Linux-Advocacy Digest #30, Volume #26 Sat, 8 Apr 00 16:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X (Rex Riley)
Date of modifications of files ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MANDRAKE 7.0-available in Max.Linux Mag, too. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Let's just have a discussion about Global Domination (Daniel O'Nolan)
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (Jim Richardson)
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X (John Jensen)
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (Jeremy Crabtree)
Re: About GNU kernels (Jim Richardson)
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X (John Jensen)
Re: A true story about benchmarks (Gary Hallock)
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X (Ziya Oz)
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X (John Jensen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rex Riley)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 19:09:47 GMT
In <8cnu0v$7l5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Jensen wrote:
> Rex Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : This is a huge mindset change on John's part since wading through
> : endless rants that the future revolves around Linux.
>
> I don't think so. Feel free to deja-news me.
>
> In fact, until you do I don't feel any need to respond to you
further.
>
> John
>
To wit:
Tue, 07 Mar 00
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:
Darwin or Linux
> : John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : > It is a little frustrating therefore, to see Apple now make the
explicit
> : > choice to become irrelevant in a world increasingly centered
around a
> : > Linux standard.
> : >
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux
Subject: Date of modifications of files
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 18:56:02 GMT
Hi everybody.
I'm running Mandrake 7.02 in a DTK PIII 500Mz with 250MB.
Recently, I have the next problem:
Basically I'm getting differents dates in my system.
Just see this. Look at the modification date of files..
I have recently saved h2maxforw.c with emacs.
[hlp@burns planner]$ ls -l h2*
-rw-r--r-- 1 hlp ai 8332 Apr 8 02:40 h2maxforw.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 hlp ai 8337 Apr 8 00:53 h2maxforw.c~
-rw-r--r-- 1 hlp ai 24984 Apr 8 01:02 h2maxforw.o
[hlp@burns planner]$ date
sáb abr 8 14:36:51 VET 2000
[hlp@burns planner]$ rm *.o
[hlp@burns planner]$ gcc -c h2maxforw.c
[hlp@burns planner]$ ls -l h2maxforw.*
-rw-r--r-- 1 hlp ai 8332 Apr 8 02:40 h2maxforw.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 hlp ai 8337 Apr 8 00:53 h2maxforw.c~
-rw-r--r-- 1 hlp ai 9916 Apr 8 02:41 h2maxforw.o
Well, when I use a Makefile to compile the file (h2maxforw.c)
it always compile the file .c
May be that I specified am and pm form of date.
I SO tired about compile and recompile my files because
make doesn't detect correctly the dates.
Sometimes. I doesn't recognize the modifications.
It problem start two weeks ago.
Before that I didn't have any problems.
Somebody could help me??
Thanks a lot.
Hector Palacios
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MANDRAKE 7.0-available in Max.Linux Mag, too.
Date: 8 Apr 2000 19:18:15 GMT
Found Mandrake 7.0 CD as well as 'Storm Linux 2000' CD as 'freebies'
attached to
'Maximum Linux' issue May/June 00. Cost a cool 8-US, but worth it
cause I wanted a
new ver of Mandrake today. Check bookstores at Malls for best
assortments of magazines.
Vacuo
On Sun, 1 Apr 3900 01:55:56, "RCS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uptil now I have had respect for Linux as a server platform,
> but as far as the desktop goes, I was less than impressed (by the
> installation procedure,
> the graphics and fonts, and the somewhat amateurish looking widgets).
>
> I by accident got Mandrake 7.0 on a CD-rom with a computer magazine (PC-PLUS
> Issue 163), and was taken by the high praise this installation got, so I
> decided to give it a try.
>
> I paritioned my Windows 98 disk to make room for Linux, booted the computer,
> and that was it!!!! After a few easy choices during the installation routine
> (and a cup of coffee
> waiting) a superbly designed, great looking desktop with just beautiful
> graphics (KDE) appeared, with so many tools and possibilities that would
> otherwise cost me several months of salaries on Windows, that I just leaned
> back in amazement!
>
> The anti-Linux FUD'sters do not know what they are talking about!
> As simple as that!
>
> RCS
> Engineer
>
>
>
Little-known fact: Dogs love carrots.
------------------------------
From: Daniel O'Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Let's just have a discussion about Global Domination
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 13:31:56 -0700
Terry Porter wrote:
>
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 02:45:57 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Check my facts, ANYBODY! I'm totally amazed that nobody is reading=20
> >> this post nor-responding. It's that amazing there is absolutely NO
> >> discussion about this.
> >>
> >> It does not matter a flip what new gadget Microsoft might come out
> >> with on any future OS. What matters is the COST.
> >
> >I am a Linux user now primarily because of the cost barrier imposed by
> >Microsoft for me to duplicate my work environment at home. I need to be
> >able to read and write documents in Word format (yucch), I needed a
> >spreadsheet, a quick-and-dirty database, a browser, e-mail, and all the
> >other typical desktop junk. And no, my employer wouldn't reimburse me.
> >
> >When I bought this PC, all it had on it was Windows98. My wife and I
> >uncrated it, got it plugged in, and both said to each other "where's the
> >software?" when it booted up. Notepad is not word processing, folks.
> >
> >So we hopped in the car and ran down to the local Staples office
> >supply. We had a list of what we needed, and started loading up the
> >shopping cart and adding up the prices. We left the cart in the aisle
> >after less than twenty minutes (but more than two thousand dollars).
> >Ran across the street and bought Caldera Linux and a fullblown copy of
> >WordPerfect for less money than we had got shafted for for the pathetic
> >stripped Windows98. Formatted right over the top of Windoze, and
> >haven't looked back.
> >
> >You're right; it really _was_ the exorbitant cost of Windows that got us
> >here. And I hope MSFT keeps raising their prices; makes Linux and
> >Mac/OS look better and better....
>
> Great post, and very typical I think.
>
> "Heather/Steve/Amy/Keys88" being an asute Wintroll, may notice that
> pac4854 had no trouble installing. Linux installed first time. Pac4854 didnt
> ask for his money back, and pac4854 is *very* happy.
>
> This puts a 12G shotgun to the belly of our resident Wintroll's claims
> to the contrary. It's here in black and white, weep, Steve weep and nash
> your nasty lil Wintroll teeth!
>
> Whats more Pac4854, can delete a few other features from his list, things
> like lockups, wierd occurrences of data gone missing, virii, and of course
> the constant $$$$ driven upgrade cycle of software and hardware.
>
> I personally don't like wordprocessors, but if I *had* to have one,
> it would be Wordperfect. I've tried it, it rocks and is easy to use ...
> however its LYX for me.
>
> Kind Regards
> Terry
> --
> **** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
> up 4 days 19 hours 38 minutes
> ** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
Yesterday, I snagged a copy of SuSE 6.4, and had to re-format all of my
partitions except /home, /boot and swap so that I could get the
journaling capabilities. Aside from the the big, 500+ page manual, it
also comes with a small 50 page pamphlet with cartoons, and pictures.
It even allows poeple to imprort monitor settings from a windows driver
disk (I think. It had a part where you could insert a disk with a
monitor driver.) If steve couldn't get linux running, with all of the
user friendly (ie., dumbed down) stuff that SuSE put into their new
distro, than I think that he needs to seriously consider another line of
work (if he's telling the truth about it now).
--
All is not as it may seem.
Life is little but a dream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 19:22:35 GMT
On 8 Apr 2000 15:40:28 GMT,
Jeremy Crabtree, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Leonard F. Agius allegedly wrote:
>>
>>We must be a rare breed, then. I read my owners manual, and actually bought
>>the shop manual to the car, as well. I may not do all the work on it myself,
>>but the more Iknow about my car, the less likely any service shop will try
>>pull the wool over my eyes.
>
>Unfortunately, there isn' a shop manual for my car, otherwise I would have
>that too.
>
Check for a Haynes manual, (making a huge assumption here that you are in
the US.) Haynes manuals are nice because of the way they are set up. They
really help IMHO.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: 8 Apr 2000 19:25:40 GMT
Ziya Oz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: It's a fallacy that hackers can (or are motivated to) produce a "rich,
: integrated, and consistent UI." Can the Eazel team do so? I don't know. But
: perhaps the more interesting question is, even if they did, will it be
: accepted and adopted by a crowd that has so far been oblivious to the
: subtleties of "rich, integrated, and consistent UI."
A "fallacy" is different from something unproven. If you are going to
argue that "It's a fallacy that hackers can (or are motivated to) produce"
a thing, I think you should name what you think prevents them.
(As an aside, while I think there are factors that weigh against an
integrated and consistent Linux UI, there are also ongoing projects that
work towards it. I think it is something worth encouraging.)
Of course you then say "Can the Eazel team do so? I don't know." which
probably does put this more in the unproven domain than that of "fallacy".
Better yet, you next say "even if they did, will it be accepted ..."
You've gone from "fallacy", to something unproven, to even if they did ...
Good job, a rich, integrated, and consistent posting.
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Crabtree)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Date: 8 Apr 2000 19:26:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Richardson allegedly wrote:
>On 8 Apr 2000 15:40:28 GMT,
> Jeremy Crabtree, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>Leonard F. Agius allegedly wrote:
>>>
>>>We must be a rare breed, then. I read my owners manual, and actually bought
>>>the shop manual to the car, as well. I may not do all the work on it myself,
>>>but the more Iknow about my car, the less likely any service shop will try
>>>pull the wool over my eyes.
>>
>>Unfortunately, there isn' a shop manual for my car, otherwise I would have
>>that too.
>>
>
>Check for a Haynes manual, (making a huge assumption here that you are in
>the US.) Haynes manuals are nice because of the way they are set up. They
>really help IMHO.
I have, and they don't have one for my car. (1996 Geo Metro, their Metro books
only cover through '94)
--
"The UNIX philosophy is to provide some scraps of metal and an enormous
roll of duct tape. With those -- and possibly some scraps of your own
-- you can conquer the world." -- G. Sumner Hayes
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: About GNU kernels
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 19:35:33 GMT
On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 13:51:14 GMT,
ax, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> ax wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > It does not surprise me if someone start thinking of
>> > replacing the Linux kernel somehow.
>> >
>> > There are two major areas I am quite concerned about
>> > Linux future.
>> >
>> > (1). monolithic kernel architecture
>> >
>> > Linux uses obsolete monolithic OS architecture for
>> > the gain of speed. But as the computer hardware speed
>> > increases, the speed gain of monolithic Linux kernel
>> > will be less significant.
>> >
>> > What Linux loses for using monolithic kernel instead
>> > of microkernel are what Linux cannot afford to lose for
>> > the long run.
>> >
>> > We are matching into the new millennium with an old
>> > tech....
>>
>> This whole micro vs monolithic kernel debate is stupid. There is nothing
>> that keeps a microkernel from gaining the bloat that is mostly
>> attributed to monolithic kernels. There is nothing that says that a
>> monolithic can't implement features attributed to microkernels.
>>
>
>We can rewrite Linux in machine code '0' and '1' which can do
>everything Linux can do and may be even faster than Linux.
>But nobody really wants to go back to the good old 70s to do so.
It is in "0"s and "1"s, thats why we compile the C source code...
>
>Technology is the driving force. An OS built with old tech
>has the risk of being challenged sooner or later.
But you first have to show that the old tech, is not as good as the
new tech. Which you have failed to do. So.
1) What are the advantages to a micro kernel design that cannot
be duplicated in a monolithic kernel
2) Are there any examples of a micro kernel that demonstrate these
advantages, or are they purely theoretical.
>> As we have seen with many microkernel implementations, monolithic kernel
>> practices are creeping in. (Anyone taken a good look at NT lately?) With
>> Linux, we are seeing many microkernel-esque features, like kernel
>> modules and loadable filesystems.
>>
>
>Yes. Linux had incorporated many microkernel-like features.
>That's a good effort, I believe.
So does this remove the need you see, to recode the kernel as a micro
kernel? if not, are you aware of the MkLinux (Micro Kernel Linux) project?
>I had looked into the Linux kernel lately and found it full
>of kludge, inconsistency and lots of low programming skill
>code segments. Looked like some students had not attended
>programming and software engineering courses before they
>contributed their code. There are areas in Linux kernel
>so poorly coded that changing one line has the risk of breaking
>hundred things. It's monolithic nature makes Linux relatively
>difficult to maintain in the course of its future evolution.
This is a little misleading, in any program, changing one line
somewhere can have catastrophic effects.
You may be right about the quality of some of the kernel code, I don't
know, I am no hotshit C hacker, but why do you think Linux differs in this
way from any other OS? Why do you seem to think that Linux being monolithic
contributes to this "bad code" ? After all, were the standard linux kernel
to be rewritten in micro kernel form, it would likely be these same programmers
doing it.
What you are suggesting is that everyone stop advancing, and go back and redo
years of work that have allready been done. Unlikely to happen. You are of
course, welcome to begin and start showing us how it's done. That is the beauty
of open source. Don't like it? start to fix it. If others agree, they'll help.
>> >
>> > (2). GPL
>> >
>> > Linux gains its popularity due to GPL. But Linux businesses
>> > are suffering from the lack of sound business model due
>> > to GPL too.
>> >
>> > Without GPL, Linux will not achieve what it has achieved
>> > to date. But with GPL, Linux businesses will attempt to
>> > challenge the traditional business wisdom with its
>> > so called "bizarre business model".
>> >
>> > It's hard to tell if the "bizarre wisdom" will win. But somehow,
>> > the stock market seems to start punishing the "bizarre".
>>
>> The GPL is just one way to make a living with Linux. Applix sells
>> software which is not GPL, which runs on Linux, they are making a
>> profit. What is bizarre about that? Once you think about it, they only
>> bizarre thing is that there is no need to pay Microsoft for what can
>> only be called "sub-standard" software.
>>
>
>I am interested in knowing more about Applix and the
>ways to escape GPL.
Simple, write software that doesn't link to any GPL code, and sell it.
What's to explain. Loki does it with games, Applix with office S/W, and
many others do it with other programs. Including kernel modules and device
drivers. Linux is GPL, that does not mean that everything running on a linux
system has to be. You could make a totally (except for the kernel) GPL free
system if you chose. (it'd be tough to live without some of the gnu-tools
but it can be done. ) I doubt this distrol (call it, um Foonix :) would be
real popular, but hey, someone might buy it.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: 8 Apr 2000 19:36:50 GMT
Rex Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In <8cnu0v$7l5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Jensen wrote:
: > Rex Riley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > : This is a huge mindset change on John's part since wading through
: > : endless rants that the future revolves around Linux.
: > I don't think so. Feel free to deja-news me.
: > In fact, until you do I don't feel any need to respond to you
: > further.
: To wit:
: Tue, 07 Mar 00
: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:
: Darwin or Linux
: > : John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > : > It is a little frustrating therefore, to see Apple now make the
: > : > explicit choice to become irrelevant in a world increasingly
: > : > centered around a Linux standard.
Oh gawd, I said "It is a little frustrating".
Man, I hadn't realized how far out of bounds my "rants" had become in my
Linux commentary. I'll have to consider carefully how to make amends to
you, the listening community.
John
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 15:37:57 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A true story about benchmarks
2:1 wrote:
> > Moral of the story is, the only true benchmark is running the
> > applications YOU intend to run on a given system.
>
> So, why were you slammin Linux for that find `benchmark'?
> -Ed
>
The fact that Steve/heather/teknite/etc. has multiple user names seems to
be more than just a desire to remain anonymous. He has cleanly shown
multiple personalities. He will bash Linux and then turn around and
praise it. One of his problems (among many) is that he absolutely hates
NT and, deep down, he knows what a piece of crap Windows 9x is. That is
why he keeps going back to Linux. Then he gets frustrated when it doesn't
act just like Windows and he comes out with some "Linux sucks" post. I
pity him.
Gary
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
From: Ziya Oz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 19:39:18 GMT
John Jensen wrote:
> A "fallacy" is different from something unproven.
I don't know what this means.
> If you are going to argue that "It's a fallacy that hackers can (or are
> motivated to) produce" a thing, I think you should name what you think
> prevents them.
A "rich, integrated, and consistent UI" cannot be produced by a disparate
and far flung committee of non-aesthetically oriented hackers.
> (As an aside, while I think there are factors that weigh against an
> integrated and consistent Linux UI, there are also ongoing projects that
> work towards it...)
We'll see.
> Of course you then say "Can the Eazel team do so? I don't know." which
> probably does put this more in the unproven domain than that of "fallacy".
I don't, maybe you do. The distinction you are missing here is that I don't
consider the Eazel team a "a disparate and far flung committee of
non-aesthetically oriented hackers"(which is why I singled them out).
****
Ziya
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: 8 Apr 2000 19:54:50 GMT
Ziya Oz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: John Jensen wrote:
: > A "fallacy" is different from something unproven.
: I don't know what this means.
You said "It's a fallacy that hackers can (or are motivated to) produce a
'rich, integrated, and consistent UI.'"
A "fallacy" is a false notion, a statement or argument based on a false or
invalid inference. It is incorrectness of reasoning or belief;
erroneousness. It may even be the quality of being deceptive.
[snip]
: > Of course you then say "Can the Eazel team do so? I don't know." which
: > probably does put this more in the unproven domain than that of "fallacy".
: I don't, maybe you do. The distinction you are missing here is that I don't
: consider the Eazel team a "a disparate and far flung committee of
: non-aesthetically oriented hackers"(which is why I singled them out).
You've got quotes around this phrase "a disparate and far flung committee
of non-aesthetically oriented hackers" and you say "which is why I
singled them out".
I didn't see a refenence to "non-aesthetically oriented hackers" in your
earlier post. Is this something you are adding? You did mention
"hackers". Are you suggesting that all hackers are by necessity part of
"a disparate and far flung committee of non-aesthetically oriented
hackers"?
John
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
