Linux-Advocacy Digest #345, Volume #26 Tue, 2 May 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Is the PC era over? (Andrew Carpenter)
Re: which OS is best? (mike list)
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (Jen)
Re: Is the PC era over? (Jen)
Re: Who to blame next... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Reservations about splitting up MS... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' ("Bill Darbie")
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the PC era over?
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 11:46:52 +0930
abraxas wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Terry Sikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Moving toward more headache-free computing doesn't necessarily entail
> > losing CPU power. Witness the success of the iMac. ;-)
>
> > "Dumb terminal" computing will never return - 3D games are too popular.
> > (For that matter, fast CPUs are too inexpensive.)
>
> "Dumb terminal"s have come quite a long way, tracing an evolutionary
> path similar to microcomputers.
>
> http://www.sun.com/products/sunray1/
>
> Now that gigabit ethernet has found its way to something other than
> backplane replacement for core routers, we may see some very
> interesting developments in the near future.
I was most disappointed when I found out about the SunRay. No matter how
they word it, it seems to be nothing more than a dumb terminal, plain
and simple. It does no local processing beyond drawing pixels, making it
the equivalent of a Citrix client in hardware. it's biggest feature is a
smart card reader so it can do 'hot desktops'; Metaframe could almost
have that now. If it was a dirt-cheap appliance, maybe, but it's not:
$500 US plus a dedicated server.
This is not where NCs should be going; the idea of a 'Network Computer'
was to have local processing power, but remote data storage. The
functionality of NCs are prevalent now -- most companies store the
majority of their data on file servers anyway, and in some cases large
parts of the applications. (The argument of lost productivity with
network failures is a bit of a red herring; sure, your PC can still load
Word, but if you can't get to your work you haven't gained much. And
database apps, well...)
I'd argue NCs are not just the way we'll ultimately be going, they are
inevitable. There will always be servers of course, and there may still
be PCs; but they will probably start to take on more of a role as a
local server to all your other networked devices, rather than a
workstation in itself.
Andrew
[ opinion are my own ]
------------------------------
From: mike list <[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: Tue, 02 May 2000 21:43:12 -0400
>
> >...and come back 8 hours or so later, when it all finishes.
>
> That's what you get for compiling on a 486.
>
> Although, on a 486 I could compile for hours on end and not
> have it effect the other things I was doing. I could even
> run Netscape, Applixware and build Wine as well... all without
> slowdowns.
>
> The background compile jobs took longer to complete of course.
> But, that's not a process you manually feed information to
> anyways.
>
Compiling a kernel on my DX2/66 only takes 45 minutes or so (2.2.14)
sounds like insufficient RAM or swap, or even more likely, a L2 cache module on
hiatus.
------------------------------
From: Jen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: 2 May 2000 21:26:03 -0500
I'm growing weary of this "where is the Microsoft innovation" crap.
Where is the "innovation" is an operating system that has it's roots
in the 1960s (Linux). But, OH!, it has new GUIs that can actually
present a common look and feel among applications and do such wondrous
things as drag-n-drop! And to top it off, it only has a tiny fraction
of the applications and hardware support that that "non-innovative" OS
has! Wow.
Innovation, schminovation.
------------------------------
From: Jen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the PC era over?
Date: 2 May 2000 21:30:29 -0500
On Tue, 02 May 2000 16:47:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>PC Week apparently isn't expecting a lot of advertising revenue
>from Microsoft in the future. PC Week, which until recently was the
>most ardent of Microsoft supporters, is recommending Microsoft be
>split up:
>It is time to kill the ageing Microsoft monster
You arr such a idiot. On the one hand you point out that an "ardent"
support of Microsoft recommends a split-up, then you say "it is time
to kill the ageing (sic) Microsoft monster". Little did you mention
that PC Week thinks that splitting Microsoft will HELP them, not bury
them.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Who to blame next...
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 02:33:50 GMT
In article <Du8P4.3672$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's say that a year from now MS has been broken up, and Linux is
still a
> standardless hodge-podge of sundry apps and distributions with
> marginal driver and application support. Without the evil empire
(Microsoft)
> to blame for Linux's lack of appeal on the Desktop, who or what
> will be blamed next? I'll be curious to see how it all unfolds....
>
> Paul
>
Well, we could always start by accepting some of the blame ourselves.
We, the consumer, got what we wanted... an operating system and a
plethora of half-assed applications for dummies. Did it promote more
dummies in the workplace? Don't know about you, but it sure as hell did
where I work. Our clerks can't type, our typists can't spell, and a
memo that used to take a secretary five minutes to write two decades ago
now takes an administrative specialist an hour or more. Twenty years
ago we used to have a single big, slow, difficult-to-use homogeneous
database of all the company's information; now we have fifty or sixty
big, slow, insular, inhomogeneous islands of poorly designed pee-cee
crap masquerading as databases. We're starting to think that the old
dumb ASCII terminals weren't so dumb after all....
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Reservations about splitting up MS...
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 02:43:52 GMT
Yer right. They shoulda been brought up on racketeering charges, and
the revenooers shoulda gone thru Redmond with axes smashing boxes of
software and letting the newsreels film all the bits flowing into the
streets and down the gutters. And they should set "Babyface" Bill up
with a date to see the movin' pitchers at the Chicago Biograph with a
lady in red, and....
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 02:38:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> First off, Linux is a great operating system and given the proper
> venue it is a good choice.
Linux has suffered from the "Chicken and Egg" syndrome for many
years. Microsoft has gone to extraordinary lengths to create a
blockade that has taken almost 10 years (including unix-on-desktop
efforts that preceeded Linux).
Microsoft has considered Linux and Unix it's most dangerous threat
since 1990. Microsoft watched as the UNIX community created highly
competitive markets that eroded the Market Share of RT-11, VMS,
Minicomputers, then MVS and VM/CMS and the Mainframe market, and
suddenly Sun was sponsoring the most crowded booth at the CES in
1991. Gates was supposed to be celebrating the success of Windows
3.1 and here was Sun stealing away the thunder. Microsofts most
carefully orchestrated demos couldn't compete with Sun's "generic
utilities".
In addition to Announcing the most fraudulent vaporware project
ever announced (Gates and his team were defining the requirements
based on customer reaction at the Sun booth). Microsoft began
a series of tactics now declared illegal by Judge Jackson.
First, it tightened up on "per processor licensing", it began
revoking licenses of companies like Dell who were selling UNIX
(SCO or Interactive) on their PC machines.
Second, it leveraged it's advertizing, forbidding the display of
the windows logo unless Microsoft had veto power over the placement
and content of the ad. Microsoft also refused to allow OEMs to
Advertise other products - at the risk of losing all co-op and
possibly even the license itself. Microsoft then used this
extra leverage to pull ads from publications that praised UNIX and
Linux. One company - McGraw-Hill, had to sell off it's Byte Magazine
publication because Byte had lost so many Microsoft controlled ads
that they literally "went out of print". Byte was one of the first
nationally branded publications to migrate to an "all electronic"
format.
Microsoft also took control of the development community, giving
"alliance developer" status to any company who would agree to give
Microsoft control of all public statements reguarding Microsoft.
They also implemented MSDN, which gave developers all sorts of
"insde information" (the type of material previously covered in
Byte and DDJ) in exchange for a modest fee and a nondisclosure
agreement that restricts the publication of benchmarks, bug reports,
and security problems without Microsoft's editorial supervision.
The suppression of dissedent opinion, combined with the control
of positive press, resulted in the most monumental case of fraud
perpetrated on the American Public.
Microsoft would refer to the "text-only interface of UNIX" as if
they hadn't seen a UNIX system since 1983. In fact, Sun released
one of the first graphical interfaces to UNIX about the same time the
Mac was released. The $35,000 price tag put a damper on the number
of people who wanted to trade in their MS-DOS box for Graphical
UNIX, but competition from HP, Tektronics, Wyse, Dec, and IBM
was pushing prices down. Microsoft enjoyed it's monopy and it's
status as the biggest.
Microsoft completely suppressed availability statistics on Windows
3.0, 3.1, and WfW. While UNIX and Linux were consistantly delivering
99.99% uptime, Window 3.0 had an MTBF of 40 minutes, a problem which
Microsoft solved by adding an invisible "autosave" feature which
defaulted to 10 minutes. This meant "uptime" of 75%. That 75%
meant that 25% of potential productivity was lost to crashes. When
Windows 3.1 came out, Microsoft bragged that it was much more stable
than it's predecessors, only a 10% loss in productivity. Windows
95 sported 95% uptime. Windows NT actually aproached 98% after SP3.
In strictly controlled server environments, it can achieve 99.7%
Which is disgusting considering that Linux and UNIX typically deliver
99.99% and some UNIX server get up to 99.999% uptime. Unix has been
the heart of systems delivering 1 part per million downtime (5 minutes
per year average) since the mid 1980s.
> However, to believe for a moment that Linux could replace, or even
> co-exist with Windows in the home environment is a pipe dream fantasy
> of the Linux zealots.
This is strangely familiar, like talking about the "text-only"
interface of UNIX. Before I take apart the assertions below,
I'll preface that Linux probably isn't for everybody. A very large
part of the general population drive "used rentals", mostly compact
or mid-size cars with automatic transmission, 4 cylinder engine,
mushy suspension, and low cost. They drive Civics, Corollas,
Escorts, Neons, and maybe get up to Accord and Taurus if they
have the means.
But on the other hand, there are a lot of minvans, SUVs, Luxury
Cars, and Sports Cars that seem to stay on the road for a very long
time. Perhaps if Ford had had a monopoly, they might still be
making the Model T. Even then, there were dozens of companies
who would convert that Model T to a Truck, a Wagon, or even a
convertable - they'd even paint it the color of your choice (Ford
only sold black sedans originally).
Thank goodness Ford didn't have a monopoly on mass production or
we might all be driving Black Escorts with a top speed of 30 MPH.
In the competitve Personal Information System market, we would
be seeing things like the Cobalt Cube, the LC, and other low-profile
systems connected using inexpensive connectors. Ironically, there
would probably be more profit in some lines, just as there is more
profit in SUVs and Luxury cars.
I think Microsoft is in for a pleasant suprise. I think there will
be a large number of home users who will pay a little extra for Win2K.
They will still be selling Win9x, but the showrooms will be showing
machines running Linux right next to the Win2K an Win95. WinME won't
dominate the way the others did simply because whether they appeal
or not, Microsoft won't want to risk contempt citations. In fact,
Microsoft's best chance of winning an appeal would be to open the
market, let it's market share drop by 30% and use that to show how
competitive the market is. They might still have to avoid "lock-out"
contracts with clauses designed to exclude competitors.
If Microsoft abides by the base restrictions which would allow
OEMs to install BOTH Windows AND Linux, Microsoft could show that
Linux is now installed on 80% of the machines sold.
Actually, the court ordered break-up is the best thing that could
happen to Microsoft. They can play to both Linux and to Windows
aon pick up a huge "second market" of people who want to switch
to Linux and would still pay the "upgrade price" for things like
Office, Works, Project, and Money. This is "created market". Most
people aren't seeing much benefit from a 1 ghz Processor because
they still have to deal with latency of things like video displays,
disk drive rotation, and network bandwdth and delays.
The market of "Microsoft Brainwashed Hippies turned Yuppies who
find BOB helpful" is pretty much saturated. they're getting older,
they have either "gone digital" and have no problem switching from
Windows 3.1 to 9x to 2K to Linux, or they're computerphobes convinced
that child molesters and serial killers will climb through the computer
screen if they even touch this "tool of Satan". Ironially, many of
those in the technology gap are those who have stong religeous beliefs
and are led by people who fear that they would lose control of the
"fleecable flock" if the congregation were exposed to the diversity
of the Internet.
> As an example I offer up the home networking problem. The reality, and
> it is a good one, is that home networking is becoming a big reality.
> Families with children are competing with each other for internet
> time, printers, scanners and so forth. Most new home construction
> includes pre-wired Cat 5 cable as an option.
This is a good example. Since Windows 9x doesn't protect privacy
effectively if at all, you have to choose between Windows NT, Linux,
or an "Appliance". The Appliance connects to the DSL, provides
protected shares, and may even have a nice little web server. You
plug it in, enter the IP address of the DSL interface, give
a range of DHCP addresses you want to issue, and you're up.
But then you look a bit more carefully at that appliance. It's
usually running Linux or BSD UNIX (FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, BSDI,
so SCO).
If you are already intimately familiar with Linux and KDE or GNOME,
you realize that this friendly "control panel" is simply either
a web/cgi interface or CORBA objects connected to Windows
implementations of the controls.
> Anyway how is a home network with internet connection sharing, printer
> sharing, scanner sharing and firewall set up easily under Linux?
>
> Answer; it isn't.
It depends on you definition of "easily". If you are going in and
hand coding your ifconfig, samba, wns, dhcp, and printcap files,
you probably won't find it easy. Fortunately, there are some nice
people who SELL packages that ask a few questions (usually via a
web/cgi interface), and give you that "appliance". A cobalt cube
is a good example of this approach.
> Oh sure you can play with Samba if you happen to not have a
> Win-printer and assuming you are able to figure out how to set it up
> it might work ok.
The trick for setting up printers is that each printer can have
multiple printcap entries. You may have one printer that is "raw"
(letting you exploit the subtleties of your win generated code.
The other printer is fed via Ghostscript letting the "Appliance"
work out the resolution, scale, and strategy as you move from
printer to printer.
> You can play with ip masquerading and ip-chains and
> so forth, entering all kinds of crap in text files and so forth.
You can, but you usually don't have to. You could use the KDE wizards
and let them generate the entries for you. Of course, if the wizard
creates something strange, it helps to have the manual available.
Generally this type of problem is the exception rather than the rule.
> That is of course assuming you know what to enter. How many times in
> the Linux help system do you see "ask your system administrator"
> mentioned?
When you want to connect to a DSL connection, you'd better not just
look at the IP ADDRESS prompt and "make one up". You could create
sme problems for yourself or others. As for your internal addresses,
you should use the standard "generic" or unassigned addresses.
Murphy's law guarentees that your "make it up" address will be on the
same subnet as your bank or your broker.
> So who is the sys admin of a home network??
There are some standard rules that need to be followed whether
your network is Linux or NT. You don't need to know much, but
you do need to know enough to follow directions.
> Know how you do all of the above with Windows 98se or Win2k?
> Select internet connection sharing in help and the wizard does it all
> for you.
Windows 98 as a firewall. Isn't that a bit like using taffeta
(sticks to you as it burns)?
> Download ZoneAlarm for free and it works without a single amount of
> input required by the user to configure it.
And you trust ZoneAlarm? Do they give you source? Are they insured
against the consequences of your loss of privacy? Are they
accountable? Or are you just assuming that it has no "back doors"
which the publisher can use to find valuable information that can't
be traced to it's source.
> It simply asks you if you want a
> particular task to be allowed to take
> place (Realplayer accessing the internet as an example).
Do you always have control of everything that "passes through"?
Is there an audit log of the connections?
> Resource sharing?
>
> Place a check in the sharing box...That's it..Wizard does it for you
On 9x this is true. Check the box and anyone in the world can see your
share. Very useful, especially since you will probably want to put the
best stuff on the shared device so you can back it up.
What's really cool about samba is that you can create a hierarchy
of shares an then share the root as a single share. This is great
when you want to share a combination of NFS, Netware, and SMB services
via SMB.
> when you select "How do I share my printer"
>
> That's the way it should be.
But then you have to get everything to speak the proprietary Windows
printer metacode. This is great if everything is Windows. It's
a bit of a problem when you want to adhere to published stanards
so that you can share across multiple platforms. You paint yourself
into a corner, and while your waiting for the paint to dry, Microsoft
is walking away with wallet you left by the door.
> I spent 3 weeks trying to get a network working under Linux and
> finally gave up. And another thing, the default set up is a real
> security risk even selecting Medium security under Mandrake. FTP,
> Telnet and other ports were wide open.
Did they allow anonymous FTP? By the way, there is a KDE wizard
that lets you lock things down even tighter. Or you can create
the text file yourself. It depends on how many trusted clients,
and how many servers you need.
> Sorry Linux Zealots but you should read more of the the Linux
> install/set up groups to see how many folks have had it up to their
> ears with Linux and more will follow.
There are problems, just as there are with windows. The problems
are different. When driving an automatic transmission you burn up
your brakes faster, you might slide more on the road, and your milage
will be lower, but you only have to shift a few times per trip.
With a 5-speed, I control acceleration, milage, and I can even reduce
wear on the breaks by downshifting. It's a skill, I had to learn
to drive a stickshift, and it was really awkward at first. Today,
I wish I could get rental cars with 5 speed. I have more control.
> Take off the rose colored glasses and
> look into the world of reality
> for a change. Linux is certainly
> improving, but it isn't even close to
> Windows.
They are different. It may take weeks or even months to
really appreciate the difference, but each has their advantages.
Windows was designed to help computer illiterates cope with their
first experiences with a computer. Today, how many illiterates
are there, and how many of them are willing to spend the cash
a relatively modest set of tools.
> Windows is a much, much better choice.
For some people and some things, I agree. Even if the DOJ
thumb-cuffed Microsoft completely, broke the company into 5
pieces, and put tarrifs in each copy of windows sold, there
are still people who would choose windows.
The problem, at the moment, is that MOST people don't really
have a choice. They can choose between the copy of windows
configured by the maker, for the machine, and set to run the
minute power is applied - - -
... or they can look at a $40 box, see
a static picture, and try to install all 1300 packages - by
themselves, without help, and probably without even reading the
manual, and "hope they get it right", and complain vigorously
when they mess things up because they didn't even follow the
instructions.
--
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: "Bill Darbie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 20:51:29 -0600
I don't recall hearing anyone claim that Linux is an innovation. That
propaganda is only being spewed out by Gates.
Only the casual computer user or politician might actually believe
the Microsoft lies. I am certain that most developers know
the real story.
Innovation in general is not really the topic. The lies about innovation from
Microsoft is relevant to the discussion though.
Bill
Jen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm growing weary of this "where is the Microsoft innovation" crap.
>
> Where is the "innovation" is an operating system that has it's roots
> in the 1960s (Linux). But, OH!, it has new GUIs that can actually
> present a common look and feel among applications and do such wondrous
> things as drag-n-drop! And to top it off, it only has a tiny fraction
> of the applications and hardware support that that "non-innovative" OS
> has! Wow.
>
> Innovation, schminovation.
------------------------------
From: [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: Tue, 02 May 2000 22:05:01 -0500
On Tue, 02 May 2000 21:43:12 -0400, mike list
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >...and come back 8 hours or so later, when it all finishes.
>>
>> That's what you get for compiling on a 486.
>>
>> Although, on a 486 I could compile for hours on end and not
>> have it effect the other things I was doing. I could even
>> run Netscape, Applixware and build Wine as well... all without
>> slowdowns.
>>
>> The background compile jobs took longer to complete of course.
>> But, that's not a process you manually feed information to
>> anyways.
>>
>
>Compiling a kernel on my DX2/66 only takes 45 minutes or so (2.2.14)
>sounds like insufficient RAM or swap, or even more likely, a L2 cache module on
>hiatus.
Laptop or desktop 486? Some laptops didn't have cache modules; I
wouldn't make any bets on mine.
How much RAM? I have 11.9M per the BIOS. You?
How slow is the hard drive? Mine's an ancient 320M HD with
powersaving, not speed, being the primary design goal.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
