Linux-Advocacy Digest #575, Volume #26 Thu, 18 May 00 05:13:06 EDT
Contents:
RE: Top 10 Reasons to Use Windows NT ("Raul Valero")
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Full Name)
Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: How to properly process e-mail (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David Steuber)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Tim Koklas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Raul Valero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Top 10 Reasons to Use Windows NT
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 08:14:47 GMT
> 10. You were given the job of "Network Administrator"
> because you know how to copy a file from your hard drive
> to a floppy disk, and therefore know more about
> computers than anyone else in your office.
I know a lot of people getting "Network Administrador" jobs,
just because they can install Mandrake ;-) And cp is not too
different from 1981 DOS copy command, so do not think
people using other OS's are stupid at all.
> 9. Money is no object, you can afford to spend thousands
> and thousands of dollars in client licenses for your operating
> system and applications.
Hehehe, nothing to say in here.
> 8. Security is not important to you because you have no
> sensitive information.
Hehehe, finally there are far few important thing in life :)
> 7. "Troubleshooting" means calling Technical Support to
> solve your problems because you can't do it on your own.
Knowing NT or 98 in deep would surely take me more
time than doing it on Linux. Do not forget that Windows
howtos are few and that books are expensive ant contains
nothing more than windows pictures and the assumption that
things always work.
> 6. "Loss of Data" is not an issue with you because you do not
> have any critical data.
Wasn't this one 8 ?
> 5. "Crashing" is really just an excuse to turn your work in late.
Is going for a beer a sin now ? :-)
> 4. Every now and then, you secretly run the "3D Pipes" screensaver
> in order to slow down your network just so that you can come in "fix
> the problem" so that your office thinks you're a hero.
Hehehehe, believe or not, I know some guys that ...
> 3. You think that "Everyone - Full Control" is the proper default
> permissions setting for everything on your network.
Why to bother with typing passwords if there are no sensitive
information ?
> 2. You don't know how to install or uninstall anything unless you have
> an "installation wizard" to walk you through it.
Hmmm, tar xvfz + ./configure + make + make install or rpm or dpkg
or xrpm or ... aren't as difficult and geek oriented, let's face it.
> 1. You actually *believe* everything you read in Microsoft press
releases.
Well, Microsoft press has some good books (not to many, I admit).
------------------------------
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 18 May 2000 08:52:42 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )) wrote in
<8fvapj$cvg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Compared to UNIX or Linux, the overhead for multitasking
>on NT is quite substantial. The cost of creating a process,
>initializing the process, context switching, and cache management
>are all much higher on NT than they are for Linux or UNIX.
>
>Much of this goes back to the fact that the core of NT's kernel
>is based on VMS. VMS had the same issues relative to UNIX.
>To run OpenVMS effeciently, the administrator would try to
>create a huge pool of preinitialized processes and then farm them
>to the initiated applications.
Oh yes I remember seeing the source code for process creation on OpenVMS!
[snip]
>A really good example of this type of bloatware
>is Netscape Navigator. Because it uses static linked
>Mosaic, core calls, object oriented widgets organized
>by object type (instead of by frequency of execution),
>and has poor garbage collection, the initial load,
>with a blank page displayed, is about 16 megabytes. This
>can rapidly grow to 32 megabytes or more as memory is
>consumed but not garbage collected for Motif gadgets.
As a Netscape user, this is fascinating reading.
>The new Navigator 6.0, which was based on open source and supported
>by standard open source libraries optimized for execution starts with
>an initial load image of about 6 megabytes and shrinks to about a 3
>megabyte executable area (rest in swap space) and a modest buffer
>area.
The beta version I've seen looks a little plain - but if it runs lighter
and (more importantly) doesn't crash as much, then I'm all for it.
[snip]
>> With perhaps just one snag - the scripts
>> can be a bit difficult to read.
>
>True. Many scripts are deliberately obfuscated. There
>was once a contest for the best "Obfuscated C" and the
>ideas were often used to confuse would-be hackers intent
>on cracking code intended only for configuration support.
I see... however it does present a barrier to such as myself, coming from
OpenVMS to Windows then to Linux. I'm used to seeing fairly descriptive
commands like DIR, TYPE and PRINT, instead of the obscure ls, cat and lpr.
>DLL Hell is probably one of the best examples of flaws
>in the Microsoft development paradigm. Every year, Microsoft
>redefines "well behaved" applications. This was necessary
>because many programs would break if hardware or software
>were upgraded. The most classic example was copy-protection
>software that used software timing loops based on a 4.77 mhz
>clock on an 8088 processor to twiddle with the disk drive registers
>to create copy protection sectors. When the PC/XT came out
>with an 8088 all the copy protection software had to be recalibrated.
>Of course, this also meant that legal owners of legal software
>were having their software removed or disabled because of an
>assumption.
Linux has shareable libraries - so could the same 'hell' exist on Linux
(apart from the actions of Microsoft!)?
[snip]
>Originally, you could safely bet that you software would still be
>useful until you purchased the next version of the software.
>Unfortunately, Microsoft discovered that service packs were a way
>to impose "upgrade" using "free" upgrades. In fact, Service Pack 4
>was supposed to be a mandatory upgrade, required to be Y2K compliant,
>and was released with only a few weeks before the "big day". Many
>third party applications were disabled by the service pack, especially
>Microsoft competitor products like Lotus Notes, Netscape Navigator,
>Eudora, some versions of CORBA, some versions of Java, and some
>Office Suites like WordPerfect Office, Lotus SmartSuite, and
>most applications developed using the Borland/Inprise compilers
>and toolkits. Many of these torpedos were removed in Service pack 5,
>and many of the third party vendors offered free service packs or
>upgrades of their own. In some cases, the patches even torpedoed
>Microsoft Office.
You mention Borland - interesting. Most Delphi (Object Pascal) programmers
I know refuse to use the shared library version, instead they use the
statically linked version. I assume this is to avoid the DLL hell imposed
by shareable libraries.
>Both Visual C++ and Visual Basic have suffered horribly from
>version upgrades. Even worse hit were the applications developed
>using non-microsoft tools and IDEs. This ultimately resulted
>in initiatives by many third-party vendors to support Linux.
>At least if you're torbedoed by Linux, you can get the source
>code and find out what you need to change in your application.
I can certainly understand your comments about Visual C++!
I'm not sure I'd accept what you say about non-Microsoft tools
such as Borland's Delphi for instance.
>Backward compatibility is very important to the Linux community.
>It's still possible to run pre-ELF applications on modern Linux
>machines.
Then why do I see such reluctance portrayed by others about ISA? I agree
ISA is old and PCI is better, but why should I be forced to upgrade to PCI
just because Linux doesn't support it that well? In any case, I did figure
out how to make my ISA SB16 and AHA1520 cards to work.
[snip]
>> I must have missed something here - Linux still seemed to have
>> configuration spread all over the place.
>
>Generally, there are a few places you need to back up. The
>/root directory, the /etc directory, the /usr/etc directory,
>and the /usr/local/etc directory. It's also a good idea to
>back-up the home directory and the /usr/lib/X11/app-defaults
>directory. This can generally be managed using simple shell
>scripts and shar scripts.
Sorry, my mistake, I meant configuration tools. There do seem to be a
number of them on Linux. I can't seem to go to one place to launch them,
and seem to have to go all over the place to find the scripts or utilities.
I dunno, it was an impression I came to.
Finally, thank you for your very descriptive and helpful comments.
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 08:44:06 GMT
After three Linux experiences, two on notebooks the other on a desk
top, our central computing supervisor has withdrawn support for Linux.
On Thu, 18 May 2000 01:12:51 GMT, TheKeyMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>First off, Linux is a good system when it is used in the proper
>setting and under the guidance of people who actually understand the
>system. With that point considered, my company, a small real estate
>company with 10 offices in the northeast USA began a study late last
>year to try and consolodate our network and quite frankly save some
>money.
>We hired several consultants as well as a manager whose job it was to
>oversee the study and identify, religious affiliations, obvious bias
>and just plain FUD.
>
>Initially our plan was to jump to Linux hook line and sinker because
>it seemed to offer, on the surface, most of what we needed in a
>typical office setting. We understood that we would have to maintain
>NT to serve our somewhat vertical applications. The initial plan was
>to setup Linux in the office as a secondary system that the personal
>could utilize at will. Sort of a duplicate system if you will.
>This failed terribly because nobody seemed interested in using Linux
>which puzzled the staff. They went for Windows every time despite
>having dual boot computers.
>
>Upon quizzing the staff we discovered many things amongst them the
>reasons why Linux was not liked.
>
>To put it bluntly, Linux Looks like shit. The fonts are jagged and
>boxy. Staroffice is a complete bloated mess of a joke compared to
>Office.
>Netscape looks like crap and performs like crap also.
>
>Our imported Word/Excel doc's did not transfer well at all into
>StarOffice.
>
>We had severe network performance problems after installing Linux.
>
>People, meaning end users generally hated Linux big time. Funny thing
>was they were so willing to talk about why they hated it so much.
>
>I could go on and on but there is really no need. Linux is an
>operating system that needs a lot of work. We tried and could not make
>it work.
>
>I have talked to others in my industry that have had similar
>experiences with Linux so I know it is not my company..
>
>Linux needs a lot of help...
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 18:56:56 +1000
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >What *really* strikes me as weird is that allegedly something like
> >65% of people opened the attachment. I mean, come on --- you start out
> >with a mail with the title "ILOVEYOU". Not "I love you", not
> >"I LOVE YOU", but just "ILOVEYOU". Would you *really* expect someone
> >who might be in love with you to leave out any whitespace? How long
> >have they been using email?
> >Then, you look at the mail, and it contains absolutely *nothing* that
> >personalizes it. You are not being addressed, heck, AFAIK, the whole
> >thing doesn't even refer to one's gender at any time. And at the end,
> >it says "please look at this loveletter from me".... Gimme a break!
>
> Maybe it's just curiosity. This possibility was mainly caused by the
> fact that the difference between code and data has been severly blurred
> in the Windows environment. "Open" a .gif file and "open" a .exe file
> sound the same to the end user but are fundamentally different.
In all fairness if you want to lay "blame" for that (if you consider it
something that deserves to be "blamed" on someone) you would have to lay it
on Apple. After all, as the Mac advocates are so proud of trumpeting, they
did pioneer that whole document-centric GUI thing.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 19:01:36 +1000
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 18 May 2000 14:34:50 +1000,
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Thu, 18 May 2000 02:03:23 +1000,
> >> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623637730
> >> >> http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=623940112
> >> >
> >> >I'm afraid I can't see any lies there. Perhaps you'd care to post the
> >> >specific parts you're referring to ?
> >>
> >> I already did at
> >>
> >> http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=624137505
> >>
> >> To which he never responded.
> >
> >Presumably you refer to the "I have seen a lot of BSODs in my time, and
in
> >every single
> >instance, [...]" quote ?
> >
>
> Yes, and then he in a followup he changed his story from "every single
> instance" to "most". I guess you didn't finish reading the whole
> thing.
I did. One sentence was about BSODs, the other about "problems".
> >Again, that's hardly an insult.
>
> It was meant to be condecsending.
No, it wasn't. I deliberately stuck the :) on the end so it wouldn't be.
> It contributed nothing toward
> healthy debate. That's his technique and apparently yours too.
Oh, grow up. Really, you're scraping here searching for something to be
offended by. Why, I don't know, but it is certainly contributing "nothing
toward healthy debate".
> >> Well then show me where I'm prejudiced. Specifically reference some of
> >> my posts as your proof.
> >
> >Sorry, I have neither the time nor inclination to go trawling though Deja
to
> >find what are essentially petty accusations.
>
> Well then don't make them.
*I* didn't.
> >> Anyone he disagrees with enough he labels a zealot.
> >
> >Usually they are.
>
> A generalization. It doesn't justify the many cases where he calls people
> zealots and he's wrong.
I can't recall any. However, since you're making the accusation I presume
you're more than prepared to back it up ?
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 10:55:39 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
8fv46d$5lm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> Yeah, but you have to turn of every thing, even the computer to get it
> secure!
Now, you are just being silly. You think that your running computer is
absolutely 100% secure ?
> >
> > If you want functionality, you may have to compromise security. May be
> > Linux/UNIX is a magic OS which doesn't abide by such principles ?
>
> Sorry, I have more than enough fuctionality with linux with security.
Will you be offended if I told that I feel the same on my OSes of choice ?
> > How is it different than disabling a potentially and unused dangerous
> daemon
> > or service on UNIX/Linux ? Could you elaborate ?
>
> Symple, when I load my Mandrake with HIGH security all the insecure and
> dangerous daemons are OFF BY DEFAULT! Not so with ANY MS OS.
That's true. However, still the bottom line is, you have to remove some
functionality by disabling the daemons. Same as Windows.
> > BTW, I can set it on enable, ask, or disable.
>
> weeee, But can the average windows user??? does the average windows user
> even know what needs to be shut off??? Best to install a system like
> Mandrake at high secrity and let them enable what they need rather than
> give them an OS with a Welcome mat.
You know what, in this one, we agree. I think it would be better at install
to provide an all-locked mode at least for NT/2K so savvy users could turn
what they need off.
The problem with the 'average windows users' is that they want whizz-bang
functionality, and it's not easy to provide it _and_ security at the same
time.
However, Windows really does have some horrible defaults at places.
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 04:06:09 -0500
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >DLL Hell is probably one of the best examples of flaws
> >in the Microsoft development paradigm. Every year, Microsoft
> >redefines "well behaved" applications. This was necessary
> >because many programs would break if hardware or software
> >were upgraded. The most classic example was copy-protection
> >software that used software timing loops based on a 4.77 mhz
> >clock on an 8088 processor to twiddle with the disk drive registers
> >to create copy protection sectors. When the PC/XT came out
> >with an 8088 all the copy protection software had to be recalibrated.
> >Of course, this also meant that legal owners of legal software
> >were having their software removed or disabled because of an
> >assumption.
>
> Linux has shareable libraries - so could the same 'hell' exist on Linux
> (apart from the actions of Microsoft!)?
Actually, while not the same, another type of "library hell" exists on
Linux.
This has to do with staticly linked support libraries. Some applications
assume that a specific library will be built with other support libraries,
which isn't always the case. And when you get two programs that require the
same version of the support library, but need to be built with seperate
sub-libraries, conflicts occur.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 08:59:58 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
' Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
'
' > >KDE isn't free.
'
' > uh what? I don't remember paying for KDE...
'
' If I remember the analogy correctly, it's free as in "free beer," but
' not free as in "free speech." Qt is the bottleneck, I believe.
Unless you plan on porting KDE to Windows, KDE is totaly free. It is
only the Windows version of Qt that requires you to buy a license.
And even then, you only need it if your program isn't GPL.
There is also nothing preventing someone from porting Qt to Windows as
a seperate version from Qt Professional Edition.
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
All bits are significant. Some bits are more significant than others.
-- Charles Babbage Orwell
------------------------------
From: Tim Koklas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 09:03:00 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> Well if they are not going to use Linux then I guess they will be
> back to using Filing cabinets and clerks by 2010 because there
> will be NO MORE Microsoft by then.
I thought it was 2006 ???
> I enjoy saying this as still, NOBODY REALLY UNDERSTANDS WHY.
>
> And I can't understand why people are this stupid.
That doesn't make you seem much more clever than them.
> Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
