Linux-Advocacy Digest #379, Volume #26 Fri, 5 May 00 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Mig Mig)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (root)
Re: Is the PC era over? (Tim Tyler)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Nik Simpson")
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Anton Deguet)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Bob May")
Re: Who to blame next... (Mike Marion)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Bob May")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Bob May")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Brian Langenberger)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Brian Langenberger)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 22:11:38 +0200
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On Sat, 6 May 2000 05:27:36 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I suppose you blame the Japanese for making cheap, efficient, reliable and
> >good looking cars commonplace, as well ?
>
> No, the Japanese actually make product that works and doesn't
> self-destruct by design. Furthermore, all auto makers are
> regulated with respect to safety issue.
Sure they do.... they selfdestruct after 5-6 years. Compare the lifetimes
of a Japanese car to a Swedish or say a German car .. (Well yanks cant
build cars either)
> VERY flawed comparison.
Yep... they dont make good looking cars... for that go to Italy, France and
Germany
------------------------------
From: root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 16:11:06 -0400
==============E9326AF2E05DF41806591DAA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >2) The action with my mouse is slower but not that big of deal.
>
> This is adjustable just like it is in Windows. There are even
> shiny happy gui tools to do this with in Linux.
Can you fill me in as to where I might find this happy gui?? Are you
talking
about Linuxconfig?
>
> >3) Linux does not appear to like my monitor. Windows has no problems with it.
> >When using Linux 1/3 of my monitor is fuzzy. I have tried everything short of
> >another monitor or video component. But Linux definently losses this comparison.
>
> That's a new complaint. I've seen various Unixen and WinDOS versions
> running on a wide cross section of monitors as have my colleagues and
> this is not something I've seen or heard complaints of.
>
Ok.
>
> This includes from low cost low scanrate 14" monitors as well as
> better brand name high scanrate 19" and 21" monitors
>
> >I should not have to change any hardware or edit mode-lines, period.
>
> You can tweak quite a bit without even getting into mode lines.
>
> Mode line tweaking is more appropriate for things that WinDOS is
> simply incapable of doing.
Well, this is obviously something that Linux is incapable of doing. I use the virtual
monitor arrangement. I like being able to pan back and forth, up and down. When
panning,
the image moves in increments or steps. There is a particular spot where the fuzziness
clears up (not completely, though). This effidently has nothing to do with refresh
rates as
I have tried all of them (within reason) and because 2/3 of the monitor is crystal
clear.
>
> >3) Linux does not play with hardware near as good as, at least, MSWindows does.
> >Case in point, even though I am successfully using the same hardware with Linux,
> >it was not without a fight. I had MINOR struggles with EVERYTHING. I capitalize
>
> That's funny. One of my primariy motivations for starting to use
> Linux was because Win9x didn't like my particular monitor that much
> and wasn't very adept at letting me fully exploit it without knowing
> what brand it is.
Well, my problem is just the opposite. I figure it is simply some quirky thing about
my
monitor that Linux is incapable of handling. Maybe it is a WinMonitor :-)
>
>
> >those two words because one is positive and the other negative. Only MINOR
> >problems, which is good, it shows Linux is improving in those areas, but
> >EVERYTHING required extensive reading and trial and error. Not very good for the
> >masses to flock to this OS.
>
> That, quite simply is BULLSHIT.
>
> Everything doesn't even require reading under a vintage copy
> of Slackware (that distro which drew me away from Win95 originally).
What is BULLSHIT? Everyone ... everyone I have talked to has had to do more
repetitions, do
more reading and having to spend more time installing and configuring Linux as
compared to
Windows. Everyone.
I am not knocking Linux. I think it is a super system. All I am saying is that if
the OS is
to compete with Windows, it needs to improve its reputation (I hear RedHat 6.2 is much
more
installation friendly).
There are many, many good and useful applications out there that are NOT written to
run on
Linux. This alone can turn people away. Why would anyone sacrifice a shit load of
functionality and capibility to save themselves from having to reboot less frequently
which
at this time I see as the only advantage Linux has over Windows(for the Desktop PC).
As a
server that's a different story. But the masses are not system admins.
Another thing, what can make Linux even more confusing to the average home user?? SIX
DIFFERENT LINUX's!!!! Whats up with all the distributions?? That to me is
ridiculous and
will soley keep Linux out of the running for a decent market share in the OS industry.
Way
too confusing!
Also, I am deathly afraid of upgrading my RedHat 6.0 to 6.2 for fear of losing much
information and for the time and effort that will have to go into it. I also do not
know of
a way to backup the entire system. It is no problem backing up Windows. There are
many
utilities writtten to do it. Are there any with Linux? Microsoft makes it as
painless as
possible to upgrade. Is it easy to upgrade Linux?
hoffy
==============E9326AF2E05DF41806591DAA
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>>2) The action with my mouse is slower but
not that big of deal.
<p> This is adjustable just like
it is in Windows. There are even
<br> shiny happy gui tools to
do this with in Linux.</blockquote>
<font
color="#FF6666">Can
you fill me in as to where I might find this happy gui?? Are
you talking about Linuxconfig?</font>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<br>>3) Linux does not appear to like my monitor. Windows has
no problems with it.
<br>>When using Linux 1/3 of my monitor is fuzzy. I have tried everything
short of
<br>>another monitor or video component. But Linux definently losses
this comparison.
<p> That's a new complaint. I've
seen various Unixen and WinDOS versions
<br> running on a wide cross
section of monitors as have my colleagues and
<br> this is not something I've
seen or heard complaints of.
<br> </blockquote>
<font
color="#FF6666">Ok.</font>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<br> This includes from low cost
low scanrate 14" monitors as well as
<br> better brand name high scanrate
19" and 21" monitors
<p>>I should not have to change any hardware or edit mode-lines, period.
<p> You can tweak quite a bit
without even getting into mode lines.
<p> Mode line tweaking is more
appropriate for things that WinDOS is
<br> simply incapable of doing.</blockquote>
<font color="#FF6666">Well, this is obviously something that Linux is incapable
of doing. I use the virtual monitor arrangement. I like
being able to pan back and forth, up and down. When panning, the
image moves in increments or steps. There is a particular spot where
the fuzziness clears up (not completely, though). This effidently
has nothing to do with refresh rates as I have tried all of them (within
reason) and because 2/3 of the monitor is crystal clear.</font>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<br>>3) Linux does not play with hardware near as good as, at least,
MSWindows does.
<br>>Case in point, even though I am successfully using the same hardware
with Linux,
<br>>it was not without a fight. I had MINOR struggles with EVERYTHING.
I capitalize
<p> That's funny. One of my primariy
motivations for starting to use
<br> Linux was because Win9x
didn't like my particular monitor that much
<br> and wasn't very adept at
letting me fully exploit it without knowing
<br> what brand it is.</blockquote>
Well, my problem is just the opposite. I figure it is simply
some quirky thing about my monitor that Linux is incapable of handling.
Maybe it is a WinMonitor :-)
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<p>>those two words because one is positive and the other negative.
Only MINOR
<br>>problems, which is good, it shows Linux is improving in those areas,
but
<br>>EVERYTHING required extensive reading and trial and error. Not
very good for the
<br>>masses to flock to this OS.
<p> That, quite simply is BULLSHIT.
<p> Everything doesn't even require
reading under a vintage copy
<br> of Slackware (that distro
which drew me away from Win95 originally).</blockquote>
<font color="#FF6666">What is BULLSHIT? Everyone ... everyone I have
talked to has had to do more repetitions, do more reading and having to
spend more time installing and configuring Linux as compared to Windows.
Everyone.</font><font color="#FF6666"></font>
<p><font color="#FF6666">I am not knocking Linux. I think
it is a super system. All I am saying is that if the OS is to
compete with Windows, it needs to improve its reputation (I hear RedHat
6.2 is much more installation friendly).</font><font color="#FF6666"></font>
<p><font color="#FF6666">There are many, many good and useful applications
out there that are NOT written to run on Linux. This alone can turn
people away. Why would anyone sacrifice a shit load of functionality
and capibility to save themselves from having to reboot less frequently
which at this time I see as the only advantage Linux has over Windows(for
the Desktop PC). As a server that's a different story. But
the masses are not system admins.</font><font color="#FF6666"></font>
<p><font color="#FF6666">Another thing, what can make Linux even more confusing
to the average home user?? SIX DIFFERENT LINUX's!!!!
Whats up with all the distributions?? That to me is ridiculous and
will soley keep Linux out of the running for a decent market share in the
OS industry. Way too confusing!</font><font color="#FF6666"></font>
<p><font color="#FF6666">Also, I am deathly afraid of upgrading my RedHat
6.0 to 6.2 for fear of losing much information and for the time and effort
that will have to go into it. I also do not know of a way to
backup the entire system. It is no problem backing up Windows.
There are many utilities writtten to do it. Are there any with Linux?
Microsoft makes it as painless as possible to upgrade. Is it easy
to upgrade Linux?</font><font color="#FF6666"></font>
<p><font color="#FF6666">hoffy</font></html>
==============E9326AF2E05DF41806591DAA==
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is the PC era over?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 19:50:31 GMT
In plenty of places, dakota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> And finally apparently even PC Week believes the PC era is over.
:> They are changing their name from PC Week to eWeek:
:
: The PC era is nowhere near over. The only thing coming to an end
: is Microsoft's reign of stupidity.
Intel's x86 architecture may also be approaching the end of its lifespan.
Even Intel seem to think it's in need of replacement.
With no crappy x86 instruction set, the rest of the hardware might have
some chance to overcome the traditional drawbacks of the ancient IBM-clone.
--
__________ Lotus Artificial Life http://alife.co.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://mandala.co.uk/
Microsoft has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down.
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 16:20:54 -0400
"Mig Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ev9l1$br7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > So we are talking about NT which is also just as "immune" as UNIX in
this
> > case. Either OS requires the user to execute the application through
some
> > mechanism and then the application will ber limited to whatever
permissions
> > that user has. I'll be the first to admit that w9x sucks from a security
> > perspective which is why I don't run it on anything I own and dont
recommend
> > that anybody else does.
>
> Bahhh.. the guy that started the "infection" at my workplace used NT and
> there where no mechanisms that prevented it spreading.
I didn't say there were, it would be able to access his mail address book
and his files, a similar virus executed on UNIX would access that users
files and address books, what is the difference? Hence my point that NT is
just as immune to this type of attack as UNIX, i.e. not very!
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: Anton Deguet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 20:23:38 GMT
Please, don't send to newsgroups in html... and it could be nice not to
confuse X with Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Bob May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 13:26:48 -0700
I was working for a company that was doing some work for Stac and I
can tell you that they were really frosted off when they found out
that microcrud had stolen thier idea and recoded it from the code that
Stac had provided to them. I Stac had also sent them some of our code
(picture compression) then we would have been involved in the suit
also. However, that part of the Stac product line wasn't up and
running when the big war started. BTW, Stac software worked better
than the microcrud product does.
--
Bob May
Don't subscribe to ACCESS1 for your webserver for the low prices. The
service has
been lousy and has been poor for the last year. Bob May
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who to blame next...
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 20:30:49 GMT
Paul Bary wrote:
> Standardless: Examples...Try installing an application on several different
> distro's and you will get widely
> varying results based on kernel version, library version and included
> libraries. No common installation
> routine or package management routine.
Try taking a win3.1 (or even some win9x) program and install it on w2k. Many
will fail, or won't work properly if it all.
> Marginal Support: Example...No support for my Orb drive, Intel video camera
> (at least that I can find, and IF it exists I doubt it would be a fully
> functional as my included Windows software), widely varying results
> on installation with even a common sound card such as the basic Ensoniq PCI.
> As to apps...no Quicken
> equivalent...a show stopper for me.
>
> I use Linux periodically, and actually enjoy fiddling with it. I do find it
> amusing however that advocates seem
> to always blame Linux's narrow market penetration on the desktop on external
> forces rather than some of
> it's more obvious (at least to me) shortcomings.
Actually external forces are a good reason for much of the support issues you
mention above. There are a lot of companies (ATI being one, i.e. the AIW line
of cards) that make hardware and write drivers for windows. They then refuse to
allow anyone to see the API specs so that drivers can't be written for any other
OS. I'd call that an external force.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot Change,
The courage to change the things I cannot accept,
And the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to
Kill today because they pissed me off.
------------------------------
From: "Bob May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 13:29:38 -0700
But what do you do when somebody sends you an Excel worksheet and you
are on an earlier version of Excel? You are flat out not able to read
the format, much less read it with Works, another microcrud product!
--
Bob May
Don't subscribe to ACCESS1 for your webserver for the low prices. The
service has
been lousy and has been poor for the last year. Bob May
------------------------------
From: "Bob May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Fri, 5 May 2000 13:30:34 -0700
Do you have any idea what an open license costs? Not only that but it
isn't just a one time purchase with that version of the license
either.
--
Bob May
Don't subscribe to ACCESS1 for your webserver for the low prices. The
service has
been lousy and has been poor for the last year. Bob May
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 05 May 2000 16:33:04 -0400
On 5 May 2000 19:35:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>
>Though admittedly somewhat more effective under UFS, chattr is still very
>usable under linux. a 'i' attribute on a file or directory will prevent it
>from being deleted by ANY action.
>
Wow, kinda like the MS-DOS read-only attribute. What an innovation for
Linux! By the way, what would prevent a script from using chattr to
remove the 'i' attribute before blowing away the file?
>
>If there are unix novices at home running things as root in the face of
>the half a dozen times theyve seen 'only use root when you really really need
>to warnings' that you have to go through to even get a working system....
>
>Then they deserve it. Yay darwin.
>
Oh, but users who've been warned about launching unknown attachments
*DON'T* deserve it? How can you be so hypocritical in your bashing?
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 06:42:26 +1000
"Mig Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ev9rd$c0q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 May 2000 05:27:36 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > >I suppose you blame the Japanese for making cheap, efficient, reliable
and
> > >good looking cars commonplace, as well ?
> >
> > No, the Japanese actually make product that works and doesn't
> > self-destruct by design. Furthermore, all auto makers are
> > regulated with respect to safety issue.
>
> Sure they do.... they selfdestruct after 5-6 years. Compare the lifetimes
> of a Japanese car to a Swedish or say a German car .. (Well yanks cant
> build cars either)
Japanese cars last at least as long as their Euro counterparts. At least
they do here in .au, and we have terrible driving conditions.
I own an 8 year old Mazda MX6 with 120,000km on it. It still handles and
drives just as well as a car from the last run before they were discontinued
and nearly as well as my father's brand new Honda Prelude. Starts first
time every time, no matter what the conditions.
One of my best friends has a 20 year old Honda Civic that has done over
1,000,000km. Apart from regular services, it's never been to a mechanic (at
least not in the last 10 it's been in her family).
Another friend's '88 BMW 525 has caused him no end of grief and a *lot* of
money. It hasn't even got 50,00km on it.
Given that most equivalent Euro cars cost 50% to 100% more (here, anyway),
they'd damn well want to last twice as long. They certainly don't come with
any significant extras to justify the cost.
For the money, Japanese cars are the best in the world. They basically
pioneered the idea of affordable, reliable vehicles.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 5 May 2000 20:35:49 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
:> Though admittedly somewhat more effective under UFS, chattr is still very
:> usable under linux. a 'i' attribute on a file or directory will prevent
: it
:> from being deleted by ANY action.
: Presumably you can write to the file ? What's to stop something writing 0's
: all over the first 500kb ?
: Naturally, one can do the exact same thing under NT.
(from "man chattr")
A file with the `i' attribute cannot be modified: it can
not be deleted or renamed, no link can be created to this
file and no data can be written to the file. Only the
superuser can set or clear this attribute.
So writing to it wouldn't work either. A handy, if not entirely
standard, way of keeping data secure. Though 1000 page theses
really should be backed up to CDR on a regular basis while
changes are still underway.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 5 May 2000 20:38:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 5 May 2000 19:35:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
:>
:>Though admittedly somewhat more effective under UFS, chattr is still very
:>usable under linux. a 'i' attribute on a file or directory will prevent it
:>from being deleted by ANY action.
:>
: Wow, kinda like the MS-DOS read-only attribute. What an innovation for
: Linux! By the way, what would prevent a script from using chattr to
: remove the 'i' attribute before blowing away the file?
Only the superuser can set or remove the 'i' attribute.
And only a fool reads his mail as root. Thus, the script is
out of luck. Still, files so important should be backed up
on a regular basis.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 06:54:19 +1000
"Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8evbb5$dec$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> :> Though admittedly somewhat more effective under UFS, chattr is still
very
> :> usable under linux. a 'i' attribute on a file or directory will
prevent
> : it
> :> from being deleted by ANY action.
>
> : Presumably you can write to the file ? What's to stop something writing
0's
> : all over the first 500kb ?
>
> : Naturally, one can do the exact same thing under NT.
>
> (from "man chattr")
>
> A file with the `i' attribute cannot be modified: it can
> not be deleted or renamed, no link can be created to this
> file and no data can be written to the file. Only the
> superuser can set or clear this attribute.
>
> So writing to it wouldn't work either. A handy, if not entirely
> standard, way of keeping data secure. Though 1000 page theses
> really should be backed up to CDR on a regular basis while
> changes are still underway.
So how are you supposed to work on your thesis if you can't modify it ?
Harass root whenever you want to add a reference or write a paragraph ?
Yeah, *real* practical solution, that.
DOS has something like this as well.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 06:55:17 +1000
"Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8evbfp$dec$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : On 5 May 2000 19:35:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>
> :>
> :>Though admittedly somewhat more effective under UFS, chattr is still
very
> :>usable under linux. a 'i' attribute on a file or directory will prevent
it
> :>from being deleted by ANY action.
> :>
>
> : Wow, kinda like the MS-DOS read-only attribute. What an innovation for
> : Linux! By the way, what would prevent a script from using chattr to
> : remove the 'i' attribute before blowing away the file?
>
> Only the superuser can set or remove the 'i' attribute.
> And only a fool reads his mail as root. Thus, the script is
> out of luck. Still, files so important should be backed up
> on a regular basis.
So your solution is that every user who has important files they're working
on has them set +i and harasses root whenever they want to make some changes
?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
