Linux-Advocacy Digest #512, Volume #26 Mon, 15 May 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux lacks (mlw)
Re: You people are full of shit.... (Cyberia Internet Cafe)
Re: You people are full of shit.... (mlw)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows ("David Cueto")
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows ("Robert L.")
Re: Here is the solution ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (Angela
Kahealani)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (abraxas)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux (abraxas)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux (Stuart Krivis)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux (Stuart Krivis)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (abraxas)
Re: Linux lacks ("David Cueto")
Re: Linux Advocacy - Linux vs Windows 2000 vs Be vs OS/2 (abraxas)
Motif Open Source? (Donn Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 08:35:45 -0400
David Cueto wrote:
>
> 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.
The "-lpthread" option is no different than the "-MT" with respect to
the compiler and linker. Threads are still scheduled by the kernel.
>
> 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.
Actually Windows NT only journals meta data, not actual data. The XFS or
Reiser FS will be a true journalling fs.
>
> 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.
I'm not sure what you are saying here.
>
> 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.
I am sitting off a DSL system now, what's your point?
>
> 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 ?
Because the test was designed to exploit the specifics of NT, it was not
a generalized test. There needs to be an independent body to create a
benchmark that is "representative" of particular server requirements.
Not a benchmark designed around the NT kernel.
>
> Where is NIS+ support ? Where is an open source browser following
> all the open standards around ?
Again, what do you mean?
>
> 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 ?
This is a problem yes, but a few pretty good standards are better than
one really bad one.
>
> Where are full featured on/off line mail and news clients (console or
> X11) ?
There are several.
> 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 ?)
There are even more than this. Applix, StarOffice, Netscape, are all OK.
>
> 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 high profile sites have been hacked. Again what's your point. While
I don't have numbers, I would say Linux is harder to hack than Windows
NT and IIS. ESPECIALLY with front page.
>
> 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 :-)
Obviously you have not look very closely at many Windows applications or
documentation. My guess would be that the crap vs good content ratio is
constant across all platforms. There are MANY MANY Windows applications
which are crap. There are some on Linux, Mac, OS/2, etc. As for Linux
there are some very fine applications as well. Applix for starters.
--
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: Cyberia Internet Cafe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You people are full of shit....
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 06:44:05 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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.
tell that to the NT box a customer asked us to look at, setting up
networking on it took 8 hours, in contrast, we tend to get the
linux-based servers we build talking on the network in 30 minutes. I know
that's anecdotal evidence, but so is your remark.
>
>
> Call him stupid if you will but ya'll are listening to his latest
> creation every day on the radio.
So, he can write and perform music, doesn't preclude he's clueless about
computers.
>
>
> In closing I wish Linux good luck because God knows it will need it.
> Linux is a hostile, user unfriendly system that no one but a true geek
> could love. In my industry, Linux is the center of many a lunch time
> joke and it will be many years before this is changed.....
If linux is a joke, you must have a very disturbted sense of humor. The
only lunch time jokes I've heard at work are about some idiot trying to
show how NT could be made to work, and the idiot having to request 2
additional machines to provide the same level of reliability that one
unix/linux/vms box could supply.
-NateGrey
UNIX/Linux is user friendly, it's just very picky about who it's friends
with.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You people are full of shit....
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 08:47:31 -0400
David Cueto wrote:
> 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.
I, for one, think it is a very bad idea to put frame buffer support in
the kernel. Video cards are the worst pieces of crap hardware produced.
They have no real design verification, the market forces them to
redesign on a constant basis. By the time a pattern of failure comes out
about a board, it was two revisions back, and a whole new design is
being sold.
Kernel support of video cards is dangerous because application
developers will attempt to use more esoteric functions of particular
cards if these interfaces are made public. With X, or any other
"generic" interface, a fairly normalized well tested access method is
used. It is less likely that a card's borderline fatal behavior will be
found.
Frame buffer in the kernel? Just say no! It is not because an OS sucks,
it is because software can't protect itself from bad hardware.
--
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: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 12:56:17 GMT
To talk about inherited things, take a lot at your GNU/Linux box,
trying to implement an ancient Unix model that even proved good
for a lot of things, has a lot of supidities coming from the age of
stone. Unix was designed when current hardware, networks and
software did not exist, so adapting itself to nowadays is as difficult
as for Windows (9x) leaving drive letters.
------------------------------
From: "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 13:02:04 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
This is the reasons Windows Millenium edition get rid of dos. No more
autoexec.bat, config.sys, etc... We can't "restart in msdos". The dos is now
an emulator.
It's a good thing that dos doesn't exist anymore.
WinME beta3.
but drive letter still exist.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 08:51:31 -0400
In <8fnsje$9ru$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 05/15/00
at 12:01 PM, "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Hey Todd, who are you today? The writing style has a different tone --
sounds a tiny bit intelligent for a change -- which implies that you are not
the same idiot or shows that you have some capability to learn, after all --
OR, it means that you are a M$ PAID TROLL using the same e-mail address.
This also begs the question, don't you trolls ever think of what it might be
like to have real work; to do something that is worthwhile, to have an
accomplish of some kind for yourself if not for others?
I didn't think so! Say how far is your office from Billy boys'? Do you have
a door on it or is it a cubical, and who takes out the trash or is it
double-duty for you?
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <8ffc7n$3g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... >In
>article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Todd wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Challenge:
>>> >
>>> > Give me just *one* MS undocumented API call, that could not be done
>>with
>>> > their *free* downloadable SDK?
>>> >
>>> > Just *one* API call is all I'm asking.
>>> >
>>> > MS provides WIn32 developers with *everything* they need and more.
>>> >
>>> > If you want to try this challenge, again, just give me *one*
>>undocumented
>>> > API call or secret API (whatever) that meets this challenge.
>>> >
>>> > I bet that I can write *any* piece of Win32 software with the normal
>>SDK
>>> > that is downloadable for *free* from MS's web site.
>>> >
>>> > All you conspiracy theorists are welcome to take this challenge.
>>> >
>>> > Just *one* API call is all I'm asking for here...
>>>
>>> A quick search of "undocumented API" reveals not one, but two.
>>>
>>> RegisterServiceProcess, in KERNEL32.DLL, appears to "Register a
>>process
>>> as a service, which means it doesn't show up in the Control+Alt+Delete
>>> program list," and there is also WNetEnumCachedPasswords in MPR.DLL
>>> which "Retrieves all of the current user's cached passwords, and calls
>>> the specified callback procedure with a pointer to each one."
>>>
>>> The WINE project also seems to have a great deal of information on
>>> undocumented Windows APIs.
>>>
>>> -Peter
>>
>>Todd are you there? I've searched everywhere for you're reply on this,
>>can't find it, can you repost? Thanks.
>Sorry, was off traveling for a couple days.
>As you can see from the replies already here, these APIs are either
>documented and being discontinued, or they are kernel level calls that are
>only present in either 95 or NT (not both).
>Either way, this is irrelevent.
>My original point is this:
>Can you show me an undocumented call that you couldn't otherwise do with
>something in the Win32 SDK freely available?? -- such that MS could use to
>their advantage in writing Office or something else.
>Even if the above two APIs were undocumented (or secret), I don't see how
>this prevents you from writing an *application* to market.
>MS whiners try to make one think that these APIs allow MS to develop there
>applications 'ahead of time' or before competitors... however, most of the
>core Win32 API has been around for *years*.
>There just isn't an excuse... one or two undocumented calls -- even if they
>did exist -- isn't going to convince me that you couldn't bring software to
>market ahead of MS - they have to use their own APIs as well. Otherwise, the
>software breaks.
>---
>So, my original challenge is really this -- show me an undocumented API call
>that would allow MS to bring an application (specify application type) ahead
>of their competition.
>I personally subscribe to MSDN... and that package gives a developer more
>than they need to develop very high level applications.
>Ok, another challenge:
>Find me a developers package that has a more put together software
>development kit than MSDN. (Better documentation, more samples, etc.)
>Yes, you have to pay for MSDN, but most of the docs. for MSDN are freely
>available as a download.
>Anyway, if you've read this far, hopefully you see my point -- anybody should
>be able to compete with MS head to head -- with or without these alleged
>undocumented APIs.
>-Todd
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: Angela Kahealani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot.
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 00:13:14 -1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I advocate that you take your personal flames to a flames newsgroup,
and stop crosposting between newsgroups, especially take
anything which has to do with MicroSoft out of
comp.unix.advocacy, which is where I'm reading your flames and
off topic postings. How you appear to me:
<URL:http://www.kahealani.com/kahealani/imgs/clipart/headup.jpg>
--
All information and transactions non-negotiable and private
between the parties. Content Copyright 2000 Angela Kahealani.
<http://kahealani.com>. For-pay Internet distributed processing:
<URL:http://www.ProcessTree.com/?sponsor=16484>.
Open a no-cost no-obligation real gold money account:
<URL:http://www.e-gold.com/e-gold.asp?cid=102372>.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: 15 May 2000 13:08:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy ajn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>2) The action with my mouse is slower but not that big of deal.
>>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
>>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.
> Why should we want the masses to flock to linux? That might suit companies like
> Red Hat and Mandrake which aim to make money by selling linux to the general
> public,
BZZZZZZZT!!!
Wrong! Thats NOW how theyre trying to make money, and its not how theyre making
money in the first place. Your entire argument is invalidated. Please drive
through.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: 15 May 2000 13:12:25 GMT
Adams Klaus-Georg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
>> Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> There is some activity
>> >> in products like this for Linux, but still nothing like what's available for
>> >> Windows, not even 1%.
>>
>> > So. Solaris is better because, even thought *it* can't beat Linux, something else
>> > can?
>>
>> Solaris is better than linux because it scales better. While linux can scale
>> tremendously well on the small side (embedded systems, etc), solaris scales
>> on the large side (E10000+) and remains exactly the same operating system as
>> it does on the small side (ultra1-).
> Since a couple of months this is no longer true. Now Linux runs on
> S/390, the IBM Mainframes.
Ummm...
Actually, the S/390 is ONE of IBM's mainframes, and linux does not run natively
on it. It runs as a virtual machine under OS/390. Thats why I wasnt counting
it.
Because if you want to play THAT game, its possible with AIX as well.
The thing that differentiates solaris in this mess is that the OS itself runs
directly on the HARDWARE itself without any intermediary embedded systems,
operating systems, management systems or anything else.
> Now Linux scales from the very small side
> to the largest machines in existance.
S/390s are no where NEAR the largest machines in existance. Neither solaris
nor linux run on those.
> And it is the exact same OS for
> all machines.
Youve never used solaris, obviously.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 14:50:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11 May 2000 13:12:22 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> There is some activity
>>> in products like this for Linux, but still nothing like what's available for
>>> Windows, not even 1%.
>
>> So. Solaris is better because, even thought *it* can't beat Linux, something else
>> can?
>
>Solaris is better than linux because it scales better. While linux can scale
>tremendously well on the small side (embedded systems, etc), solaris scales
>on the large side (E10000+) and remains exactly the same operating system as
>it does on the small side (ultra1-).
This is a very small portion of the market. It _is_ an advantage to Solaris,
but it may be meaningless for most people.
I would also say that the skills needed to admin a small network with 10
workstations and a couple of servers are not the same as those needed to
admin a large datacenter with a Starfire or two.
The OS may scale, but will the apps scale?
If it's a different world anyway, is there so much of an advantage to having
the same OS?
--
Stuart Krivis
*** Remove "mongo" in headers for valid reply hostname
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 14:53:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 12 May 2000 09:18:01 GMT, Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Solaris on Sun hardware works.
>
>Linux on Intel hardware doesn't.
>
>Is there a need to say any more?
Not if it's as illogical as the above.
--
Stuart Krivis
*** Remove "mongo" in headers for valid reply hostname
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: 15 May 2000 13:13:37 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Oh so THATS why the cycle of mediocrity continues...because the USERS are
USED to it.
Thanks for clearing that up, eric.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "David Cueto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 13:13:17 GMT
First of all, thanks for your reasonable answer.
> Actually Windows NT only journals meta data, not actual data. The XFS or
> Reiser FS will be a true journalling fs.
"Will be" is not equal to "is" ...
> I'm not sure what you are saying here.
That NFS serving implementation is very bad.
> I am sitting off a DSL system now, what's your point?
Very few of them well supported.
> Because the test was designed to exploit the specifics of NT, it was not
> a generalized test. There needs to be an independent body to create a
> benchmark that is "representative" of particular server requirements.
> Not a benchmark designed around the NT kernel.
I thought that there were Linux people tweaking kernel and daemons
to run well, am I wrong ? Is not httpd kernel daemon an answer to those
tests, that implicitly says that GNU/Linux fell back NT ?
> Again, what do you mean?
I mean that there is no good open source browser, and Netscape, the
best (at least the most featured one) around is pretty bad and freezes by
far more than IE 5 does.
> This is a problem yes, but a few pretty good standards are better than
> one really bad one.
Subjetive. Why is NT/2K/98 a bad user interface (apart from a little
anoying focus model) ? Which are you GNU/Linux pretty good ones ?
> There are even more than this. Applix, StarOffice, Netscape, are all OK.
Non one of those is open source.
> All high profile sites have been hacked. Again what's your point. While
> I don't have numbers, I would say Linux is harder to hack than Windows
> NT and IIS. ESPECIALLY with front page.
Admitted, but GNU/Linux and open source are not unhackeable.
> Obviously you have not look very closely at many Windows applications or
> documentation. My guess would be that the crap vs good content ratio is
> constant across all platforms. There are MANY MANY Windows applications
> which are crap. There are some on Linux, Mac, OS/2, etc. As for Linux
> there are some very fine applications as well. Applix for starters.
Admitted too. But the impression given is that open source is good by
definition, and I feel it is not so. Open source concept is good, open
source
code can be good or bad, it depends on the programmer, and the same
goes for each OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux Advocacy - Linux vs Windows 2000 vs Be vs OS/2
Date: 15 May 2000 13:16:20 GMT
2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abraxas wrote:
>> I think that these pros are a fair assesment of the workstation application
>> of linux. Further, I would add:
>>
>> * SMP support (becoming more common in high end workstations)
>> * fine resolution of process management; a fairly knowledgable user will
>> have an entirely stable workstation as a result.
>> * wide variety of network interface support; everything from old 10base
>> ethernet and token ring through FIDDI and GigE.
>> * runs in a wide variety of hardware; linux is not limited to X86 systems
>> at all. Versions exist for Sun, SGI, PPC, Alpha...even IBM S/390
> And even the Psion 5 (in a beta sort of way).
>> mainframes. Linux runs on more hardware platforms than any other OS.
> I'm not saying you're wrong, but have you lookes at the NetBSD supported
> platform list? It is very long (is it longer than for linux?)
You know, I was going to put in a note about netbsd also having been ported
to a very wide range of hardware, but I decided to risk it since linux has
a much larger hunk of the embedded systems market. The above is an educated
guess.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 09:17:38 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Motif Open Source?
http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/intro.html
- Donn
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
