Linux-Advocacy Digest #219, Volume #26 Sat, 22 Apr 00 15:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Illegal to discount software - Linux is in trouble! (Craig Kelley)
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (Bart Oldeman)
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (Pete Goodwin)
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: which OS is best? (David Corn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Illegal to discount software - Linux is in trouble!
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Apr 2000 12:13:03 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SeaDragon) writes:
> From the Techweb article on proposed Microsoft remedies:
>
> http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20000420S0016
>
> "Also, the software giant may have to open its APIs and stop discounting
> Windows to PC makers."
>
> Oh boy. So it's illegal to give a DISCOUNT on software? What is going
> to happen to Linux? If it is illegal for Microsoft to give a discount
> of a few dollars, what are they going to do when they are giving away
> Linux for FREE??? Is Linus going to get the chair? And how is
> discounting software bad for the consumer? Should the government impose
> a price floor on OS'es so PC's have to be more expensive? You all better
> be careful about proclaiming that Linux is free, because that's ILLEGAL!
There is no 'J' in the DOJ anymore.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 22 Apr 2000 13:18:11 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Samba isn't terribly difficult, but it requires knowing how to do many
>>>other things - how to use a text editor, how to edit files in what may
>>>or may not be a GUI environment (the examples I've seen show pico;
>>
>> Run editor.
>> Open file.
>>
>> These are hardly brain surgery.
>
>Which editor? Where?
>What file? Where?
>What files does one edit?
You have been brainwashed to a point that you don't even realize
it. Put someone who hasn't used a computer before in front
of win98 and see how long it takes them to share directories
if no one gives any hints and they don't use the help files.
It is not all all obvious even though you have been trained
to think so.
>Sorry; it's not brain surgery, but it's tough for a beginner.
That's the real difference. You aren't a beginner on windows.
>>>will people know they can use gedit or kedit too?), how to search
>>
>> Hopefully, the EDIT in gedit or kedit would tip them off.
>
>Where and how would they guess they could use either of those files?
>If a user didn't know what they were to begin with, it's very
>difficult to just spontaneously come up with this knowledge without
>reading a lot of ... you guessed it... man pages!
Actually you shouldn't use man pages as a beginner. You should
find a tutorial that has simple step-by-step instructions.
The Linux HOWTO's are sometimes good for this, but even there
you often find more special-case stuff than you need.
Man pages are intended as references that tell you all the
possibilities, not which ones you probably want. The equivalent
under windows would be for something describing file sharing
to include everything you can do with domain control, ACLs and
policies. Man pages are for after you know which program
of conf file you need and you want to know specific details
about it. Note that this separation is good in the long run.
Most people are only beginners once - once you understand
the tutorial you won't want to see it again.
>> As I've said before, the interface is the simplest thing here
>> even if we're talking about samba without swat.
>
>Simplest thing here? What does that mean? It's far more difficult
>than Win95/98's sharing.
That's because it is closer to the equivalent of domain control,
with user mapping and authentication involved.
>> So are *hlp files. It's quite disputable that we should expect
>> a common novice to know what to do with Windows to get it to
>> share files without explicit coaching from the likes of you, a
>> *hlp file or a written manual.
>
>I'm sorry; Win98's sharing is so, so, SO much easier than what Linux
>offers - there's just no comparison.
If you are willing to do away with authentication under Linux or
take it down to what Win98 offers you could make the configuration
just as easy.
>> This presupposes the that the user in question already knows
>> these things or is capable of exploring the interface. This
>> is quite often NOT the case. The same attitude that keeps
>> someone from poking around /etc is the same attitude that keeps
>> a novice end user from realizing they can access context menus
>> with right-click.
>
>Except that finding /etc - then finding files in it - is far more
>difficult than clicking on a drive or printer or folder....much less
>*doing* anything with it.
If you don't know about files in /etc, why aren't you using
linuxconf? But for most of the people I know, editting files
is one of the primary reasons for having the computer in the
first place, not some great mystery.
>> Not in my Redhat. Not in any version of Redhat dating back to 4.0.
>
>Read the man page. You'll need to either add it (if it isn't there),
>comment out the # your distributor probably put in there to begin
>with, or, if by *amazing* chance it's all already enabled in your
>distribution, well, you got lucky. For neither LinuxPPC 2000,
>Mandrake 7.0, nor RH6.2 would a user get lucky in all aspects of SMB
>setup.
Linuxconf comes up if you type its name. That's much easier than
mousing through menus.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:06:09 GMT
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 2 wrote:
> In terms of many things, it's not playing catchup. I use it for everything I
> do, except games.
(the it refers to "Linux")
Um, why does your X-Mailer say: "Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I)"? ;-)
Try to be kidding?
I still believe you, you're probably reading news from another machine
than you usually use, aren't you?
Bart
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 22 Apr 2000 13:24:11 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 04:47:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
>wrote:
>
>>>>There is certainly no *need* to consult a man page to use these tools.
>>>
>>>I'll beg to differ. How many millions of chips would have to work at
>>>a keyboard for how many millions of years before one randomly typed
>>>"linuxconf"? WinXX's sharing is far, far easier.
>>
>>Um, just scroll through the menus till you come to linuxconf?
>
>Which is more likely to happen - right clicking on a drive or other
>object and seeing sharing, or finding LinuxConf in the menu (amongst
>dozens of other items), navigating through several other submenus to
>find the appropriate entries, and somehow getting it all working from
>there?
>
>C'mon...let's be real here.
Likewise: I've never seen anyone right-click on anything without
knowing they are supposed to. Perhaps a result of earlier
bad experiences...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 22 Apr 2000 13:22:11 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>As a point of order, both SMB and NFS can be configured with the
>>graphical linuxconf tool. People who use linuxconf are best advised
>>to not touch their configuration files otherwise, but those that
>>manually edit files probably know what they're doing anyway...
>>
>>There is certainly no *need* to consult a man page to use these tools.
>
>I'll beg to differ. How many millions of chips would have to work at
>a keyboard for how many millions of years before one randomly typed
>"linuxconf"? WinXX's sharing is far, far easier.
I don't see anything on my winxx screen that mentions file sharing?
Why do you think it is a less random operation to find the right
place to do it there? And why do you think it will work if I
do find it? I may be in a domain with a policy that doesn't
allow users to share local files.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:49:56 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rich C) wrote in <3901d49c@news>:
>Most of the PNP ISA cards come with basic DOS test and configuration
>programs that allow you to configure and test your hardware BEFORE you
>subject it to the operating system's whims. My AHA-1505 came with a
>program called SCSI Select (or something) that allows me to define the
>I/O port and Interrupt, then test the SCSI chain (assuming there is a
>device on it to test with.)
The AHA1520B has SCSI select and it's set to 0x340, 11, 7 (as in aha152x=
0x340,11,7). What puzzles me is that it has a BIOS - why then does Linux
not automatically detect it? I have to enter aha152x=0x340,11,7 as an
append to LILO.
>SB-16s come with a program called DIAGNOSE that allows you to test your
>sound card from a command prompt, and another utility called ICU (Intel
>Configuration Utility) which allows the use of Plug-n-Play cards in
>systems that don't support it.
I'll try DIAGNOSE or ICU and see what it reveals. This configuration did
work with Windows 98 SE.
>The SB-16 PNP DOESN'T KEEP its settings after you power off; it has to
>be configured EACH TIME you boot, unlike the SCSI card, which has an
>EEPROM and will store the configured values indefinitely.
>
>There is obviously still a hardware conflict when you try to boot Linux
>with both cards installed. Are you using ISAPNPTools to configure your
>cards in Linux? This program will configure your SB-16 PnP on bootup,
>just like the Intel Configuration manager or Windows would do. It should
>eliminate the hardware conflict before the drivers are loaded.
I believe what I used modified isapnp.conf, and left an entry in there that
caused a problem - then the system refused to boot as it conflicted with
the SCSI controller (I believe).
>Plug and Pray with Linux can still be tricky, yes. However, for the
>first year or so it was also very tricky and unpredictable with Windows
>too. I still think the whole PnP system is stupid. The BIOS should have
>had much more control over configuration. It should look for hardware
>conflicts on bootup, and resolve them either automatically, or with user
>input if necessary, and simply REPORT the settings to Windows. Windows
>or any other OS for that matter, would then adjust the driver settings
>accordingly as they were loaded. This business of having to boot up all
>the way to the GUI, then go to the device manager and tinker with
>settings, then REBOOT and start all over again, is just stupid.
Yes I remember how buggy plug and prang was. But then the whole ISA thing
was problematic until PCI and plug and play started working correctly.
>Do you remember that Volkswagen ad a few years back where the Rabbit was
>drag racing a turbine car called the "Green Monster"? The Rabbit had the
>lead for the first 97.1 yards until the turbine car roared past (they
>had to measure to see at what point the Rabbit was still ahead.) Well,
>were at about 90 yards right now, and, you're right, Linux IS still
>playing catchup.
>:o)
Not an advert I remember here in the UK.
Pete.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 18:53:14 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2:1) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I can't comment on SCSI cards (I have none), but my SB16 ISA PNP ETC
>works fine on my P133.
It must work then 8)
>A P166 (and indeed a 133) are now quite slow machines. If you want to go
>faster, use a slimmmer window manager under X, such as Fvwm or
>Windowmaker. I also found that slightly older systems (such as Redhat
>5.2) run faster on old hardware, probably because it's smaller.
Slow... 8) You're kidding right. If it's _slow_ running KDE but fleet of
foot running Windows 98 SE, then does that say something about KDE?
>In terms of many things, it's not playing catchup. I use it for
>everything I do, except games.
I play games for a living 8).
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 22 Apr 2000 13:54:35 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>OK, try again. Which button did you click on NT to get tha
>>NFS sharing done and how long did it take to find?
>
>NT doesn't come with it. The objective is to get OS-native sharing
>going - somehow, anyhow, with a minimum of fuss. NT (and 95/98) do
>that very well. Linux doesn't. Editing /etc/exports for NFS, for
>example, isn't my idea of fun. ksysv and such make the automation of
>such things easier, but I don't consider it 'easy' by any stretch.
I used text editors many years before mice were around and
editting text is one of the main reasons for keeping a
computer around, so I have a hard time understanding that
changing the text in a file is a complicated process.
However, for those who agree or haven't found an
editor program yet, there is linuxconf, webmin, and
other interfaces. I sometimes used these for the sake
of having a syntax check done before a service is affected.
>>>Some facets of any system require reading. But doing *what I
>>>specified* requires far more work in Linux. That you can seriously
>>>debate this suprises me.
>>
>>No, it doesn't really require more *work*. It may be harder
>
>Yes, it does.
Beg your pardon??? I do this stuff too.
>>the first time on your first machine. Thereafter you can
>>just copy the config files around and edit them for incremental
>>changes over different machines. Besides, samba sharing
>
>Which config files? Break out those man pages Jedi claims aren't
>needed...and start guessing... a new user wouldn't have a -clue-.
The authentication models are as complex as an NT domain system.
Set up a dozen of those with appropriate user mapping and
get back to me about which was easier.
>>used to be drop-dead simple back when you could use the
>>unix password file for authentication. When samba started
>>to become a popular alternative to NT servers, Microsoft
>>issued service packs that made it impossible to use the
>>existing unix password without registry changes on every
>>client.
>
>Translation: Microsoft encrypted passwords in SP3 by default, so they
>were no longer sent, by default, in cleartext. The fact that MS
>allowed clear text passwords in SP0 -> SP2 is a security violation and
>A Bad Thing. The fact that you'd bless such a thing is also A Bad
>Thing.
According to the people who understand the smb protocol the
encrypted token is equivalent to the plain-text in the sense
that a custom client program could use it to gain access. This
is non-trivial compared to sniffing plaintext but if the
data is worth something it could be arranged. So all you
really get here is a false sense of security. Worse, the
encrypted password that has to be stored is the same token
and can be stolen from the disk files. As I recall this
also applies to the Microsoft files. With unix encryption
you can't use the file version directly.
>>So yes, samba is now harder to set up although
>>linuxconf, webmin, etc. make it easy for those who
>>prefer point-n-click.
>
>Easy isn't the right term. Less difficult is probably a better term.
No, if you make the registry change to allow plain-text passwords
a one-size-fits-all smb.conf that shares the home directories
just works out of the box.
>>>...which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, does it?
>>
>>You are the one who brought up 'doing common things' and picked
>>the example where you thought windows had an advantage. Everything
>>I've tried on Win2k seemed to require having a domain controller
>>and active directory already working, so I expect setting
>>those up (and paying for the client licenses) to be the
>>most common task in a win2k network.
>
>You do end up paying, that's for sure, but isn't time worth something
>too?
Once you know where the files are, it doesn't save any time to
hide them behind a GUI, and the second setup of a GUI system
takes just as long as the first, where the file based
system can just copy or cut and paste the file contents.
Les Miksell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: David Corn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 14:05:46 -0500
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> >Which is more likely to happen - right clicking on a drive or other
> >object and seeing sharing, or finding LinuxConf in the menu (amongst
> >dozens of other items), navigating through several other submenus to
> >find the appropriate entries, and somehow getting it all working from
> >there?
> >
> >C'mon...let's be real here.
>
> Likewise: I've never seen anyone right-click on anything without
> knowing they are supposed to. Perhaps a result of earlier
> bad experiences...
Or, more likely, experience in other OSs where the RMB did nothing. Nevertheless,
it's far simpler in W9x. On a new RH6.2 install with a LinuxPPC client (based
loosely on RH), the following is required to get NFS working:
Go into KSYSV and add NFS to runlevels 3 and 5. Where, exactly? What
number/priority? No telling...guess... And if you didn't install KDE ask your
desktop, guess what you're supposed to install; some books say, some don't.
tksysv does it on LinuxPPC 2000, which doesn't install KDE by default; a newbie
would never know that.
Go into Linuxconf on the server and add shares to NFS's config. Don't forget to
change the root permission (a security flaw if enabled, a newbie headache if not),
and turn on RW. Most newbies would never understand this stuff.
Run exportfs -r because linuxconf doesn't automatically do it for you. Again, no
newbie would know this without extensive man page reading.
/etc/rc.d/init.d/nfs start, because linuxconf doesn't do this automatically.
You've now lost just about everyone. So much for not needing man pages....
Now, for the client:
Assuming NFS is working OK (a bit of an assumption, but an acceptable one), a
mount ip:/servershare/serverdir/serverdir/serverdir /mydir will map the directory
correctly....assuming the user's already created that directory (/mydir) on his
machine. If not, time to break out the man pages again.
This doesn't even deal with the real problems of different GIDs and UIDs on the
different systems. I finally got sick of managing the entire thing and went to
NIS. NIS works well, but it, too, is a PITA to set up - I can't get the
domainname variable to 'stick' between reboots (yes, yp.conf appears to be set
correctly), so I've got to log in as root on the NIS client, do a domainname
mynisdomain, and then I can log in as NIS'd users. I had to do some
experimentation with groups before I realized GIDs under 500, by default, aren't
permitted or "learned" from the NIS server for security reasons; this meant the
creation of a group on the server over GID 500 so I could effectively use group
permissions.
All of this took a tremendous amount of reading of the manual. The belief that
this isn't necessary to get filesharing going is laughable.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
