Linux-Advocacy Digest #504, Volume #26 Sun, 14 May 00 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Never saw Linux die? Try this.... (.)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re: The
"outlook" for MS) (tholenbot)
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (Ray)
Re: You people are full of shit.... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Marty)
Re: How to properly process e-mail
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (Marty)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re: The
"outlook" for MS) (tholenbot)
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: .
Subject: Never saw Linux die? Try this....
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 00:52:03 GMT
Canoscan scanner parallel port attached.
Try running the scanner identification program that Sane uses.
Kills Linux completely...No other terminals to log into. Can't kill X
server. Completely dead.......Red Switch Time....
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for MS)
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 21:02:41 -0500
In article <8fk3j9$8g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If anyone on USENET ever wishes to emulate Templeton, as
> some seem take great pride and joy in emulating Dave Tholen
> (whom I know nothing of, outside of the opinions of others),
> just simply follow these steps:
Illogical. The true home of the tholenbot is comp.os.os2.advocacy. How
typical that you would try to conceal your misinformation in a thread
title.
--
On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 01:04:19 GMT
On Sun, 14 May 2000 16:53:58 -0400, Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ray at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote on 5/14/00 2:42 PM:
>
>> On Sun, 14 May 2000 05:23:55 -0400, Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> There is a point to be made that no OSS has yet to attain the quality of
>>> extremely high end OS's (mainframes come to mind), but OSS, especially
>>> Linux, is still in its infant stages.
>>
>> The OS is only one difference between your average mainframe and your
>> average PC, I'm sure you can think of others.
>>
>
>Solaris, VMS, IRIX, Ultrix...Just to name a few.
So the only difference between the average mainframe and the average PC is
the OS that they run? Are you sure about that?
>> Linux is just a kernel, which distro are you talking about.
>>
>
>Most distrib of Linux these days have the same basic desktop. Defaults to
>Helix Gnome and offers KDE, each of which offers a million desktop theme's
>with a clear majority of thier functionality being the same.
What default? You pick the front end(s) you want installed when you install
the system or at any time thereafter. I'm using fvwm2 on this laptop but if
I want to use kdm I just click on <Main Menue> -> <WindowManagers> -> <KDE
Window Manager> and kdm comes up. Most distributions of Linux come with
dozens of window managers and a huge variety of GUI tools & Apps. What
functionality are you missing?
>
>>> Sure its stable compared to MacOS and Windows, but it
>>> very incomplete.
>>
>> Software is always incomplete. I can't think of an OS that isn't missing
>> something. Using the right tool for the job goes a long ways.
>>
>
>MacOS's UI seems complete.
You were comparing OSs not just UIs. If MacOS is "complete" then why isn't
it used on every PC, Mainframe, and Laptop by everyone for every purpose?
>
>>> Everyone is appeased at the cost of
>>> confusion and interface bloat. Choice can be a bad thing in UI design,
>>> imagine if there were three ways to drive your car: You cab would be
>>> cramped, and the first time you tried to drive it, you'd get frustrated and
>>> go buy a different car.
>>
>> So find one you like and stick with it, this is why choice is a good thing.
>>
>>
>
>Why should I have to install several desktops in LInux to find one that
>works. Good lord man, you realize how stupid that sounds.
For the same reason you have to try different brands of cereal before you
find one that tastes good? For the same reason you might test drive more
than one car before finding one you like? In case you havn't noticed we're
all different.
>you think, well look for a different interface" Well, I dont have that sort
>of time, I have work to do. The OS should work out of the box and there is
>not a single Linux distrib out today that is as complete for home use as
>MacOS or Windows.
Maybe you'd best define complete.
MacOS and Windows may be more polished but most Linux Distros come with far
more Apps. and documentation. Most PC hardware comes with Windows drivers
(and install instructions) but if you're just talking about what comes in
the OS box Linux often has better hardware support than Windows.
> Stability be damned, I have work to get done.
What can you really do with Windows "out of the box"? Almost every task I
can think of requires some add on or another. You might be able to limp out
onto the net but without a virus scanner even that's asking for trouble.
>
>>> Quite frankly I find IRIX to be FAR easier to use than Linux. Far easier.
>>> Why, 1) limited UI options 2) finding my minimized apps doesnt require good
>>> eyes (damn windows like taskbar in KDE and GNOME has got to go) 3) Switching
>>> apps is instant (just mouse over), raising and lowering windows is a breeze.
>>> Simple, Effective and doesnt get in the way.
>>
>> So pick an interface that works the way you like.
>>
>
>I did and Linux doesnt have it.
Obviously not since all of the features you list above ARE available in most
Linux distros. out of the box.
>
>>>
>>> Linux does NOT compare to the power of VMS (despite what your politics make
>>> you want to beleive). I have NEVER seen a VMS box crash. NEVER. I know of
>>> one VMS box that has been used Monday thru Friday for over 3 years without a
>>> reboot. The best you will get out of Linux is 9-12 months, and from what I
>>> heard most people get 6 or so months between reboots. Linux doesnt compare.
>>
>> How exactly do you know how much of that has to do with the OS and how much
>> has to do with other factors? We're talking about different hardware,
>> different administrative practices, different end user software, different
>> phisical enviornments, different customer priorities....
>>
>>
>
>"different administrative practices" I dont have time to "administrate" my
>home computer.
And you're not running VMS at home either are you?
You were comparing the stability of Linux running on a home machine and
being administrated by an end user with VMS running on a mainframe with at
least one full time system admin. The hardware is different, the skills of
the admin. are different and you'd therefore expect the reliability to be
different even if they had the exact same OS installed.
> Linux needs to be pampered properly to get desired
>funcality. It defalts to a unsetup OS out of the box.
So what, try setting up VMS "out of the box" some time since that's what you
are comparing Linux with above. Even Windows normally requires a stack of
CDs from the hardware vendors and 6+ re-boots before it can see all of it's
hardware properly.
>It has basic
>functionality obsured (how do you set up that printer again? How do you set
>up that modem? How do you set up a basic LAN? How do I turn off all those
>stupid daemons?) I know how to do it, but it could never be described as
>easy.
Agreed those things should get easier but I've seen people screw those tasks
up in Windows as well.
>
>>> Linux doesnt even compare to other GNU OS's.
>>
>> Hurd?
>>
>
>Hurd is still incomplete and developmental, it would be unfair to bring it
>into the discussion and compare it to OSS that is much farther along that
>it.
What??? You just said " Linux doesnt even compare to other GNU OS's". What
other GNU OS's are there besides Hurd and (maybe Linux)?
>
>>> The BSD's (free and open) have
>>> Linux hands down in security and speed.
>>
>> The vast majority of security issues have to do with applications that can
>> be run on virtually Unix, including the BSDs. The customer gets to decide
>> weather to use more mature apps. with fewer features or more cutting edge
>> software. The customer also gets to decide how much in-house testing they
>> want to do. BTW that's true of just about any OS.
>>
>
>Did you study double talk in college? Try making sense next time.
Well that was rude.
> We are
>talking about the out of the box experience.
And yet you keep comparing Linux with VMS & IRIX and I'll bet you've never
seen "the boxes" for those much less installed one from scratch.
>OpenBSD's out of the box
>experience is way better tha Linux (as server and workstation). Linux's out
>of the box experience for a home use machine out right blows.
Most home users are way over their head installing any OS including both
Linux and OpenBSD. I've even seen users screw up a Win95 -> Win98 upgrade
and I've seen many screw up NT installs. Home users should either stick to
the OS that came with their hardware or shell out a few bucks and some time
for a decent book on their new favorite OS or pay someone else to do it for
them.
> I've
>installed Redhat 6.x, Mandrage 7.1, and OpenLinux. I've broken all three
>installers by choosing incompatible rpm's. I can say with conifidence, I
>never has broken the installer to MacOS (system 7.1-9.0) or Windows
>(3.1-98).
How much software comes with Redhat etc. How much comes with Windows/Mac?
Try installing a similar quantity of software on both and then we'll talk.
>
>>> Keep in mind, this is NOT a slam on OSS development model, its a slam on
>>> Linux in particular.
>>
>> No this is like saying BMW sucks becase it's slower than a Porche, more
>> cramped than a minivan, and not as rugged as a Hummer.
>>
>
>No. Linux is not like BMW, it more like calling it a E-Machines. Cheap,
>everywhere, but still not worth buying because its competitors win hands
>down in everything.
Even a Yugo handles better than a Uhaul, is faster than a moped and gets
better gas milage than a pickup truck etc.
Lets see. You are comparing Linux's stability with VMS, "completeness" with
Win/Mac, and security with OpenBSD.
>> Both Linux and the BSDs are as stable and secure as their administration
>> allows.
>
>THis is like saying "Both Porsche and Ford are as fast as thier engines
>allow"
No, it's like saying that "Both Porsche and Ford are as fast and safe as the
skills of their drivers allow."
> Its double talk and means nothing.
It means that the administrator of a computer system is almost always the
weak link when it comes to security and reliability.
--
Ray
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: You people are full of shit....
Date: 14 May 2000 21:06:52 -0400
On Mon, 15 May 2000 00:47:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I use Windows 98se everyday running a graphics workshop business and I
>never get BSOD's nor do I seem to have all of the troubles you Linux
>nuts seem to have.
I am not "you Linux nuts", but I haven't found Win98 that reliable.
>I suspect that some of the Linux folks are soured on Windows because
>of the bad experiences
pot->kettle->black ? Perhaps your soured on Linux because you couldn't
get it to work ?
Well it works just fine for me, thank you. The fact that you are having
trouble ( goodness knows why ) doesn't mean that everybody else is.
>complete joke. One guy spent nearly a week trying to get a Samba
>server going.
Well what can I say ? What a stupid dumbass !!! I had samba up and running
in less than an hour. Just a matter of reading some docs. The only thing
that's a little tricky is the encrypted passwords thing ( MS fixed Win98
to require encrypted passwords, and this requires a workaround )
> This is completely idiotic since it is so simple to do
>under Windows.
Also simple to do under Linux. Actually, I found getting the Windows clients
set up harder than setting up the Linux server.
>Networking? Simple under Windows. A nightmare under Linux.
It's clear from the above that you are biasdsed, so it's hardly worth arguing.
I find both relatively simple if you're prepared to read some instructions.
The Linux instructions are better, but you can work Windows out with some
intelligent guesswork.
>One person tried to set up a Linux server and gave up. Reading 3 weeks
>of How TOs was a complete waste of time.
For him it was. You should have got someone with a brain to spend one
hour reading the docs instead.
>Call him stupid if you will but ya'll are listening to his latest
>creation every day on the radio.
I suppose that he's on the radio makes him smart ? No, it just makes him
on the radio.
>In closing I wish Linux good luck because God knows it will need it.
Oh yes, the cheap parting shot. Look, I'm sorry you and your mates
are too fscking stupid to set up a server, but for the people who are not
as dimwitted as yourself, Linux is a godsend.
HAND troll
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Marty <[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: Mon, 15 May 2000 01:08:35 GMT
WickedDyno wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>
> >> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name) writes:
> >> >
> >> > > On 8 May 2000 17:26:29 GMT,
> >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >In Personal Computer World there was an interesting story about a
> >> > > >similar thing. When using Netscape on MS's web site, a certain page
> >> > > >would give a 404 error. However, when a pref was set to use an
> >> > > >IE-style User-Agent string, the same page came up perfectly.
> >> > > >Interesting...
> >> > >
> >> > > I've done a fair amount of WWW page development. IE is simply more
> >> > > forgiving with improperly syntaxed HTML than Netscape.
> >> >
> >> > Of course you know that a 404 doesn't come from the browser, right?
> >>
> >> It's pretty common to have content customized for a particular browser,
> >
> >That goes against the entire founding priciples and purpose of the web
>
> True. And once every browser maker out there supports the standards, we
> won't have to do it any more. And if we had stuffing, we could have
> roast turkey and stuffing... if we had a roast turkey.
Well, we had our turkey long ago, but the voracious hordes of commercialism
gobbled (pun intended) it up on us. The internet and web took a giant step
backwards after it became popularized. It used to be a great place to get
useful information. Now you can't even go to a reputable search engine and
find what you're looking for in the first 20 pages of choices. This same
popularization and commercialism led to a desire for differentiation, trying
to sway the masses to use product X, and hence the mess that we now have.
[This posting is best viewed with your favorite news reader from a comfortable
chair.]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 14 May 2000 21:12:15 -0400
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>In article <8fdb95$9f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> >Hogwash. Outlook doesn't hand off anything unless the user (a) asks
>>> >for it, then (b) actively issues a confirmation despite a clearly
>>> >phrased warning. That's not "blindly", nor "automatically". Look the
>>> >words up if you have to.
>>>
>>> If it isn't blind, what is the correct procedure for determining
>>> the difference between a safe image and a dangerous script
>>> before pushing the fatal 'open' button?
>>One observes the attachments icon and extension to determine whether it is a
>>.gif or a .vbs.
>Is this the 'easy' part of the windows interface? What if you've
>never seen a .vbs before. What should have prepared you to
>expect something different to happen than with the .gifs you
>get all the time?
What if the file is named "picture.gif .vbs"
and the ".vbs" part doesn't show up because the name gets truncated to
"picture.gif "?
--
Guns don't kill people, cops do!
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot.
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 01:13:07 GMT
Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
>
> In article <8fk3j9$8g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If anyone on USENET ever wishes to emulate Templeton, as
> > some seem take great pride and joy in emulating Dave Tholen
> > (whom I know nothing of, outside of the opinions of others),
> > just simply follow these steps:
>
> Illogical. The true home of the tholenbot is comp.os.os2.advocacy.
Incorrect. How typical. Tholenbot always picks the right newgroup for the
job. Sometimes that is COOA.
> How typical that you would try to conceal your misinformation in a thread
> title.
At least you made no attempt to conceal your own misinformation.
> On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
Ask your grasshopper.
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for MS)
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 21:19:31 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
> >
> > In article <8fk3j9$8g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > If anyone on USENET ever wishes to emulate Templeton, as
> > > some seem take great pride and joy in emulating Dave Tholen
> > > (whom I know nothing of, outside of the opinions of others),
> > > just simply follow these steps:
> >
> > Illogical. The true home of the tholenbot is comp.os.os2.advocacy.
>
> Incorrect. How typical.
Evidence, please.
> Tholenbot always picks the right newgroup for
> the
> job. Sometimes that is COOA.
The right "newgroup"? How rich!
> At least you made no attempt to conceal your own misinformation.
What alleged "misinformation"?
> > On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
>
> Ask your grasshopper
The grasshopper is in my head.
--
On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Date: 15 May 2000 01:18:22 GMT
Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>There is a point to be made that no OSS has yet to attain the quality of
:>extremely high end OS's (mainframes come to mind), but OSS, especially
:>Linux, is still in its infant stages.
:
: The OS is only one difference between your average mainframe and your
: average PC, I'm sure you can think of others.
How much do you know about mainframes? The power of Big Iron isn't
even so much the OS, it's the insanely fast IO subsystems. The OS
simply complements such raw power by insuring it runs at top speed
and doesn't go down.
OS or not, comparing a PC to a mainframe is simply laughable.
Somehow, I don't think we'll see VMS/x86 any time soon.
>The main problem I have with Linux, is it just feels like
:>"Work-in-progress".
:
: Linux is just a kernel, which distro are you talking about.
With 60+ distributions, that's part of why it feels like a
"work-in-progress", IMHO. Obviously, no one has got it "right"
yet...or infact anything even close or we wouldn't have need for so
many fork distributions all trying to reinvent the same wheel.
>snip<
:>It interface feels like its the lowest common denominator of what its main
:>user base wants.
:
: Which interface?
I think he means the typical GUIs used (KDE, GNOME, etc). If he
wants CDE, it's not like it isn't available, so I don't think Gary
has a real argument here.
:>Everyone is appeased at the cost of confusion and interface bloat. Choice
:>can be a bad thing in UI design, imagine if there were three ways to drive
:>your car: You cab would be cramped, and the first time you tried to drive
:>it, you'd get frustrated and go buy a different car.
:
: So find one you like and stick with it, this is why choice is a good thing.
Agreed. The "official" Unix world would have me running CDE, which
has so many faults for my uses (or really, most people's) it isn't
even funny. And if you really want to go that route, again CDE is
available and supported for Linux (www.xig.com).
But give me a simple WindowMaker install anyday. Hell, I even run
it on Solaris inplace of that CDE or that other beast, OpenWindows.
:>Quite frankly I find IRIX to be FAR easier to use than Linux. Far easier.
:>Why, 1) limited UI options 2) finding my minimized apps doesnt require
:>good eyes (damn windows like taskbar in KDE and GNOME has got to go) 3)
:>Switching apps is instant (just mouse over), raising and lowering windows
:>is a breeze. Simple, Effective and doesnt get in the way.
:
: So pick an interface that works the way you like.
Personally, I don't use GUIs for most Unix operations in general,
Linux, IRIX, FreeBSD, Solaris, any of them. For an experienced Unix
user, this is a non-issue as like you say, it's pretty trivial to
pick one that works the way you like.
:>Linux does NOT compare to the power of VMS (despite what your politics
:>make you want to beleive). I have NEVER seen a VMS box crash. NEVER. I
:>know of one VMS box that has been used Monday thru Friday for over 3 years
:>without a reboot. The best you will get out of Linux is 9-12 months, and
:>from what I heard most people get 6 or so months between reboots. Linux
:>doesnt compare.
:
: How exactly do you know how much of that has to do with the OS and how
: much has to do with other factors? We're talking about different
: hardware, different administrative practices, different end user software,
: different phisical enviornments, different customer priorities....
Gary is right on this one: Comparing VMS to Linux is, at best,
something to get laughed at for at this point and likely for some
time to come.
:>Linux doesnt even compare to other GNU OS's.
:
: Hurd?
I think he means "The BSD's", which of course, are patently *not*
"GNU OSs".
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) \ Your Official ORGy sites!! /
The Bawdy Caste (Fremont, CA) \ www.bawdycaste.org /
Rocky Horror Archive (Earth, Milky Way) \ www.rhps.org /
RHFC1.1 V!M!P1S2RBL24Y1980 P*B-R+20@H-D+100@W+200@T+5@P?L15@Y1990&1@(7@)!1
C8@W3@P@& IF&-W&&-N+M1C-! MA2{RO,PQ}M{PQ}C3B15@R15@V1O+++ D?-K1S@C0!O{IS}T5@
QNA+&+!K+!PW>&H1+! YA25+>16G{m}H{5'7"}L{CA,USA}S{f>ba12^H7k}W=
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
