Linux-Advocacy Digest #113, Volume #27 Fri, 16 Jun 00 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (lstewart)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Gwizdak)
Re: What UNIX is good for. ("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
Re: An Example of how not to benchmark ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux faster than Windows? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Bill Sharrock)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Perry Pip)
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Stephen Edwards")
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Stephen Edwards")
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Stephen Edwards")
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
("Stephen Edwards")
how do i change the system date? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lstewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 01:02:33 -0400
Alan Baker and a herd of weasels screed:
i notice that the gui advocates don't seem
to have mastered the art of trimming the
text in their endless replies to this
fucking horrible thread that has been
bloating talk.bizarre.
i pray that microsnot is put in charge
of your plumbing.
now fook aff
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gwizdak)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 05:32:52 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:45:18 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>You can barely do anything with graffics in UNIX.
>I take it you've never used Interleaf, Framemaker, Mentor Graphics,
>Cadence, Intergraph, or other such things, then.
>What do you think Mentor Graphics does? Cardboard boxes? :-)
I missed the original post, so this applies to the person you're
correcting.
I believe the special effects to the Matrix were done with FreeBSD
boxen.
>>or even a good LOGO interporator.
>Oh yeah, I want Win2K just to allow kids to program in LOGO!
Logo is LISP dialect developed by MIT.
The chance of a UNIX interpreter NOT existing is very low.
--
___ S. Gwizdak
<o-o> http://www.caughq.org/~wazm
[`-']
-"-"-
------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:39:56 +0400
Hey!
You can't even put a question mark in your subject and
you are talking here about UNIX.
Ferdinand
Tim Palmer wrote:
> UNIX is very good at shuffelling text aroumd. LinoNuts call that "powerfull". I call
>it
> "pointless".
>
> However, doing annything else with UNIX is a chalange. It's not fast enough to be
>any kind
> of server, so if you realy want to shuffel text around and then send it out to
>Windows 2000
> sevrer where it can be axcessed by users, you still nead 20 UNIX boxes just to keep
>up with the
> servor. You can save the money you would spend on the 20 UNIX boxes (and the days it
>would take
> just to figure how to make it shuffall text and send it to Windos) just by doing
>everyting on
> the Windos 2000 server.
>
> You can barely do anything with graffics in UNIX. The Gimp is a joke when you
>compare it to Adobe
> PhotoShop (by it and see for yourself if your not to chepe), or even a good LOGO
>interporator.
> And if you do anything with grafix, you can only save a JPEG or PNG (forget GIF's!
>their
> "pollitacolly incorrect", like everything ealse that doesn't work on UNIX!) and
>immbedding or
> intergrating anything is a no-no (un-P.C. again), so you halve to have the text in
>one file and
> the graficks in another fial, or use HTML (another joke excuse for what you can do
>in Windows
> with Office, or even WordPad, and the text and graffix still half to be in different
>fials),
> and NO ANIMATIONS OR ANYTHING THAT CANT BE REPARSENTED BY TEXT OR A BITMAP!!
>
> So what is UNIX good four? Prettending its' the 1970s, i gess. Look mommy, I'm the
>Sysadmin! You
> can be my user. Type "elm" if you wan't to rede your e-mial, e-mails you write get
>sent once a
> week thru UUCP, and look at this it's real kewl! If you want to chat, with the other
>users you
> can type "write", but you'll always be the only user logged in anyway. Oh, and the
>CD drive,
> sound card, scanner, printer, modem, graffics card, and floppy drive arent' working
>annymore
> like they did when we had Windoas, but thats' only because they were all propietrary
>and bad
> and stuff. We just half to get new ones, thats' all.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of how not to benchmark
Date: 16 Jun 2000 15:02:48 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8ib50k$oic$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>And lo and behold, the timings were similar --- 21 minutes for the
>>Windows executable, and 29 minutes for the linux one (which seems to
>>suggest that the Celeron is actually faster at this than a P2, and
>>that gcc 2.96 is producing better code than whatever the Povray team
>>used for their linux executable).
>Finally someone agrees with me.
Uhm, as long as you define "agrees with me" as "confirms the numbers you
get, but in the same breath points out that the numbers were obtained in
a flawed way, and that once the flaw is fixed, the numbers show the
opposite", you are right ;-)
Bernie
--
Tyranny is always better organized than freedom
Charles Peguy
French poet and essayist
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: 16 Jun 2000 15:14:32 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8ib53b$ojj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>The one that encourages me to look critically at such comparisons?
>Huh? No, the one that runs it faster!
But only if it *really* runs faster, using the *same* configuration.
Bernie
--
If I am a great man, then all great men are frauds
Andrew Bonar Law
British Prime Minister 1922-23
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 01:50:39 -0500
From: Bill Sharrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:42:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:14:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:35:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:30:14 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:47:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
<snip>
> >>
> >>Please provide me with an example of a current Windows program that
> >>does not?
> >
> > Crystal Reports.
>
> Never heard of it.
>
> Some sort of Physic program or something?
<snip>
Crystal Reports is a report generator. From what I know it is rather
popular. A lot of clients at work use it and our helpdesk software
generates call summaries and what not through Crystal Reports.
Some development platforms for Windows come with Crystal Reports to
handle printouts, iirc. The program may not be a hot commodity in the
home but it is known in the business world.
--
I know life's a bummer baby
But that's got nothing at all to do with me - Monster Magnet
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 06:39:09 GMT
On 15 Jun 2000 06:32:13 +0800,
Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:30:55 GMT, Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 14 Jun 2000 16:29:12 -0500,
>>Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>Now, it's tommorro. What happens when the average user doesnt' remember wheather
>it's "scanimage"
>>>or "scanpicture" or, worse, yet, when the user does'nt remember what's supposed to
>go in front of
>>>the word "scanner"?
>>>
>>
>>You type Ctrl-R and search your command history to get the command you
>>entered the day before. Duh....you haven't used Linux very much, have
>>you?? Why don't you actually learn how to use an OS before you make
>>comparisons to other OS's??
>>
>>Perry
>>
>
>Yeah ^r is your bash friend :)
>He could be even be a *bit* inventive and search ~/.bash_history ?
>
>The level of ignorance of the current Wintrolls has dropped to a new low.
>Microsoft must be scouring the alleyways now.
>
And of course he hasn't responded because he hasn't the foggiest idea
what we are talking about.
Perry
------------------------------
From: "Stephen Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:46:32 -0700
JEDIDIAH wrote in message ...
>On 15 Jun 2000 22:28:56 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Michael Born <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>: Where Linux is superior now (as a server), it is in fact taking over.
>>
>>1.) I challenge you to quantify "superior". Superior _how_, exactly?
>
> Crashes less.
Your experience differs from mine.
> Less prone to self destruction.
Hogwash. Any OS can be made to eat itself alive,
if improper drivers, or faulty hardware are present.
Are you telling me that you've never had a kernel
panic? I'd be very inclined to think you were
fibbing.
> Cheaper.
That is arguable. It depends upon the situation.
> Easier & more standard remote admin.
"Easier" and "more standard" really comes down to
"what you have the most experience with".
>> Please, don't tell me that it's superior because "Microsoft is
>> buggy and bloated, because we've heard that tripe far too often
>> to take it seriously anymore.
>
> Bugs do matter, despite your attempt to sweep them under the rug.
I'm not sweeping anything anywhere. I'm just stating that claiming
that Windows is more buggy and/or bloated than Linux is ridiculous,
considering that X is one of the most well-known resource hogs in
the more technical circles.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| | "But which do think is better?... The Dreamcast or 'PS2?'
|_..._| Oh good! YOU WIN... nothing." -- SEGA's Seaman @ E3 2000
------------------------------
From: "Stephen Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:52:33 -0700
Michael Born wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
>> Michael Born <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> : Where Linux is superior now (as a server), it is in fact taking over.
>>
>> 1.) I challenge you to quantify "superior". Superior _how_, exactly?
>> Please, don't tell me that it's superior because "Microsoft is
>> buggy and bloated, because we've heard that tripe far too often
>> to take it seriously anymore.
>
>My post was in response to the original post in the thread which asked "Is
>Linux taking over?" IMO, the second half of my statement is more important
>than the first. I will therefore revise it to "In the area I believe to be
>the strength of Linux, functioning as a server operating system, it is in
>fact taking over."
According to Netcraft, if you replaced "Linux" with "Apache",
I would be able to agree with you. But according to figures
posted recently by John Hughes (do an author search for the
thread from your client), Linux's userbase is lower than a
snake's navel.
>> 2.) You have absolutely zero figures present to back up that silly
>> statement with. What is the basis of your claim?
>
>Again, my focus was intended to be on the fact (and yes, it is a fact),
>that Linux is on its way to becoming the leading server OS. The technial
It is not a fact, because you have no data that can be used to
back up speculation. What you're essentially doing here, is
"guessing", which is fine... but make sure you state that such
things are "speculation", otherwise, your view has no merits.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| | "But which do think is better?... The Dreamcast or 'PS2?'
|_..._| Oh good! YOU WIN... nothing." -- SEGA's Seaman @ E3 2000
------------------------------
From: "Stephen Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:55:31 -0700
Michael Born wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> Again, my focus was intended to be on the fact (and yes, it is a fact),
>> that Linux is on its way to becoming the leading server OS. The technial
>> merits I will leave to those who think they are relevant to how the maket
>> will evolve (go Beta, kick some VHS ass!).
>>
>
>technial? maket?
>
>Mised my caling as a typest.
Considering that this is *.advocacy, I'm suprised
that someone who vehemently disagrees with you
has not spelling-flamed you yet. :-)
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| | "But which do think is better?... The Dreamcast or 'PS2?'
|_..._| Oh good! YOU WIN... nothing." -- SEGA's Seaman @ E3 2000
------------------------------
From: "Stephen Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:35:00 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <8ic211$htb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>There are things that I have seen mentioned in these three news groups by
>the supporters of the Microsoft Windows environment that I can not reconcile
>with what I have experienced in reality, I would like to discuss one of
>them. Please note that I did not say the Windows operating system, since
>there is no such beast. Windows, in all of its incarnations is nothing more
>than a graphical environment that runs on an actual operating system.
This is incorrect. WindowsNT runs a modified
microkernel design. Windows9x is a tad more like
your description, but there is an awful lot more to
it, that doesn't quite fit with your contention.
BTW, you were aware that Linux running X is "nothing
more than a graphical environment that runs on an
actual operating system", weren't you?
I'm not going to waste my time explaining it, as it's
obvious that you have a lot of homework to do, regarding
operating systems design.
>I have seen it stated here that Microsoft has made support for preexisting
>software a priority in their design of Windows. I find all the too
>unbelieveable when faced with what I have experienced in working with the
>Windows environment. The ability to run dos software is often cited as
>proof of their efforts to not make our investment in existing software
>obsolete.
Windows95 and Windows98 run DOS applications just fine, if
they are run from DOS mode only (running them in a Windows
DOS session can cause problems). However, WindowsNT does
have problems with some DOS applications, because it does
not allow any direct hardware access whatsoever. But all
things considered, I think the VDM works pretty darned well
for an emulated environment.
>Support for dos applications is simple enough considering that so many
>versions of windows up to an including 95 and 98 require the dos operating
>system to run. The best way for Microsoft to prove their conmitment to
>supporting preexisting applications would be for any version of windows to
>support any applications that were written for previous version of Windows.
>Providing that support would be childplay compared to providing multiple
>concurrent "dos boxes" with in the Windows Environment. Unfortunatly,
>Microsoft seems to have gone out of their way to make preexisting Windows
>software obsolete.
Microsoft doesn't necessarily make software go obsolete (though
they do have quite a bit of control over its lifespan). Some
software just literally loses popularity, because of a lacking
in features, and functionality. This happens on every OS.
>Windows 1.x software no longer ran under Windows 3.x. Most Windows 2.x
>software still ran under Windows 3.x (with warning to upgrade the software),
That's because real-mode never made its way into Windows v3.x.
In order for Microsoft to move forward, they had to leave some
things behind... real-mode applications were one of those things.
By your logic, we should all be driving cars that still have
oil lamps on them.
Would you suggest that every software company simply cater to
every single old-timer out there who doesn't want to upgrade
their ancient OS/application installations? That makes no
sense at all. Progress is the nature of things, and it's
necessary if a business of any kind wishes to survive.
>by Windows 3.1, most of them were non-functional, by Windows 95, none that I
>have tried would run at all anymore. Only some of the Windows 3.x software
>would run on Windows 95, i can only imagine what would happen if I tried to
>run them on Windows 98 or 2000.
Well, it's silly to think that you should be able to run every
single piece of legacy software out there on each progressive
new version of an OS. If your software is that old, then it's
simply time for you to upgrade it. That is the nature of
computing. If you don't keep up, you simply get left behind.
>There is the all too frequent incompatibility between Windows 9x and Windows
>NT software. How hard would it have really have been for Microsoft to
Such as? If you're referring to how well each of them handles
legacy software, yes, that is true to a point. If you're
referring to this "lack of a standard API" thing you keep stating,
then you are very misinformed.
>provide a standard API for the Windows Environment that would support real
>portability across all the varations of Windows? You could say that since
True Win32 applications run just fine on both platforms. As
far as this topic is concerned, I really have no idea what
you're complaining about. I've never had an application
that would only work under WindowsNT but not Windows9x, or
vice versa.
The only programs that I've had problems getting to
work under both environments similarly are some games,
and usually, the problem was that they needed the latest
version of DirectX. With Windows2000, this problem
has been solved.
>one varation of Windows runs on one operating system and another varation
>runs on another and the programs need access to the features of the
>operating system which prevent their portability. This is not a resonable
>response considering that a standard Windows API could provide wappers for
>access to the operating system. So that reguardless of the varation of
Win32 is the standard Windows API. If your apps don't work
on both Windows9x, and WindowsNT, don't blame Microsoft...
blame the dumbasses who wrote your application, because it's
most likely a stupid programming flaw on their part that is
causing the incompatibility.
>Windows that a program was written on it would be able to run on any other
>varation as well. If a given operating system has no support for a given
>feature then the standard API of Windows could provide the feature and the
>API "wrapper" would call the "emulation library" rather than the operating
>system. As long as you run a Windows program on a processor that is able to
>execute the machine code of the processor that was used and the target of
>the compiler package the generated the program's executable, it should be
>portable across all varations of Windows.
As I said, if it's a true Win32 application, it will.
If it doesn't work on both platforms (assuming DirectX
isn't an issue), then it's not a true Win32 application.
>Given all this, how can anyone claim that Microsoft has made support for
>preexisting (old) software or portability a priority in their design of
>Windows?
They have had to make some sacrifices, but leaving old
and cumbersome technologies behind is not a "bad" thing.
I honestly see no reason for you to have a beef with
Microsoft, when it seems that it is you who is unwilling
to upgrade your applications properly for the OS you are
running. You can't run Windows9x, or WindowsNT, expecting
to be able to run all of your DOS 3.3, or Windows v2.x apps
seamlessly. Such a request is simply absurd.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| | "But which do think is better?... The Dreamcast or 'PS2?'
|_..._| Oh good! YOU WIN... nothing." -- SEGA's Seaman @ E3 2000
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: how do i change the system date?
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 06:49:57 GMT
hi
I want to change the system date of my linux machine.
how do i do that?
thanks
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
