Linux-Advocacy Digest #686, Volume #26 Thu, 25 May 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: You have never seen Linux like this (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome (abraxas)
Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome (abraxas)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Mark Wilden)
Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Donavon Pfeiffer Jr)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux, Is it good? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Jim Richardson)
Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Tim Hockin)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Giuliano Colla)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You have never seen Linux like this
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 09:57:35 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry, I hadn't seen how many times they posted the same message.
Desperation is a good sign, I suppose.
Salvador Peralta wrote:
>
> Probably not an appropriate response to someone interested in hiring
> people and helping us to grow the community of paid linux developers.
>
> YMMV
>
> --
> Salvador Peralta
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.la-online.com
>
> Tim Kelley wrote:
> >
> > Sandi Taylor wrote:
> > >
> > > I am looking for Linux programmers. I will pay $1000 referral fees for
> > > anyone referred that gets hired.
> >
> > you're not going to reach any linux programmers by getting into
> > their killfiles ... which you've just done.
> >
> > --
> >
> > Tim Kelley
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome
Date: 25 May 2000 16:57:44 GMT
Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux exists BECAUSE the market likes it,
Wrong.
Linux existed before there was a definable market for it.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 10:11:25 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That you would say something like that suggests that you don't really
understand what a market is. The original marketplace consisted of
people who wanted a betterThanMinix, unix-like OS for cheap pc
platforms.
abraxas wrote:
>
> Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Linux exists BECAUSE the market likes it,
>
> Wrong.
>
> Linux existed before there was a definable market for it.
>
> -----yttrx
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome
Date: 25 May 2000 17:24:57 GMT
Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That you would say something like that suggests that you don't really
> understand what a market is. The original marketplace consisted of
> people who wanted a betterThanMinix, unix-like OS for cheap pc
> platforms.
The original market consisted of linus torvalds in a dormroom at
University. Your response suggests that you really havent been
using linux all that long, or if you have, you dont fully understand
its nature.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
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: 25 May 2000 18:51:20 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
> news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-kG9cixDrQoke@localhost...
> > > Yes, it is. But Windows shipped a different version, and when you
> install
> > > Windows, it changes your config.sys to point to the version in the
> windows
> > > directory.
> > >
> > > Try again.
> >
> > So how come even this morning I was able to run a shop-bought copy of
> > Windows 3.1 in an OS/2 (Warp 3) VDM without even knowing at that point
> > about the himem.sys file that was supposed to have been changed?
>
> I'm not sure how the conversation switched to this, but the original
> argument was about the code that detected non-MS-DOS. Since the warning
> messages are disabled in the retail version of Windows 3.1, it wouldn't show
> them.
>
[Bzzzztt!]
Wrong answer. This is the same copy of Windows 3.1 that originally
refused to run with DR-DOS 6 (I only ever bought the one - I kept
switching the underlying operating system until it would function
reasonably well, going - in an upward line - from MS DOS 5 via DR-DOS
6 to OS/2 Warp 3).
So I have in fact disproven both claims you made, i.e. the one where
you said GA Windows 3.1 didn't have any "warning messages" in it
anymore, as well as the one where you claimed that those warning
messages were aimed at _any_ non-Microsoft version of DOS.
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
This operating system/newsreader does not support the
advanced features of VapourSig 1.1.
Please upgrade your operating system/newsreader to the
latest version of RipOffCorp's product.
Have a nice day.
========================================================
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
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: 25 May 2000 18:51:22 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> To *get* the damned fixpack you've got to get to IBM's WWW site. To
> get there, you need a modern browser, because I had horrendous errors
> and "Type .NSF isn't known; save to disk?" errors when I tried with
> WebExplorer 1.2 (which IBM includes). However, to get that modern
> browser (Netscape 4.61, which I could navigate to on IBM's WWW site,
> after 5 minutes of searching - grumble) you need FixPack 5. However,
> to get FixPack 5, you need to be able to navigate on IBM's WWW site.
>
>
Either I'm an extremely lucky man, or you must be doing something
wrong. I have been running Warp 4 since end '97 (when I won a copy in
a raffles at the local UG). No fixpack has ever even been near it and
yet I am running NetScape 4.6 with no more than the usual - NetScape
related - headaches. I didn't even see a single y2k problem, although
many people told me Warp 4 without fixpacks was not compliant. Who
told you you need fixpack 5 for NetScape?
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
This operating system/newsreader does not support the
advanced features of VapourSig 1.1.
Please upgrade your operating system/newsreader to the
latest version of RipOffCorp's product.
Have a nice day.
========================================================
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 25 May 2000 17:18:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
:>
:> In comp.os.linux.misc Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> : That's just another argument in favour of test suites, then. That way,
:> : when the hardware changes, you can identify the change with the test
:> : suite, instead of wondering whether it was your latest change that broke
:> : the code.
:>
:> Unfortunately, you wouldn't know even with the test suite. Was it you?
: If the previous build succeeds with the test suite, and the current one
: doesn't, yes, it's you.
I'm afraid that's just not true. About 80% of driver changes are
reactions to kernel changes (this is different for stable kernels, but
there still is a lot of funny business - feature interaction and all
that).
:> Was it the rest of the kernel?
: Test suites are combinations of many separate unit tests that verify the
: contract agreed to by each part of the kernel is doing its job.
There isn't one. There is no agreed interface, even. Linux insists on that.
:> Was it a bad chip? Is it a bad batch of
:> chips?
: If the previous build succeeded against one chip, but fails against
: another, then it's the chip.
No, not so. There are plenty of chip specs that allow lots of room for
"occasional" delays, for example. And some chips produce more delays
than others .. in some environments. Your eepro100 multicast bug
is an example of an environmental interaction that causes the drivers
design parameters to be invalidated.
:> Will it change back again next week?
: You'll never know unless you can test it.
:> Was it the mobo?
: Dunno what a mobo is. :)
Motherboard. Read "todays working environment is not the same as
yesterdays. Today you are being floodpinged".
:> You cannot control the variables as you would like.
: That's why I think flakey hardware makes test suites even more vital.
Unfortunately, you try figuring out what is the "non-flakey"
version of the hardware!
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs
Date: 25 May 2000 13:03:40 -0500
In article <8gjiic$j2b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Timothy J. Lee <see-signature-for-email-address---junk-not-welcome> wrote:
>hauck[at]codem{dot}com writes:
>|Many distributions include DOSEMU, or you can get the latest version at
>|<http://www.dosemu.org/>. If you get that one, you'll also need to come
>|up with a version of DOS to run in the emulator (I use MS-DOS 5.0 and
>|Caldera OpenDOS).
>
>How about FreeDOS (http://www.freedos.org)?
RedHat comes with DOSEMU set up with FreeDOS (hmmm... maybe this
is in the powertools set now). You can load your own copy
of msdos instead. The problem with freedos is that it doesn't
support drive redirection so you can't map unix directories
to drive letters. You have to work with drive images instead.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 19:12:16 +0100
"Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.misc Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : If the previous build succeeds with the test suite, and the current one
> : doesn't, yes, it's you.
>
> I'm afraid that's just not true. About 80% of driver changes are
> reactions to kernel changes (this is different for stable kernels, but
> there still is a lot of funny business - feature interaction and all
> that).
Sorry, by 'current build', I mean the current build with only the
changes you've made. If you've made changes only because the kernel has
changed, then I can see that would make it harder to do unit testing.
> : Test suites are combinations of many separate unit tests that verify the
> : contract agreed to by each part of the kernel is doing its job.
>
> There isn't one. There is no agreed interface, even. Linux insists on that.
I don't mean to sound flippant, but if a piece of code doesn't have a
'contract' ('I will do this if you give me that') then it doesn't have a
spec. If it doesn't have a spec, then I can see that it would be hard to
create a unit test for it. And if you can't properly test your work, I
think the Linux team deserves even more credit for the results it has
achieved than it already does! :)
Nevertheless, if 'Linux' insists that there is no agreed interface, it
sounds to me that more work is being created than necessary. But
whatever works, I suppose...
> :> Was it a bad chip? Is it a bad batch of
> :> chips?
>
> : If the previous build succeeded against one chip, but fails against
> : another, then it's the chip.
>
> No, not so. There are plenty of chip specs that allow lots of room for
> "occasional" delays, for example.
Your test has to take that into account. Look, the only purpose of unit
tests is to make it easier to do the system test. If you can't do unit
testing, then your system testing is that much harder, takes that much
more time, and means you have to spend more time hunting for bugs that
aren't even your own (because if you can't unit test, you have no way of
knowing where the fault lies).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome
Date: 25 May 2000 13:10:32 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>We geeks are in demand. According to the L.A. Times, there will be
>nearly 800,000 new jobs created for application developers and system
>administrators in the United States this year. There will be fewer than
>400,000 applicants for those positions.
Keep in mind that many/most of these positions are configuring
and troubleshooting things that should be fully automatic.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 14:30:33 -0400
From: Donavon Pfeiffer Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2000 23:15:01 GMT, CAguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, 23 May 2000 09:05:37 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >[SNIP]
> >
> >>Microsoft was able to divert attention from this tragic farce
> >>by leaking information about the Lewinski scandal, and then
> >>giving it top priority coverage on both MSNBC.com and MSNBC TV.
> >>While no respectable press would have leaked the story, and
> >>no respectable prosecutor would have wanted the nature of the
> >>tapes and the interrogation made public and would have buried
> >>the case, Microsoft's priority coverage in it's controlled media
> >>almost lead to the overthrow of the government. They were hoping
> >>that they could humiliate Clinton into resigning, the way Hillary
> >>and her democratic henchmen tried to humiliate Nixon into resigning.
> >>
> >>Now, another diversionary tactic was to divert attention to Elian
> >>Gonzales, and the Jon Bonet Ramsey cases. Elian is cute, but not
> >>8 hours/day worth of Cute (the amount of time MSNBC spent covering
> >>this 5 minute/week human interest story).
> >
> >[SNIP]
> >
> >
> >Also, Microsoft has a fleet of specially equiped black helecopters
> >that they use to do covert night flights over their competitors in
>
> IOW, you can't really address the assertion. The fact
> remains that Microsoft has ownership in news outlets
> that give them the opportunity to maninpulate information.
> It would not be the first time that a corporation was
> accused of abusing such control.
>
>
And when the Senator from Novell launches his hearings, it won't be the
first time a corporation was able to use politicians to kill the competition.The
fact is if Bill had pumped the same money into Washington early on as everyone
else, this case case ,regardless of its merits, would never have been brought.
------------------------------
From: [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: Thu, 25 May 2000 13:33:44 -0500
On 25 May 2000 18:51:22 GMT, jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>
>> To *get* the damned fixpack you've got to get to IBM's WWW site. To
>> get there, you need a modern browser, because I had horrendous errors
>> and "Type .NSF isn't known; save to disk?" errors when I tried with
>> WebExplorer 1.2 (which IBM includes). However, to get that modern
>> browser (Netscape 4.61, which I could navigate to on IBM's WWW site,
>> after 5 minutes of searching - grumble) you need FixPack 5. However,
>> to get FixPack 5, you need to be able to navigate on IBM's WWW site.
>>
>>
>Either I'm an extremely lucky man, or you must be doing something
>wrong. I have been running Warp 4 since end '97 (when I won a copy in
>a raffles at the local UG). No fixpack has ever even been near it and
>yet I am running NetScape 4.6 with no more than the usual - NetScape
>related - headaches. I didn't even see a single y2k problem, although
>many people told me Warp 4 without fixpacks was not compliant. Who
>told you you need fixpack 5 for NetScape?
Netscape, when I tried to install it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Linux, Is it good?
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 11:03:41 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 25 May 2000 14:43:24 GMT,
Sandi Taylor, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>I am looking for Linux programmers. We will pay $1000 referral fees if we
>hire any person you refer to us. Let me know.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Stephen Barton
>Xpedition Company, L.P.
>512-327-9172
>888-842-9172
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Fax 512-327-1725
>
>
Spamming multiple newsgroups and leaving your toll-free
number scattered around is probably not the smartest thing you
could have done.
--
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.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 11:17:17 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 25 May 2000 06:00:00 GMT,
David Steuber, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson) writes:
>
>' >What do you do when two packages claim ownership of the same file?
>'
>' The only way you get this, is if you forced the install of one of the
>' packages over the complaints of rpm. Do you meant what happens when two or
>' more packages rely on a given file? if so, that's a different issue.
>
>Yes, that is what I mean. Perhaps that is not a problem?
>
If two (or more) packages rely on a particular file.
(very common with things like libc etc) then rpm will tell you
so. eg if you try and remove something (via rpm) then rpm will tell you
that package foo and bar require file baz. It's not a problem, it's a feature :)
--
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] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 18:45:20 GMT
On 25 May 2000 17:24:57 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That you would say something like that suggests that you don't really
>> understand what a market is. The original marketplace consisted of
>> people who wanted a betterThanMinix, unix-like OS for cheap pc
>> platforms.
>
>The original market consisted of linus torvalds in a dormroom at
>University. Your response suggests that you really havent been
>using linux all that long, or if you have, you dont fully understand
>its nature.
That was Linus' original audience but the market he tapped
into was quite independent of him. Had Atari had good sense
to release System V for the TT that would have been my first
choice for Machine+OS combination in ~1991.
The fact that his work found a receptive audience of both
developers and users demonstrates this.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hockin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 25 May 2000 18:44:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>' >What do you do when two packages claim ownership of the same file?
:>'
:>' The only way you get this, is if you forced the install of one of the
:>' packages over the complaints of rpm. Do you meant what happens when two or
:>' more packages rely on a given file? if so, that's a different issue.
RedHat has always had a terrible problem with file ownership in RPMs. Even
on a freshly installed system (with every redhat from 2.1 to 6.0) many
files and directories are owned by more than one package. Often, they are
even listed as having different permissions in each package. This has the
wonderful side effect that no matter what, if you do 'rpm -Va' you'll get
errors. even on a brand new system.
IMHO a fresh system should pass rpm -Va without a single message (except
maybe /etc/passwd and shadow). I'm a bit tired of RedHat's sloppiness in
this respect. If I want to use RPM to verfiy packages, I don't want
out-of-the-box conflicts. Example:
filesystem and sendmail both own /var/spool/mqueue. I think this
particular one has been fixed (I reported it enough times), but many others
exist like it.
--
Tim Hockin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This program has been brought to you by the language C and the number F.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 21:03:53 +0200
Damien wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 May 2000 06:06:36 -0400, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | Bob May wrote:
> | >
> | > Roger,
> | > >>Crashing daily.
> | > >Not a bug, since it does not generically do so. Must have been
> | > >something in the environment.
>
> [snip "Win95 crashes a lot"]
>
> | You are not going to like this but...
> |
> | My downstairs computer (Win95) has not crashed in 4 years.
> | Upstairs (this one) is also solid. Win95b
> | The secret. As little as possible is running at once. Removed the
> | "system wizard" crap for error recover, never loaded Norton error
> | recovery. Scan disk about every 30-60 days and defrag also.
> | This machine is on 24X7 (but I do "suspend" it).
> | Last time I had mysterious hardware related problems (1984 or so) it was
> | due to grounding problems in the motherboard.
>
> There we have it. The secrete to keep Windows from crashing is to
> avoid multitasking and do a lot of maintenance. I have to say, that
> sucks.
You didn't mention another option. Never power on the
computer.
--
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Via del Fonditore 3/E
Bologna (Zona Industriale Roveri)
Tel. 051 53.46.92 - 0335 610.43.35
Fax 051 53.49.89
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
