Linux-Advocacy Digest #711, Volume #26 Sat, 27 May 00 01:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: "Lean and mean" Mozilla ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Christopher Browne)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (billy ball)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (billy ball)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (billy ball)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Jim Richardson)
Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition (Christopher Browne)
Re: democracy? (Praedor Tempus)
Re: democracy? ("Francis Van Aeken")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 03:14:06 GMT
On Sat, 27 May 2000 01:48:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Sat, 27 May 2000 00:42:30 GMT, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Typical lost cause jedi reply. No wonder even the
>>Linux camp wants you to quit advocating for them.
>>
>>1.Have not seen a printer that is not supported
>>under Windows and that includes 1985 variety dot
>
> I never claimed that there were printers that AREN'T.
No that is hat you are doing implying, by omission, your usual method,
that a person can easily set up a printer under Linux but can't answer
"ok" 4 times to do it under Windows.
Sorry but you are dead wrong here.
Proof?
Comp.os.linux.setup.
> You are building a false strawman here.
>
>>matrix Epsons.
>>Same for Linux? I think not. Maybe the 1985 model
>>but nothing modern other than PS printers.
>
> Plenty of modern PCL printers are also supported. I don't
> really follow the others. A simply character pipe like a
> printer shouldn't be that prone to overcomplication.
They aren't under Windows. Under Linux? Good luck. See above.
> However, that still doesn't address the fact that many end
> users are easily confounded, and can be thrown even by
> dealing with a driver disk in Windows.
But they can figure out how to install Linux?
Right. And monkeys can fly.
> You foolishly presume that none of us have 'novice end users'
> of our own to occcasionally contend with.
I do it everyday for a living.
>>
>>2.Select a check box and the nozzle is cleaned.
>>
>>3. select a check box and diagnostics are run.
>>
>>4, Print a document and the box that comes up
>>prompts you for pages size, portrait/landscape,
>
> Actually, that's application dependent. It's also
> PRINTER dependent. This can be annoying sometimes.
> The control applet for the HP 8100N is slightly
> byzantine.
No it's not. It is driven under Windows. Print anything, from a text
file to a Lotus Notes document and you get the same box full of nice
prompts.
>>resolution and paper tray. Nothing to remember.
>
> If you've got to deal with different printer models, there
> certainly is. Whereas simple printer configuration options
> are also available to anything that spews PS.
That's only a problem under Linux.
>>
>>What que was the high resolution que I set up
>>under Linux? Oh gee, I forget...
>
> Something like "high resolution" would likely give you a clue.
> Although, you would be in control of naming it so I could see
> how you could get confused.
>
>>
>>Give me a break..No comparison...
>>Stop trying to diffuse the obvious...
>>
>>On Sat, 27 May 2000 00:29:38 GMT,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 26 May 2000 23:50:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>>I prefer to have the latest driver. Most hardware is supported out of
>>>
>>> What's so 'complicated' about driving a printer that you would have
>>>to worry about having the most 'bleeding edge' one. Besides, if your
>>>OS vendor were less stingy about distribution, you wouldn't have to
>>>worry about your drivers being 'old'.
>>>
>>>>the box under Windows anyway. I like to be able to switch paper trays,
>>>
>>> Most isn't QUITE good enough. All it takes is one driver disk to
>>>confound some novice end users.
>>>
>>>>switch resolutions, clean the nozzle, switch landscape and portrait
>>>>easily without having to set up 15 different printer ques to do it.
>>>
>>> OTOH, having to constantly futz with the printer configuration
>>>is annoying rather than having several easy pre-canned configurations
>>>that one could use.
>>>
>>> Nevermind, why would you bother 'manually' cleaning the nozzle anyways.
>>> That's just sooo 70's...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Fri, 26 May 2000 20:46:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 03:16:17 GMT
And let's see you fit the entire Liza game in 256 bytes on paper tape.
Floppies are dead, in case you haven't noticed. Although Linux seems
to embrace antique technology quite well.
On 26 May 2000 20:33:07 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>ypical Linux bullshit...Config, config, config and waste more time
>>with each config.
>
>So, let's see you build a windows configuration that will
>fit on a floppy and do something useful. Perhap act
>as a router...
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: "Lean and mean" Mozilla
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 03:17:29 GMT
I don't think it will be either lean or mean or stable for that
matter.
The Linux world is waiting for the holy grail of browsers and will be
highly disappointed when it leaks like a sieve.
On Sat, 27 May 2000 00:46:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher
Wong) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gary Hallock wrote:
>>Christopher Wong wrote:
>>> button. I know the usual explanations: not yet optimized, built with
>>> debug info, ... etc. But somehow, people believe that Mozilla will have
>>> a small footprint and good performance. In the absence of any concrete
>>> proof whatsoever, I would like to hear reasons why such belief
>>> exists. There must be some facts that I am missing so far. I am eager to
>>> hear them. (no, "blind faith" does not qualify).
>>
>>I believe that Mozilla is currently built with all libraries statically
>>linked. This was done for the beta to avoid dependency problems. The
>>final release copy is supposed to be built with shared libraries making it
>>much smaller. I'm not sure, but it is also likely that the beta was built
>>without optimization and with debug enabled.
>
>Thanks for responding, but I see that you did not answer my
>question. Why do people ASSUME it will be lean and mean? Anyone else?
>
>Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
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?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 03:44:53 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jim Richardson would say:
>On Wed, 24 May 2000 01:45:51 -0500,
> Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Time will tell.
>
>Of course, time is the ultimate solvent, and M$ can't revise history later
>with court records the way they can with their websites.
Sure they can.
Courts are likely to be using some of their software, and Microsoft
could always claim that EULA permits them to permit their software to
revise history documents.
They provide no guarantee that their software _won't_ corrupt your
documents, after all...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/msprobs.html>
"I support Microsoft's right to innovate. I just wish they would make
use of that right." - Steve Shaw
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball)
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 03:44:58 GMT
On Sat, 27 May 2000 03:16:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And let's see you fit the entire Liza game in 256 bytes on paper tape.
never heard of Liza... i assume you're talking about Eliza? this program
has been written in nearly every computer language still in use... the
Lisp version is about 1,000 lines (37k, not 256 bytes)... the DBase
version is about 118k (.EXE)... one version in BASIC is 163 lines (about
7k, not too far off your 256 bytes)...
>Floppies are dead, in case you haven't noticed. Although Linux seems
>to embrace antique technology quite well.
'antique' technology? as if M$ embraces 'new' technology? you mean "rips
off," "subverts," or "perverts," like Kerberos?
according to M$ corporate history, M$ invented TCP/IP, symbolic links,
networking and the Internet... what a joke... M$ also claims to have
patents on style sheets...
i'm glad that Linux supports 'antique' technology... my Ditto QIC-80 tape
drive continues to work quite well, thank you... if i used M$ software,
support would have ended with Win3.1...
one of Linux's best features is that it works quite well on 'legacy'
hardware... this means that 486s can still be put to use, instead of being
consigned to a landfill...
at least Linux distribution makers don't use handicapped children as
shills for corporate advertising... M$ does, and quite proudly...
M$ has no shame... it lies... it cheats... it steals...
and it will pay dearly...
>
>
>On 26 May 2000 20:33:07 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>ypical Linux bullshit...Config, config, config and waste more time
>>>with each config.
>>
>>So, let's see you build a windows configuration that will
>>fit on a floppy and do something useful. Perhap act
>>as a router...
>>
>> Les Mikesell
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 03:47:50 GMT
On Sat, 27 May 2000 02:27:43 GMT, Jim Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 May 3900 16:59:56, "David D. Huff Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>> Instead of taking a beating across the board. Might M$ stand a better
>> chance of survival if it breaks up voluntarily then some part of the
>> business could survive. The last couple of days they've been taking
>> quite a beating in the stock market. Along with a lot of peoples'
>> retirement money. Shouldn't the stockholders demand that they bite the
>> bullet now and salvage what they can?
>> They should split on their own terms, not what the government dictates.
>> Thus ensuring themselves their best chance for survival. Three parts may
>> be better than two, diversifying their cumulative losses.
>>
>
>Whatever jugdement is rendered against Microsoft by Jackson will be
>overturned by an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court. Nevertheless,
>the damage to Microsoft has been done.
what, you have an inside track?
>As a side point, watch for a suprising and very swift upturn in the
>markets sometime in August if not before.
ah! sarcasm! i almost took you seriously for a moment on your previous
point... you're very good!
:-)
>Jim Larson
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 03:52:36 GMT
On Sat, 27 May 2000 03:43:13 +0200, Andrew J. Brehm
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps this isn't the appropriate group (though it certaintly is
>> crossposted enough that I might get lucky!) but can someone explain what
>> Gnome is? My understanding is that it's a GUI that operates under the
>> X-Window system and allows for different window managers (i.e. "skins")
>> such as Enlightenment. If this is the case, then what's the difference
>> between Helix GNOME and the GNOME that came with my LinuxPPC distribution?
Helix GNOME is GNOME... same developers, just GNOME with a window manager
and configuration files done properly... it rocks!
i normally use KDE (for its wealth of clients), but Helix GNOME is a
*very* nice piece of work... installing and updating is something to
behold...
>Gnome is a desktop, Enlightenment is a window manager which can use
>different themes (or skins, if you like).
GNOME is a set of software libraries supporting various drawing routines
that can be used by a GNOME-aware window manager, such as sawmill...
>I believe LinuxPPC comes with Helix (I used to use it, but I prefer
>Yellow Dog now).
>
>I believe KDE is based on a non-free version of QT and thus Gnome should
>be prefered by "politically correct" GNU users. Well, at least I
>remember RMS saying that.
the QT folks (Troll Tech) modified the licensing of QT (and in the nick of
time, or most Linux users would be using GNOME-aware window managers)...
>I use Gnome.
>
>--
>Fan of Woody Allen
>PowerPC User
>Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
------------------------------
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: Fri, 26 May 2000 14:41:56 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 25 May 2000 19:41:07 GMT,
Peter T. Breuer, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: On 25 May 2000 04:54:09 GMT,
>: Peter T. Breuer, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>: brought forth the following words...:
>
>:>In comp.os.linux.misc Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>: Sure, you can replicate the functionality in RPM or Deb easily enough, but
>:>: not with just the ./configure;make;make install mentioned. (At least not
>:>: without the connivence of the writer of the ./configure script.) RPM allready
>:>
>:>setenv INSTALL "pkginstall install -c"
>
>: Having logged it, what tool do you use to check before removing/upgrading
>: something?
>
>less and grep.
>
>: (this is slackware you are discussing, right? )
>
>Yep. You can also do a dry run with removepkg or installpkg and the right
>flag. I don't bother since I'm hardly likely to remove libc. I do have to
>keep remembering not to remove tk/tcl 4.0/7.1 4.1/7.2 etc. etc though!
>
>I.e. there is a nonzero probability that I will upgrade+remove an old
>package which will leave some other old utility high and dry, leaning
>on nothing. But it's very unlikely, as I "know what I'm doing". I
>wouldn't do a remove without looking hard for binaries that used its
>dynamic libraries. Meta-compilers have got me on occasion though.
>
>Peter
Sounds like what you are doing is replicating (by hand) the function
of the rpm database? Can I ask what it is about rpm that you don't like?
--
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] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 04:10:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sat, 27 May 2000 00:31:32 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Fri, 26 May 2000 23:54:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Good for you. Mandrake is the best distro so far as I have seen..
>>
>>When you see how much you are giving up running Linux, however you
>
> Like what exactly? (giving up that is)
Well, lessee.
You'd be giving up Outlook. I know that would be such a chore, especially
with all of the viruses running around lately. :-) (Note that Outlook
includes such things as a calendar, a mail client, and a task list.)
You'd be giving up Internet Explorer. That might be a bit of a pang;
I haven't had too many problems with it, but there have been others on
this newsgroup that have horror stories to tell. (Netscape on
Linux is a bit on the sucky side; I hope Mozilla's better. Haven't
tried Opera; Amaya didn't look too hot, but that was quite some time ago.
Lynx isn't bad, if I only want text, but it can't do thumbnails.)
You'd be giving up Microsoft Word -- *the* word processor on Windows.
Maybe. (There's also Write -- now WordPad, apparently. Of course,
Write seems to just be an encapsulation of a Windows widget that
understands, among other things, OLE/COM.) Gosh, what a sacrifice,
especially since TeX does equations better anyway, once one masters
formatting commands such as $a^2 = b^2 + c^2$, $e^{i\pi} = -1$.
and
$$
\eqalign {
ax^2 + bx + c &= 0 \cr
x^2 + {{bx}\over a} + {c \over a} &= 0 \cr
x^2 + {{bx}\over a} &= -{c \over a} \cr
x^2 + {{bx}\over a} + {{b^2} \over {4a^2} } &= -{c \over a}
+ {{b^2} \over {4a^2} } \cr
(x + {b \over {2a})^2 &= -{c \over a} + {{b^2} \over {4a^2} } \cr
&= {{b^2 - 4ac} \over {4a^2}}
}
$$ [+]
which looks intimidating, but isn't hard to master for simple
equations. It's also easy to work with; if the equation's
wrong, edit the file in any old text editor. The vi editor
works very well with this format, too, because '%' matches
parenthesis, brackets, and braces.
Obviously, I'm a mathematician. :-) There's also variants such
as LaTeX, which allows styles; I'm not up on the details, and
front ends such as LyX, which eventually feed a TeX backend.
You'd be giving up Visual C++, Visual Basic, Visual J++, Visual Foxpro,
Visual This, Visual That. I can't say I'd miss them too much, although
they're snappier than Borland JBuilder. :-) On the other hand, I
get the feeling that Borland JBuilder is rock solid -- and I've had
VC++ crash twice on me. Now I do use VC++ quite a bit more, but
crashes don't make me too happy. Also, J++ is a bit of an exception; it
is s-l-o-w to bring up for some reason when double-clicking on a .java
file.
I've also caught the compiler of VC++ 5.0 in at least one peculiar bug.
Can't remember the details, now, but it was corrupting memory and
generating bad output. Hopefully VC++ 6 has fixed it, but how
do I tell?
(I will grant that Visual Basic, in the hands of an expert, can do
nice things, for small projects. Now whether it scales up is
a matter of some debate.)
You'd be giving up Presentation Manager. Gosh, no more slide shows! :-)
Actually, xfig would probably be an adequate substitute, and it's
more controllable, two. Or perhaps xfig for a background, and TeX
for a foreground. There are definitely a number of options here,
some of them easier than others.
You'd be giving up the all-inclusive Windows GUI, the industry standard,
for a hodgepodge of various look and feels: Gnome, KDE, Athena (yecch),
Athena3d, Motif/Lesstif, even curses in an xterm. (Almost) everyone uses
Windows, it must be good, because it sure looks snazzy [*]. (Yeah, right.)
You'd be giving up IIS, COM/DCOM/COM+, and ADO. Do you use them?
Can one tell? This area is where Windows has a lot of promise, but
it's not clear that it delivers. (I'm not sure if CORBA's much better
in that department, but at least it's multivendor. :-) )
You'd be giving up DOS legacy. Now, we all know how important
DOS legacy is for an operating system, right? :-)
You'd be giving up the NT networking. This is probably a wash.
NFS has some strange quirks, although the real bugs have probably
been hammered out by now. I hope.
And, probably most important of all, you'd be giving up that $1000
or more total price tag for all of these things, and giving up the lock-in
requirement that x86 is the only box these things will ever run on
(except for IE and IIS, which have been ported to Solaris apparently).
Once open-sourced, a project that was developed on Linux and that doesn't
require esoteric hardware (such as sound cards) can compile and run on
any box from a lowly ix86 to a high-end S390, and also be ported to BSD,
HP-UX, Solaris, AIX, OSF/1 (or whatever it's called now), and many others.
After all this, "moving back to Windows" might just be an apt turn
of phrase, since Windows does seem quite backward at times.
>
>>will be back to Windows.
>[deletia]
>
>--
>
> In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
> a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
[+] a variant of this series of equations can be found in any
algebra book; it's merely deriving the solution to the
single-variable quadratic formula.
[*] and of course even this is debatable, especially when the movement
aspects of things such as scrolling menus and colorchanging rollover
text are factored in. What's the point of all this GUI glop?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 04:35:53 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Fri, 26 May 2000 03:27:08 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Fri, 26 May 2000 03:16:59 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote on Thu, 25 May 2000 10:11:34 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Colin R. Day" wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > Never mind it IS free of charge on the internet. If you look at the
>>>> > > Redhat page, you will notice that you can download the current version
>>>> > > of Redhat for FREE, BUT, you do NOT get the SUPPORT that comes with the
>>>> > > version you can purchase. So, what you are buying is SUPPORT.
>>>> >
>>>> > True, there is that. But I need the need the CD's more than I need
>>>> > the support.
>>>>
>>>> Burn your own!
>>>
>>>a) I don't have a CD-writer.
>>>
>>>b) I would still need to download the files to be burned onto
>>>the CD in the first place.
>>
>>If you have a sufficiently fast Internet connection and an existing OS
>>(even one as old as DOS), the only things you'd need to download for
>>RedHat is 'bootnet.img' and 'rawrite.exe'. :-) The rest is sucked
>>in later. :-)
>
> Alternately, you could share a single official copy amongst
> an entire cabal that consisted of at least one person that
> had a burner.
That could be an even better option. Of course, a third one is to
set up a master system which would serve as a sort of workgroup
server (actually, an FTP server), which could bootstrap all of the
rest and be managed by the IT group.
Or, the master system could read the CD-ROM.
Or, the master system could serve using NFS.
The possibilities are nearly limitless.
Just to be even more complicated -- one of the options with RedHat
at least (and probably other distributions as well) is the ability
to build the system from source, thereby limiting issues with
corrupted binaries (accidentally or intentionally). One allocates
sufficient disk space, sets up a system, builds, then provides the
binary packages to other, presumably identically-configured, systems.
Try *that* with Windows! :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 04:37:10 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Streamer would say:
>Christopher Browne wrote:
>> 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.
>
>OK, Chris,
>
>Can you please tell me what is it exactly that made/makes RedHat's distro
>more proprietary than any of the others?
I can't, and I'm curious as to why you would think that question even
makes sense to ask.
I never made any implication that Red Hat is selling distributions that
have _any_ proprietary properties. Way back when, I remember there being
great consternation when RHAT included MetroX with some boxed sets.
(Version 4.1, I think?) They were promptly rebuffed by paranoid Linux
folk that thought they were trying to corner the marketplace and make
it proprietary, and have seldom had terribly much in the way of non-free
software included with their packages since.
Some of those that were paranoid at the time likely represent part of
the Debian community today.
>Am I mistaken to believe that you could just install whatever packages
>needed and run all the applcations on any Linux distro? Other than
>run-level assignments, what makes RedHat really different from the other
>distros that mandate that one application can only run on RedHat and
>no others? I'm not flaming, I just would really like to
You might well find it _challenging_ to get some of _Caldera's_ utilities
running on distributions other than Caldera Network Desktop. They had
arrangements with Novell to get access to some Netware-related utilities,
and those utilities ran (run?) atop some kernel extensions that Alan
Cox _refuses_ to allow into official kernel releases. [Namely STREAMS.]
Of course, that has nothing to do with your questions, which related to
issues of _Red Hat's_ "burgeoning proprietariness." It's not evident
that _that_ is actually the case, so I can't help you with _that._
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
THERE'S TOO MUCH BLOOD IN MY CAFFEINE SYSTEM!!
------------------------------
From: Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 22:56:28 -0600
Mark Wilden wrote:
>
> 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).
Salvador is correct. You do NOT rule thru your representatives.
You select a representative that you feel will best support your
interests but they act on their own. They do not have to do
what the majority of their constituents want (if you are a rich
constituent who could/would give to their campaign coffers, then
they will be more to heed your specific wishes, however). They
are SUPPOSED to do what THEY think is best for their constituents,
which can often blend together.
A Senator is not simply a mouthpiece for the majority of voters
in their districts/states. The US government is NOT designed to
be majority rules. The US government is devised to protect against
the "tyranny of the majority". The whole system is devised to
protect the minority from mob/majority rule.
The public, as several have stated, are by and large stupid and
shortsighted. The government is not supposed to run on opinion
polls, since opinions change with the winds. Majority rules and
majority opinion would merely lead to chaos and MASSIVE violations
of liberty (at any given moment you could likely get a majority
of idiots to agree that the US should be run as a Christian
country, or that a particular set of religious-based laws should
be passed and obeyed by all, irrespective of personal belief/
non-belief, for instance).
We have a Republic. A FEDERAL Republic.
praedor
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 01:53:28 -0300
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't ignorance bliss? The only thing that counts in America is money.
> Your politics are incredibly corrupt. Of course so is the politics of most
> 1st world countries. The third world is worse for sure. But the USA should
> set an example and it fails woefully. It appears that in the USA you can
> fool most of the people most of the time. Very sad.
Corruption in the USA isn't too bad, compared to (from worse to worst)
some South-European, Latin-American and African countries. I think it's
about 10th in the list of least corrupt countries (if you can rely on this sort
of studies ;-)
> With regard to the earlier comment, in a previous post, about the average person
> being stupid, this is unfortunately true. They aren't born stupid but develop the
> trait through crap educational systems and a life where thinking does them no
> good at all. Who benefits from this. Institutional religion and big business.
> Hmm, that desribes the USA perfectly.
Your email-address suggests that you're living in Switzerland. Don't you
have referendums? Isn't that a good thing?
Francis.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
