Linux-Advocacy Digest #611, Volume #26 Sat, 20 May 00 09:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: a few questions please (mlw)
Re: Your office and Linux. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (tinman)
Re: Here is the solution ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (mlw)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Full Name)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Full Name)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: a few questions please
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 07:16:18 -0400
AJ wrote:
>
> Hi.. I am an experience Novell tech (CNE) but new to linux and want to get
> windows out of my life as soon as possible... I Would like someone to answer
> a few questions for me.. First i want to install linux on the following
> system,,, P II 400 , 64 ram , 4.8 G hd , SB pci sound , 4meg ATI Rage
> video, and US Robotics pci 56k, and 3com pci net card( 3c509). I know this
> more than meets the requirements. My questions are the following
Just a few notes:
The 3x509 card, all 3c509s are not created equal. The 3c509c needs a the
newest kernels to operate. Other than that, I have an almost identical
PC running Linux.
> 1) I use a high speed isp ( called : vibe) not a cable modem but adsl. it
> used a newbridge networks MainStreet in my home and i use a 3com net card.
> Is there any known problem settting lunix up on this?
I am using a flowpoint router and SDSL, so it should not be a problem.
If you do not have a fixed IP address, you may need to install the
network card with a DHCP managed IP address,
> 2) I just got Storm linux does anyone have instructions how to install it in
> a partition without it destroying the other one's? Please Help
I have not heard of "storm Linux"
> 3) this storm linux? is it ok? any things i should know or be warned? what
> to use instead? you opinion is appreciated..
> Please Email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] thank
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 11:23:41 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Tell me, when is the *nix world going to get a decent Newsreader?
>
> simon
Troll, we've had decent newsreaders since the dawn of usenet. Okay,
maybe not, but those we now have are damn decent. I use Gnus, myself, and
find that it suprasses almost all those from Windows.
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 11:25:14 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> And who in their right mind needs such stuff?
>
> Geek crap.
Anyone who intends on doing some serious stuff with their computer.
WinTroll.
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 07:58:05 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Woofbert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
>
> > In article <3923ce7a$5$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> > >
> > > As an aside, I always thought DIN meant Deutschelander Industrie
> > > Normen.
> >
> > Not likely.
>
>
> Damn right, not likely. The Normans were in France.
>
Not to mention "Deutschelander" isn't a word....('
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
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: Sat, 20 May 2000 12:16:46 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8g4sm4$1fvr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <2MjV4.73766$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >You've a right to your own preferences, but MS is
> >not obliged to make you an OS. Use Linux or something.
>
> We seem to have very different concepts of networking. Mine
> is that you don't have to use any particular brand everywhere
> just because you used a certain thing somewhere else. So
> yes, I will use Linux some places, other things in other places.
You can *insist* that networking is only networking if it uses
Unix's protocols, but nobody else is obliged to care.
If *you* care, what you can do about it is stick to Unix.
> >Hmm? Windows 2000s file synchronization feature
> >works fine without AD. Active Directories 'shares
> >that don't live in just one place' feature requires
> >Active Directory and is implemented by it.
> >
> >I suspect I'm not understand what feature you mean.
>
> I could easily have missed something, but I found where you
> would manually syncronize files and then tried to set
> up the scheduled runs and couldn't. According to the
> on-line help I needed an active directory server to allow
> scheduled file syncronization. The source was a remote
> share, not on win2k, the destination would have been 2
> remote win2k machines. I ended up using a cygwin-compiled
> rsync in daemon mode on the target machines with a unix
> cron job pushing the updates.
I had no difficulty get my Windows 2000 Professional
computer to to sync to files on a Windows 95 file share.
I did not have to set up schedules or anything; it was
automatic; just check hte "Make Available Offline" option
and it did it. Very easy to use, works great.
LIke I said, perhaps I'm not thinking of the feature you are.
Why would you wish to set up "scheduled runs"? It seems
like you aren't doing what I'm doing.
[snip- history of TRS-DOS.]
> >It was ahead of *DOS*, but that's no challenge. It was not
> >ahead of the MacOS.
>
> I've forgotten the relative timing of Mac development
> vs. Sun workstations which also had none of the problems
> of DOS, and AT&T's flirtation with Sun. Without the
> trade restraints on AT&T, this pairing might have happened
> earlier and come out ahead.
The main problem DOS had was that it was really bad
at handling printers. Arguably even *worse* than Unix,
but frankly even *now* Unix isn't very much better than
DOS, and is very much worse than MacOS.
(NeXTStep excepted, of course.)
> >There's a reason why MS slavishly copied Apple, not AT&T:
> >MacOS solved many of the problems plaguing DOS,
> >and Unix just plain didn't.
>
> So when MacOS X puts unix under the covers we will
> have come full circle and we just have to wait for MS
> to follow along...
MacOS X is an attempt to catch up to Windows NT; *if*
they can bring the technolgies that once upon a time
made the Mac unique to Unix, it might work.
But it is worth noting that Microsoft copied the Mac *first*;
they didn't bother with pre-emptive multitasking, memory
protection, security, or multi-user support until *after*
they had the indispensible basics- like printer and
display support- working.
[snip]
> >Musta had good lawyers. But where are the good lawyers
> >now, when MS needs them?
>
> IBM had deep pockets and no shortage of lawyers. There has
> to be more to the story. Perhaps a movie plot someday.
Well, you are probably right. But I caution you against
assuming that the "more to the story" is necessarily
damning to Microsoft. Perhaps it was more that
IBM was shockingly stupid, than that Microsoft was
shockingly clever.
[snip]
> >Well, I don't take taht sort of blanket claim seriously-
>
> It's true - and the reason I was using it. Dig out some trade
> magazines from the time.
Advocates *always* say this about *every* tool. It is boring. :D
> >There are always rumors; some of us don't believe them
> >all.
>
> When there's smoke, sometimes there really is a fire.
But usualy there isn't, in this business. :D
> >MS sometimes buys companies out so they can incorporate
> >their technologies in existing or new MS products. I don't think
> >this distasteful FoxPro business is as common as you do.
>
> Can you think of a single case where they have allowed a
> competitor to survive on equal terms? At least one where
> they had any other choice?
Not even *one*. So what? Who cares about "equal terms"?
No competitor has ever beaten MIcrosoft because
MS *let* them; they did so because they out performed
Microsoft, when it happened.
> >> Do you happen to know when Dell signed that agreement?
> >
> >To judge by your post, you don't know that.
>
> No, at the time I thought it was simply Dell's choice. The
> base SysVr4 code was a mess, but everybody else knew that
> a long time before and Dell had done a good job of handling
> it up to that point. It is the things I've seen recently
> about the various threats that MS used to force the issue
> that makes me think in retrospect that Dell didn't have
> a choice.
I tend to think they didn't either, but for a different reason: Unix
was and is a very poor choice for a desktop machine, and had
Dell stuck to it, they would have gone out of business when
their competitors got Windows.
> >> Have there been any internal documents uncovered in the
> >> investigations that pinpoint when MS knew it was not
> >> going to complete OS/2?
> >
> >Aren't we presuming that MS has a monolithic opinion
> >on this?
>
> How many stockholders did it take for a majority vote
> at the time?
No idea. Are stockholders opinions the only ones you are
interested in? I was under the impression that the decision
to abandon OS/2 was made at the top.
> >I bet the feelings of the Windows development team
> >turned anti-OS/2 way earlier than those of, say, the
> >Word team...
>
> Same stockholder(s) in control of decisions.
Are they really? Or do they let MS's management make
the decisions? If I were an MS stockholder, I wouldn't
be interfering much.
> >But you seem to arguing that MS should not implement
> >features their competitors don't have. IE, if standard
> >Kerberos can't support NT domain security, MS should
> >not try to produce a Kerberos than can, even if they
> >sacrifice no compatibility in the attempt!
>
> No, standards can be modified/updated/replaced. But
> a new standard doesn't happen because a single company
> makes secret modifications.
Admittedly. In *this* case MS didn't do that- they talked to
the MIT people and got their modification into standard.
It does not seem to have done them any good on the PR
front. :(
But it does make it relatively easy for non-MS clients
to use MS Kerberos servers. They just ignore the
(irrelevant to them) domain info.
> >Aren't you glad MS isn't *doing* that? You *can* drive
> >MS clients on non-MS servers.
>
> Just not any standard ones unless you replace parts of
> the client.
I don't know what clients you consider "standard"; I suspect
your opinion differs from that of the business users, most
of whom see Windows as the standard.
What MS servers do is support a variety of protocols
that are already in use. NetWare clients communicate
using NetWares protocols, Apple clients communicate
using Apple's. And so on.
Replacing parts of the client is not required, because
MS has implemented these protocols on the server.
If you wish to provide your own server, you can of course
do so too, but that is up to you.
> >So, you are saying MS should implement only features
> >that do not require new or changed protocols?
>
> No, I am saying that they should work to define and modify
> the standard that provides the new functionality so that
> all products can interoperate.
They have done so with this Kerberos thing, but they get
no credit for it. Sometimes, it sucks to be Microsoft.
> >Blaming Microsoft because others didn't do better than
> >MS did, or do it sooner than MS did it, is dubious. It is
> >*not* obvious that just because MS succeeds, they should
> >be blamed for those who did not.
>
> Sure - that's why I brought up AT&T's monopoly status and
> IBM's anti-trust problems. We can't blame MS for those
> even though I'm convince they worke to their advantage.
I'm conviced they *didn't*. I don't see why you treat *your*
conviction as evidence, but not mine.
> How about Netscape? Do you think MS had some effect on
> their fate? Stac?
These are both cases where they did. In Netscapes case,
Microsoft built a better browser and gave it away for
free. Netscape could give their browser away, and they did,
but they were apparently not able to match Microsoft's
quality. They still held out for a remarkably long time- which
shows how useful it is to be an entrenched near-monopoly
in your field.
I've heard conflicting stories about the Stac case; some
make MS out to be quite the villain, outright pilfering Stac
code. Others just have MS enhancing their OS with
a similar capability. I bet I can guess which one you
believe. :D
> >But they are pretty good compared to their competitors.
> >They are agressive about backwards compatibility
> >and interoperability, and they are very responsive to
> >their customers needs and demands.
>
> Historically they have been responsive only to competition.
Oh, I don't know. DirectX met their users demands; as
far as I know it had no competition then. (Now it does,
in the form of Apple's GameSprockets, but I think
DirectX came first)
> Now they don't have any.
Sure they do. They don't have *successful* competitors
in *every* venue, but they have competitors in every venue.
And they have *sucessful* competitors in quite a lot of
places. Consider AOL, for one blatant example.
> >They do have a penchant for putting other companies out of
> >business, but that's hardly such an awful thing from
> >a *Microsoft* user's point of view.
>
> What? Do you think you would be better off if every gas
> pump in the country said 'Standard Oil' on it?
Maybe we would.
I don't know if Standard Oil would *really* have raised
prices eventually. They were broken up to keep them
from doing that, on the theory that if they were not they
would have been able to gouge customers once
their monopoly was totally secure.
But none of that happened, and it is speculation to
say it would have.
It might well be just plain more efficient to have
one oil company monopolizing oil distribition.
I'd say "we'll never know now", but what with oil
companies merging left and right, we just might
find out soon.
> I don't, and I don't think we need a single company
> in control of software either.
I don't see that as a real prospect.
But.
It isn't transparently obvious that we *wouldn't* by better
of that way; certainly the standardization on one operating
system for the desktop has brought major benefits to
almost everyone.
It does not follow that this applies to all software. OSes
are unusual in a large number of ways.
But it is illustrative. You've spoken of "standards";
there are presently two known ways to get standards.
One way is the way Microsoft promulgates standards-
they have a dominant product, and whatever they do is
"standard" because of it.
The other way is by negotiated mutual agreement between
vendors; lots of vendors get together and hammer out something
they can agree on.
So far it seems to me that the first usually works better;
it permits you to go beyond the mere codification of
existing practices and to 'push the envelope' with new
features and ideas. The 'standards body' approach seems
to be largely unable to do this.
The problem seems to be that the 'standards body' approach
is *fair*; it can't favor one vendor over another very easily. It
can't do this because the other vendor- the one being placed
at a disadvantage- can scuttle the standard is sufficiently
irritated. It won't work unless this is avoided.
That is most easily avoided with a lower-common-denominator
approach; you *can* standarize what every vendor already
does; that puts no-one at a disadvantage.
There are other solutions; for instance you can make
parts of the standard optional. Kinda defeats the purpose,
but it can secure agreement.
This is just one issue; it does not by itself prove that
having a dominate company dictating standards
is the One True Way. But it shows that this is not
a *uniformly* bad thing.
In light of that, I think it must be admitted that the
presumption that "monopoly" = "bad" should
be questioned; it may be true but it needs to be
jusitified- perhaps on a case-by-case basis.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 12:16:47 GMT
"Timberwoof" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Woofbert
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <QZuU4.70010$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > > > (And which major software company did you work for as a
> > > > software engineer?)
> > >
> > > No major one; I work for a little one.
> > >
> > > Absolut Solutions, out of Newton, MA.
> > >
> > > We make a business management and accounting system
> > > for Windows.
> > >
> > > Which major software company do *you* work for as a
> > > software engineer? :D
> >
> > Macromedia. I was a QA Engineer on Director and Shockwave for four
> > years.
>
>
> Way to go, Woofy. You sure know how to end a thread! }: )
Yes, she does: She doesn't need to address my claims
if she can make it a my-company-is-bigger-then-your-company
thing.
I could have responded; perhaps with "but yer just a
lowly QA engineer, what do you know". That's just
begging for a flamewar, though. Besides, if you
offend a QA Engineer, they find more bugs in
your code... :D
I prefer to naively suppose that anyone interested will
notice that "I work for Macromedia" doesn't really
address the poor quality of MacOS's app support in
any tremendously obvious way.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 08:55:59 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Total investment over 5 years:
>
> $89.00 Windows 98
> Nothing for Windows 98SE (online update)
> $149 Win 2000
>
> So that's $238 over 5 years which amounts to $47.00 per year.
>
> I have spent far more on Linux distributions, books and such in that
> span of time and gotten far less USEFUL stuff.
So what do you do with your computer? You must do something, I mean,
really, you have to use some programs that don't come with Windos.
Lets look at some numbers:
$89.00 Windows 98.
$29.00 RedHat Official packages (w/Star Office).
$0.00 Windows 98SE Update
$0.00 RedHat 6.2 download
$149.00 Windows 2K
$0.00 (no need to upgrade for Linux)
$150.00 Extra RAM for Win2k
$250.00 Extra disk space required for Win2k
$???.?? MS Office and applications to run under Windows.
Windows:$638 + cost of MS office and applications
Linux: 29.00
My guess is you have a lot more invested into Windows than you say.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
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: Sat, 20 May 2000 13:00:05 GMT
On 18 May 2000 12:19:01 GMT, "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>: There's just no excuse for not having an adequate installer. We have
>
>The installers I have are very adequate (make and tar). And from what
>I've seen the distros have excellenet installers too. I can understand
You can't be serious. Make and tar are "installers"???
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
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: Sat, 20 May 2000 13:05:15 GMT
On 18 May 2000 09:50:55 +0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner)
wrote:
>
>: 1. A streamlined, easy install process;
>
>Disagree. System should be installed by competent techinicans in
>computer shops. Windows is not any more easy to install than say
>Mandrake 7.0, only user do it much more frequently, so get used to it.
>
What can someone say to such a stupid statement.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
