Linux-Advocacy Digest #704, Volume #26 Fri, 26 May 00 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: who is linux really hurting the most (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Lennart Gahm")
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 (Mig Mig)
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (EdWIN)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (JEDIDIAH)
Re: who is linux really hurting the most (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (EdWIN)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (Jim Richardson)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs (Mathias Grimmberger)
Re: democracy? (Mark Wilden)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: who is linux really hurting the most
Date: 26 May 2000 15:08:37 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Your reasoning is flawed. Not everyone who installs linux on a pc
>platform is a candidate for a commercial unix distro.
Sure they are. SCO has been around forever and Unixware had several
former lives, all suitable for PC's. Solaris 86 is another
choice, now close to the same pricing as Linux.
>Since there is no
>necessary connection between being a candidate for linux and a candidate
>for commercial unix, your claim that every installation of linux hurts
>commercial unix vendors is not valid.
There is the issue of how much generic pentium PC hardware overlaps
low end boxes from unix vendors and how far you can push things
with clustering, but Linux is only one of the factors here. It
has played a part by making it easy to port anything that would
otherwise be on commercial unix.
>OTOH, linux is a vehicle for learning unix commands and application
>development. More people using linux means more people with the
>technical skillset to administer systems and develop applications for
>users on unix. That benefits all unix vendors, all unix shops, and
>hurts no one but companies selling non-unix OS's.
Having developed something on Linux, why would that not be
your first choice as the running platform?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 20:10:44 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I appear to have solved this one. I had installed lnx4win in the mistaken
assumption it was a working version of Linux. When I added a big disk to my
system and created a Linux Mandrake 7.0 system on it using standard
installation, I found the following:
1. Date/time is now working.
2. The network is working.
3. Kppp is sorta working.
4. Sound card is working fine.
5. 128Mbytes of RAM is being used (instead of 64M).
Pete
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: "Lennart Gahm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Lennart Gahm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 20:21:58 GMT
On Wed, 24 May 2000 01:57:09 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Did you run MS-DOS in the VDM? Or were you using the OS/2 DOS?
>>
>> It requires OS/2's VDM (which is not a full implementation of DOS per se,
>just
>> a set of "device drivers" which vector calls back to OS/2 native calls).
>If
>> you attempted to run a VMB (virtual machine boot) session, booting up a
>true
>> MS-DOS session inside of OS/2, and then try to run Win3.1, if memory
>serves
>> me, it will only run in standard mode as it will try to grab control of
>the
>> A20 line in enhanced mode and fail due to protection. Karel, can you
>verify
>> this?
>>
>> OS/2's VDM, however, handles it perfectly. Actually, come to think of it,
>if
>> you load up the supplementary drivers in the VMB session, like
>> x:\os2\mdos\himem.sys (which is 445 bytes and only contains code to vector
>> back to OS/2 system calls), it may work in the VMB session.
>
>Hmm.. interesting. Windows requires a different version of himem.sys than
>the DOS version. That means you are replacing windows distribution files
>with OS/2 versions in order to make it work, which is not what was claimed
>(that retail unmodified Windows 3.1 ran in a VDM).
No it does not. Windows 3.1 comes with another himem.sys than DOS, but you
can use the himem.sys provived with PC-DOS.
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: 26 May 2000 20:22:21 GMT
In comp.os.linux.hardware [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: This is exactly what makes Linux so hysterical. You have to
: "experiment" with a piece of hardwre to make it work.
Of course. How else would you get it to? It's not intelligent! It
can't figure out what you want to do with it, because it can't read
your mind. You're in charge, not it!
: Shit under Windows youplug it in, Windows prompts for a CD, prints a
: test page and that's it.
Uh, no. Plug it in, windows prompts for a driver, you put in cd or
floppy, and windows says it can't find driver on cd or floppy. You
point it at exact file as nearly as you can guess, and it refuses.
So you try to choose some other nearly-right driver. After a few days
of this, it finally occurs to you that maybe the cd is out of date, or
your bios has tricked windows into a corner on something. OK. After a
bit more downloading and trialling, you disable the help installation
wizard by fauir means or foul, take charge of whatever the pnp thing was
trying to do to you, and tell it where it should put its damed irqs (the
pcmcia card manager was ON the irq it was trying to get me to use,
once!). Thereby freeing up an irq for what's needed. Then you get the
thing going partly, but you accidentally reboot, and windows loses
track of the thing .... After about a week you get to half way
understand the trick about "aggregate new hardware", enabling/disabling
the net from both sides of what windows insists is some kind of
ms network device, and you maybe also find the snuggling hidden option
in the printer setup that means "produce standards conformant
postscript" instead of the illegal MS stuff that needs dynamic font
downloads.
: Tell me again how Linux is easier to use?
A lot. I remember my struggles with the 3c589 under windows. A 10s
operation in linux. As for the ne2000 I have currently stuck in the
slot, windows just tells me that the driver on the manufacturers floppy
won't do for it.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 22:43:09 +0200
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mig Mig) wrote in <8ghjlu$450$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >I dont believe you.. We have done a dusin or so installs of Mandrake,
> >Redhat and Corel on different machines and never encountered a problem.
>
> Why don't you believe me? Why should I lie about this?
Simply because every installation i have done since RH 5.1 have not given
me any problems at all.. i have done many of those on RH , Mandrake and a
few Corel Linux... Not one time was there a problem...and this even on a
network. So allow me to be skeptical
Try that with Windows!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 20:46:14 GMT
On Fri, 26 May 2000 20:02:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>This is exactly what makes Linux so hysterical. You have to
>"experiment" with a piece of hardwre to make it work.
>
>Shit under Windows youplug it in, Windows prompts for a CD, prints a
>test page and that's it.
>
>Tell me again how Linux is easier to use?
Easier would be not needing the 'extra' CD to begin with.
>
>
>
>On Fri, 26 May 2000 09:05:42 -0600, Chris Webster
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Is there any way to make a Poscript "hello world" file to experiment with?
>>> I'm sure a Postscript guru could hand-make a "Hello World" file.
>>
>>
>>%!PS-Adobe-1.0
>>% Print Hello world in lower left corner, portrait
>>/Times-Roman findfont 20 scalefont setfont
>>10 10 moveto
>>(Hello, world) show
>>showpage
>>
>>
>>--Chris
>
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 13:47:58 -0700
In article <ELKW4.4018$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik
Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 23 May 2000 15:14:18 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>> >I agree that MS put up a very weak defense, and in fact
dropped the ball
>on
>> >things they should have prevailed on. One reason might be
that MS
>> >intentionally set it up to be overturned.
>>
>> Wouldn't it have been easier to just win in the first place?
It would
>> certainly be a lot less expensive.
>
>Microsoft may have gotten the idea that the judge was biased
against them,
>and that they had no hope of getting a fair trial.
It's more likely Microsoft got the idea it would be a good dodge
if they could convince enough people this was the case, or at
least sow reasonable doubt about it.
>> It could be, you know, that they put up a weak defense
because that's all
>> they had. Just maybe.
>
>Time will tell.
Time has told. Now it's time for Microsoft to puck blood.
>
>
>
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 26 May 2000 20:50:46 GMT
On Fri, 26 May 2000 14:53:56 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha wrote:
>On Fri, 26 May 2000 18:07:47 GMT, wallyb6@nospam (Wally Bass) wrote:
>>That does not much resemble the relationship between operating
>>systems and internet browsers.
>
>All right, stop right there. Don't even get me started on these
>ridiculous attempts to define what an OS is and what it should and
>should not do. The academic definition of "OS" is totally irrelevant
>here.
No, it is not. The problem with allowing Microsoft to arbitrarily
extend the "definition" of an OS is that it also allows them tio
arbitrarily extend their monopoly. An OS performs a certain set
of functions. Applications perform additional functions. It certainly
makes sense to package "solutions" for customers which include more
than just a bare OS. This is why IBM PCs ship with Corel Office and
Dell PCs shipc with MS Office / MS Works. The fact that customers
find these bundles attractive certainly does not make them "part of
the OS" though.
>otherwise, try putting an OS in the academic sense (a kernel and
>nothing else) into a shrinkwrap box and see how many copies you sell.
I'm sure that someone is going to be smart enough to put together
an attractive bundle for consumers, which includes an OS proper,
an internet browser, and either something like "MS works" or an
Office suite. Hell, and maybe even a few games.
I think the point is that MS shouldn't have exclusive rights to package
bundle-ware with their OS.
>I submit that the rest of your argument falls apart, because it's
>based entirely on this misguided notion of yours that Windows must
>embody only the academic definition of the term "operating system".
Perhaps it would be different if Microsoft hadn't engaged in illegal
behaviour. Microsoft are not a sacred cow, and they are not above the law,
even in the so-called "information age". And when they use "extending the OS"
as a front for extending their monopoly, it leads one to question their
right to arbitrarily extend their OS.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 20:49:54 GMT
On Fri, 26 May 2000 20:06:39 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote in <8gmamm$100u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>And the problem with that would be???? You don't actually need to
>>run GNOME, you just need the shared libs.
>
>You don't see a problem with requiring both Gnome and KDE? Oh, I take your
Unless you are actually running one the other or both, your
system isn't being burdened by them.
>point about the shared libs.
>
>>Doesn't ghostscript take -r1440x720 as an argument?
>
>How does that help me?
Ghostscript is typically what translates the defacto standard
Linux/Unix page layout language into something a particular printer
will understand.
[deletia]
--
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: who is linux really hurting the most
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 20:52:55 GMT
On 26 May 2000 15:08:37 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Your reasoning is flawed. Not everyone who installs linux on a pc
>>platform is a candidate for a commercial unix distro.
>
>Sure they are. SCO has been around forever and Unixware had several
No they aren't. Commercial unix on x86 prior to Linux was
typically both remarkably overpriced and severely lacking in driver
support.
>former lives, all suitable for PC's. Solaris 86 is another
>choice, now close to the same pricing as Linux.
[deletia]
>>OTOH, linux is a vehicle for learning unix commands and application
>>development. More people using linux means more people with the
>>technical skillset to administer systems and develop applications for
>>users on unix. That benefits all unix vendors, all unix shops, and
>>hurts no one but companies selling non-unix OS's.
>
>Having developed something on Linux, why would that not be
>your first choice as the running platform?
It doesn't need to be. One's choice is not arbitrarily restricted.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 13:53:36 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=) wrote:
>Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Edwin wrote:
>>
>> > Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:8gcd95$cd4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > [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?
>
>Like all who oppose Microsoft, you will be send to a camp.
Spelling Camp. ;)
>Lars T.
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 22:15:18 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 25 May 2000 23:55:48 GMT,
Christopher Browne, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Craig Kelley would say:
>
>>PAN is a great example of multithreaded GUI programming. Compare it
>>with any legacy X11 newsreader to see the difference.
>
>I've not seen it yet; does it allow you to open up multiple article
>windows at once? _That_ is the one thing that, of the text-based news
>clients, only GNUS offers, by operating inside Emacs and thus allowing
>multiple message buffers...
Yes, click on the article, then select open in window, you can have as
many as you want, and can reply, forward etc from the windows.
Pan is nice, and is coming along nicely, I still prefer slrn for most things,
but Pan is the gui newsreader for Linux that I recommend to those who prefer
gui.
--
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] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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?
Date: 26 May 2000 20:59:57 GMT
On Fri, 26 May 2000 14:53:56 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha wrote:
>You know, I just love the look of a Jaguar sedan. I think it's
>absolutely gorgeous. I can't afford a Jaguar, but I love the look so
>much that I wouldn't mind owning a Jaguar body on top of an
>OldsmoBuick frame. Unfortunately, nobody makes such a beast, and
>because I'm neither mechanically inclined nor rich enough to pay for a
>custom job, I have to settle for less than my ideal car. Should I be
>whining to the DoJ like you are?
This is called an "analogy". It's not an argument, and on those grounds
alone, I dismiss it as an irrelevant discourse on an unrelated topic.
If you can't argue without recourse to analogy, you don't have an argument.
One can use an analogy to explain one's reasoning, but if the above is
truly an accurate insight into your point of view, it shows that you don't
really understand the case at all.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: 26 May 2000 15:52:20 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>And the problem with that would be???? You don't actually need to
>>run GNOME, you just need the shared libs.
>
>You don't see a problem with requiring both Gnome and KDE? Oh, I take your
>point about the shared libs.
Especially for your first look at Linux you should take both. You
can build a 'lean' version but not until you have seen enough
to know what to discard. If you want to go 'really lean', toss
all the config tools and just copy in working config files from
another system and edit to please.
>>Doesn't ghostscript take -r1440x720 as an argument?
>
>How does that help me?
I thought that was the resolution you wanted on your epson.
Most graphic-capable programs are going to generate postscript
and since you don't have a postscript printer the lpr setup
will filter though ghostscript to render for the device.
Rendering at that resolution will be slow but it should work.
You might want to configure a 2nd printer with a different
name for the higher resolution so you don't take the extra
time for everything.
>>Your network card vendor has the driver. Install it just like
>>you would have a few months ago under windows.
>
>Ah I found the problem - I was using lnx4win. This I assumed was a working
>version of Linux. When I bought an extra disk for Linux and installed Linux
>on it, hey presto, the network is working.
Heh - I'm glad you posted that. I would not have thought of it
but the real difference here is -only- that by the time linux
loads under lnx4wn, windows has already poked the p-n-p cards.
Other than the boot loader and driver for the 'partition in a file'
the Linux side is all the same.
And now that you mention it, I have seen a similar thing with
a laptop PCMCIA network card. That one would install and work
after the first reboot on lnx4win, then not after subsequent
reboots.
>>>The driver running AHA1510, AHA1520 SCSI
>>>cards is the same one I saw years ago, what progress there?
>>
>>Those cards don't do much of anything. What's wrong with the
>>driver. (And, hmmm... do you have a mix of ISA non-pnp cards
>>and PCI pnp in that box?).
>
>The 1520 is in a P166 box, the AHA2940 is in the PII-400MHz.
Is there a feature the 1520 has that the driver doesn't handle?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 20:19:12 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
> hauck[at]codem{dot}com (Bob Hauck) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >However, DOSEMU will run most 32-bit DOS apps, such as those that use the
> >Rational, Phar Lap, or GO32 DOS extenders. It runs Borland C++ 3.x and
> >DJGPP just fine for example.
>
> These are all a bit old now. Borland C++ V5.0 was the last one before
> Borland C++ Builder took over. It generates WIN32 console applications and
> these can't run under Linux? Still playing catchup I see.
AFAIK you can't run *any* Linux program (console or X) under Windows.
Your point?
MGri
--
Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Eat flaming death, evil Micro$oft mongrels!
------------------------------
From: Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 22:03:12 +0100
Salvador Peralta wrote:
>
> let's remember that the United States is not now, nor has it ever been a
> democracy.
Yes it is. It's a representative democracy. The people do rule, through
their elected officials (in theory, at least).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
