Linux-Advocacy Digest #128, Volume #26 Fri, 14 Apr 00 16:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux for a web developer (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: uptime -> /dev/null ("Rich C")
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux for a web developer ("Rich C")
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: How does WINE work? (Bob Lyday)
Re: uptime -> /dev/null ("Rich C")
Re: Linux for a web developer (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: The truth is often painful... (Mig Mig)
Re: The truth is often painful... (Mig Mig)
Re: The truth is often painful... ("Robert Moir")
Re: uptime -> /dev/null ("Robert Moir")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (josco)
Re: Linux for a web developer ("Rich C")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux for a web developer
Date: 14 Apr 2000 13:18:36 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Davorin Mestric wrote:
>>
>> my point is that unix/apache and nt/iis are simply not comparable in ease of
>> use, functionality and speed. and if we consider high-end solutions, you
>> get much better scalability at 2 to 5 times less price.
>> (http://www.objectwatch.com/Figures/Issue26/Issue26Figs_files/frame.htm)
>
>Sorry, that page can't get called from Netscape if you don't have M$
>office installed. Not even on a windows machine. I don't seem to ever
>recall having that type of problem with any of the scripts I've
>written.
>
>'Nuff said.
It crashed netscape for me even on a box with office95 installed.
If that is an example of what happens when you trust Microsoft
products to do something that is supposed to use standard
protocols, I'll pass, thank you.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: uptime -> /dev/null
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 13:27:36 -0400
Pedro Ballester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:UInJ4.1490$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Since most home users switch on and off their computers every day;
> indeed, I'd say that they do every time they must use it, I'd just like
you
> to stop telling about enormous uptimes as a matter to convince Windows
> users that Linux does a good desktop (note I am not saying that it is not
> the case). What's more, let's be honest and say that given a kernel patch
> (with non-module code patch included) is out at least a couple of times
> each month, uptimes can as much be of (patch_N+1) - (patch_N) time.
>
>
>
On the other hand, when I was using my Windows desktop machine as a fax
receiver at my office, and because Windows crashes all the time: I went away
for a week to Florida; Windows crashed early in the week, and I was without
fax capability for most of the time I was gone. So I damn well CAN talk
about the enormous uptimes of Linux vs. Windows for desktop applications.
--
Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: 14 Apr 2000 13:28:27 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>what if you only need to use it once?
>what if it's just too hard for a non-computer expert to
>create/understand/use it?
What if you want to do something the GUI designer didn't
anticipate? With a CLI you may be able combine programs
and options in ways that don't appear on any menu.
A GUI makes easy things easier and difficult things impossible.
>honestly - my comment is: it's not that difficult for an expert but what
>about the majority of computer users out there - they'll never have the
>patience or desire to write such a line. Remember, PCs didn't take off until
>Windows made them easier/accessible for everyone - the CLI held back
>computing.
You are reinventing history now. It was the Mac that made things
easier. Windows had the advantage of backwards compatibility with
DOS apps and its CLI.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux for a web developer
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 13:40:05 -0400
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Rich Cloutier wrote:
>
> > Contrary to what some here will undoubtedly say, you CAN use a graphical
> > tool such as FrontPage or PageMill to design content. It can make layout
and
> > trying out new design elements a breeze. Just don't become a slave to
it.
> > Look at your code to make sure the tool is doing the right thing.
>
> Great, this is good advice. I'm basically a programmer and engineer,
> but was thinking about doing some web design - it's so much easier to
> find jobs if you're well-rounded. Anyways, I plan on doing most of
> the design by hand. BUT, I can see where it helps to use some of the
> graphical tools when doing some tricky layouts. I think it's a good
> idea to use a little of both hand-coding in html and the graphical
> html layout editors.
>
> Are there any good html editors that run on both Linux and Windows?
> I'll probably be working with Windows. (*Gag*, I know, but we all have
> to do what we have to do to make a living. :-) I've used good 'ol
> Netscape Composer, and it really didn't look all that bad. That's one
> cross-platform html editor that I know of.
>
> - Donn
I've not seen any cross-platform tools other than Composer, and, while I
haven't used it, I don't think I'd recommend it based on what I've heard. It
is
important to realize that HTML itself IS cross-platform, so do you really
need
a cross-platform development tool?
I use Frontpage (gak) myself, and I really do think it's the best graphical
tool
out there. If you want to run it on both platforms, it MIGHT run on VM-ware.
The important thing is that you use a web server (local) that is Linux
based, and
install the MS-FrontPage extensions on it if you need to (you can get them
free
from Microsoft--amazing, huh?)
Since most people will look at your site with a Windows client for now, it
is good
to have a Windows machine to test with. And since you have Linux also, you
can test with Netcape, Mosaic, KFM, or whatever on that platform too.
There is a fledgling program for Linux called Web Designer or something like
that
(I will get you a URL if you really want it--email me) but I wasn't
impressed with it.
--
Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: 14 Apr 2000 13:40:11 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> When I get a large list of matching files from find, I usually
>> want to do something with them automatically. This is easy
>> with find and pipes or file redirection. How do you do
>> anything with the windows list but click them one at at time?
>
>you can select individual files or groups of files or scattered groups and
>individuals within the larger group MUCH MUCH easier than any CLI method and
>do whatever you'd like with them, together or individually. This is an area
>where a GUI shines.
>
Well, if you don't have anything to do but mouse around and the
list is very small that might work for you, but suppose you
want to compress all your logfiles that match a certain pattern
and are more than an hour old. How do you hand a list of
selected files to compress? Then how do you make it full-auto
and run at regular intervals? One of the big advantages
of the unix shell style CLI is that scripting is identical
to interaction. You can do something by hand to test it
and then put exactly the same thing in a file to run it
repeatedly. Or you can pop the text of the command into
your favorite text editor to modify it (like that file
list you thought would be a problem in a CLI). I think
Microsoft has finally come around with a windows scripting
language in w98/w2k but I haven't found any real documentation
yet.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 11:50:29 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: How does WINE work?
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bob Lyday
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:24:53 -0700
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >"Shumway, Gordon" wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> So how does it work? Is it just a replacement for the windows DLLs?
> >> Will it crash if a windows program makes a windows system call without
> >> calling a routine in the DLL?
> >
> >They are making a library of the Win32 API and then inserting it
> >into Unix. Supposedly, IBM has already done this with OS/2. I
> >know someone who works there and he tells me that lots of people
> >there run Win32 apps on OS/2 every day. They just can't run it
> >outside the campus is all due to M$. Not sure exactly how it
> >all works. With OS/2 they were converting a lot of the Win32
> >system calls to OS/2 system calls.
>
> Same with WinE. The calls are a bit muckier, in that X and
> Win32 are very different environments (I think OS/2 and Win32
> are a bit closer, although not having used OS/2, I can't say
> for sure).
Yes, OS/2 and Windows are quite a bit closer. OS/2 even has
dll's! In fact, OS/2 has some Win32's built into it and can run
the early Win32 stuff. Most OS/2 users don't want to admit it
but OS/2 and NT are like sisters. In fact, it was all one OS
till 1993. That is why OS/2 can run most Win 3x and DOS
programs natively (better than Win 3x and DOS, too). Win 32 is
still DOS- and Win-16 based. So OS/2 is halfway there already.
Plus IBM has already mirrored 90% of Win32 in something called
Open32, which is used for porting purposes. OS/2 also has
something called DIVE, which is like a precursor to Direct X.
The Odin folks have already implemented some Direct X on OS/2.
Basically, if it can be done in NT, it can probably be done in
OS/2, since they are related.
There is a long story about the split. IBM and M$ clashed on
what they wanted. M$ wanted pretty junk that would sell big,
while IBM held out for quality at all costs. Sound familiar?
Later, Bill Gates found out that many Win95 coders were using
OS/2 to design his baby, and he went stark raving nuts. IBM and
M$ hardly spoke for a while.
If you dig into NT's file system, there are still a number of
files with names like os2.exe!
> > > >
> >> "Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > Corel is contributing to the development of Wine, the win32
> >> > emulator for Linux. This is a good thing, as it will allow
> >> > a lot of Windows software to run under Linux directly, without
> >> > needing any modification, nor a copy of Windows.
> >
> >Yes and it is being ported over to OS/2 (Odin project) and BeOS
> >(BeWine project).
>
> One hopes that the code mods get folded back into the main
> WinE stuff, as well.
>
> Yes, they are doing that. The Bewine thing has some problems but it is making great
>progress. They seem to be facing some very serious hurdles. They have some geniuses
>there tho and I'm sure they will hack around them. All these Wine things are nothing
>but gigantic hacks anyway. Biggest hacks of the century, practically.
--
Bob
"We have increased our prices over the last 10 years [while]
other component prices have come down and continue to come
down," Joachim Kempin, Senior Vice President, Microsoft Corp.
Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: uptime -> /dev/null
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 13:53:41 -0400
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bastian wrote:
>
> > A light bulb hardly ever screws up when it's running. The dangerous
point
> > (as with every electrical device) is the time when you switch it on. It
has
> > something to do with Ohm... (don't ask me about the details please :-)
>
> Well, the problem is with incandescent light bulbs. By switching the
> thing on and off a bunch of times, the tungsten filament warms and
> cools, causing thermal stresses, which in turn shortens the life of
> the filament. If you leave it on constantly, though, there is no
> warming up and cooling down; it's just warm all the time.
>
> - Donn
Ah, but it's not really on all the time is it? (Unless you have DC
current.) You can actually turn a light bulb on and off hundreds
of thousands of times and have it last longer than a light bulb that is
"on" all the time if you do it fast enough. (The temperature of
the filament remains constant, but lower.)
I don't recommend this practice for computers, however.
(Although I guess Intel does. :o))
--
Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux for a web developer
Date: 14 Apr 2000 15:10:45 -0400
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 13:40:05 -0400, Rich C wrote:
>Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>I've not seen any cross-platform tools other than Composer, and, while I
>haven't used it, I don't think I'd recommend it based on what I've heard. It
It produces lousy html but a perl program ( like s/\ // ) can fix the
mess up pretty quickly.
It's just fine for editing tables, which is the main reason why one might
want to use a GUI in the first place.
My main gripe with these GUI tools is that they munge absolute paths, ie
<A HREF="/foo/bar/file.html">
referencing from the top directory makes life much easier, especially when
you're using things like scripts and server side includes. It doesn't
occur to these drag'n drool tools that anyone would want to use this
style ( which is incidently the way all the major sites do things )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The truth is often painful...
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:17:33 +0200
David Steinberg wrote:
> Mig Mig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : Strange.. Even on NT i use Netscape 4.7 over IE because it actually is
> : faster (yes 4.7 is faster than IE 5 and <=4.61 is slower) and stable..
> : and i just like the feel of it.
>
> Really? Man, taste and perception are funny things. I find IE 5 way
> faster and more stable. I do prefer the feel of Netscape, though.
> Especially, I prefer bookmarks (links in one easily-edited HTML file) to
> Favourites (one two-line text file for each link in a directory tree, with
> order kept...where?).
If you find IE 5 faster than Navigator 4.7 then i think you should measure
their speed. Its easy find a page with a big table and load it on both.
Youll find Navigator to be up to 20% faster - i did test those plus Mozilla
(I think M12)
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The truth is often painful...
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:20:03 +0200
Davorin Mestric wrote:
> first you ask what functionality is missing and then say that you like
> the feel of netscape. couldn't it than be that people like the feel of
> ms office better? in fact, two it is a generations-ahead-feel.
I also said i find and have measured Netscape >=4.7 to be faster than IE.
You measure yourself and youll find the same.
Thats OK if he finds the feel of MS Office better.. but if Office is so
important to him then he should be using Windows and not complaining that
Office does not exist for Linux.
> have fun
>
>
> "Mig Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hmmmm...What functionalitty is lacking that apps for Linux dont have?
> (WordArt?)
> >
> > Strange.. Even on NT i use Netscape 4.7 over IE because it actually is
> > faster (yes 4.7 is faster than IE 5 and <=4.61 is slower) and
> stable..
> > and i just like the feel of it.
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The truth is often painful...
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:29:14 +0100
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
> 'Microsoft [:msft] acknowledged Thursday that its engineers included in
> some of its Internet software a secret password -- a phrase deriding their
> rivals at Netscape as "weenies" -- that could be used to gain illicit
> access to hundreds of thousands of Internet sites world-wide.'
>
> So much for the "Open Source is not secure" arguments, eh?
Looks like AOL are spreading FUD ^h^h^h mistaken about this...
Of course, there is still a vulnerability there, but it would seem the
information reproduced above is incorrect.
Taken from NTBugtrak:-
This text string, "!seineew era sreenigne epacsteN" is embedded in the
dvwssr.dll that contains the vulnerability just discussed.
The question raised is what is this string for, and is it a secret backdoor
password. At least that's what the media seems to be hyping up.
My information says that this string is used to obfuscate file names
requested via the dvwssr.dll. Nobody seems to know why they're obfuscated at
this point, but it does not represent a "password". Its a piece of static
data used in the obfuscating process is all.
FYI, it was put into the program sometime in 1995, when the program was
first released, and definitely not in the "height of the battle between
Netscape and Microsoft".
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: uptime -> /dev/null
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 20:44:09 +0100
"LFessen106" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Thought:
> Maybe the reason most people turn their computer on and off all the
time
> is that they are running M$ Windows? I have to use that platform at work
> occasionally and can honestly say I reboot that machine at least twice a
day.
What version of windows? I use NT workstation and it goes off at the
weekends only, and then only because the boss insists we don't leave
workstation computers on over the weekend unattended.
> My Linux box and my SCO server can stay up and functioning perfectly for
months
> on end and so they do. Also, once you have your unix-type OS working good
and
> doing what you want, you don't *need* to have the latest patches. It can
just
> sit there and run and run and run *without* the hassle of daily reboots.
Ohhhhh servers. The NT servers I administer don't do badly either, they are
down maybe 2 or 4 times a year to install hardware or software patches (NT 4
is a little quick to require a reboot, true enough thats an advantage *nix
has right there) and actual crashes of the OS are very rare. Some of the
older systems are down a bit more, maybe an extra day a year each due to
hardware failiure, but obviously we replace parts with new when they fail
and that helps a lot.
I guess whatever OS you run, the quality of the hardware, drivers, and
system admins are far greater variables than the OS itself in the
reliability equation. At least thats been my experience over the years.
> On another related note, it's not good for the hardware to be powered
up and
> down constantly. The only arguement FOR doing the up&down deal is that
most
> people don't own and use their computer enough for it to die from this
abuse,
> however, some people like myself still have older hardware (486dx50!)
running
> *continuously* after many years and still usefull!
It's funny how everyone has to have the latest whizz-bang machine on their
desks in an organisation but yet old kit hangs around in a corner of the IT
support office doing something vital. We have a 486 dx2 66 that runs win95
sitting in the corner of one of our offices that runs our EDI setup. Every
day it talks back and forth between our college and the examination boards
who sponsor the courses our students are enrolled upon. We'd be lost without
it. It's never crashed yet, either, but has been shut down 3 times for
scheduled stuff, and it's been in place a year or so after the previous
incumbent, a 486 sx25 running win3.1 retired on a good pension due to
upgrades in the software our EDI supplier forced on us. Oh well the box
wasn't why two kay compliant anyway.
Rob Moir
------------------------------
From: josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 12:47:13 -0700
On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Eric Bennett wrote:
>
>
> A couple days ago, I got one of those highly entertaining mailings from
> a company doing Windows seminars. This one is about "Managing,
> Supporting, and Troubleshooting the Windows Registry".
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/winreg/chapter/ch04ex.html
594 pages !!
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux for a web developer
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:08:47 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2000 13:40:05 -0400, Rich C wrote:
> >Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> >I've not seen any cross-platform tools other than Composer, and, while I
> >haven't used it, I don't think I'd recommend it based on what I've heard.
It
>
> It produces lousy html but a perl program ( like s/\ // ) can fix the
> mess up pretty quickly.
>
> It's just fine for editing tables, which is the main reason why one might
> want to use a GUI in the first place.
>
> My main gripe with these GUI tools is that they munge absolute paths, ie
> <A HREF="/foo/bar/file.html">
>
> referencing from the top directory makes life much easier, especially when
> you're using things like scripts and server side includes. It doesn't
> occur to these drag'n drool tools that anyone would want to use this
> style ( which is incidently the way all the major sites do things )
>
> --
> Donovan
<A HREF="/foo/bar/file.html"> is only the top directory on the web, not
on the site (for sites with more than one sub-web.) I'll grant you that
nothing
beats coding references like this by hand, because even tools that use
absolute references sometimes screw up and reference a link to the
development
web and not the target. How many web sites have you seen where the picture
links
are broken? This is usually because the image is sitting happily on the
developer's hard
drive, not on the web server. Looked great from his machine, too, just not
anyone
else's.
--
Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
