Linux-Advocacy Digest #197, Volume #26 Thu, 20 Apr 00 15:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: at the risk of ignorance...a little too late for that (Karl Knechtel)
Re: Elian (JungleAcid)
Re: Unix is dead? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Elian ("Michiel Buddingh'")
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: MICROSOFT IT THRU! MICROSOFT IS THRU! (Charles Blackburn)
Re: Elian (Craig Kelley)
Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: rec.games.roguelike.nethack
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Knechtel)
Subject: Re: at the risk of ignorance...a little too late for that
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:10:06 GMT
<rant crossposted to comp.os.linux.advocacy, where it should hopefully be
somewhat more relevant. Those of you in rec.games.roguelike.nethack are
warned ;)>
Dylan O'Donnell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
:"discordja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:> i'll be honest, i'm not the most well versed in linux operations. i have a
:> shell account here at school and play nethack when i should be working or
:> going to class. at the same time, i have never installed it onto a computer
:> or did anything but play. i dled a copy of nethack 3.3.0 onto my laptop
:> yesterday and extracted the files to the proper directories.../usr/games/
:> and so on and so forth. then...i hit the wall. where do i go from there?
:> i tried to reading the nethack.txt and the README.linux but that didn't help
:> me any. when i type "nethack" in usr/games i get that it is not a command.
:> anyone out there want to help a desparate soul in a serious plight? any
:> help would be much appreciated
: Assuming everything went file with the compilation and installation,
: you probably just need to add '/usr/games' to your PATH environment
: variable; alternatively, invoke '/usr/games/nethack' explicitly.
I was just about to make all of these suggestions actually, but noticed
you'd beat me to it ;)
: (Typing 'nethack' while in the directory probably doesn't work because
: '.' ("current directory") isn't in your path either, for good though
: somewhat offtopic reason; invoking './nethack' would likely work,
: but adding '/usr/games' to your path will save the directory-changing.)
The whole idea of something being "in your path" is easily one of the three
least intuitive things about *n?x I've run into (the others being the vi
keys - which I avoid by using pico - and the idea of forcing something to
run in the background with. I thought this class of OSes was supposed to
do PMT; how come if I run netscape without an & from an xterm, the commands
in the xterm window don't get executed until I quit Netscape, even if I
minimize it and bring the xterm window into focus? Shouldn't a command
window always have relatively high priority implicitly, since it's where
you're running everything from?). Why on EARTH saying the equivalent
of "go to the current directory and open this file" should under any
circumstances allow you to do something that saying "open this file" wouldn't
is beyond me. Off-topic (to RGRN), perhaps, but please do enlighten us
(me). I presume there must be some obscure security reason for it.
Which would be one more thing I don't understand; why all these linux hackers
who aren't running web servers and are the only ones in their family who
would dare touch a computer would want to run an OS designed for multiple
users, and why it doesn't bother them that doing everything they want
basically requires them to have several "accounts" for themselves.
And why so many of them IME have set their id for their user account to
plain old first-initial-last-name.
Karl Knechtel {:-#>
da728 at torfree dot net
Zahlman-Ran-Elf-Mal-Cha
------------------------------
From: JungleAcid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.activism,alt.politics.communism,rec.games.video.misc,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Subject: Re: Elian
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 12:31:30 -0400
On 20 Apr 2000 15:32:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Michiel Buddingh' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:32:46 -0400, DGITC wrote:
>>>
>>> >That's not much of a problem, since the majority of Linux users are
>>> >already Communist.
>>>
>>> Bullshit. Go back under your bridge, troll.
>
>> Bullshit? Linux is one of the best examples of
>> anarcho-communism
>
>This is an oxymoron. It cannot exist.
An oxymoron, by definition, exists by means of rational explanation.
--
JA15x6,2
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unix is dead?
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:01:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chris Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I keep hearing "Unix is dead or will die soon."
There are two ways of looking at this. When that statement was
first made, by Bill Gates, what Bill Gates knew about UNIX was
based on his experiences with Xenix. Xenix was based on Version 6
UNIX and had minimal memory management, poor segmentation, and little
memory protection. This form of UNIX (Xenix) is dead.
On the other hand, UNIX and it's variants continue to grow at a rate
of over 100%/year in terms of unit volumes.
> What can replace it?
Actually UNIX keeps transforming itself in a very gradual but backward
compatible way. This gives UNIX a huge application base that combines
legacy applications with the latest in modern technology. In fact,
UNIX often becomes the testing and development platform for features
that may take as much as a decade to reach Microsoft. Microsoft
actually plans it's strategy based on the most desirable elements
of UNIX.
Today, modern UNIX systems include features such as clustering,
graphical user interfaces even friendlier than Windows or Mac,
especially for real-time environments such as logistics management.
UNIX is still the leader in computer animation tools, being the core
of companies such as Dreamworks.
> Linux?
Linux is essentially one of the many transformations of UNIX. The
kernel itself is unique in that it contains none of the source code
patented by AT&T. X/Open owns the trademark and has deliberately
excluded Linux from this trademark. Ironically, most UNIX vendors
are now striving to be Linux compatible.
> Linux is Unix.
Legally, this isn't true. On the other hand "UNIX is Becoming Linux",
might be more true. The Linux distribution has redifined the
expectations of UNIX customers. Customers want the same tools,
applications, and infrastructure on both Linux and UNIX, and vendors
are striving to provide it. One of the key elements of Linux is
the use of Open Source software for all of the infrastructure and
architecture elements. Commercial applications and binary-only modular
drivers are available, but the core system is available in source code.
Linux is one of the fastest growing segments of the market. But more
interesting is that the UNIX/Linux combination have continued to
maintain market share of the server market - nearly 80% of the internet
server market and nearly 75% of the overall server market.
Ironically, even Mac servers are actually UNIX based (a BSD kernel),
and this server count doesn't include all of the routers, firewalls,
printer drivers, and other embedded systems running on variants of UNIX
including Linux, Lynx, and Lineo.
> Chris Williams
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Michiel Buddingh'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Elian
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:57:45 +0200
Crossposted-To:
alt.activism,alt.politics.communism,rec.games.video.misc,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
8dn7ur$k3l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Michiel Buddingh' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:32:46 -0400, DGITC wrote:
> >>
> >> >That's not much of a problem, since the majority of Linux users are
> >> >already Communist.
> >>
> >> Bullshit. Go back under your bridge, troll.
>
> > Bullshit? Linux is one of the best examples of
> > anarcho-communism
>
> This is an oxymoron. It cannot exist.
Linux exists.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 17:25:28 GMT
In article <mh8L4.59287$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "J@M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Indeed, on Tuesday, Microsoft said it
> > had sold 1.5 million copies of Windows
> > 2000 in the two months since its launch,
> > a pace four times that of its
> > predecessor, Windows NT 4.0."
Actually, this is really a very poor showing considering that the
cost of an upgrade from Windows 95 to Windows 2000 is only $200,
(plus the extra RAM and hard drive). Windows 95 upgrades sold 1
million copies in it's first WEEK.
On the other hand, this is the first opportunity that Windows 9x
users have had to get into the Windows NT based technology for anything
less than $400 (MSRP for unrestricted consumer version).
Microsoft did offer restricted versions, including OEM, Developer, and
Student editions, but you couldn't legally use them in production.
> Any data on how many servers out of the 1.5 million copies?
> > 0.5 million copies for the second month
> > compared to 1 million in the first month...
Most of the first month sales were to the evaluators. These are those
who need an unrestricted copy to evaluate to determine whether Windows
2000 is a viable platform.
The feedback from Windows-only users is very positive.
Windows 2000 is the best version of Windows Microsoft
has ever produced. No one disputes that. The big
question is whether it's worth the extra $200 to have
Windows 2000, how many applications will have to be
upgraded, and how many computers will have to be
replaced. If it's not cost-effective to upgrade to
Windows 2000, it may not go well.
On the other hand, feedback from Windows/Linux users is
that Windows 2000 is a very expensive package that still
doesn't measure up to Linux in terms of Price/Performance.
With companies like Corel, Inprise, and IBM/Lotus providing
support for the rapidly growing Linux desktop market and Linux
providing excellent performance as a server, most corporations
are leaning toward a much wider deployment of Linux and UNIX
variants. Even some of the Windows "biggots" are getting shy
about insisting on Windows as the solution to enterprise problems.
> And the projected sale for this month is.......
In terms of cash paying retail customers, the count should drop
quickly. The OEM market will me much less willing to accept the
draconian terms Microsoft imposed on Windows 98, but might be
willing to deploy Windows 2000 in "dual boot" configurations.
I do expect to see many more Windows 2000/Linux machines, especially
in the second half. It appears that customers are willing to pay a
premium for Linux on Laptops and Desktops, especially if the know that
all the components (sound, modem, video, USB, DVD) will work on the
Linux platform. On some systems, the premium is as much as 40%.
I wouldn't be suprised if by the end of the summer, we were actually
looking at Linux on retail shelves. Even Microsoft has hinted at
Microsoft Office for Linux. Once the remedy portion of the hearing
is established, I wouldn't be suprised if OEMs and Software vendors
started very agrressively backing Linux.
If the remedies are reasonable (Giving FTC authority to regulate
and mediate Microsoft contract practices), the Supreme Court will
uphold the verdict and the FTC will relax controls as Linux captures
30-50% of the desktop market. When Linux establishes a sufficient
share of the market that Microsoft can say it's no longer a monopoly,
the FTC won't need to regulate Microsoft because the OEMs will be
able to choose how much of a balance of each OS they want to sell
and market based on the terms Microsoft gives them.
> Otto
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Blackburn)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IT THRU! MICROSOFT IS THRU!
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 18:16:54 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 17:54:57 GMT, Charlie Ebert wrote:
>This MEANS to the STUPID and IGNORANT that the U.S. Government has ACCESS
>to every MS equipped machine in the world and therefore they
>CAN NOT BE TRUSTED ANYMORE!
since when have you been able to trust a government???
--
Charles Blackburn -=- Remove NOSPAM to email a reply.
Summerfield Technology Limited - SuSE Linux Reseller & Birmingham L.U.G sponsor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
6:16pm up 10 days, 23:27, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.activism,alt.politics.communism,rec.games.video.misc,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Subject: Re: Elian
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 12:47:48 -0600
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Michiel Buddingh' wrote:
> >
> > Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > On Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:32:46 -0400, DGITC wrote:
> > >
> > > >That's not much of a problem, since the majority of Linux users are
> > > >already Communist.
> > >
> > > Bullshit. Go back under your bridge, troll.
> >
> > Bullshit? Linux is one of the best examples of
> > anarcho-communism the world has ever seen.
>
> Except that we like to make money. Actually, I think it is interesting.
> Linux is sort of a farm cooperative, or native american sort of thing.
> We build stuff in cooperative groups as a community, but use the stuff
> that we build for a capitalistic endeavor.
Oh dear. Does this mean we're going to have to start scalping our
neighboring tribes and implement mass human sacrifice now? :)
[snip]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 12:48:28 -0600
Paul 'Z' Ewande© wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Paul 'Z' Ewande© wrote:
> > > Most ? It's a strong word. How do you know that 50+ % of Windows users
> > > suffer weird lock-ups.
> >
> > From help desk logs.
> >.
> > Taken across a random sampling of help desks, the rates hit nearly 100%.
>
> Unless you know for a fact that any and each Windows' users have called a
> helpdesk,
Well, of course we knew how many of our employees had Windows on their
computers!
> wether they needed help or not,
Any decent helpdesk keeps track of *WHY* the user called.
> you helpdesks logs won't convince
> me that "50%+ of Windows users suffer weird lock-ups".
Oh, no problem. I'm not sure *ANYTHING* could convince you, and I'm not
really trying, just saying, is all . . .
> During the time I was working as a helpdesk technician for an ISP, the bulk
> of the calls were a misconfiguration of the computer or a dead DUN. Your
> experiences against mine
Your experiences cannot be compared to mine, because you were working on
the HelpDesk for an ISP. Obviously, you are not going to get calls for
help for problems that are not related to ISP usage (in short, your data
set is neither complete, nor composed of randomly selected data).
On the other hand, in a company helpdesk where all user issues must
first be directed to the helpdesk, we know four things:
1) How many of our users are having problems.
2) The kind of problems our users are having.
3) The amount of down time, diagnosis time and repair time.
4) What kinds of training can reduce problems.
> > "Light Duty" . . . an interesting statement. What is "light duty"?
>
> Power up, do your daily stuff, power down.
In short, basic use at any business.
> > "You're one of those smug Unix users, aren't you!?"
> >
> > "Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a real computer."
> >
> > The author of "Snow Crash" used to be in your boat, not understanding
> > why Unix users were smug . . . then he figured it out, and wrote an
> > essay to explain it to the rest of the world. It's an essay well worth
> > reading.
>
> I might, do you have a few pointers?
http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html
> > > > Something like 24% of the people who bought the first iMac's were
> > > > switching from Windows to MacOS . . . what does that tell you?
>
> Cripes, why all the moaning about Windows having a monopoly?
Because monopolies have a wide range of negative effects on a large
number of people.
> People go from
> Windows to Mac, and Sun has an empire ? :)
The "Sun Empire" comment was a joke. Sun aquired their empire by giving
away a lot of stuff. NFS, for instance, is an example of how a company
can make money and still be a good corporate citizen.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 20 Apr 2000 12:55:02 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
> >These are really abysmal sales figures if you consider the market
> >presence of the predecessor operating system. For two whole months,
> >you're looking at single digit growth, i.e. at this rate it will be more
> >than ten years before the existing NT base finishes upgrading to W2K.
> >
> >Looks like there's a lot of cautious consumers out there. Gotta ask,
> >how come they're being so cautious this time around?
>
> My guess would be that things will pick up once Service Pack 1
> is released. Hopefully, Linux can take advantage of the lull
> between Win2k's initial release and SP1 to catch some more market
> share before the Mighty Microsoft Marketing Machine (Behemoth
> Version) gets into gear. :-)
If anyone else is like our organization, it's due to apathy.
We currently run NT4 on all our desktops (except the Macs and Linux
boxes, of course). I have not had a single person ask to be
upgraded. There are no compelling reasons to go out and buy Yet
Another Version of Windows just because it jumped from "4" to "2000"
(is that a record?).
We'll order new Windows machines with NT 2000, but we have no plans at
all to replace our current crop of NT 4 licenses; what possible
benefit could we use to justify the cost?
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
