Linux-Advocacy Digest #67, Volume #27 Wed, 14 Jun 00 03:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Alan Baker)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence (Andres Soolo)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Re: Where are all the astroturfers? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Linux advocate trapped inside a Windows Box ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Andres Soolo)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: G4 in space! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy (Arthur)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies.... (Terry
Porter)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Ketil Nordstad)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Darren Winsper)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Darren Winsper)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:11:11 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Colin R. Day"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Lawrence DčOliveiro" wrote:
>
>
>>
>> b) Mount points (all UNIXes and Linsux).
>> Pros: Pretends to make all your volumes look like a single filesystem.
>> Cons: Only *pretends* to make all your volumes look like a single
>> filesystem (all kinds of within-file-system-only things don't work, like
>> hard links). Notoriously error-prone: Copy files to a mount point
>> directory when the volume isn't actually mounted, then mount it,
>> and--where did those files go? Not only are they on the wrong volume,
>> but you can't even access them until you dismount the second volume
>> again!
>> Verdict: Incompletely thought-out idea. How come the Linux folks are so
>> focused on being so faithful to UNIX, when they could be *fixing* some
>> of those long-standing, well-known UNIX problems?
>>
>
>And why would you copy files to an unmounted mount point?
>
>Colin Day
>
How would you know the difference? If the OS makes volumes look exactly
like any other directory, then you have to expect users to occasionally
forget and treat them like just another directory. Shouldn't the OS
protect the user from such errors? What is the advantage in it not doing
so?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:08:09 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Tiberious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >Switch from Windows to Linux? Why?
>
> Simple --- because that scanner, easy as it was to set up, is still a
> nightmare to *use* for the kind of use I have in mind. If making a scan
> cannot be fully automated under script control, it doesn't provide a
> solution.
Which is why we see the kind of lame arguments The Troll With 1000 Names
always posts here.
If he compared the two systems according to their actual worth (let alone
value/$), Linux would win hands down. But he isn't interested in
evaluating the systems; he's interested in making it look like Windows is
better. Thus he has to dig around until he finds some odd peripheral that
Linux doesn't support, or some odd feature of a Windows program that does
not have an equivalent on Linux, and touting that to the heavens like it
was the One True Feature that people should consider when deciding what to
use.
It's exactly like benchmarketing: You look at the zillions of things a
computer can be used for, pick the one where yours can beat the others,
run the tests, publish the results, and brag about being best -- as if
that one task was the only thing anyone would ever want to use a computer
for.
We should really be less interested in pointing out the fallacies of his
claims (which are very often wrong) than we are in pointing out the
general fallacy of the argument. The argument is *worthless*, even if the
factual claim are correct.
For my money, I'm more than happy to pick my hardware to support the
better OS rather than picking the worse OS simply because it supports this
or that hardware. If someone comes out with a great new printer that
Linux doesn't support, I can do without that printer easily. There are
scores of other that Linux *does* support. I interact with my OS a lot
more intensely than I interact with my printer, and I'm not in any
circumstance going to let a decision about printers push me off a good OS
onto a crappy one.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence
Date: 14 Jun 2000 05:18:28 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When this is buried through a massive function call stack, it is not all
> obvious where the failure lies when some function down the line gets
> bitten by this. Have you ever worked on a C project with more than 100,000
> lines of source? You depend on a library call (which is what this is) to
> do its job, and you don't have time to check every last detail.
The SourceForge code snippet library is basically meant as a library
of examples. You should notice the limitation at about when you're
borrowing the item for your code. And at that time you don't have 1e5
lines--you're just having about ten.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
All extremists should be taken out and shot.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:07:46 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> all kinds of within-file-system-only things don't work, like
> hard links).
Nor would I want a hard link to work across filesystems. That would tend to
make the volumes too interdependent. If you want multiple volumes to work
as one, blend them together by incorporating them together into a RAID
volume.
> Notoriously error-prone:
This could be said of any Operating System volume identification methods, if
you are not used to it. This is a non-factor.
> Copy files to a mount point
> directory when the volume isn't actually mounted, then mount it,
> and--where did those files go? Not only are they on the wrong volume,
> but you can't even access them until you dismount the second volume
> again!
I don't see how you can classify this as a con. This is a very handy
feature of unix. For example: Lets assume that you mount your /usr from
across the network using say NFS. You have a need for a few of the files in
/usr during startup prior to the mounting of the network version of /usr or
when you are running the host without access to the network for whatever
reason. You can create a minimal /usr on your local drive to handle these
situations, and the minimal /usr will disapper and be replaced with the full
/usr one the network version of /usr is mounted.
> The reference can also be used to
> automatically request the mounting of the correct volume on demand.
This is also possible with unix and has been implemented quite a number of
years sgo.
> Cons: Can't think of any.
Really?
Try these:
Why should the regular users have to know which volume contains their files.
If you have a volume that is being filled so you have to split the volume
into three volumes. Your current volume will remain and two additional
volumes will be added and much of the contents of the old volume will be
divided into the two new volumes. With this volume identification method
any and all references to the files that have been moved will have to be
updated and you users would have to know were their files are now stored.
Let me restate this into a unix problem along with its unix solution. You
/usr volume is filling up, so you will split out /usr/local and /usr/lib.
We will assume that you have already installed the new drives and made the
filesystems that will contain the directory subtrees that you are spliting
out of /usr. Mount the new /usr/local volume at /mnt move all the contents
of /usr/local into /mnt. unmount /mnt and remount it at /usr/local. Do the
same with the new /usr/lib volume. Edit your /etc/fstab for automatic
mounting at system startup time. You are done. None of the referrences to
any of the files have to be updated. None of your users have to even know
of the modification the you host that you have just made. Everything will
work as it did before, and yet you will have more space in /usr, /usr/local
and /usr/lib. Any files that had multiple hard links would now be
duplicated across the volumes that contain refferences to them. You may or
may not want setup softlinks to refer to a single copy of those files.
> Verdict: MacOS-style file specifications definitely seem to be the way
> to go in the next computing millennium. Why are other systems still
> using such primitive ways of doing things?
The Windows/Dos method grew out of the method that was used on CP/M and
other 8-bit OS's. Dos 1.x being a clone of CP/M was stuck with that method.
Then starting with Dos 2.x , Dos started to try to be more like unix, with
the introduction of some unix like features. However, the old CP/M
disk/volume naming remained.
The MacOS / UCSD p method is only a slight improvement over the the CP/M
method. By the way this method is just as primitive, I recall using this
method on 8-bit micros in the late 70's and early 80's. Novell NetWare also
uses this mothod with slight modifications and with other modifications so
does Microsoft networking, today's version of the old LAN Manager.
Using a name of a volume as part of a file spec, is a bad design with
administration nightmares waiting in the wings. It was somewhat acceptible
in the days of 8-bit micros, but it was a bad idea then and ti is still a
bad idea today. It make no difference whether the volume name is one
character long or one-thousand characters long. From the user's point of
view, the Dos / Windows / CP/M / TRS-80 method is just a one character long
version of the method that is used on / UCSD p / MacOS / Novell NetWare.
Adding more character does not make it any better, it just requires more
typing. When the host has to be reconfigured to handle deminishing
performance or a volume fulling up, the nightmare would be the same.
.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where are all the astroturfers?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:21:04 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think you're being a bit harsh. Chances are they're just trying to
> figure out which of the two Microsofts they're going to have to cheer
> for in the future. ;P
Mmmm. Civil war among Steve's sock puppets. Scary.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocate trapped inside a Windows Box
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:18:52 -0500
Secretly Cruel wrote:
> Well, 5.x never could detect my sound card and setting my video up was
> a pain. It didn't have KDE or Gnome, either, and getting it to work
> with my modem and the Internet was confusing. 6.x seems to have
> removed most of the rough edges from the installation process.
I've been using RH since 4.1 (haven't upgraded to 6.2 yet), and the general trend has
been for
every release to have a slightly improved installation/detection system over the
previous one.
This adds up over the 6 releases I've used, and will presumably continue to add up.
As for KDE/GNOME, those are *features* rather than installation issues. Each version
of RH (or
any other release) definitely has more juicy features than the previous. My only
regret is that I
don't have time to play with all of them.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: 14 Jun 2000 05:32:26 GMT
Tiberious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. The hardware is called crap. Hmmm that's an interesting comment from
> a group of people that seem to like to extoll the virtues of running
> linux on 486 machines.
There is a difference between crappy hardware and low-resource hardware.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"One Architecture, One OS" also translates as "One Egg, One Basket".
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:36:58 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A neophyte to any operating system would have the same problem. That is why
there are so many yellow, green, and orange book in the the computer section
of most book stores.
> I on
> the other hand am a complete newbie who's
> suddenly been tasked with setting up Linux boxes
> for web-hosting, newsgroup serving, routing, NAT
> translation, and firewalling. I spent more than
> 100 hours just trying to comprehend httpsd.conf.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: G4 in space!
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 06:03:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, void <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 13 Jun 2000 18:11:55 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:43:21 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>And thirdly, if people don't question other peoples actions then who the
>>hell will?
>
>Computers?
>
><G,D&R>
The scary thing is...we might have computers questioning our
every action someday. And that day may not be far off. :-/
Still...wouldn't you really rather have a Linux machine? :-)
[.sigsnip]
Followups.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- HTTP/1.1 402 Payment Required
-- one of the odder messages in RFC2068
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 06:11:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:38:54 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:24:28 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> Won?
>>>
>>> Slaughtered is a better way of telling it.
>>>
>>> The Linoscrews like to say a 50 percent increase in sales.
>>>
>>> Well when they have sold 10 copies last year and 15 copies this year,
>>> I guess they are correct.
>>>
>>> Windows=90 percent of the market.....
>>
>>It used to be 95 percent. Is it dropping that fast?
>
>
>I was being kind :)
>>Oh, well... Linux success cannot be measured in sales figures. Linux
>>is not a commercial business. By the way, SuSE sells bigtime in
>>Europe.
>Yes it does, and rightfully so. SuSE and Mandrake are IMHO the way
>things should be done.
Wait...I thought Windows was the way things should be done?
I'm confused now. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- of course, it depends on what needs to be done.
Crash? Corrupt data? Pick up neat viruses?
Work with 90% of the desktops and 99% of the cheaper
hardware? Well, 2 out of 5 ain't too bad... :-)
------------------------------
From: Arthur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:51:21 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> So exactly how is Linux going to unseat the already 90 or more percent
> of home/SOHO/desktop users from Windows and entice them into running
> Linux?
Why would I care?
> How about Office suites?
> Sure StarOffice is free, it is free for Windows users also but
> virtually nobody uses it. Why is that? MSOffice carries a hefty price
> tag but is still the standard by which all office suites are gauged.
> Why is that?
> Figure it out for yourself.
Actually, I never used MS Office even when I ran Windows
back a few years ago. StarOffice works just fine for
all of my business needs right now, but later this year
we'll look at replacing most of our spreadsheet use
with KOffice components embedded in our custom apps.
> How about hardware support.
Haven't had a piece of hardware that Linux didn't support.
That includes several CD-RW drives, a scanner, and a
digital camera.
> Still using that Daisywheel printer? Dot-Matrix job you bought at an
> IBM fleamarket? I doubt it. Today's PC's come with state of the art
> hardware built in to the system.
Mixing your metaphors a little, or are you really suggesting
that printers are built right into the system? We switched
to laser printers years ago, and Linux supports all of them
from the cheap Oki PCL based lasers to the new HP PS printers
we buy now. The PS printers are still a little pricey,
but we've got all of this extra money that we used to spend
on software ....
> Sure some of it (modem?) might be Win
> hardware, but who really cares? It works...
I care, because the little bit I used the WinModem that came
with the last computer we bought, I got 12Kbps connections,
while the same computer, phone line, ISP with a real modem
does 24Kbps. "It works" hardly seems to apply. (I know
24Kbps is not very impressive, but you haven't seen where
I live)
> Try that same combination under Linux and see what happens.
Linux has worked fine for me for over 2 years of
business use - we haven't used Windows anything in
that time.
> How about all that fine software that was included with the price of
> your Walmart special PC. Guess what!! It won't work with Linux!!!!
Oh gee, am I disappointed. I'll bet that's really fine software.
> So you have to try and acquire equivalent versions of everything near
> and dear to you.
Nope, it all came on the SuSE distribution (although I have
downloaded a few things). My year to date software expenditures
are - oops! there aren't any! I will be spending a whopping
$40 or so later in the year when Linux 2.4 and KDE 2.0 are
released and stable. That's for 7 computers, or less than
$6 per system.
> Let's talk ISP's.
My ISP's (3) run either Linux, Solaris, or HP-UX.
> Talk to Earthlink, Worldnet, FreeWeb, AOL, Compuserv and see what they
> think of Linux.
Why - none of them have local POP's in my area. I
have looked at independent ratings, though, and all
of the ISP's I use come out much higher than the
bozos you're listing.
> Try it yourself and see. Hint,,,,they are not happy......
My goal in life is to make large corporations happy.
> How about Napster, Digital Audio, Digital Video and so forth. Think
> the best programs and hardware are supported under Linux?
Don't use any of these.
> Think again....
> Windows has all the major players and Linux has nothing but a pile of
> promises.
But unlike MS, Linux keeps it promises.
> Come to think about it Linux is all about promises and no
> deliveries....
And you would know that how exactly?
> Point is there is absolutely no reason to run Linux on your desktop
> unless you are too cheap to buy a real operating system.
Maybe I am cheap - I sure don't mind not spending $5K and
more on software every year or so, and getting a better system
in the bargain.
> And again, isn't your time worth something?
Yep, that's why I don't want to spend my time recovering from
Windows crashes and having to do manually things that are
trivial to automate under Linux.
> Run Windows and come home to the family......
What a load of horse manure. I'm running Linux, so
I actually get to spend time with my family now, and
we take real nice vacations every year with the
money we're not paying to MS.
Looking forward to your next fantasy post.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 14 Jun 2000 14:57:23 +0800
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 04:38:01 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
>> I have used every single, currnet distribution of Linsux except
>> Slackware, and they all suck...
>
>Bullshit. You are either an idiot or a liar. If I had used a Linux
>distro and it was crap, I would never have tried another. On the other
>hand, I have used every version of Windows, past and "currnet", and they
>all suck. Of course I had them rammed down my throat by a PHB....
Maybe he gets *paid* to "test" them ?
Lets face it, MS can burn 1000's of Linux CD's, the cost is minimal. Even with
this *tremendous* advantage they're still loosing pc seats.
Imagine a commercial company doing this kind of market research against
Windows!
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 19 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ketil Nordstad)
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 06:58:02 GMT
>
>Linux has very nice sblive drivers. They play in surround just fine they
>just don support 3d sound. However their sound is cleaner then what they
>product under windows. I use by sblive under both linux and windows with a
>DTT 2500 speakers.
>
These claims you make. Where do you get them from? Surround is normaly
not defined as having the same stereo sound coming from two sets of
speakers, with mono sound from a center. Which is what linux currently
give you. And how can you say that sblives sound is cleaner in linux?
What kind of glitches are present in windows that linux doesnt have.
How did you acctually test this? What kernel modules are you using?
There is no secret that soundblaster live was made with windows in
mind. So it should probably sound better there. How many developers do
creative devote to linux? And how many developers are working on their
windows drivers? I dont know, but i do know where the money is.
When you make claims like these, that are obviously untrue. Not only
will you look like a biased fool. You make linux look bad as well.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 14 Jun 2000 07:03:00 GMT
On 13 Jun 2000 09:31:18 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tiberious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Well, I recently swapped out my Celron 450A/Tyan motherboard with an
> ASUS/Athlon 700 motherboard.
>
> Linux booted up and basically said, "cool, you have a new processor".
Sounds like when I upgraded from my K6-200 to a K6-III. I had to swap
out my motherboard for a new one. Linux was just fine except I needed
to change the IRQ setting for my sound card.
> Windows 98 booted up and FREAKED OUT. It needed the Windows 98 CD to
> load the drivers for the PCI bus, but my IDE controller is over that
> bridge so the CDROM drivers weren't loaded yet (it only gave me A: and
> C: as choices).
Also sounds familiar. Only with me I ended up with something like 3
floppy drives, 5 hard disk controllers, several modems etc. etc.
> A re-install fixed the "problem".
Didn't for me. When I installed the Matrox Mystique drivers it would
render the system unbootable. To this day I cannot use the certified
drivers on my machine without having to wipe and reinstall due to a
dead system.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 14 Jun 2000 07:03:01 GMT
On 13 Jun 2000 14:03:47 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or more likely your making it up. A Lino-nut would never pay for W2K, or anny other
>software
> for that mater.
A WinTroll would never come up with a valid argument.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
