Linux-Advocacy Digest #511, Volume #26 Mon, 15 May 00 08:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this.... (2:1)
Re: You people are full of shit.... (2:1)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Big Daddy)
Linux lacks ("David Cueto")
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Jacques Guy)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (mlw)
Re: You people are full of shit.... ("David Cueto")
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Cyberia Internet Cafe)
Re: Linux Advocacy - Linux vs Windows 2000 vs Be vs OS/2 (Charlie Ebert)
Re: So what is wrong with X? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Jacques Guy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this....
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 11:04:50 +0100
. wrote:
>
> Canoscan scanner parallel port attached.
>
> Try running the scanner identification program that Sane uses.
>
> Kills Linux completely...No other terminals to log into. Can't kill X
> server. Completely dead.......Red Switch Time....
I've got several more involving SVGA utilities.
Admittedly, most of these actually kill the machine, but they render it
useless without a terminal or network.
Try running SVGATextMode from X.
Write an SVGALib forgram that disables VC switching, goes in to raw
keyboard access then have a stupid bug that leads to an infinite loop
Do something nasty to the VGA card (I've no idea what i did) that seems
to make it never release the bus (or something wierd).
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You people are full of shit....
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 11:21:13 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I use Windows 98se everyday running a graphics workshop business and I
> never get BSOD's nor do I seem to have all of the troubles you Linux
> nuts seem to have.
I used to run windows. I (repeatedly) had to install after the BSODs got
worse and worse until it wouldn't boot. You probably won't believe me,
claiming that I am a `nut'. If you do not believe what I say, why shoult
I trust what you say.
If you do believe what I say, thwn how can you call linux a joke when my
Windows kept falling over, but my Linux doesn't.
> However, the current crop is quite good and is used by millions every
> day to make money.
It may be used by millions, but that doesn't mean it's good. And
remember, 10,000 lemmings *can't* be wrong.
> We are not anti-Linux at all, in fact we are looking forward to the
> day that we can stop paying ridiculous prices for software.
If you think that you software is really good, you shouldn't mind
paying.
> However we
> have all tried various forms of Linux and quite frankly it is a
> complete joke. One guy spent nearly a week trying to get a Samba
> server going. This is completely idiotic since it is so simple to do
> under Windows.
I see. Samba seems to work out of the box with most distros. And he took
a week to get it going?
> Networking? Simple under Windows. A nightmare under Linux.
> One person tried to set up a Linux server and gave up. Reading 3 weeks
> of How TOs was a complete waste of time.
Have you any idea how long it took me to get 2 windows machines talking
to each other over a crossover cable. I ended up spending hours
tinkering with settings and eventually it worked, but I've no idea what
I did. And another time over a parallel cable: you could share files,
but no TCP/IP settings (I have had this working properly before) would
allow a program on one computer to connect to a program on the other
one. And you claim that networking under windows is easy.
> Call him stupid if you will but ya'll are listening to his latest
> creation every day on the radio.
I will, and I'm probably not.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: Big Daddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 06:28:24 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also the gapping security holes!!!
Roger wrote:
> On 5 May 2000 07:29:52 GMT, someone claiming to be Loren Petrich
> wrote:
>
> >In article <UkqQ4.77847$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>Why don't you teach them how to prevent viruses on their machine? Had you
> >>done it at the first time....
>
> > Why should that be necessary in the first place?????
>
> Because the popularity of the platform makes it a attractive target
> for the folks who write such?
------------------------------
From: "David Cueto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux lacks
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 11:40:06 GMT
Where are GNU/Linux Unicode and multithreading native support ?
Windows NT/2K's got it since 1996. And do not talk me about
-lpthread command line option, that's a dirty patch.
Where are standard GNU/Linux journaling file systems ? Reiser ?
Just starting to be used now, still beta, and at all a standard. Windows
NT/2K's got it since 1996.
Where is full featured and plenty working NFS GNU/Linux support ?
Solaris and SCO's NFS is by far a lot better. GNU/Linux is primary for
client purposes.
Where is UDF, USB, ISDN, ADSL decent support ? All of them are
beta, do not support all existent devices (by far), and working with them
gives you often more than a headache.
Why if NT is as bad OS Mindcraft I, II and III (with Redhat and Linux
gurus around) tests gave NT winner over GNU/Linux ?
Where is NIS+ support ? Where is an open source browser following
all the open standards around ?
Where's a little of standarization at the window managers world ? Yes,
there are a lot of choice ... too much choice for me and too different
choices. Why the hell don't they share things ?
Where are full featured on/off line mail and news clients (console or
X11) ?
Having a news server and using tin with leafnode (or inn) is far from what I
call
a desktop solution (and by far from what I call an easy desktop solution).
The
same goes for fetchmail + procmail + pine (mutt or whatever you want).
Kmail ? (still freezing ?)
Where is the GNU/Linux and open source supreme security ? Haven't been
hacked as many open source sites as non open source ones ? Starting from
rootshell and till apache site.
All of these, with a lot more like applications availability, security,
RAID,
redundancy, gaming, multimedia and the so just lead to have GNU/Linux just
as a growing OS to play with it (I admit very well) in some computing
fields,
but far from being the all-in-one server and desktop solution this group
tends to say it is. Remember that Netscape, Staroffice, Oracle, Visual Age
for Java, etc ... are not open source. GNU/Linux is an interesting piece of
code, with a lot of good code (kernel as an example), a lot of crap code
(every one feels can write good open source, and this's not true), a lot of
documentation lacks, a lot of alpha and beta code, as many bugs as any
size comparable project, and with a lot of non open source companies and
software starting to enter its world. Let's see world evolution. Greetings,
and
please, do not feel offended, just an opinion; indeed, as you suppose, I use
GNU/Linux for some things, mostly 'cause I like computers, any kind, any
flavor, any OS, any CPU, just like them :-)
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 11:49:47 GMT
Evan DiBiase wrote:
>
> "Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8fmu3u$27k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Evan DiBiase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >> What really gets me sick is to see somebody who uses their NT box
> > >> as some telnet device or web browser, a light load, then proclaims
> > >> triumphantly that NT is working.
> > >
> > >Well, it's working _for me_. You seem to imply that "working" is running
> > >slashdot.org or microsoft.com. For me, working _is_ browsing the web,
> using
> > >ICQ, using Word, Excel, and Powerpoint, and everything else a typical
> "home
> > >user" does. I also use Visual C++.
> >
> > 'Working' is having a machine serving at least an office full of
> > people, generally with some activity 24x7, and being able sleep
> > at night without worrying about being paged.
>
> I disagree. That may be the case for you, but for me working is what I
> described above.
>
> > >In short, I don't know why this would make you sick. It's working for me,
> so
> > >why can't I proclaim that NT is working?
> >
> > A machine that can be rebooted on a whim without having to apologize
> > to anyone else for losing their work doesn't count.
>
> Sure it does. Not for business use, maybe, but you're unfairly cutting out a
> section of things here by claiming that the only "real" work is business
> work.
>
> > >> I've been a computer programmer for very close to 20 years now.
> > >
> > >Excellent. I've been a computer programmer for very close to 2 years now.
> So
> > >what?
> >
> > Try running your programs on wildly different CPU type. Something
> > with a different bit/byte order would be a good test. And use
> > some different compilers that have different struct padding too.
> > Find out whether you have been locked into only being able to
> > use your programming work under a single vendor's OS and compiler.
>
> Well, right. Obviously porting things is a pain. But I'm just learning... I
> agree that it's a good idea to get as much experience as possible, in any
> area.
>
> > >> Now I'd like to read some about your background?
> > >
> > >Is it really relevant? I'm 16 years old, and have been using computers
> since
> > >I was five. I've used almost every major distribution of Linux, BeOS,
> > >FreeBSD, Windows 3.11, Windows 9x, Windows NT4, and Windows 2000. What
> more
> > >do you want?
> >
> > Some experience on different CPU types would be good. Many people
> > who started programming in that time frame really don't understand
> > that there are alternatives to Intel style processors.
>
> True.
>
> > >Even ignoring the "south park"/PARC confusion and the fact that they
> didn't
> > >create DOS, I say: What's wrong with borrowing ideas? Linux wouldn't be
> the
> > >operating system you know and will defend to the death if Linus hadn't
> tried
> > >to copy, well, everything from UNIX. "Selective borrowing" is a good
> thing.
> > >If Microsoft sees that multitasking is a good thing, why shouldn't they
> add
> > >it? You'd probably be complaining that Windows has no multitasking if
> > >Microsoft took your "advice" and decided to think of ideas on its own.
> >
> > Linux does the 'borrowing' right by maintaining the source-level
> > API. That is, programs I wrote 15 years ago that migrated across
> > many different CPU types and unix flavors compiled and worked under
> > Linux. Windows borrowed the same ideas but made sure that it was
> > incompatible even at the source level with anything else to lock
> > developers to their platform even when you use theoretically portable
> > languages like C.
>
> Yes, from the angle you're looking at this certainly is true. I was thinking
> more of features, though.
>
> > >> And they never got this load of crap to work right under a load.
> > >
> > >Uh, that's a great assertion. Do you have any proof? Stephen Edwards
> pointed
> > >to several high load, high profile web sites that are running IIS and
> > >Windows 2000/NT. Are they merely imaginary?
> >
> > Web servers are a special case because of the stateless nature of
> > http. All large sites are really 'farms' of servers behind some
> > kind of load-balancing and failover setup. If a machine dies
> > another one will pick up the next hit and nobody knows the
> > difference except the guy to pushes the button to reboot.
>
> Right, but some people in this forum would claim that it's basically
> impossible for a Windows NT/2000 server to stay up for three seconds without
> BSODing.
>
> > >Define "SERIOUS." I would consider the work I do on this computer to be
> > >"SERIOUS," and I don't need to reboot every 3-4 days.
> >
> > Serving up hundreds to thousands of tcp connections, many over
> > slow and randomly failing links is a good test.
>
> Well, sure, that's a good test for a server. But I'm running W2K
> Professional -- a desktop machine. Serious work for me is programming,
> surfing the web, writing... desktop stuff.
>
> > >I haven't gotten ANY BLUE SCREENS! Will you please at least make an
> attempt
> > >to back up your assertions? Obviously there are some servers out there
> > >running Microsoft products that might blue screen. Saying that blue
> screens
> > >are inevitable in any Microsoft software is just stupid.
> >
> > They tend to come with loading an assortment of different software.
> > Win2k may be a big improvement in this area.
>
> Yes, this is a fairly clean system. But I don't suspect that I'll be loading
> much more on here, and everything is going very well.
>
> > >That's great -- Linux is indeed very stable. But saying "Linux is stable"
> > >doesn't prove that "Windows 2000 is not stable."
> >
> > Nobody has real experience with win2k yet. People with experience
> > with NT know it wasn't, at least before sp6a.
>
> This may be so. NT4 was pretty stable for me, but I didn't use it for very
> long.
>
> -Evan
You haven't been alive very long.
BTW, did I mention I actually started my computer career before you were
born.
Charlie
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 11:51:00 -0700
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Jim Richardson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 13 May 2000 05:47:28 GMT,
> Bloody Viking, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >I found the above funny. One thing computer-wise that Linux can't do to my
> >knowledge is config a mouse driver for lefty operation.
> No sweat, in gnome, use the control panel, in KDE, I think the control panel
> will do this. In plain X, I am not sure, but I suspect that the XF86Config
> file will have something to do with this. Under gpm, I don't know.
I run Windoze 3.11, because that is what I am used to. But I got
curious. I booted my Linux partition (Caldera OpenLinux 2.2). I never
use it, it's only there as a political statement. It took me under
30 seconds to figure out the right icons to click on, and... there
I was, two radio buttons: righ-handed mouse, left-handed mouse.
Less than 30 seconds it took me, more like 20.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 07:51:26 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Look at Windows. This is a prime example of an environment where micro
> > computer paradigms that have survived, not because they are better, but
> > it is what people have gotten used to.
> >
> > Just to name one: drive letters.
> > Why does one need drive letters? The only reason they exist is because
> > DOS did not have a hierarchical file system until version 2.0. 2.0!!! do
> > you believe it?
>
> Drive letters are a convenience today, not a necessity. NT doesn't need
> them, since it can work entirely via UNC. Many apps still use them though,
> since the majority of non-new users have been educated to use them.
For the most part applications will still not use UNC. NT does not count
because the lion share is still just Windows.
Windows is still dependent on a real mode DOS.
It still needs "himem.sys" to allocate "extended" memory?
The core OS still uses EMS page swapping.
Windows still uses DOS's PSP structures to manage processes.
Yes, all the applications run in a 32 bit space, but all the 16 bit DLLs
and applications share that space, i.e. NO security.
Windows has to be a sick joke on the industry, my mind boggles every
day. It would be like GM introducing a car with points and a condenser
and having it sell to everyone. Just plain stupid. It was written for
very limited computers, yet now it runs on what one would have thought
of as a mainframe just ten years ago, but it still has all the hacks to
make it work on an 8088, even though it can no longer run on an 8088.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: "David Cueto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You people are full of shit....
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 11:52:33 GMT
> > I use Windows 98se everyday running a graphics workshop business and I
> > never get BSOD's nor do I seem to have all of the troubles you Linux
> > nuts seem to have.
Well, I'd like to be at the middle, let's say that neither I get BSOD's
100
a day (like linvocates seem to have), not I have zero BSOS's a week, it
depends on what I do, how I do, and how I optimize the system.
> I used to run windows. I (repeatedly) had to install after the BSODs got
> worse and worse until it wouldn't boot.
Well, managing Windows 95/98 is said to be easy, but managing with
no idea at all often drives you to reinstalling in about two months. If you
take a quarter the time you do to setup Linux, setting Windows up, it
is more than less usable. I talk about 9x series. NT/2K is perfectly
usable.
> If you do believe what I say, thwn how can you call linux a joke when my
> Windows kept falling over, but my Linux doesn't.
By the way, have you ever played around /dev, used framebuffer with
SVGALIB applications, nasty played with TV card or the so ? GNU/Linux
is not un-freezable.
> If you think that you software is really good, you shouldn't mind
> paying.
Well, I like the net, but I find it is expensive for me. I'd like it to
be for
free and good enough ...
> I see. Samba seems to work out of the box with most distros. And he took
> a week to get it going?
I agree here. SAMBA is enough easy to setup for a 8 years old child,
though
Windows intranetting is easier (let's say 6 years old :-))
------------------------------
From: Cyberia Internet Cafe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 05:54:39 -0700
Stephen S. Edwards II wrote:
> Yeah, and the Linux developers have no liability either, so they
> have no pressure whatsoever. Give us a break. This is not the
> same thing.
>
Neither does M$, the M$ EULA was held up in court, so if the NYSE's computer
crashes, sending your shares of MSFT into the cellar, M$ can't be held liable.
-NateGrey
If Win2k is an example of MS's "NEW" ideas, I'll just stick with some GNU
ideas
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Advocacy - Linux vs Windows 2000 vs Be vs OS/2
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 12:02:46 GMT
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
>
> abraxas wrote:
>
> > I think it would be handy to remember that linux is generally developed
> > by people in their spare time; very few people actually get paid for
> > their troubles.
>
> This is a pro as well as a con, because it also means that things are developed
> primarily by people who actually want to use their own product, with the result
> that you get a lot of attention to details, reliability, orthogonality, etc.,
> that are not very popular with the "How quick can we ship this?" crowd.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
Let's us sum this up. I started working for a company who started off
in OS/2
once. We moved them to Windows as OS/2 was dying and they had a UNIX
complex.
So OS/2 is dead and I think that's really the problem with OS/2. Lack
of apps, IBM
does NOT support anymore!
I don't know hardly anything about BE so I'll pass, as I suspect it
eventually will.
Windows 2000 is a Microsoft product. Microsoft is like an ICE cube
fixin to get hit
with a hammer. In this time especially, people who heavily invest in
Microsoft are
foolish! In fact, to heavily invest in only ONE thing is foolish to
begin with!
So you combine this fact with the fact that more Linux servers were sold
last year
and this year than Microsoft AND that Linux desktops are starting to
tear Microsofts
market up,,,, You can quickly see Microsoft is going the way of OS/2.
They are going to WARP away also!
So Linux, whether you like UNIX or not, will be the candidate to
survive. And
survive it will, for decade after decade as it's not based on a
corporate model.
I really think the main problem with all the OS's besides Linux is they
are
based on the corporate model and are therefore MORTAL!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: So what is wrong with X?
Date: 15 May 2000 11:41:53 GMT
In article <Ia3S4.69011$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The notion that using a higher-level language diminishes network
> traffic is a common "Doctrine of Faith." It may, on occasion,
> actually be _true_.
>
> It is only forcibly _true_ if the set of higher-level abstractions
> that get used are sufficiently well-representative of the application
> using them.
>
> It is only true if those higher-level abstractions successfully
> diminish the overall "system effort" required to run the application.
>
> It is not so clear that this is always the case...
Agreed. While pushing stuff to the server side would probably work
very well for stuff like basic form filling (witness the success with
HTML forms) it isn't likely to buy you a lot with an image-processing
app unless you push the whole thing to the server (otherwise, the
traffic could conceivably be *greater* due to the transmission of
parts of the image that are not currently being displayed despite
their being updated.) I'm sure it possible to find applications that
occupy the various positions between these extremes too.
Looking at the above, all it says to me is that it is a good idea to
run your browser on the same machine as your X server (which is the
most common configuration in practise... :^)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 12:03:56 -0700
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Stephen S. Edwards II wrote:
[snip]
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence"
a.k.a. natural stupidity.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
