Linux-Advocacy Digest #925, Volume #25 Mon, 3 Apr 00 18:13:10 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (David T. Blake)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Perry Pip")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Donn Miller)
Re: Rumors ... ("John W. Stevens")
Re: OT:RANT:Long: If anyone develops an IDE for Linux PLEASE NO PROJECT FILES (or
MDI for that matter) ("Robert Davies")
Best OS list (Bob Lyday)
Re: Linux mail/news application questions ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Need help on compiling Linux stats ("Robert Davies")
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Mig Mig)
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Grant Edwards)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Win2000 kicks ass
Re: Microsoft NOT a monopoly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: 3 Apr 2000 19:48:26 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just installed Linux Redhat 6.2 after a few years away from the OS.
> Are there any modern applications in development that meet these
> needs?
slrn for news
mutt for mail
em for editing
--
Dave Blake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 15:13:06 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:4DHF4.6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Fair enough. However this has little pertinence to the fact that the
> current
> > version of NT, i.e. Win2K, is not supported on any architecture other
than
> > IA-32. Has it ever ocurred to you that portability has been lost due to
> new
> > features added.
>
> Considering that there was an Alpha version of Win2k up until RC2 when
> Compaq decided to abandon NT Alpha support, no. It never occured to me.
So you never wondered *why* the dropped it? Isn't it funny that Compaq can
support on their Alpha chips a freeware OS (Linux), a DGUX hybrid (Tru64
Unix ), and a legacy OS (OpenVMS) but not an "enterprise class" OS like
Windows 2000!! It should be obvious to anyone that a *decent* (i.e. 64 bit,
stable, application compatible) Win2k port to Alpha would sell more Alpha
chips than Linux, Tru64 Unix and OpenVMS combined.
> Additionally, Microsoft claims that the 64 bit version of NT will ship
when
> Merced.. er I mean Itanium ships this fall.
Uh...hum..."Microsoft claims"... and you really believe it.
> > > > >Alpha
> > > >
> > > > Only as 32 bit. Running NT on Alpha is as effective as running
> > > > Win311/Dos622 on a Pentium III.
> > >
> > > And your point is? How does it's speed relate to the fact that it
> exists?
> >
> > My point is if you are running a 32 bit OS on a 64 bit chip you're not
> even
> > close to using the full capability of the chip.
>
> What does that have to do with the discussion of whether the OS is
portable
> or not?
Everthing. If you are going to port your OS to a 64 bit chip you need to
make it 64 bit. Otherwise, why would anyone in their right mind spend the
extra $$$ on such a chip and not get the performance advantage.
Perry
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 17:15:32 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Perry Pip wrote:
> Uh...hum..."Microsoft claims"... and you really believe it.
Windows advocates believe everything that comes out of Redmond. Also,
everything Bill Gates says is gospel to these guys.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 15:16:19 -0600
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > I'd disagree with you both.
> >
> > The barriers are there, they are real (not at all intangible or
> > abstract) and have nothing to do with market share or financial power.
> >
> > The barrier here is closed, proprietary data file
> > formats/protcols/API's/encodings . . . in short, the barrier here is
> > "secret information".
> >
> > Imagine, if you will, that AT&T had implemented the telephone system
> > using "secret information" (protocols, specifications, signaling
> > profiles, etc.). Just making the bare "wires" available to the
> > competition would then have done *NOTHING* to solve the monopoly
> > problem.
>
> The fault in your logic is that MSFT doesn't control PC hardware.
That was an analogy. MSFT doesn't have to control the PC hardware to be
a monopoly . . . however, the PC95 standard suggests that they would
*LIKE* to control the hardware!
> MSFT has a monopoly on it's own APIs and OS, true, but that doesn't not make
> it a monopoly in the OS market.
"Monopoly" takes on a different meaning in the IS world. For the
purposes of this discussion, having a set of interlocking secrets would
not be a monopoly, per se, if these secrets had nothing to do with a
"shared resource", which is exactly what an OS is.
Since this shared resource is indeed kept safe by keeping secrets, then
MSFT, plus their control over a significant market, is indeed a
monopoly.
> For example, Exxon has a monopoly on it's
> own gas pumps, but that doesn't make it a monopoly.
But Exxon isn't pumping out the only gas in the world that will run 90%
if the cars in existence. Other than a few weird little additives that
may or may not affect your cars longetivity and performance, gasoline is
gasoline, so if you decide to buy from Shell tommorow, instead of Exxon,
there is nothing to stop you from doing so.
On the other hand, if I decide to switch from Windows to Solaris
tommorow, not only do I have to change gasoline vendors I have to, in
effect, buy a whole new car and drive on a different set of roads.
> - There is nothing preventing application vendors from writing software for
> other platforms.
Nothing, except illegal and monopolistic practices that reduce or
eliminate the number of those other platforms. You know, things such
as: licensing restrictions that greatly increase the cost of your
license if you, as a hardware vendor, choose to preinstall other OS'en
besides an MS OS on you boxen?
> - There is nothing preventing consumers from buying a different OS, or buying
> from an OEM that doesn't preinstall Windows.
Like there is nothing from stopping you from buying a telephone that
requires different signals and standards than that of those developed by
ATT . . . other than the simple fact that, once having bought that
telephone, it would be useless.
> The problem with the AT&T analogy, was that AT&T had the only phone cable
> network.
But by your own reasoning, there was nothing stopping the competition
from creating their own network, right? So why declare ATT a monopoly?
> If MSFT control both the hardware (the phone cabling)
In this case, the "cabling" is the secret protocols used by their
networking products . . . so MSFT does indeed control the "cabling".
Unless, of course, you are prepared to point me to complete and usable
documents that describe such things as the exchange client/exchange
server protocol, or the domain controller protocols. . . ?
> AND the software (long distance server)
MSFT definitely controls the software.
> and wouldn't let anyone else tap into their cables or service (proprietary
> APIs) then that analogy would be relevant,
Ask Novell and DR about how willing MS was to let them "tap into their
cables or services". Or ask the Samba team just how willing MS is to
let them "tap into their cables or services". . .
So, the analogy is indeed relevant.
> A more relevant analogy would be that there were many different phone cabling
> that long distance providers could use, and consumers could choose from.
Yeah . . . and of course, that *IS* the case (Instant Messaging,
anyone?) and now it's not just MSFT that's the bad guy . . . AOL should
be taken out back and given a strapping, too.
> MSFT is not a monopoly,
Yes, it is.
> it just owns the best cables.
And it won't let anybody else attach third party equipment to their
cables.
> It's call "competition" and "capitalism".
No, it's called: "Vendor Lockin". See: "Anti Patterns" for a full
description of this kind of anti pattern.
> > The same thing is true here . . . until such time as MS is forced to
> > release all interface information as both open, *AND* standardized . . .
> > they can and will retain their monopoly.
>
> They're not a monopoly.
Yes they are. Anybody who understands that the word "monopoly" has to
be used differently in an IS environment, understands that MSFT is a
monopoly.
In the physical world, a company becomes a monopoly when it aquires
significant control over a market based on physical products. In the
information world, a company becomes a monopoly when it aquires
significant control over a market based on information.
> There are other OSes that open source, even.
Indeed. And the advantage to the customer that this model gives is
enourmous, and obvious. Imagine what advocacy discussions would be like
if the NT users couldn't say: "So, Ok, just load Perl or whatever GNU
tool you want onto your NT box and . . .".
> Also, there is no barrier to entry, as anyone even a foreign college
> student (Linus) could cook one up in his dorm room.
Wrong. Linus did not "cook up" a competing product to Windows in his
dorm room. Unix, being the one OS market that really, truly has
competition, simply saw another competitor pop up on the scene.
Show me an alternative vendor to MSFT. Show me another vendor who sells
an OS that is enough like Windows that I can run my Windows version of
MS Office on it. . .
> MSFT does not control both the hardware AND the software,
It doesn't have to. In fact, hardware is totally irrelevant to this
discussion.
> and is therefore
> not a monopoly,
You can be a monopoly without controlling the hardware.
Assume that ATT allowed just anybody to build telephones, but only
allowed those people who bought their telephones from ATT to connect
those telephones to their network . . . because only ATT knew *HOW* to
build telephones that could connect to their network!
> > For examples, look at Samba. The biggest problem with developing Samba
> > is aquiring the neccessary information to be MS compatible.
>
> What's wrong with using one of the other billion file systems or networking
> file systems? Why do you HAVE to use samba?
Hey, what's wrong with using one of the billions of other ways to
communicate?! Why do you HAVE to use the system created by ATT?
When a new service or product becomes signifant to a large enough
market, the control over that market by a single business is no longer
appropriate.
> Simply because MSFT doesn't allow 3rd parties to integrate with SMB, does not
> make it a monopoly.
That isn't reason enough to declare MS a monopoly, but it does indeed
prove that MS is, as a corporation, a liar. Remember, Samba is the free
version of CIFS . . .
> Use *nix and NFS if you don't want to use MSFT.
Which once again proves the superiority of Unix and the Free philosophy
over MSFT and their offerings . . . even an MSFT advocate is
recommending you use Unix if you want a truly open system!
> Use Novell and IPX, use
> MacOS and AppleShare. You have many choices. MSFT != Monopoly.
MSFT == Monopoly because of two interacting facts: "Secret" information,
plus "Control over a significant market".
> Then we would have to do so for NetWare, Solaris, MacOS and many other
> OSes, because they do the same thing as MSFT.
And, indeed, I would say that I agree with you except for one
overwhelmingly important fact: neither Netware or the MacOS controls a
significant market. MSFT does.
As for Solaris. . . well, Solaris is just one of a number of competing
Unix operating systems. As such, it isn't and cannot be a monopoly.
> There already is much competition,
Fine. Where, again, is that telephone number, address or Web URL for
the company that sells a Windows 95 compatible OS?
> it's just that MSFT's competitors
> are incompetent
That's an amazing statement, it really is . . . sure, and every other
company on the planet that has every tried to compete with MS is
incompetent. No, there is nothing underhanded or unfair going on, it's
just that every competitor MS has ever had is incompetent . . . NOT!
Occam's razor suggests that explanation is unlikely, to say the least.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Robert Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: OT:RANT:Long: If anyone develops an IDE for Linux PLEASE NO PROJECT FILES
(or MDI for that matter)
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 22:17:23 +0100
As a long time UNIX user, developer and administrator, this post really made
me smile, of course if you want something like Borland's IDE look at
rawhide.
Rob
Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 1 Apr 2000 16:58:12 +0100,
> Robert Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Richard Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I started C coding with Linux, only recently, and have not had any formal
> training nor Windows methodology experience.
>
> I use CVS, out of TKCVS for project management, along with "Elvis" as my
editor
> and found my first project, a Linux based parallel port programmer for the
> Atmel At89C2051, a breeze to do.
>
> All files are in the CVS (which allows friends to get the latest source),
the
> makefile does the work when I click on the Elvis "make" button and Elvis
opens
> as many error files automatically as are generated, for me to fix the
source.
>
> Do I need anything else ? I sure feel very satisfied the way things are.
>
> (coding in C only)
>
> Actually I think I must have a "IDE" as these seperate tools, CVS, TKCVS,
> make, and Elvis, are well integrated into my design environment ;-)
>
> Kind Regards
> Terry
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 14:23:46 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Best OS list
There is no need to respond to the guy who thinks Windbloze is
the best OS. Sice I use it, I assure you that it is quite bad.
However, I would like to offer my list for best server NOS's:
Mid-to-large servers:
1. VMS
2. Solaris
3. AIX
4. Digital Unix
5. BSD
6. OS/400, etc.
(all are great)
Notice that Windows is not on the list...
Small-to-medium servers:
1. OS/2
2. Novell
3. BSD
4. Linux
(all are great)
Notice once again that Windows is not on the list...
Comments?
--
Bob
"There are no significant bugs in our released software that any
significant number of users want fixed," Bill Gates, in an
interview with Focus magazine, Oct 23, 1995.
Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: 3 Apr 2000 21:19:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps David T. Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Just installed Linux Redhat 6.2 after a few years away from the OS.
:> Are there any modern applications in development that meet these
:> needs?
: slrn for news
: mutt for mail
: em for editing
what's wrong with rn! And I don't need no feeelthy prompts. You mortals
can keep em. I'll stick with ex.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Robert Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Need help on compiling Linux stats
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 22:32:56 +0100
Simon Brooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Tom Steinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I have spent the last couple of days reading endless Linux articles
looking
> > for any and every bit of statistical data I can find concerning Linux.
I'm
> > not getting very far very fast, so I've returned to the wonderful and
> > generous people on usenet ( butter butter ) to ask for suggestions and
info.
> > Absolutely anything numerical is helpful, but I am especially looking
for:
> >
> > 1) Info/guesses about the Linux and opensource user base. Growth
patterns
> > over time and projections are especially needed.
>
> This really is extemely difficult and I doubt that anyone has any
> useful figures.
>
> The following resources are all of doubtful utility:
Just thought of the tool queso, read about it in Max Linux security, which
is more useful than I expected, as it's a SAMS book. Someone did manage to
get useful OS stats with it, but as the Linux bugs it relied on have been
fixed, perhaps Linux can be identified as the only OS, which is fully IPv4
compliant (yes, 4 not 6)?
Queso works by sending illegal packets with undefined in the standard
responses, it uses what it gets back to pidgeon hole the OS. If the
original questioner uses it though, he'd better get some heavy duty
permission first, as scanners aren't too popular with ISPs or Admins, looks
like a trawl to prepare a break in attempt.
Rob
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 22:37:54 +0200
Jan Panteltje wrote:
> You could give NewsFleX a try:
> http://www.panteltje.demon.nl/newsflex/
>
> My attempt to write an agent for linux.
> And it works very well.
> The search functions in the group lists are great (MS copied it from me I think).
> It may not do all you need, but already people are having a go at it, so feel free
>:-)
> Jan
Sounds great. I tryed to find a rpm without succes (slow machine= slow
compile).. could you point me to a direction where one might be found?
Greetings
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 21:38:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David T. Blake wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Just installed Linux Redhat 6.2 after a few years away from the OS.
>
>> Are there any modern applications in development that meet these
>> needs?
>
>slrn for news
>mutt for mail
>em for editing
I'd second the nomination for slrn and mutt, but I use jed for editing (it's
got a nice mail-mode).
That's the nice thing about Unix. People who write MUAs and newsreaders let
_you_ pick the editor you want, rather than forcing you to use what they
like.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Ask me the DIFFERENCE
at between PHIL SILVERS and
visi.com ALEXANDER HAIG!!
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 07:48:53 +1000
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ar7G4.118$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8c7i3a$qa9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > You weren't try to say that it currently is portable were you?? The
> > current
> > > version, Win2K, has many new features and therefore it's portability
> needs
> > > to be reproven.
> >
> > Win2k *was* on ALpha until Compaq officially dropped hardware support.
>
> So you are telling me that a single port that never got out of beta
testing
> proves an OS is portable?? Please.
Well, yes. Unless you can list some sweeping and significant changes that
occurred between the dropping of Alpha support and the release of Win2k.
> >Just
> > how many new features do you think got added between then and release ?
> >
>
> It doesn't matter, they dropped it because there were already enough
issues.
Which were....what, exactly ?
> Isn't it funny that Compaq can support on their Alpha chips a freeware OS
> (Linux), Digital Unix (Tru64 Unix ), and a legacy OS (OpenVMS) but not an
> "enterprise class" OS like Windows 2000!! It should be obvious to anyone
> that a *decent* (i.e. 64 bit, stable, application compatible) Win2k port
to
> Alpha would sell more Alpha chips than Linux, Tru64 Unix and OpenVMS
> combined.
Doubtful.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Win2000 kicks ass
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 21:48:42 GMT
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:07:20 +0100, Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8c8u10$il7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> WOW A WHOLE MONTH WITH OUT A CRASH???? REALLY??? WOW!!!!!
>> You MUST be a MS user to be impressed with a months worth of uptime.
>> Unix/Linux are used to getting a year or more of uptime.
>> .
>
>If he's only had it for one month and got one month of uptime, thats 100%
>uptime Matt, so that would be quite impressive if it continues. Let's see
>what he says in 12 months.
It'll never happen. Windows has to reboot if you so much as change an IP
address or install any software.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft NOT a monopoly
Date: 3 Apr 2000 13:53:34 -0700
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> http://bero.exit.de/legal/
>>
>> - Donn
Donn,
THis is funnist web site I have ever seen, I laughed so hard,
thanks for the link. I'll cut/past the windows linux "rm"
command, becuase I think it is really the windows way of doing it:
Microsoft Windows® for Linux
Microsoft Windows for Linux is not a Windows
emulator. While it will not make your Linux system
run Windows applications, it will make Linux much
more user friendly (=more like windows). See, for
example, a screenshot of Microsoft delTM, a part of
Microsoft Windows for Linux, which replaces the
primitive rm command on Linux systems. Microsoft
del can be invoked as "del", "rm" and "erase":
[root@linux-sucks /root]# rm -f "My Document.doc"
Microsoft(R) del(TM) v5.003.001 -
part of Microsoft(R) Windows(R) for
Linux.
Distributed under the GPL (http://bero.exit.de/GPL.shmtl).
Redistribution of this product will result in capital punishment.
Report any illegal copies to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Deleting the file My Document.doc...
Are you sure you want to delete the file My Document.doc? [yN] y
Are you sure you are sure? [yN] y
Really? [yN] y
Deleting files can result in loss of stability, and in applications
not working correctly anymore. Are you
sure you want to do this? [yN] y
Deleting a file results in a complete loss of warranty of your
Microsoft Linux system. Are youaware of this? [yN] y
Microsoft can not be held responsible for the results of you
using Microsoft del on this file. If you agree, type "I AGREE". I AGREE
Deleting files should only done by system administrators or
experienced users. To make sure you may do this, enter your
MCSE certificate number. 19999-22222-00007
Verifying...
Accepted. You may proceed.
WARNING: The filename "My Document.Doc" contains more than 8
characters.
Rename to My Doc~1.doc? [Yn] y
ERROR: Could not delete file: File not found.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
