Linux-Advocacy Digest #696, Volume #26 Fri, 26 May 00 10:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition (Streamer)
Re: Linux good choice for home desktop. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Saddest anti-Linux site on the web? (Dr. Strangelove)
Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition (Krist van Besien)
Re: Linux (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David T. Blake)
Re: vote on MS split-up (James Stevenson)
Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition (Christopher Browne)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Donal K. Fellows)
PHP vs Java (Ben Chausse)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 06:21:59 -0500
ajam wrote:
> Point well taken! And at first sight, I completely agree; but you have to
> look a little bit further to realize that this is only the beginning. I
> remember when not that long ago they cranked up the price of their distro to
> around $70.
As long as RedHat is downloadable for the cost of an internet connection, I'm
not worried. In fact, as long as many Linux distros are downloadable for the
cost of an internet connection, I'm not worried.
> Well, they have one at one hundred something. How many
> commercial applications have you seen lately that say something like RedHat
> Ready? Just wait one more year or so!
Nah, don't fall into this 'Redhat only' misinformation. Once Redhat
distribution is installed, it is a Linux system...not a RedHat system. Despite
RedHat putting their name on all the display banners, it is a Linux system.
This means you can do things like download some Suse or other tools, compile
and run on a redhat system, or you can download some RedHat tools and put them
on a Suse or others distro-installed system and run those tools. And you can
always download and recompile the latest kernel itself in any distro.
I suspect that "RedHat Ready" merely says it has only been tested on RedHat
distro-installed systems. I also suspect some commercial applications creators
are getting lazy, and just don't bother to test their application on anything
else but a RedHat distro....it doesn't mean it won't work on Suse, Debian,
etc. BTW, no law says you can't install rpm on the other Linux
distros....don't be fooled in thinking only that only .rpm packages will work
on Redhat or Suse (but then again, there are those of us who prefer the
tarballs).
>
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux good choice for home desktop.
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 11:06:41 GMT
In article <O33X4.19949$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Phipps) wrote:
> In article <hJVW4.38357$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Frank Rizzo
wrote:
> [sniped empty space between Frank Rizzo's ears]
> >Psych!
>
> linux isn't a good os for the desktop *yet*
It depends on the distribution. Mandrake 7.0, or SuSE 6.4 or
or Caldera OpenLinux 2.4, when preinstalled on a desktop machine,
and preconfigured - it's remarkably easy to use. Mandrake and SuSE
can be configured without even bringing up the terminal window.
As for "look and feel", Linux provides more flexibility, but there's
pretty much a common "default" setting that's pretty easy to deal with.
I remember the days when you had to try and teach brand new Mac users
how to double-click. Today, they can do three button mice.
Since the migration from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95, users aren't that
intimidated by an alteration in the desktop.
There are a few changes that take getting used to. Like
single-clicking an icon to start the application, like waiting
a few seconds for your X11 window to open.
> but it will be ...
Linux is constantly evolving, while still maintaining backward
compatibility. You can run Linux programs that were available
in 1993 on the latest versions of Linux. On the other hand,
most of the programs running on Microsoft Windows in 1993 can't
be run on Windows 2000. In fact, most of those Windows 3.1
programs actually DO run on Linux (with fewer lockups and program
failures).
> it just needs the people that
> program decent software to set standards
> for a desktop ...
Sounds like a pitch for Microsoft to come in and "set the standards"
for the Linux Desktop.
Part of what's great about Linux is that there ARE some rigorous
standards which increase the ability to interchange between
various desktop software applications.
I want to see Lotus Notes Client for Linux, then I can switch
to Linux full time.
Linux also needs a good project manager, either CA Superproject,
Sun Project Manager, are Teamwork for Linux would be
very hot products. Rational Rose for Linux would also be
nice.
Meanwhile, Linux has some great tools. It would cost about
$6000 to get the software included in the Linux distribution
for Windows.
> I do use it as my personal desktop because I got
> sick of finding the programs I like didn't like
> windows ... and ushaly caused BSoDs or 50GPF's a
> second .. I"ve seen GPFs get rid of everything but
> mIRC ... exiting mIRC rebooted the computer ...
> now what kind of cheap ass shit was that?
> at least I know if I close BitchX it's not going
> to reboot my Linux box ...
Ironically, Windows 2000 is getting a reputation for
being more reliable, but none of the third party vendors,
who have been locked-out by Microsoft's shovel-ware and
bundling are focusing more of their efforts toward Linux and
Java.
It looks like several Game Machine makers will be offering
Linux in a game format.
> WhyteWolf
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Dr. Strangelove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Saddest anti-Linux site on the web?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 11:42:33 GMT
Just take a look at this site, it is clearly the saddest anti-Linux
site on the web, made by a 14 year old spotty geek:
http://www.startnet-uk.com
------------------------------
From: Krist van Besien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 10:56:54 GMT
ajam wrote:
>
> Point well taken! And at first sight, I completely agree; but you have to
> look a little bit further to realize that this is only the beginning. I
> remember when not that long ago they cranked up the price of their distro to
> around $70. Well, they have one at one hundred something. How many
> commercial applications have you seen lately that say something like RedHat
> Ready? Just wait one more year or so!
If RedHat can charge $70 and get away with it (BTW, I don't see their
boxes for that price in our stores, it's more like $40 here) it must
mean that many people find their product to be at least worth that much.
If you fear RedHat might go the ways of Microsoft, remember one thing.
Anybody can buy a RedHat distro, and then make as many copies of the CD
as hee/she feels like, and sell them again. For whatever price. So the
1$ Linux CD's that are exact copies of RedHat's offerings are always
going to make sure that RedHat will not be able to charge more for the
value it adds then the price the market is willing to pay for it.
Remember also that you don't have to _buy_ a RedHat distro in order to
be allowed to _use_ it.
Krist
--
Where do you think you're going today?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Linux
Date: 26 May 2000 12:10:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> there are obviously not enough of them... he probably works for a linux ipo
> that is now being forced to do something other than make claims...
They seem to be trying to recruit people to work on sorting out Dell
preloads of Linux.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake)
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: 25 May 2000 06:39:34 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake) writes:
> ' I was not arguing I should create a library. I was not arguing
> ' against QTs right to use whatever license they like. I was
> ' arguing that people should think twice before referring to QT
> ' licensing as substantially free or "open source". The right to
> ' fork is absent, the right not to have your contributions included
> ' in proprietary works (such as QT Pro) is gone, and QT gets a copy
> ' of EVERYTHING that even links to their code, even if it is not
> ' publicly available.
>
> I see what you are saying now, I think. Mind you, you loose any such
> rights if you use GPL code as well, so there is also the same
> consideration with that license.
GPL is only one of the FSF licenses for libraries. There is no
provision for ANYONE to include your code in proprietary works as
there is in QT (a one way provision, mind you). As long as your
work can be considered independent of the GPL'd work, you can use
ANY license you like for yur work. To quote the GPL
"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and
separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms,
do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as
separate works."
But that is besides the point.
The GPL preserves certain freedoms. If software is licensed under
it, you have the right to use it. You have the right to change it.
You have the right to fork it. All you have to do is provide the
same freedoms to recipients of derivative works. Nullum gratiutum
prandium, but you can get close.
The QPL assures that Trolltech has more freedom that you. It
assures Trolltech of ALWAYS being the maintainer of the primary
version of QT and ANYTHING that could be considered a derivative.
It represents a lawyers best attempt to get Bruce Perens and Eric
Raymond to say it is AOK. It certainly fails provision 2 of the
open source definition - that derivative may be licensed under
the same terms as the original. Providing for patched derivatives
is only VERY slightly better than allowing no derivatives at all.
It prevents forking. It assures QT of a constant revenue stream.
Their business plan is rolling freely contributed patches into
their proprietary product (QT pro) and allowing people like
StarOffice to buy lots of licenses for it. There is your free
lunch. Stomp on free software authors' freedoms to make a living.
> As for code that is not publicly available, ie an internal app,
> Qt and the rest of the world will never know about it. However,
> this is a bit of a grey area in my mind. If Troll found out about
> the code and asked for it, what then? Deny everything?
This is justifying plausible deniability. Grade school stuff. If
you can't live with QT knowing what you are doing with their
library, you probably shouldn't be doing it. At best you get away
with it, at worst it comes back to bite you in the ass. They want
you to PAY for everything proprietary or even private you do with
their library. That is their issue. Justifying it to the public
is a much larger issue.
> Maybe the Harmony project will settle this last concern. That
> all depends if Harmony is LGPL or GPL.
LGPL. Anyone may link without fear. But the motivation for the
project may be somewhat less with "open source" advocates
rolling over and playing dead on the issue.
http://www.yggdrasil.com/~harmony/
It shouldn't be open source if the same freedoms you give freely
are not given to derivative authors. Period. That one statement
could greatly simplify
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
--
Dave Blake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Stevenson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: vote on MS split-up
Date: 26 May 2000 13:15:08 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi
first of all befiore you get the wrong idea i dont like microsoft
but the problem i can see if they are split up instead of having
1 company at the top there will be 2 companys which could just make
problems worse
cya
James
On Fri, 26 May 2000 09:33:03 GMT, Krist van Besien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>ajam wrote:
>> My personal opinion is that M$ should be nailed big
>> time, and regulated left and right, but a break up really won't solve much!
>
>You mean you want the governement to step in and actually save
>Microsoft?
>
>Krist
>
>--
>Actually, Microsoft is sort of a mixture between the Borg and the
>Ferengi.
--
=============================================
Check Out: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/james/
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1:10pm up 3 days, 21:54, 4 users, load average: 0.26, 0.46, 0.38
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 12:49:17 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when ajam would say:
>How many commercial applications have you seen lately that say something
>like RedHat Ready? Just wait one more year or so!
This was a concern _five years ago_ when Caldera started producing a
distribution that had more proprietary properties than anything RHAT has
ever put together.
A couple years ago, the "Works With Red Hat" thing was something many were
concerned about.
Instead, we see that a whole boatload of applications are _included_ with
SuSE, database vendors are clamoring for compatibility with TurboLinux,
and there are _two_ distributions in stores based on Debian, in addition
to Debian itself.
On the one hand, I would not be surprised to see there be some
consolidation of commercial Linux distributions, as having [Corel,
Caldera, Debian, Red Hat, Storm, SuSE, TurboLinux] _seven_ on store
shelves seems a tad excessive and confusing to consumers.
On the other hand, it is not at all obvious that the consolidation will
lead to there Only Being One, and That One Being Red Hat.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
"Barf, what is all this prissy pedantry? Groups, modules, rings, ufds,
patent-office algebra. Barf!" -- R. William Gosper
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 26 May 2000 12:55:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think there's anything wrong with that, actually. It's an XP
> tenet to 'embrace change' rather than try to restrain it with
> over-specification.
OTOH, under-specification can lead to horrendous bugs, including ones
of the sort that cause no crashes, incorrect answers or lost chunks of
memory. (Yeah, I've had this kind in my own code causing memory usage
to grow from around 100MB to over 4GB[*] on the same input; failure to
specify an interface tightly enough was the root cause.) The trade
off between flexibility and bug control makes the problem of producing
specifications very interesting indeed...
Donal.
[* Don't you just love supercomputers? :^) ]
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Ben Chausse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.help,comp.unix.programmer,comp.os.linux.misc,linux.redhat,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: PHP vs Java
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 13:04:30 GMT
Hi,
We have a webserver on Debian 2.2 with apache 1.3.12 & mod_perl 1.21 and
I would like to know what is the best between PHP and Java (.php or
.jsp) ????
Do you know any web pages about benchmark test on PHP and Java ???
Thanks ...
Ben0iT ...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
