made
> by the knowledge of how to handle a dialog box/menu system).
>
> Yup. I am dealing with this all now. Of course in some cases above
> twice is a little high depending on your application/system, but then
> again twice can be way low. Eg. In our case we run 6 apps on one Linux
> box. We run one of those apps on 6 NT boxen for the pure NT solution.
>
> One advantage of NT/W2K for any project, is that it's an easy sell.
> Perception of NT/W2K overrides the realities. This means after the
> sell, large amounts of down time is tolerated as well. It's often
> blamed on the poor programmers (and the main one on that project is
> VERY good...I can tell from what he says). BTW: I have met about 3
> good programmers in my 12 professional years of experience. The rest
> are mediocre at best.
>
> Most people out there have blindly bought into the MS marketing.
> People believe.
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 22:57:44 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
abraxas wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Tell me, which ISP do you know that would need more than 5,100 IP's
> > to be in use at the same time?
>
> Verio, RCN, Virgin, xs4all, Mindspring, Telocity, Erols, etc, etc,
> etc.
>
> In short, any ISP that sells cable/DSL.
>
> And lots and lots of others too.
hmmm ... we use verio at work for one of our isdn lines. We've had
unbelieveable problems with them lately, disconnecting us all the time. Come to
think about it, it started about the time W63K came out. I'll have to look into
that.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[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
******************************
