Linux-Advocacy Digest #577, Volume #26 Thu, 18 May 00 08:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Your office and Linux. (John Travis)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Miquel van Smoorenburg)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Peter Karlsson)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Here is the solution ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 06:21:31 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> Look folks. We don't need to push Linux at the office place or at the
> home.
>
> The American people, for that matter the world, are at the brink of
> seeing
> Microsoft go down the tubes.
>
> After the U.S. Court system breaks up Microsoft, their estimated LIFE
> will
> be less than a decade. And that's the peices....
>
<great big snip of crap>
Charlie, I'm afraid I have some bad news. Linus just called and he
wants you to stop using linux immediately. He thinks you are
embarrassing the rest of us (go figure). He has even threatened to
start a petition (which he assures me every linux user will sign), just
to get you to stop posting this crap.
jt
>
> I just smile when they throw more money to King Microcrap!
>
> HA HA! I love it! Don't you folks!
>
> HA HA!
>
> And let's all wish them well on their new careers as golf caddies in 5
> years time!
>
> HA HA!
>
> I love this life folks....
>
> Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miquel van Smoorenburg)
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
Date: 18 May 2000 11:36:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[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.
What most people don't like about KDE is that if you port your
commercial program to Linux, you'll have to pay for a Qt license.
Now that in itself is not so bad, but it's not fair. KDE is built
on the kernel, X, gcc, you name it - all free. Yet you have to pay
for this tiny Qt component. I'd rather pay Linus a few bucks for the
kernel, since I feel that's a lot fairer.
Mike.
--
Denial. It's not just a river in Egypt.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:39:42 GMT
Evan DiBiase wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I don't know where they are developing this crap BUT, seems like
> > everytime I call them on a WEB page,,, they read it,,, then they
> > change their approach to something different.
>
> What? I don't seem to recall you ever pointing me to a web page. Of course,
> if you want to show me the post where you did, I'd be happy to read the page
> and tell you what I think.
>
> > If you ask me, I think these two are independants.
>
> What? Political Independants? What are you talking about here?
>
> -Evan
> Very, very awake... which is a bad thing when one needs to get up in 3
> hours.
You can't remember me pointing out web pages?
Do a sort on my name and go back and find the messages kid.
By Independants, I mean you seemingly don't have an opinion.
You just like to advocate.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Karlsson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: 18 May 2000 11:35:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels) writes:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > i tried the microsoft windows truetype fonts.
>> >
>> > andale and courier new look ok per se. both leave little specs after
>> > them. somehow X doesn't clean up after the fonts. courier new was
>> > worse in this regard than andale.
>> In my case (Matrox MilleniumII 8Mb/AGP) all works perfectly. Check
>> the settings for your server.
>
> i've got one machine with a matrox millenium II 4MB PCI and another
> with a 3dfx voodoo3. same little flecks of leftovers. perhaps it's
> something to do with the redhat font server, a patched xfs.
Ok, are you using redhat's xfs with Xfree 4? There's your problem then. And why are
you using a font server in the first place? Do you need fonts served? The X server can
render its own fonts beautifully /without/ xfs; xfs is usually used if you wish to
keep a font server (like a file server) to serve different hosts with fonts, i.e.
keeping the fonts on one machine fonts only. Shut down xfs, unless you really need it.
And if you need it use the xfs that accompanies the Xfree 4 distribution (source or
binary).
/Peter K
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:44:36 GMT
Tim Koklas wrote:
>
> 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 ???
2006 is when everybody will know it's over.
2010 is when you'll be mail ordering Microsoft products.
>
> > 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
My intent isn't to be at the TOP of the HEAP Tim!
I just wonder why people have such difficulty seeing the
market for what it is!
Like your comments for instance. Let's examine these.
You have an era of dis-belief. I wonder why?
Were you NOT alive when the Federal Courts broke up ITT in
the 70's?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:46:30 GMT
TheKeyMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>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.
And "TheKeyMan" does so using
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
Interesting. Especially given the following (note the sender's address):
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve)
Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 23:44:20 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nix looks like shit to me and that includes AIX which I had to spend 2
weeks looking at on a top of the line IBM 21 inch monitor. At the end
of the day my eyes were sore.
and this (once again, note the sender's address):
From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 23:02:26 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Wordperfect looks like shit. I mean really looks poor compared to Windows.
The fonts suck. They are boxy and crude looking and just plain hard on the
eyes.
Or how about this:
From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 17:06:32 -0500
X-Trace: bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net 946245615 28202 12.79.1.249 (26
Dec 1999 22:00:15 GMT)
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Well then you should take a look at Linux groups more often and see how
many people moan about the fonts. They look like shit plain and simple.
Maybe you should look at Internet explorer up on a Windows machine and
compare it to Netscape on a Linux machine. Hint:Netscape looks like shit.
In the following, compare the X-Trace with the previous:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999 05:18:37 GMT
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
X-Trace: bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net 937372587 5251 12.79.2.61 (15
Sep 1999 05:16:27 GMT)
Well at least my video card is supported, even though things look like
shit.... Matrox G200 8meg BTW
[...]
Let's face it, *nix hasn't gone anywhere in 25 years. It still looks
like shit and is not user friendly. People will not buy it despite
fancy packaging and if they do they will be returning it demanding
their money back.
The Sponge[tm] has the same elaborate way of expressing his views, using
the same newsreader, from the same timezone as Steve the "keymaster":
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 20:48:40 -0500
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 948332466 209.139.22.1 (Thu, 20
Jan 2000 01:41:06 GMT)
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Go scam them off Windows...Ie: linux looks like shit even on a 19 inch Sony
Monitor.
Which, in turn, looks remarkably like the utterances of one BklynBoy. Same
newsreader, same timezone, same X-Trace, same way of putting a point
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 18:58:55 -0500
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 946165966 209.139.22.254 (Sat, 25
Dec 1999 23:52:46 GMT)
Netscape has crashed 6 times in the last 2 hours and no matter what
fonts I select it still looks like shit. It took me the better part of
the day to a dial up going, whic h is weird since my ISP runs Unix and
I can use a shell account if I wish.
So Steve, maybe you could at least be a bit more clever when choosing the
next name to post the next "linux sucks, here is my sobby story" nonsense.
Bernie
--
Among my most prized possessions are the words that I have never
spoken.
Orson Rega Card
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:46:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name) writes:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>After three Linux experiences, two on notebooks the other on a desk
>top, our central computing supervisor has withdrawn support for Linux.
Yet he lets you post from a completely unconfigured copy of Forte Free Agent?
Bernie
--
Gentleman, I am a Catholic... If you reject me on account of my
religion, I shall thank God that He has spared me the indignity of
being your representative
Hilaire Belloc
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 11:48:05 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fvpgq$2hhr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <7bFU4.71336$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >Hmmm? Given a sufficiently permissive definition of a monopoly
> >they certainly *are* such, but I don't care about that.
>
> Why are you so willing to let a vendor take away your choices?
Microsoft is not doing so. If they were I would be less
sympathetic.
> >And they do want to get you to use their products.
> >
> >That's a *good* thing; it keeps them improving their products.
>
> I'd prefer that they improve the functionality instead of
> the lack of interoperability.
They do; you can jump up and down and *say* they keep
reducing the interoperatability of Windows, but it just
aint *so*.
> > > They don't,
> >
> >Y'all keep telling me, but whenever I look it up
> >a specific example, I find they *do* provide hooks
> >to do the things you say you can't do.
>
> But you said yourself that by design you can't participate in
> a domain unless you authenticate to an MS product.
If I said that, it was a typo. You can do that.
> >> and I link them because the thing they have in
> >> common is preventing competition.
> >
> >I do not agree with this view that competition is a fragile,
> >delicate thing that must be nutured and protected lest
> >MS demolish it with a hard gaze.
>
> So, should IBM also have been exempt from antitrust laws,
Yes. Those antitrust laws did *no* good when applied
to IBM; they merely gave them an excuse to raise prices
by unbundling their apps.
This did nothing to enhance the position of IBM's competitors
because the notion that IBM's success derived from
unfair business practicies was fantasy to begin with. IBM
gave its customers what they wanted- but that was service,
mainly.
Antitrust law had *nothing* to do with IBMs fall from grace.
> and AT&T allowed to sell operating systems and not
> broken up?
IHMO Unix would be a better OS today if AT&T had
treated it like a product rather than some sort of
fungus. :D
But I'm not sure that that can be laid at the feet of
antitrust law.
> These events put Microsoft where they are,
> the rules should still be the same.
I do not agree that Microsoft has in any real way
benefited from antitrust laws being applied to IBM
and AT&T. One can, *at most* argue that AT&T would've
somehow brought Unix to the desktop very early had
they not feared antitrust intervention.
I'm not sure that's convincing; technically it would have
been very challenging. 8086s and 80286s are not
real Unix-friendly.
But if it is true, I'm also not convinced it would have
been a *bad* thing for AT&T to do this.
[snip]
> >Honestly, it seems pretty commonplace to me. MS is pretty
> >good about not requiring that compared to most; from
> >what I've seen. They don't just provide hooks to implement
> >these clients; they provide the clients themselves for many
> >popular network managers.
>
> I want to replace the server, the clients can stay.
You may *want* to replace the server without writing any
Windows code, but MS is hardly obliged to indulge you in this.
You need to write a network client to do that.
> >> I think you are dreaming... I'd go for a multi-platform server
> >> capable of replacing a win2k domain controller and active
> >> directory server in a second if it didn't contain MS licensed
> >> code and was sold by people competing on price.
> >
> >They perhaps you should make your wishes- and your
> >pocketbook :D better known. It *is* possible to do this.
>
> I don't want to change anything on the client side - I want
> network interoperability.
You can have network interoperability.
You *don't* get to dictate to Microsoft how Windows will work.
Even if you are just *sure* that your way is the only right way,
Microsoft is still not obliged to do it that way.
> >> For??? I have my reasons not to trust it, and even if I accept
> >> vendor-lock on the software I don't want hardware-platform-lock
> >> for my servers.
> >
> >If you don't trust it, don't use it. Don't expect everyone else to
> >agree with you on that.
>
> I don't intend to use it.
Good fer you!
But honestly, I'd think you'd be *glad* that you can use
Windows, but replace bits of it. If you don't trust MS's domain
controllers, why should you trust their client modules?
> >> Doing otherwise gives them monopoly control over anyone using
> >> one component.
> >
> >I get the feeling you use "monopoly" as an curse.
>
> Only because it is illegal.
That would be news to a lot of people, I think. :D
> The real problem is a lack of
> interoperability which would be fine for a product we could
> simply ignore. Microsoft has gone out of their way to
> make sure we can't ignore them.
There is no lack of interoperability. Windows is supremely
interoperable, far more so than it would be if it relied on a fixed,
well known protocol; it can interoperate with networks that
use pretty much *any* protocol, so it can accomodate systems
*other* than Unix.
Had MS stuck to your wire protocols, they'd support Unix
fine, but not NetWare or SNA or AppleTalk...
> >No, my friend, there *is* life outside of Unix. Doing it the
> >way Unix does it is *not* manadatory.
>
> Network interoperability is the issue, not any specific OS.
Microsoft devivers network interoperability in spades.
> >> Their
> >> 'options' are clearly that they want the ability to break any
> >> competing product while continuing to keep their own bad products
> >> working.
> >
> >And not their good products? :D
>
> Keep what good network products?
:D
Oh, technicalities, technicalities...
> It is fun to look at the checklists
> of improvements in Win2k from the perspective that the NT side was
> what they were pushing last year. Too bad they didn't use the same
> chart then and earlier showing all the flaws.
Well, that's par for the course. Everyone does that. It's always
the *previous* version that's a pile of crap, somehow... :D
> >Look, if you *insist* on depending on the implementation details
> >of Windows to interoperate with it, you've no-one to blame but
> >yourself when you get burned.
>
> I blame it on vendors that don't follow standards, and avoid
> the products completely as much as possible.
You are blaming the wrong people. You certainly may avoid
Microsoft because they don't do things you would expect,
but you really need to understand that "standards" is just
the way Unix does it. You do *not* need to standardized
wire protocols to have interoperability. That's *one* way
to do it, but frankly it's not the best way in a heterogenous
environment.
The reason it's not the best way is that it limits you to whatever
the lowest common denominator is in that environment; and
in a heterogenous environment, that's usually kinda low. MS's
plug-in archicture copes with this better- you can upgrade
the clients as needed, rather than being limited to what they
support.
You might think you could do both- use plug ins *and* standard
wire protocols. You can, but you lose a lot of the benefit of
the plug ins if you do; the standard protocols do what they
do; its hard to improve them without incompatibilities.
> >> The samba team had a working substitute for NT domain controller
> >> authentication. It doesn't work with win2k clients. Does that
> >> surprise you?
> >
> >No. They wrote their domain controller so that it depended on
> >the internal implementation of NT authentication. It's not
> >at all surprising that it broke.
>
> And most likely not accidental either.
Well *of course not*; Microsoft improved its products *on purpose*!
Had SAMBA used the security APIs that Windows provides, it would
not have broken. It would not have benefitted from the upgrade
either, but OTOH, it didn't benefit in real life- it broke.
It really does pay to do things properly sometimes.
> >> In other words no other product is supposed to interoperate with
> >> a domain controller?
> >
> >I *think* that MS's domain controllers can drive Macs, Unix
> >boxes, and so on. It uses their protocols to do this.
>
> There is a simple name/password verification that anything
> can access, but that doesn't let you participate in the
> domain.
Well, "participating in a domain" in that sense means participating
in NT security; you aren't going to do that without support for NT's
security model.
What NT gives you is security *according to the needs of the client*;
Win 98, MacOS and Unix do not want or use NT security, and so they
don't get it.
They don't get it with any other server, either. It's the nature of the
client that's the limit here. But it is hardly an unreasonable limit.
> >> >Thus, you can supply your own domain controllers that use
> >> >whatever protocol you like. But mixing MS domain controllers
> >> >with your own is not supported this way.
> >>
> >> A bad thing indeed.
> >
> >Just because it isn't the way Unix does it, it doesn't make it
> >Bad.
>
> Not unix. Cross platform standards. Kerberos and LDAP demonstrate
> that it can be done right.
"Cross platform" means "cross Unix brands" here; Kerberos is a Unix
thing, or was until MS adopted it. Being developers at MIT doesn't
change that.
As usual with these things, the "cross platform" Unix solution
isn't cross platform *beyond* Unix. MS had to insert extra
information int he Kerberos ticket because NT's security
model is different from Unix; it is not sufficient to have
just a user name. That does not tell you who the guy is;
two users can have the same name. Further, NT identity
information identifies more than just what user you are;
it identifies all your groups as well. This information must be
provided for NT security to work, but since Unix doesn't do it
that way, Kerberos didn't support it.
You really can't complain that MS does not stick to the "standard"
protocols; that amounts to saying "MS isn't implementing a Unix".
> >I think you are just being paranoid. You keep *saying* they do stuff,
> >but there's no meat.
>
> It isn't really my job to investigate them - others are doing that
> and it is not hard to find the results. I only know about my
> own experiences.
You don't seem to have mentioned your own experiences
as far as I can see. I do wish you *would* think it your job
to investigate them, if you think it your job to *condemn* them.
> >I *know* your willing to believe anything that puts MS in a bad light,
> >but some of us are much more charitable to them. Repeated
> >accusation will not move those of us who feel that way.
>
> Apparently the people doing the investigating have not been so
> biased.
I dunno; a lot of them seem just as biased as you. :D
> >> And before that, they were telling the Wordperfect (etc.) people to
> >> develop for the OS/2 API up until the MS apps for windows were
> >> ready.
> >
> >MS was officially behind OS/2 well *after* they had apps for
> >Windows. They switched horses when Windows 3 took off.
> >
> >I'm suprised they didn't keep pushing WordPerfect towards
> >OS/2 until then.
>
> Weren't you saying earlier that MS apps division didn't take
> advantage of interal knowledge of what the OS people were
> doing?
Yes. The MS apps division did, at the time, use some internal
knowledge they should not have- but not to *advantage*. It was
a *mistake* MS made, and it *hurt* them.
While this certainly suggests the Chinese Wall they spoke
of was not real, I still haven't found any example where MS
actually did cheat in the API department and benefit from it.
It also has nothing to do with MS's advise to WordPerfect!
> >> Just wait until MS apps has something new to take advantage of
> >> the new API that can make them a bundle in upgrade fees and
> >> it will be deja vu all over again.
> >
> >What, in your view, would be needed for this to happen? A transition
> >to 64-bits? A new line-drawing command? Something in between?
>
> Networking things that start to require active directory to work right.
Hmmm. Why that, but not, say, a new Lan Manager protocol variant?
They have produced such in the past, as you know.
> >Oh sure; *that* is par for the course. Want the cool new features,
> >fork over the money. MS is no charity.
>
> Client features should not depend on the brand of the server.
That's ridiculous. Of course they should. Why on earth
would we want to have servers *at all* if they didn't deliver
features we wouldn't have without them?
> >But why would you expect them to be?
>
> If they want to stay a monopoly, then we should have government
> regulated pricing as in other fields.
I disagree. Microsoft has been a *positive* force in this industry,
and they have been *good* for consumers *and* developers
*and* hardware manufacturers.
*Even if* they are a monopoly, they should not be stopped until
and unless they do *bad* things.
Bad as in harmful. Not as in might-make-MS-even-bigger. I
don't have a problem with MS being bigger.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
