Linux-Advocacy Digest #636, Volume #26 Mon, 22 May 00 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Here is the solution (Illya Vaes)
Re: Linux fails - again (Martijn Bruns)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Jhair Triana (Praktikant Atkinson)")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Jhair Triana (Praktikant Atkinson)")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (Craig Kelley)
Re: Is the PC era over? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: The future... (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 15:44:40 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 22 May 2000 03:26:53 -0700...
...and steve@howdy <steve@howdy> wrote:
> I think there should be one place to report bugs for linux. The
> way it is now seem confusing. How do people enter bug reports
> against other OS's such as windows? (not a window user so I do
> not know).
If you find a bug in the Linux *kernel*, the canonical way is to
submit it to the responsible maintainer. If no one is listed as the
maintainer of the respective feature in the MAINTAINERS file, the bug
is to be report to Linus Torvalds directly. Instructions how to do this
can be found in /usr/src/linux/README.
To get a better bugfix faster, in /usr/src/linux/README and in
/usr/src/linux/Documentation/BUG-HUNTING, you can find instructions
how to track kernel bugs down.
mawa
--
Life: it's been hit or miss since I lost the manual.
-- Michael Bonnell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 14:59:44 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 21 May 2000 22:11:08 -0400...
...and Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It was the Sat, 20 May 2000 23:39:38 -0400...
> > ...and Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On the desktop, why use an OS without jagged fonts when other OSes
> don't?
> >
> > This is pathetic. So you're *that* completely out of other arguments?
> > Nothing else to make a point with but *fonts*?
> >
> > Anyway, if you use good fonts, antialiasing doesn't matter very much.
> > My fonts are not antialiased, but they aren't jagged either.
> >
> > mawa
>
> That sounds very much like a server user mentality.
> Figures.
The only Linux machine I use is the desktop machine in front of my
desk, and I use that box (and only that) for all my computing tasks.
Anyway I don't know what you mean by "server user mentality". Sounds
very much like nonsense to me. What's a server user? People don't use
servers like they use a desktop machine, people administrate them and
lock them away in cabinets.
mawa
--
Look at the community. Look at how fast they turn the crank. They know
how to create a desktop environment out of the middle of nowhere in
less than two years - how could there be a company not scared by this?
-- mawa
------------------------------
From: Illya Vaes <[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: Mon, 22 May 2000 16:19:19 +0200
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>I think Todd's skeptecism is justified; so far the only
>person who has posted a quote to defend this posted a quote
>where MS didn't actually say this.
Wasn't it www.ntinternal.com or something like that, that mentioned the
scatter-and-gather disk stuff *specifically* added for the benefit of MS' own
SQL Server? The defragmenting APIs that were still officially undocumented
when I read their stuff?
No doubt Schulman's "Undocumented DOS" and "Undocumented Windows" can name a
lot more.
Do your own homework if it's facts you want to know.
--
Illya Vaes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385 Not speaking for anyone but myself
------------------------------
From: Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux fails - again
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 16:26:37 +0200
Paul Voller schreef:
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2000, Full Name wrote:
>
> > We had a brief power outage today. Affected were two Sun Ultras
> > (Solaris 2.7), an aging HP-UX, a SCO Intel box, two NT BDC's, around
> > 50 NT workstations and one Linux Intel box.
> > <snip>
> > This is actually the second time we've observed the boot sector of a
> > hard disk drive to fail during a single uptime of an NT machine. This
> > is because our users never re-boot their NT boxes. NT has uptimes
> > longer than the life of some hard disk drives :-)
> <snip>
>
> Wow! How /do/ you get NT to run for more than a day without
> rebooting? When I used Access to manage a couple of large database tables,
> the bloody thing cooked itself!
>
> Sorry. I just get bitter about the successes of others. But as a
> precaution, I would switch hard disk suppliers...
Oh come on! You've got to give NT more credit than that!
NT and W2K are really stable! They won't crash every day!
Sometimes you get uptimes with those of over a week! If it only
runs a file- and printserver it could even be up for a full
month!
;-)
------------------------------
From: "Jhair Triana (Praktikant Atkinson)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 16:19:29 +0200
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Jhair Triana (Praktikant Atkinson) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Depends what you mean by improvements. Fadout menus (can Linux do
> > > that?),
> > > > > fadout Windows (now part of the API).
> > > >
> > > > Wow, a major innovation on MS' part. Fadeout menus! What will they
> > > > think of next?
> > >
> > > There's a lot to be said for ergonomic engineering.
> >
> > Ergonomic engineering should be used in the user interface design, not in
> > system software design. Remember, Linux is an operating system not an user
> > interface.
>
> We're talking about Windows 2000, not Linux (other than the quote about
> Linux being able to do it). The person should have said, can X do that?.
>
To say, can X do that? is not correct. X is a Window _System_ not a Window
Manager.
>
> Windows 2000 is a complete brand name system, not a kernel. Much like Red
> Hat Linux is a complete system. So saying, "Can Red Hat do that?" would be
> correct.
No, that is not correct. RedHat does not develop the Window Managers
directly( as far as i know excepting the Orbit work in RedHat Labs ).
------------------------------
From: "Jhair Triana (Praktikant Atkinson)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 16:21:21 +0200
I meant, RedHat doesn't develop Window Manager's components directly.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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, 22 May 2000 09:52:12 -0500
Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>Windows communicates very closely with DOS and replaces many DOS
> >>>functions (and in Windows 95, nearly all of them). Windows uses DOS
data
> >>>structures for process and module creation.
> >>Windows isn't (part of) DOS. So any data it's accessing isn't "internal
> >>data".
> >>So (other) 3d party programs should be able to get to it to.
> >>If they shouldn't, neither should Windows.
> >That's not the issue here.
>
> It is if you mean to defend MS by making blanket statements about their
having
> every right to shield off "internal data" from 3d party programs.
> If some programs _do_ have some business in that data, then your whole
> reasoning of shielding off and "private internal data" goes out the
Window.
DOS and Windows are OS's. They're not applications.
Windows cannot run without DOS, thus Windows and DOS are joined.
> >The issue is that Windows *DOES* communicate
> >very closely with DOS, and expects certain things to be certain ways.
>
> So did every DOS extender (which, BTW, nicely summarizes Windows).
> That's what you have APIs for. You know, like OLE (version 1 or 2).
An application can run on any system which provides the right API's (such as
WINE), the OS cannot. Windows replaces many of the DOS API's with protected
mode callbacks. That's not the same thing as "every DOS extender", which
merely makes a real-mode DOS call from protected mode.
> >Microsoft has no control over any other version of DOS, so it can't
> >guarantee that Windows will run correctly with a non-MS or IBM version of
> >it.
>
> As has been said umpteen times, nobody asked them to guarantee that.
Untrue. MS is a large company that many of it's clients expect certain
things from. Additionally, since MS offered no-charge tech support at the
time, support was a cost absorbed by MS.
> The discussion is about their (alledged) right to *prevent* other DOS's to
run
> Windows (or feign incompatibility).
So, MS should just blindly run on whatever junk pretends it's MS-DOS and let
the buyer beware? You don't think MS has a responsibility to take a few
precautions against obvious stability issues?
> Your MS master has taught you well; once your "argument" has been exposed
you
> neatly side-step the issue and go along another (dark) path.
> In Usenet words, one strawman down, several more to go.
I haven't side-stepped anything.
As an example, car companies frequenly provide circumstances in which their
warranty will be voided if they do things which can cause the product to
malfunction. Example, putting in unapproved motor oil. Since GM can't
modify their engines to prevent unapproved motor oil from being added to
their cars, their only choice is to void the warranty.
MS could probably have refused technical support if your an DR-DOS, but why
make a customer angry?
> >>>Windows 3.0 and 3.1 was not marketed as an add-on for any version of
DOS.
> >>>It was marketed as an add-on for MS-DOS or PC-DOS, since those two
> >>>versions had very known structures.
> >>Keep reurgitating the MS partyline. Who knows, someone might even begin
to
> >>believe it/you!
> >So, you're suggesting that Windows WAS marketed as an add-on for other
> >DOS's?
>
> Their marketing has nothing to do with the right of shielding off "private
> internal data structures" and letting their own "3rd party" program get at
> supposedly "private internal data structures".
No. YOU quoted the above material, then responded specifically to that
material by stating that nobody should believe the material that was quoted.
If you had intended the entire post to be referenced to that, you wouldn't
have quoted that portion and made a response to it.
The only conclusion one can draw was that the text referred specifically to
that text, thus you were stating that it was wrong.
Now who's dancing?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 09:56:18 -0500
Jhair Triana (Praktikant Atkinson) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > We're talking about Windows 2000, not Linux (other than the quote about
> > Linux being able to do it). The person should have said, can X do
that?.
>
> To say, can X do that? is not correct. X is a Window _System_ not a
Window
> Manager.
Menu's are X objects though, and you cannot have X objects with transparency
without support in X. Yes, I know X has such support, but that's not the
question here.
> > Windows 2000 is a complete brand name system, not a kernel. Much like
Red
> > Hat Linux is a complete system. So saying, "Can Red Hat do that?" would
be
> > correct.
>
> No, that is not correct. RedHat does not develop the Window Managers
> directly( as far as i know excepting the Orbit work in RedHat Labs ).
Actually, Red Hat is very involved with several window managers, and pays
people to work on them. But that's not the point, which is that Red Hat is
a complete distribution, and one can apply a statement like "can red hat do
that?" to it.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 May 2000 08:52:54 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne) writes:
[snip]
> 3. I'm not clear on whether the APIs are compatible; if the source code
> using the varying approaches is outright different, that will have
> Expensive SideEffects.
>
> It may not be obvious whether a particular program would benefit more
> from one approach or the other; the question being whether the thread
> switching overhead in a kernel-based scheme is outweighed by the ability
> to parallelize.
GUI and event-driven progrmaming seems to lend to threads rather
nicely. Having your GUI program fork and wait doesn't make as much
sense as a command-line version (in which multitasking *usually*
involves multiple shell windows). Command-line apps usually have a
clear path of execution which works great without threads (ditto for
many server types).
PAN is a great example of multithreaded GUI programming. Compare it
with any legacy X11 newsreader to see the difference.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the PC era over?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 15:55:57 GMT
On Fri, 19 May 2000 14:50:44 -0500, John Sanders
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, you can plug a Compact PCI card into a PCI slot?
No. This is the start of the many fallacies surrounding Compact PCI.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 22 May 2000 10:57:36 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, KDE _is_ GPL'd. That is a requirement of using Qt Free
>Edition. I'm not sure that using the Lesser GPL is even an option.
>
>That option _does_ exist for GTK+ and GTK--.
>
>For myself, if I am going to produce free software, I want it to be
>GPL. I don't want my work to be used in proprietary software unless I
>get paid for it.
This doesn't make a bit of sense from a user's perspective. You
are saying that I can use the code only as long as it isn't linked
to something else that I might happen to need that is under
someone else's control. I don't think the internet would exist
as we know it today had it not been for the reference BSD code
that does allow use in proprietary works as well as additional
free ones.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I also don't feel that I can produce code of such
>high quality that others should pay to use it a la' Microsoft
>shitware. However, I can certainly do good things with the help of
>others. I think such help is easier to get if the code is GPL. It
>means no one can steal the work of others.
>
>What TrollTech is currently doing with Qt 2.x and higher is a good
>thing. People who produce GPL software can use Qt without worrying
>about the QPL. Modifying Qt is another story, but I expect that
>worthy changes would be incorporated into Qt. It is certainly
>possible to use inheritance to extend Qt. Your code is GPL anyway.
>TrollTech can't take GPL code and put it under the QPL.
>
>If you don't like Qt, then you can simply use another toolkit.
>GTK+/GTK-- is a popular, free toolkit. There is also Tk. Tk has been
>ported to more platforms than both Qt and GTK+.
>
>If the above options, including toolkits I haven't mentioned, are not
>to your liking, then you can undertake writing your own toolkit. I'm
>sure that is more work than writing any single application.
>
>--
>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: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The future...
Date: 22 May 2000 16:00:21 GMT
Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On Thu, 18 May 2000 21:57:59 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:>The Server market distinct from the Workstation is gone. Desktop PCs
:>will either get smaller in the direction of thin-clients, or be
:>indistinguishable from servers.
:>
: Users want thick clients. They more or less demand them - it makes
: them feel secure.
: I don't know if you've notice but the world has moved away from thin
: clients over the last 20 years. The only way this will change is if
: thin clients appear more or less identical to thick clients from the
: user perspective.
You're kidding, right? Ever hear of the World Wide Web?
By targetting as many apps as possible to the web (effectively
thinning them down to forms and CGI), people don't have to
install as much crap and all the programming occurs on the
server side.
Or maybe you'd prefer to install a seperate app for every
site on the internet. I'm sure users would just *love* that.
:>Windows is going to die. Not because of MS, exactly, but because the
:>world is going towards standards. While UNIX is not a majority player,
:>it is a standards based multi-vendor platform. MS will bluster about
:>being the "defacto-standard" but more and more IT people are realizing
:>that public standards are better than ubiquitous proprietary standards.
: Standards in Unix?
Standards, in this sense, means interoperable network standards.
This includes fun stuff such as SMTP, NNTP, HTTP, FTP and even
a few fun bits like POP3, IMAP and X11. People like standards
because Things Just Work. And the more standard the better.
That's why on the server side of things, UNIX and UNIX-alikes
remain the majority player.
But if you'd like to twist the comment into something about
actual UNIX standardization itself, be my guest. Just keep in
mind that even most system administrators don't give a rat's
ass about the petty differences between the UNIXes.
: Where is the standard location to install third party software?
Wherever you want it.
: Where is the standard location for the shadow password file?
/etc/shadow, assuming there is a shadow file.
: What is the standard GIU for a Unix box?
X11, assuming you mean GUI. What's running over X11 is irrelevent.
: What is the standard name of the mounted file system table file?
Eh? Is this the file of file systems *to* mount
or the file of file systems that *are* mounted?
In either case, /etc/*tab should do the trick.
: Why is there a /usr/etc and a /etc on many Unix installs? Why is
: /usr/etc sometimes a symbolic link to /etc?
Because its fun!
: Were is the standard location to keep users files on a Unix system?
A hard drive. Check /etc/passwd for individual user paths.
: What is the standard shell on a Unix system? Why is it traditional to
: write scripts in Bourne shell?
/bin/sh is standard. And it is widely used because it is standard.
: Where is the standard place to assign the path variable for sh?
: cshell? bash? korn shell? trusted cshell?
.cshrc .bashrc notice a trend?
: Why does Oracle 7 place it's listener configuration files in
: /var/adm/oracle? What is the difference between /usr/adm and
: /var/adm? Why is /usr/adm sometimes a symbolic link to /var/adm?
: Why is it when I telnet from one Unix system to another I have to
: issue a 'stty erase' command so I can delete characters?
Because you're too lazy to modify your .cshrc to do it for you?
: Why is /usr/boot a symbolic link to /usr/kvm/boot on some Unix
: systems?
: Why does the SunOS box I just logged into have 1741 symbolic links in
: /etc, /usr and /bin?
Because 1740 wasn't good enough.
: Why was my password just broadcast in clear text on at least two
: subnets?
Because you keep emailing it to people?
: What is the standard name of the kernel executable on a Unix box?
Who cares?
: Why is Solaris so different to SunOS?
Solaris *is* SunOS..with a higher version.
Solaris 2.6 = SunOS 5.6 Why? Ask Sun.
: Why does Linux have so many distributions? What is the 'standard'
: Linux distribution?
Because competition is good.
<age'ism commentary snipped>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 16:03:19 GMT
On Sun, 21 May 2000 22:11:08 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It was the Sat, 20 May 2000 23:39:38 -0400...
>> ...and Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On the desktop, why use an OS without jagged fonts when other OSes
>don't?
>>
>> This is pathetic. So you're *that* completely out of other arguments?
>> Nothing else to make a point with but *fonts*?
>>
>> Anyway, if you use good fonts, antialiasing doesn't matter very much.
>> My fonts are not antialiased, but they aren't jagged either.
>>
>> mawa
>> --
>> Everything's gonna be all right.
>
>That sounds very much like a server user mentality.
>Figures.
No, just a more mature client mentality.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 16:05:48 GMT
On 21 May 2000 22:22:29 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <fI0W4.194$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If you use low quality hardware on the desktop. Put some more pixels
>>> there and X will use them nicely.
>>>
>>Les, are there some good free fonts I could use that you're using?
>
>Depends on your definition of free, but you might try these:
>http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/contrib/noarch/noarch/webfonts-1-3.noarch.html
It also might depend on one's opinion of 'good' as well...
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 16:08:27 GMT
On 22 May 2000 11:25:24 GMT, Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Owen Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> SCREW THE BUSINESS WORLD! buy a mac, head off to the mountains and write
>> haikus!!!
>
>Why bother getting a Mac? If you're serious about screwing the
>business world, just head off to the mountains and write haikus by
<sarcasm>
Yeah, he actually wants to exercise some free will in an
allegedly free market. Therefore, he should be next door
neighbors with the Unibomber...
</sarcasm>
>scratching on a bit of rock. Compound this by talking only in
>riddles and refusing to cut your hair (going otherwise naked is
>probably not advisable initially) and you should be able to pass
>for a major religious figure within a decade.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
