Linux-Advocacy Digest #657, Volume #26 Wed, 24 May 00 01:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: rdram: WIll is speed up a linux box? (Ray)
Re: The Path Dependence (Loren Petrich)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Jim Richardson)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night (jbarntt)
Re: Another One! (jbarntt)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: DOSEMU (Bloody Viking)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save
It?) (Dave)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Jim Richardson)
Re: PalmOS, Linux, and CodeWarrior (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 22:16:51 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Try Linux, that is all I ask. Try Suse, Caldera, Redhat,
> Mandrake,Slackware, Corel, whatever, for yourself.
>
> Try it and compare it to the Windows that you now use. A current
> edition of Windows, not Windows 95 or 98 without updates. This is a
> favorite trick of the LinoScrews, to compare a current version of
> Linux to an outdated version of Windows. Terry "The porter" Porter is
> an expert at this method.
>
>
> Try Linux, please try it. Decide for yourself. And then please come
> back here and post your experiences with Linux.
>
>
Wassa matter win-boy?
-- Installataion problems?
-- Too much text and not enough
animated paper clips, dogs, etc...?
-- Can't get your nic or sound card to work?
((sniff...sniffle)bwah-ha-ha-ha!)
-- Mwhaaaaa...my cdrom is not detected!!
-- 10101010101010101
10101010101010101
1010101010101010110
Haahahahahahahaha!!
-- Oh..and can't burn a cdrw? yahahahahahah!
Forget linux. You're too advanced for an OS probably
older than you (or your mentality).
> If you like Linux, great, you have found a new life. If you hate
> Linux, let us know why.
>
> Try Linux and see for yourself....
>
> Simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray)
Subject: Re: rdram: WIll is speed up a linux box?
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 03:15:29 GMT
On Tue, 23 May 2000 12:25:13 -0500, john <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have been in the market recently for a computer. Should I get one
>with rdram it I want to run Linux? Will it be worth the extra cost?
Most likely no. As it stands today RDRAM really doesn't perform much better
than SDRAM (and in some cases worse). Consider taking the money you would
have spent on RDRAM and spend it on a better HD subsystem or maybe a faster
processor or even 3-5x more SDRAM.
--
Ray
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.media,alt.journalism,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: The Path Dependence
Date: 24 May 2000 03:21:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 22 May 2000 23:06:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>Look. I'll speak slowly, so you could understand: using phrases
>like "dr. Pangloss" or "grow up" in response to arguments of
>merit is hallmark of immature and/or mediocre mind. ...
You don't know who Dr. Pangloss had been?
>LP shows deliberate and systematic attempts of ignoring factual evidence,
>quoted at length in the "Typing Errors" article. Pretending evidence
>doesn't exist does not make it vanish.
What an excellent description of MK's positions.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 10:53:49 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 23 May 2000 13:53:53 +0100,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>CAguy wrote:
>>
>> On 22 May 2000 19:23:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, with billions of dollars now riding on the success of linux...I
>> think it's about time they kicked the kiddies off kernal development,
>> and start using a more professional development process.
>
>who is 'they'?
>
>-Ed
>
>
>
>
>
>> James
>
More to the point, how would "they" kick the "kiddies" of the kernal [sic]
developement in the first place?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
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: Tue, 23 May 2000 10:59:26 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 23 May 2000 15:13:49 GMT,
Bob Germer, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On 05/23/2000 at 02:33 PM,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) said:
>
>> Much as youd like to think otherwise, bob, you actually arent helping
>> anyone here. You're simply actively appearing to be a fucking
>> lunatic.
>
>What a proven psychotic like you who defends a criminal organization
>thinks matter not a whit to me.
>
>--
It mattered enough for you to reply saying how little it mattered... wierd...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 24 May 2000 03:19:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Darren Winsper writes:
:> Would you care to point us in the direction of any major bugs in the
:> stable kernels that have survived several revisions?
: How much sooner might those bugs have been fixed given a decent bug
: tracking system?
None for the interesting bugs. Report an interesting bug, and it'll be
fixed in a jiffy. Boring bugs indeed will be forgotten.
: I'm running 2.3.99 on dual PIII's with an Adaptec 7896 and having trouble
: with sound: sending anything to /dev/dsp hangs the SCSI driver. If there
I believe that's known. I've seen several threads go past on the scsi
problem in 2.3.99 and above. Doug's working on it. Ask him!
: was a kernel BTS I'd research the problem there and either test any fix I
EH? Why don't you mail the maintainer? That's debian practice too!
: at fixing it myself. I'm not interested in spending hours rooting around
: in a mailing list archive, though. I can do without sound: to me it's just
As you know, you might get Alan's interest on that one too. But 2.3.99
has hundreds of bugs like that so it's not high priority yet. Make sure
at least Doug knows about it.
Peter
------------------------------
From: jbarntt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 03:29:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simone Paddock wrote:
> >
> > For whatever reason, a great many Linux and UNIX
> > users spend a lot more time working with Windows
> > than they might like, or like to admit.
> >
> > As Tim O'Reilly says in "Windows by Day, Linux by Night ":
> > "...because we don't admit to our use of Windows, because
> > it's a guilty secret, we don't spend the kind of time learning
> > how to get the most out of the system. We do what we have
> > to, and then go home, to where we feel more comfortable.
> > That changed for me a year and a half ago."
> >
> > Find out why and how at:
> > http://windows.oreilly.com/news/byday_0500.html
> >
> > The first 1000 people who read Tim's article get a free book.
> >
> > Simone Paddock
> > O'Reilly & Associates
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > www.oreilly.com
>
> So what is the point of this? This is the "LINUX" advocacy group, not
a
> Windows group. If you want to attract Windows users to read the book,
go
> to the windows advocacy groups. The notion that we who use Linux and
> feel comfortable with it, simply need a Windows 9x in a nutshell book
is
> insane. I know Windows, I have used every version of MS Windows ever
> made, and I mean that!! Go away, troll.
Oh, so in a Linux advocacy group only Linux advocates are allowed to
post ? Sounds boring to me. Troll ? Don't think so. The original post
advertises the availability of a book for users more familiar with *nix
than Windows. What's wrong with that ? If you're a Windows guru, don't
buy the book.
>
> If you want to talk books, the title "Windows for dummies" is correct
> and descriptive on many levels.
Perhaps, but there is also a "Linux for Dummies" book available also.
Maybe you should check it out ?
>
> Looking at a book case of O'Reilly books, I think I shall start a
> boycott. The f^%$^king nerve to try and promote Windows here.
Go ahead, start a boycott. O'Reilly is a good publisher. If they
publish one book you don't want to own, that makes them evil ?
>
> --
> 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?
>
--
jbarntt
<Chocolate Watchband>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: jbarntt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another One!
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 03:41:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 2:1 wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I remember the days of proper (well written and extermely clever)
> > > polymorphic viruses. Inserting random gibberish is pathetic.
Didn't some
> > > of the old ones used to encrypt their own code or something, so
that
> > > only about 2 bytes were guarnteed to be the same from one version
to
> > > another?
> >
> > Maybe it is time for VisualVirus for the 'would be' and
unskilled
> > internet terrorists. Could be one of the spin offs from the MS
break
> > up.
>
> It'd give Dr. Watson something to do.
The good doctor seems to already have plenty to do. Why make life even
more difficult. NT suffers from a chronic illness that needs more than
one MD.
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
>
--
jbarntt
<Chocolate Watchband>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: 23 May 2000 23:18:16 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>' I'm not arguing about your right to do whatever you want, I
>' am just saying that I don't understand what motivates you
>' to create a situation where I can download code, have it
>' on my machine and use it in any way I want, but only in
>' cases where I can do the linking myself. If another needed
>' component is controlled by someone else with an equal
>' right to choose their license, I won't be able to obtain
>' and use the combination together.
>
>Ok, now I am really confused. Could you please give me some example
>of where you have two pieces of code that you want to use together,
>but can't because of license restrictions?
If you obtain the parts separately, you can probably combine
them as long as you don't redistribute them again. However,
the FSF insists that 'user-does-the-link' violates the
GPL restrictions if it creates something that could not
be distributed under GPL terms (i.e. where source for
all components cannot be redistributed freely).
>On my machines, I have code with quite a variety of licenses. Those
>include GPL, BSD, QPL, Perl's Artistic License, the TCL license, and a
>bunch of others. The base system is GNU/Linux. A bunch of libraries
>in use are either GPL or LGPL, including libc.
>
>Have I violated someone's license?
Just putting the code on the same machine is not a problem.
You must create a 'derived work', which has been commonly
described as code linked in a single process. Linking
GNU readline (GPL, not LGPL) into a database control
program that used a commercial client library would be
an example. While you can probably get away with building
such a program yourself, distributing it would be at
least questionable, especially if you redistributed a copy
of the GPL'd readline with it. Now for something even
more confusing, consider what happens if you have a
perl script that dynamically loads readline and also
uses DBI which can pull in an assortment of database
client libraries at runtime, including commercial versions.
If this ends up linking to (say) Oracle libs, does it
become illegal to distribute the script?
For an even stranger case, consider mod_perl, compiled into apache,
both of which can dynamically link other modules and the process
lifetime spans many requests. If one web requests runs a script
that links a GPL'd library, and another pulls in a commercial
library, you now have a derived work (by some definition)
that is not allowed, yet no single thing is responsible for it.
>I am not trying to create a situation where you or anyone else can't
>use code that I write or code that is derived from code that I write.
>I am trying to avoid the situation where improvements to my code are
>not returned to me or to others. The whole point of FSF style free
>software is to advance the state of the art by not shackling code with
>proprietary licensing.
The GPL instead shackles any other code linked into a derived
work with its own restrictions, or in the cases where
other code already has different restrictions it makes the
combination impossible.
>If there is a better way to achieve this goal, please tell me about
>it.
In the case of a complete stand-alone package, restrictions on
derived works may not be a problem. For things that would
be useful as a component, the LGPL or BSD style opens up
more possibilities.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DOSEMU
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 04:50:27 GMT
Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: This made me think of something.
: Been doing some development lately for DSP chips. The tools are DOS
: (circa 1994) and use the Rational DOS extender. Under DOSEMU 1.0 with
: MS-DOS 5.0 everything works perfectly with the make from DJGPP, which has
: it's own DOS extender. Under NT, the same make can't seem to launch the
: compiler or assembler. No errors, just doesn't work. Using the make from
: cygwin (which is a Windows console app) does work under NT.
: All I can figure is some weird DOS extender conflict. Just thought I'd
: throw that out to see if anyone had any ideas.
Or, you'll have to code up WINE-NT. Good luck on uncovering all the hidden
API and .DLL calls! That thing would be a bitch to develop.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
------------------------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary
Split Save It?)
Date: 23 May 2000 23:56:03 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Colin R. Day"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Edwin wrote:
>
> > Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8gcd95$cd4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Bill Altenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > [snip]>
> > > Much like Adolf Hitler's policy of never retreating,
> >
> > According to Goodwin's law, this thread is officially dead. Move along
> > folks. No thread to see here.
> >
>
> And how is this "law" enforced? What happens if I keep posting to
> this thread?
Then we sic the Nazis on you!
Now this thread is *double* dead! :-)
Dave
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
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: Tue, 23 May 2000 21:12:52 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 23 May 2000 09:00:00 GMT,
David Steuber, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>"Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>' Every time I've tried to install an RH rpm on SuSE, it's given me
>' dependency nightmares. SuSE use a different rpm naming convention, and
>' apparently that's the cause :-(
>
>R otten
>P ackage
>M anagement
>
>Then again, InstallSheild, possibly the best installer in Windows
>land, is even worse. Go figure.
>
>Do people really have trouble with ./configure, make, make install?
>It has _never_ been a problem for me. Maybe I am just lucky. Even
>though I changed my compiler, libc, and libtools.
>
>--
>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
The problem with ./configure;make;make install is that it has no
dependency checking for upgrades and removals. I can't check what program
/sbin/foo belongs too. RPM, while not without it's flaws (name conflicts in
SuSE being one of them) does allow this and other nicities.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: PalmOS, Linux, and CodeWarrior
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 21:13:45 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 23 May 2000 11:28:14 -0400,
Wallingford, Ted, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Is there anybody out there developing apps for PalmOS using Linux and/or
>CodeWarrior?
>
>Tips on doing so would be helpful...
>
I work with the palm using gcc and prc-tools. Not codewarrior though.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
