Linux-Advocacy Digest #233, Volume #26 Tue, 25 Apr 00 11:14:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sell Me On Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Marty)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (Craig Kelley)
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: which OS is best? (Gary Connors)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Stuart Krivis)
Re: which OS is best? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Sell Me On Linux (The Cat)
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
(Sea1Dragon2)
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: MS caught breaking web sites ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 20:30:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For a guy that claims to design computers for a living, you sure do not
sound like one.
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:39:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Runs on more hardware (IBM mainframes, Dec Alphas-64bit, apple
hardware,
> >Sun hardware...)
>
> Buying an IBM or an Alpha to run Linux is about as smart as buying
> a Porsche to drive around in first gear.
>
You buy the hardware and software to accomplish given tasks or jobs.
Without knowing the tasks or jobs that are required you can not know if
Linux+IBM or Linux+Alpha is a smart choice or not.
http://www.crn.com/search/display.asp?ArticleID=15908
I guess a lot of people are driving around in 1st gear.
> >MS is limited to Intel x86 -- MacOS to apple.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> If you want to talk about hardware vendor support, Microsoft has
_many_
> more hardware vendors supporting it, and you have _much_ more choice
in
> choosing a vendor for an MS system than you do for a Linux system.
There
> are literally thousands of PC clone vendors, who support Microsoft. A
> tiny portion of them support Linux.
>
> Linux runs on more _architectures_ than Windows, but that is
irrelevant:
> people are interested in what more vendors offer solutions, and
clearly,
> Windows users have a _much_ bigger choice for hardware vendor.
>
> Don't like Intel? Then support a vendor who sells AMD, Cyrix, IDT,
Rise,
> or one of the multitude of the IA-32 clones available.
Big deal, if you don't like the IA-32 x86 architecture were do you go?
Hand helds? MS is doing real well there <snicker>.
Come on genius, what OS besides Linux can run on: Macs, Alphas,
IBM390's, Sparcs, handhelds and IA-32 clones?
>
> >Stable command structure (minimal retraining every time a new version
is
> >released).
>
> 1. A new Windows version is not released frequently. It appears that
MAJOR PROBLEM here. You have to wait YEARS for something MS CLAIMS will
be better. Then spend MONTHS Leaning how to run the new
product only to find that it was not worth the wait or the money.
The Unix commands I leaned 15 years ago are still in use today and they
carried over to Linux. I do not have to relearn them every time a new
version is released (and I've been though a LOT of Unix releases) Like I
had to when I was forced to use Windows!
> 2. Linux commands, especially with respect to administrative tools,
> vary drastically from version-to-version, and especially from
> Linux distribution-to-distribution.
what? Useradd has remained the same for years! So has `mount` `vi` and
most of the other command line administrative tools. Windows managers
and the GUI tools have come and gone in Unix and Windows, still the
command line tools in Unix have stayed the same. AND, are about the same
in
Linux.
>
> 3. The documentation for this "stable command structure" is less than
> stable and wildly out-dated in some cases. On more than one occasion
> I have followed instructions in what were purported to be up-to-date
> HOWTO files on up-to-date distributions, and have been greeted with
> all kinds of errors since the tools have changed since the HOWTO was
> written (two or three weeks ago).
>
I have far less trouble with the Linux documentation than I have with
the Windows Look at this picture, click on this button... type of crap.
But then
again, because the command line tools have not changed much and the Unix
vs Linux structure is so closely related I don't have to run to the
documentation after every upgrade.
> 4. Linux training locks you into Linux; I have met many a person
> who learned Linux and was mystified when using a Sun or HP machine
> (so moving from Unix flavor to Linux to Unix flavor costs mega-bucks
> in retraining).
>
Running around with a sorry crowd then. I move back and forth all the
time. It is far easier than going back and forth between Win98 and NT.
> >Runs the most common Internet apps (sendmail, Apache...).
>
> Yes - sendmail - the application which singlehandedly brought down
> the internet in 1987. A program which I REALLY want running on
> my servers. I am so jealous...
WOW! Linux was NOT EVEN written in 1987! HA! and look back at what MS
had to offer then <SNICKER>. Sendmail was then the BEST option
for the INTERNET at the time. What other viable alternatives were there
at the time????? MS EXCHANGE???? <BIG CHUCKLE>
>
> >Proven remote management.
>
> >Large number of file systems supported.
>
> Ah yes. Exactly which filesystem do you need to read on Windows that
> you can't? This would improve your daily productivity in what way?
> Do you really find that sneakernet is faster than 1 GB ethernet?
ext2, Ufs... (yes you can BUY NFS but it is NOT included). Floppys
(and yes floppys are still used to store and transport data) formatted
on other
systems can not be read by MS software. Big problem in many places I
have worked.
>
> >Multiple User interfaces, you can pick the on
> >the fits YOUR needs. Can run with OUT a GUI to save resources.
>
> Ah, yes. Today everybody is running 1 BIPS machines with 1 GB RAM,
> and you are concerned about the entire 1 MIPS and 2 MB RAM of overhead
> that the GUI costs? Come back and play when you solve the more
> fundamental speedpaths in Linux (like using a textfile for large
> databases), which Windows solved about 10 years ago.
Done, take a look at PAM. with PAM, Linux can authenticate against
almost any system we want (including MS/SMB, NIS, NIS+ SQL databases...)
can windows do that? All the major database vendors have product
available for Linux. No flat file databases needed, UNLESS THAT IS WHAT
IS
REQUIRED BY THE JOB AT HAND (windows???). Can you come up in TEXT mode
in windows and edit ANY file to fix a GUI related problem in
MS software?? The fact is, ANY amount of resources saved can add up and
save headaches down the road. Not only that, but GUI's are one of the
most UNSTABLE parts of any OS. If the windows GUI crashes you stand a
good chance of crashing your server... Linux? the windows manager
dies and the services keep running. Never mind that GUI's add MUCH MORE
CODE that a hacker can attack. The more code the more likely a
vulnerability! that is why I do not add X to my servers. Saves resources
and helps in keeping them secure.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[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: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 20:40:43 GMT
George Graves wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >George Graves wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >George Graves wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >George Graves wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> >> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >George Graves wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> >> >> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >George Graves wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Don't worry, I won't. I have learned that the only thing
> >> >> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> >> >> Apple could ever do to please Wintrolls who post on CSMA is
> >> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> >> roll over, belly-up and die. With Apple gone, they wouldn't
> >> >> >> >> >> have
> >> >> >> >> >> that little nagging voice in their head that keeps saying
> >> >> >> >> >> "did
> >> >> >> >> >> I choose the wrong platform?" Because with no Apple, there
> >> >> >> >> >> would
> >> >> >> >> >> be only ONE platform and the Wintrolls could sleep secure in
> >> >> >> >> >> their beds with no nasty Apple confusing them with that
> >> >> >> >> >> pesky
> >> >> >> >> >> Macintosh.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >A common misconception. PC owners are becoming increasingly
> >> >> >> >> >aware that there are alternatives to MS based products, thus
> >> >> >> >> >there
> >> >> >> >> >are far for than "one" platform available.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> With what, pray tell, to run on them?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >It's called "software" I think.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> There just isn't enough of it for most people to get any work
> >> >> >> done.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Let's leave that up to "most people" to decide for themselves.
> >> >>
> >> >> They have. "most people" chose Windows, the rest chose Mac.
> >> >
> >> >You've just called everyone using OS/2 and Linux and every other PC OS
> >> >a
> >> >"nobody". If this is your intention then we will file your opinion
> >> >appropriately (that's what the "Shredder" on the OS/2 desktop is for,
> >> >after all).
> >>
> >> Not at all. I was talking about the TWO platforms who have the
> >> preponderance of shrink-wrap productivity software available. Those two
> >> are Windows and Mac. It isn't that the rest don't exist or that these
> >> people are somehow inferior, its just that they fall outside the scope
> >> of the conversation we were having in this thread. I.E. We're talking
> >> about beef and potatoes, and you think we are damning broccoli by not
> >> mentioning it when in reality, we just happen to be talking about steak
> >> and potatoes, and the subject of broccoli just never came up.
> >
> >If there was broccoli on the plate as well as carrots and you made the
> >statement, "Most of the plate is occupied by meat and the rest is occupied
> >by
> >potatoes," you'd be wrong, just as you were when you made the statement in
> >question a few levels above. Thank you for your subsequent clarification.
>
> The brocolli is irrelevant if we are talking about meat and potatoes. It
> is there, certainly, and just because we aren't talking about it at that
> moment, doesn't mean that we won't eat it or that we don't like it. The
> fact that you continue to read some slight against users of less well
> supported minority computer platforms on my part into my above comments
> about Windows and Macs, is actually YOUR problem, not mine. None was
> intended then or now.
I've already acknowledged your clarification and thanked you for it. The
remainder of my argument amounts to a nit-pick with regard to using the term
"rest" in a manner which was not all-inclusive. This argument is not worth
pursuing, however. I'm just trying to clear up the apparent misunderstanding.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 23 Apr 2000 14:48:09 -0600
test@myhome writes:
> In article <8dsoom$7k9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John says...
>
>
> > My rules of thumb:
> >
> > - if you are going to be doing a lot of rpm loading, update your
> > full OS to at least the current major revision (ex: RH 6.X)
> >
>
> what makes you think I was not using the latest and greates?
> I have the latest SUSE 6.3, did FULL and COMPLETE installation,
> the whole 11 GB I told it to load to the disk, all the packages
> on the those 6 CDROM are INSTALLED on my disk.
>
> Yet, many applications on the net, requires yes more packages
> that are missing.
>
> see, I wanted to install etherape:
>
> >rpm -Uhv etherape-0.5.3-1.i386.rpm
> error: failed dependencies:
> gnome-libs >= 1.0.0 is needed by etherape-0.5.3-1
> libglade >= 0.11 is needed by etherape-0.5.3-1
A complete SUSE install doesn't give you GNOME and gtk?
Sad.
------------------------------
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: 23 Apr 2000 15:47:04 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>What you are doing here is approximately as complicated as arranging
>>trust relationships between two domain controllers in the NT world.
>>Does it bother you that newbies don't understand that? And it
>>boils down to a line in a text file that you can copy over to your
>>next machine.
>
>Except for one thing - Win98's sharing is far, far easier.
If you are willing to restrict your Linux box to a single
user with full access to everything, an equally simple
scheme might work.
>>I've always set nfs to run myself, but I'd consider it a bug if
>>linuxconf doesn't do it for you after exporting somthing.
>
>Hmm...
>
>Why all of these complicated steps just to get filesharing going?
>Face it - this is *complicated* - you have to know *exactly* where to
>go and *exactly* what to do, and there are no prompts or similar along
>the way to help you along.
Hmmm, now that I think about it, my first attempt to share windows
directories failed for exactly the same reason. I had to go
find the file sharing service somewhere or other and turn it
on. I don't see a lot of difference.
>>Isn't the error message: '/mydir does not exist' enough of a hint
>>that you need to create it?
>
>Why not just create the dir to begin with? Or prompt the user?
>Remember - *ease* of use.
Nomally mounting is automated. Prompts don't work well in
that situation. Creating a mount point sounds like a bad
idea too. If you make an error in the command, it is as likely
to be misspelling the mount point as anything else and letting
it succeed in that case would be unexpected. You may
find GUI interactive wrappers easy - I prefer strict
predictability to a point where all commands can be scripted.
There is nothing easier than complete automation.
>>The simpleminded way to make UID/GID's the same is to copy one password
>>and group file over to the other machines. NIS becomes better at
>>some number of machines.
>
>And how do you sync them once things start changing again?
Rdist would be the typical way, but if they don't change often
you could just rcp/rsync when you add someone.
>So much for the contention (not yours) that no reading is
>required...The /etc/exports setup alone would stump many people.
>
>>how do I get a disparate group of users in a Win2k domain access
>>to things in a different NT domain?
>
>NT domain must trust Win2k domain; in SHARING for the object to be
>shared in NT domain, select Win2k domain, and add the users. This
>will be completely transparent to the users; there will simply be
>another resource they can access, with no password prompt or other
>things to learn. On the client side, *no* work is required once the
>users have joined their domain (which should happen before the users
>ever get their machines.)
Can a beginner be expected to make this work without reading
anything?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Gary Connors <[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: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 16:45:50 -0400
in article
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 4/21/00 11:33 AM:
> Having just come through a few Linux installs (notably LinuxPPC,
> Mandrake 7, and most recently RedHat 6.2) I'd still have to disagree
> here - NT (well, the current incarnation, Win2000) is easier. Face it
> - going through a bunch of MAN pages to do common things just isn't
> fun.
>
DC, Im a Mac user and I installed Mandrake 7 with absolutely no problem. It
took about a half an hour for the whole install, I was at the computer for
at most 5 minutes of it. Easily set up PPP. Installing Mandrake is now
breeze. Using it is a whole other issue. I set it up for a friend who was
afraid of installing Linux. After he saw what I did, he felt foolish. I
dont see the complaint. Maybe Win2000 is easier to set up cause it doesnt
require you to format your haddrive and parition it. Frankly, I feel better
having a seperate swap partition and a seperate parition for the OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 22:43:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 01:23:06 +0200, Gerben Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 14 Apr 2000 23:50:38 GMT, a butterfly in Costa Rica flapped its wings,
>causing jansens_at_ibm_dot_net to write:
>
>| You should know better than to mock those poor Windows users. They can't
>| help being who they are. The more fortunate of us should be compassionate,
>| not haughty.
>
>Heh. An OS/2 user gloating over Windows users' fragile registries. Sure
>Karel, those OS2.INI and OS2SYS.INI files are rock-solid, aren't they? They
>*never* get corrupted or polluted, do they? No need for UniMaint, CHECKINI,
>or any of the other INI-file repair utilities, is there?
>
I think the need for UniMaint was more that the INI files are open while the
system is running, so you can't really work on them.
I didn't notice any problems with the INI files when I was using OS/2. I
would say that OS/2 is not quite as stable as NT, but is less
hardware-hungry. (This is for desktop use, and assumes good drivers for
both.)
--
Stuart Krivis
*** Remove "mongo" in headers for valid reply hostname
------------------------------
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?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 23 Apr 2000 15:07:02 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >What you are doing here is approximately as complicated as arranging
> >trust relationships between two domain controllers in the NT world.
> >Does it bother you that newbies don't understand that? And it
> >boils down to a line in a text file that you can copy over to your
> >next machine.
>
> Except for one thing - Win98's sharing is far, far easier.
Ever try accessing shares on two different servers with two different
account names?
Easy is not the word I'd choose; Impossible comes to mind though.
> >>Run exportfs -r because linuxconf doesn't automatically do it for you. Again, no
> >>newbie would know this without extensive man page reading.
> >
> >If the exports file is correct before starting nfs, you don't need
> >to do this.
>
> Granted.
And you can click all this away with linuxconf, of course.
> Why all of these complicated steps just to get filesharing going?
> Face it - this is *complicated* - you have to know *exactly* where to
> go and *exactly* what to do, and there are no prompts or similar along
> the way to help you along.
Buy "Running Linux" by O'Rielly.
I very much doubt my grandmother would just happen across Windows
networking code... Oh, and Windows browsing across subnets? Let's
talk about ridiculous now. Face it, Windows is hard to use other than
the default setup: A bunch of machines on the same segment in the
same workgroup. Anything else is neigh on impossible to figure out
wihtout intimate knowledge of protocol-level designs in NetBEUI.
> >The simpleminded way to make UID/GID's the same is to copy one password
> >and group file over to the other machines. NIS becomes better at
> >some number of machines.
>
> And how do you sync them once things start changing again? You can't
> guarantee, sans NIS, that any two machines will have the same logins,
> passwords, etc. That's minor, though, for just a few machines, and
> doesn't interest me much. The real problem is GUI/UID syncronization.
NIS, Kerberos (gee, I wonder who else uses that....), LDAP, NT-DOM.
You have your choice.
Windows is more difficult in this arena as well; replicating SAM
databases and the network registry? Hmmm.
> So much for the contention (not yours) that no reading is
> required...The /etc/exports setup alone would stump many people.
Enter linuxconf. Enter an allowed host and a path and you're done.
[snip]
About your question on allowing the root user access to login directly
using telnet; the simple answer is: don't. It's a very very bad idea.
If you really want to, then erase the pam_securetty.so line from
/etc/pam.d/login (or change it from "required" to "optional").
--
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: The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:29:00 GMT
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 20:30:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>You buy the hardware and software to accomplish given tasks or jobs.
>Without knowing the tasks or jobs that are required you can not know if
>Linux+IBM or Linux+Alpha is a smart choice or not.
That says it all. The smart person looks at the task at hand,
considers the future and picks the application/os combination that can
perform the task at hand with consideration given to ease of use,
price and stability in the marketplace ie: will it be here tomorrow.
Depending on the task at hand Linux, NT or MVS/XA might be acceptable
candidates. It all depends on the lowly application.
TheCat (Steve)
"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
------------------------------
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: 23 Apr 2000 16:30:02 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>And experienced Linux users copy over the config file they've
>>used before. But I thought we were discussing beginners here.
>
>I think the typical Windows user who would right-click a file can be
>trained that way in about 10 seconds. How long before you can train a
>typical Linux user in how to copy -the right- files 'over'?
A typical Linux user would find out for himself...
>I consider myself a Linux newbie; I'd *love* to know how to copy (and
>which files to copy) files 'over' to make, say, a backup of my scripts
>in case I fsck something up. Just make a tarball of /etc? Or ... ?
>Suggestions welcome....
Depends on what you've done of course, but all the stock Redhat
configuration lands under /etc. If you have a pair of machines
you can just NFS mount the other root partition and 'diff -r'
to see what makes them different. Or 'cp -a' the whole tree elsewhere
before making changes and diff afterwards. I normally keep a copy
in my home directory (home being on a different partition) and
can patch things up easily even after a new system install
where /home isn't reformatted. If you compile your
own files that land in /usr/local or elsewhere you have to
pay attention to what they install.
>And how do I permit root logins in Telnet, now that I have your
>attention?
Normally it is better to telnet in as a normal user, then 'su - root'
so you (a) have to know a login name besides root and (b) get
a log entry showing who su'd to root at that point in time.
Or, if you are running ssh it will allow root in by default.
However it is your machine - if you want to change it, go to it.
You can either remove the mention of /lib/security/pam_securetty.so
from /etc/pam.d/login or add a bunch of /dev/ttypn (n= 0 to 20 or so...)
entries to /etc/securetty.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sea1Dragon2)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:40:24 GMT
On 23 Apr 2000 19:38:31 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>There is a certain "elite snobbery" that goes hand in hand with a
>command-line environment, be it UNIX, or VMS, or even DOS.
Correct. Most users of CLI's think that they are Really Smart(tm)
because they know how to operate a CLI. What is funny is that conceptually
deleting a file is the same thing whether you drag it to a trash can, type
in rm, or whatever, but CLI users believe that typing in the commands is
actually somehow closer to the computer (as if the GUI's are interacting
with the CLI's and not directly with the system).
>IMHO, Linux was born out of a sheer dislike of Microsoft, unlike its BSD
>cousins, who seemed to originate from a need for a BSD-like OS.
The very early development of Linux was decidedly for hobbyist purposes,
but it is clear that the Linux _movement_ is primarily anti-Microsoft
and has minimal technical basis. I am still trying to figure out why
redhat.com feels the need to post news about Microsoft on their site, and
why slashdot.org regularly posts articles about Microsoft. If Linux were
truly independent and not fueled out of irrational hatred of Microsoft,
these things would not exist. What if Microsoft put a ticker of LNUX's
falling stock on their site with the caption "How much do you want to lose
today?"
>I don't pretend to be a "technically informed" person, but it's quite easy
>to understand what you're saying here.
I am perfectly happy with people not being engineering geniuses. My beef
if with the Linux users who >>think<< they are engineering geniuses when
they are not. Often times the only technical ability they demonstate is
the ability to install Linux, or to compile and install programs (which
any 12 year old kid can do). The whole Linux community is premised on an
"I am smarter than you" almost as much as it is based on anti-Microsoft.
There is sort of an internal debate which most Linux'ers deal with:
should Linux sell out to consumer users (as if the modern distributions
haven't already!), or should they not, so each Linux user has a presumed
technical superiority over the masses?
>Most of the gripes that Linux users have about Windows in general is
>the same, regurgitated nonsense that has been around since the days of
>Windows v3.1.
The debate at least between Linux and consumer Windows is well-understood
and, IMHO, not interesting. The only technical issues ever brought
up in this debate (from the Linux side) are scalability, reliability,
and remote use. The debate between Windows NT and Linux is more interesting
as Windows NT solves most of those problems as well as Linux does.
>Out of curiosity, what is it about WindowsNT that makes you believe that
>it's the "shittiest"? Often, people make judgements about products based
>solely on their own line of work, without regard to other venues of
>productivity.
I do not believe that Windows NT is any more shitty than Linux. It does
have a lot of the same problems Linux does (e.g. bad UI design), and
lacks a lot of the same features Linux does. My point above was that
something like Windows 98 is an easy target, but it is Linux's primary
target. I would like to challenge Linux users to argue on a _technical_
basis that their OS is better than the one's which Unix replaced. Any 12
year old can understand a few technical advantages Linux has over
Windows 98, and I question why Linux users harp on these so much.
------------------------------
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: 23 Apr 2000 16:55:21 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>DC, Im a Mac user and I installed Mandrake 7 with absolutely no problem. It
>took about a half an hour for the whole install, I was at the computer for
>at most 5 minutes of it. Easily set up PPP. Installing Mandrake is now
>breeze. Using it is a whole other issue. I set it up for a friend who was
>afraid of installing Linux. After he saw what I did, he felt foolish. I
>dont see the complaint. Maybe Win2000 is easier to set up cause it doesnt
>require you to format your haddrive and parition it.
But Win2k does require you to format and partition. And I couldn't
get it to use the full 9 megs of a drive for an NTFS partiton. Did
I miss something?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: 23 Apr 2000 22:02:51 -0000
In comp.os.linux.security Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If its a "NT replacement" is not on the desktop. In the real world, NT is
> not a desktop OS.
it appears on approx 4000 pc's in our company as a desktop OS actually.
--
Grobbebol's Home | Don't give in to spammers. -o)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bengel | Use your real e-mail address /\
Linux 2.2.14 SMP 466MHz / 256 MB | on Usenet. _\_v
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
