Linux-Advocacy Digest #166, Volume #27 Sun, 18 Jun 00 08:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone (Terry Porter)
Re: Processing data is bad! (2:1)
Re: Processing data is bad! (2:1)
Re: Processing data is bad! (2:1)
Re: Processing data is bad! (2:1)
Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs? (2:1)
Re: Desktop Arm systems? (2:1)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (2:1)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (2:1)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (2:1)
Re: Keyboard shortcuts - was - Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users (James Waldby)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (WhyteWolf)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 18 Jun 2000 17:20:05 +0800
I've just returned from Perth, where I stopped to examine the increase in Linux
books at Dymocks Technical Bookshop, one of the better equiped bookstores in
Perth Western Australia.
Whilst looking thru the entire bookshelf now devoted to Linux (and Unix)
I noticed a huge set of boxed books marked "The Windows2000 Server Resource
Kit" priced at $299!
Thats right Two Hundred and Ninety Nine dollars for the things Linux does for
free, for **ZERO** dollars!
Linux also does them day after day, reliably and without locking up, and
without needing a kings ransome in RAM or HDD, or CPU.
Tell us again "Steve/Keys88/Amy, whatever" how Windows rules again ?
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 4 days 22 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:12:08 +0100
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:29:10 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >you see...unix's 'file' command actuall OPENS THE FILE AND READS IT to
> >determine what kind of file it actually is
>
> Why not just name your text files .txt and avoid all that trouble? I
> can hardly believe a quick file search is faster than opening each and
> every file on your hard drive to see if it's a text file or not.
My C, tcl, bash, conf etc etc files are text files. I want to call them
.c .tcl .whatever. I don't want to call all text files *.txt
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:13:14 +0100
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> 2:1 wrote:
> >
> > Mingus wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:32:20 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >As for me, I'll stick with my arcane 1970s, useless, uncool, not shiny
> > > >commandline, and spend all day `shuffalling text fials'.
> > >
> > > That's terribly exciting... just how many text files do you have?
> >
> > lots.
> >
> > In fact tonight, I'll remember to do a
> >
> > find / grep -v '^/dev/.*' | xargs file | grep -c text
>
> Ummmm, you forgot to count the output lines:
>
> find / grep -v '^/dev/.*' | xargs file | grep -c text | wc
>
Man grep, man.
grep -c prints out a _count_ of the number of matched lines.
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:17:41 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Fuzzy streaks says it all.
Hey, if I get 'doze to give my moniter 1280x1024 I get `fuzzy streaks'
as well. Windows must be *really* shit if it does that.
It's my MONITER you fool. It can't handle the refresh rate properly. No
OS is going to fix a crap moniter.
-Ed
> Crappy jagged fonts is par for the Linux course.
Console text looks just the same as full screen DOS text. Same
hardware.We're not talking about X. Read the fscking thread.
>
> Don't believe it?
>
> Check out Petreley's review of Wordperfect Office for Linux.
>
> www.infoworld.com should get you going.
>
> And HE is a Linux supporter.
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:45:43 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I love it when this dumbass jumps up and down on one offhand comment
> >that is negative, completely ignoring all the positive things said
> >previously. Goddamned idiot.
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> Sounds like par for the course.
> >>
> >> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:35:09 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Cihl wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Try the CLI at the highest resolution your monitor can handle. It
> >> >> looks really cool.
> >> >
> >> >Unfortunately, I can't get SVGATextMode to give me anything better than
> >> >80x50, all I get are fuzzy streaky unsynced lines all over the place.
> >> >
> >> >Oh, well
> >> >
> >> >-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:20:38 +0100
2:1 wrote:
>
> Mingus wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:32:20 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >As for me, I'll stick with my arcane 1970s, useless, uncool, not shiny
> > >commandline, and spend all day `shuffalling text fials'.
> >
> > That's terribly exciting... just how many text files do you have?
>
> lots.
>
> In fact tonight, I'll remember to do a
>
> find / grep -v '^/dev/.*' | xargs file | grep -c text
>
> and tell you exactly hoe many text files I have. Now can anyone tell me
> how to do that under Windows?
>
> -Ed
>
I said I would. Looks like about 10,000 or so.
shuffal, shuffal, shuffal...
-Ed
--
> The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
> http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
>
> remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
> it.
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:42:18 +0100
I've had some experience with this.
Apps
----
Netscape doesn't run well on 486 SXs apparently it runs much better on
DXs. If there SXs, then set up a font server on a fast computer.
Netscape 4.7 will run on a 486SX33 with 16MB ram if you have all day to
wait. Try netscape 2.02, but IIRC you have to install a.out
compatibility libs.
x3270 is a 3270 emulator for X. Comes with most distros (i think).
FVWM2 (WM) is very easy to configure, robust, low resource and can look
just like '95. It can have a start menu (with pretty icons) and a button
bar, but no Icons on the desktop. The only way to change this is to edit
the config file (see later). This gui is really very easy to use, and
very easy to configure. The man page for fvwm2 is very good and the
config files provide a really nice example.
SECURITY
=======
To prevent users having to log in, you can put an entry in inittab to
automatically log in as no previlage user and start up X, although some
people might regard this as a bad idea. I don't know any other way of
doing it though. (i'll call this user 'user')
Prevent anyone displaying on X remotely (man xauth)
Run netscape as a chrooted binary, otherwise people can use it to
execute xterms etc.
Disabling remote access daemons is usually a good idea, but not if you
want to remote administer them. Instead (using hosts.allow and
hosts.deny (I think there are other(betetr) ways)) block access from all
computers except the one that you want to use to administer them. You
won't be able to log in as root unless you set up a trusted terminal.
You can, swoever log in and then su to root.
I cna't remember how, you can set up Lilo to require a password if
something like linux 1 is entered at the prompt. This will help prevent
people gaining root access from the terminal.
Remove all virtual consoles from inittab.
Set up all configuration files for the default user to be owned by
someone else, so user cna't edit them.
I suppose that you could even run log in 'user' in a chrooted system.
Every time the computer is rebooted, it could copy a sample set of files
to user's root. This way, even if someone manages to trash all the
configs under user, it won't matter for too long.
I did all of the above except this one. So it is perfectly possible.
Good luck
-Ed
Flacco wrote:
>
> Can Linux do this?
>
> We would like to put some "obsolete" hardware to use as web browser kiosks.
> We have Win95 and IE installed on them now, but I though I'd give Linux a
> try.
>
> Requirements:
>
> - Run pretty well on 486/66's with 16MB RAM.
>
> - GUI that is fairly easy to use for a non-technical Windows user
>
> - Support 3270 connections to VM mainframe
>
> - Simple web browser with low memory requirements; must be easy to use for
> people familiar with IE and Netscape.
>
> - Must be able to "lock down" the desktop so that users cannot change the
> configurations at all. The only things we want these machines to be able to
> do is browse the web and establish 3270 sessions.
>
> - As an added bonus, it would make my life easier if I can manage these
> machines remotely from my office.
>
> - All software components must be freeware.
>
> Does anyone have any opinions on the feasibility of this, and suggestions
> for products (3270 client, web browser), and techniques (ideal Linux config,
> locking down desktop)?
>
> I'm just getting started with Linux, and I really like what I see so far.
> Thanks in advance for your opinions and suggestions!
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Desktop Arm systems?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:47:35 +0100
Daniel Mendyke wrote:
>
> Is there a source for non x86 based general
> desktop PC in the US? Most of what I've
> seen so far have been either Alpha based
> or 'black box' type servers.
>
> Anyone making a desktop style ARM machine
> or MIPS based system? Any source for motherboards
> that would work with generic parts?
>
> -Daniel
>
> --
>
> To reach me remove the 'nospam.'
> my address is 'daniel at clacknet dot com'
www.riscos.co.uk have a list of manufacturers for StrongARM computers.
There mabey some US based ones or ones willing to export.
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:53:58 +0100
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> 1. It scails down
>
> Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of RAM. Windows
>runs on > > > todays
^^^^^
> ...creating the nead for the whole username-and-pasword system. And since it's a
>feature that
> only geeks need, the only "beneffit" for normal users is that they need a password
>(see #2)
^^^^^
make up your mind what you'll spell badly. Besides I thought the `fine'
Misros~1 software would have 'fine' spel chekas. Use them.
> 5. "X" Windows works over a network.
>
> Another faeture that nobody ever uses. This doesn't make "X" Windows more usefull to
>most
> users. Windows still wins.
Personally I don't like windows, but hey, that's my choice. As it
happens the NT box I'm on now has an X server running, and to me it
looks like I'm on a SUN. So I use that transparent feature a lot.
> :
> :post
> The post command is unknown.
> :exit
> The exit command is unknown.
> :close
> The close command is unknown.
> :quit
> File modified since last complete write; write or use ! to override.
> :save
> The save command is unknown.
> :s
> No previous regular expression.
> :Oh darnit!
> The Oh command is unknown.
> :?
> No previous regular expression.
> :quit
> File modified since last complete write; write or use ! to override.
> :!
> Usage: [line [,line]] ! command.
> :! quit
> File modified since last write.
> bash: quit: command not found
> quit: exited with status 127
> :?
> No previous regular expression.
> :DIE YOU PIECE OF LINSHIT!!!!!!
> The DIE command is unknown.
I'm glad that you can't use vi.
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:58:19 +0100
> I really do wonder if most Linx users are 13-19 years old with lots of
> spare time. Thats the point in my life that I would happily spend
> HOURS setting up something for the fun of it. That's when I couldn't
> afford anything other than freeware tools and I had to suffer with
> their poor quality.
As it happens i don't have spare time for reboots, crashes, etc, etc.
Also, I'm no longer 19 (as of yesterday)
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 12:08:59 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mlw) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Standard Windows draw function:
> >application --> <GDI> --> <display driver>
> >
> >A simplified Terminal Server draw function:
> >application --> <GDI> -->terminal server --> <network> --> terminal
> >client --> <GDI> --> <display driver>
>
> [ship]
>
> >Standard X draw function:
> >application --> <toolkit> --> <X Server>
>
> By your definition, the X system is implicitly _slower_ than standard
> Windows as there are several layers to get through.
>
> My experience of MOTIF was the multiple layers - let me see if I can get
> this right:
>
> X
> Xt
> Xw
> Motif
It does not really have to go through those layers.
Xlib, Xt, Motif are just software libraries which compile down in to a
single layer. If you are not communicating over a network, unix domain
sockets are used which are iirc faster.
> I remember the 'gadget' object being added as it used less resources than a
> 'widget'.
>
> Now we have KDE:
>
> X
> Qt
> KDE
>
> Now compare this with WIN32
What about the MFC layer ;-)
>
> Windows 9x Windows 2000
> WIN32 API WIN32 API
> Thunking layer Native API
>
> It just seems to me X has more to get through. Also it runs as a _user_
> mode application. I see in XFree86 it is now a _kernel_ mode application
> just like Windows to get the _speed_. Fascinating!
>
On my computer, my accererater user mode X server is quite fast enough.
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: James Waldby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Keyboard shortcuts - was - Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:34:56 GMT
Rich C wrote:
>
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
...
> > Clicking on a button is no more a graphical command than pressing
> > a key that activates the button on screen. GUIs are about how the
> > information is *presented*.
...
> I think "GUI" defines the interface, which
> consists of output AND input.
A "user interface" is something that allows users to
interact with or control computer processes. Typical
UI's allow command or data input or selection; data
output; and control.
With a CLI, or command line interpreter, you can enter
commands that result in graphical output, and vice versa
for some GUI's. Individual preferences for and experience
with various UI's are so diverse that it isn't reasonable
to expect agreement, even on the obvious...
I prefer CLI's within GUI's, myself. That is, it's quite
reasonable to have a window manager that lets you open as
many xterms as you like, using whatever font sizes you
prefer. Being able to do things without going through
multiple levels of giant menus is a strong advantage of
CLI access. Note, many of the ease-of-use advantages
previously claimed in this thread for GUI's are built-in
features of unix shells such as bash, ksh, and ysh
via command completion, filename completion, command
recall, and command-line editing.
> > It is a GUI interface, IMHO, as soon as you move away from having to know
> > the commands and are instead "picking from a list" of "presented options".
Yes, lists of presented options are a common feature
of GUI's. But not a definite or defining feature.
(Aside: Windows 9x installations are riddled with
dialog boxes that have only one viable option...
You are asked, "Do you want to reboot now?", when
the question should be, "Reboot now?". I never
want to reboot ~ at least not into Windows ~ so
always feel a hypocrite, and computers shouldn't
make you feel that way.)
> So where is the presented list of keyboard shortcuts in Windows?
> Don't you have to "know" the commands? Sure you can go to the
> help system to get them, but that doesn't count, as any good
> text-based CLI has help too.
W9x has numerous undocumented or incorrectly
documented shortcuts. Using help ~ I hesitate
to call it a system ~ frequently won't tell you
what you don't already know.
Here's an exercise for W9x zealots or masochists:
what are the keyboard shortcuts, in W9x netscape, for
View / Headers / All, Normal, or Brief? (Under
linux, they are alt-@, alt-#, and alt-$, respectively.)
> > However, I doubt your average MacAdvocate would agree with that :).
>
> I'm not a MacAdvocate and I don't agree with it either. IMHO, a text-based
> menu-driven interface is NOT a GUI. Perhaps it needs its own class
> definition, but to me, it is more a CLI than a GUI.
...
> -- Rich C.
...
You could also try classifying yume, which in a unix
environment provides a menu of editable commands.
(This Tcl program could be adapted to other
platforms; I haven't had occasion to do so.)
See: http://members.home.net/j-waldby/yume/
-jiw
======================
"The Japanese language is supposed to allow the speaker to dance
around a
subject while observing the recipient, and then pop the appropriate
verb
in at the end depending on how things are going." -- Spehro Pefhany
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (WhyteWolf)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 18 Jun 2000 11:42:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Colin R. Day wrote:
[sniped the lies of Tim Palmer]
>And what shell is this?
>
>Colin Day
>
its' not a shell it's in reference to vim ..
altho it does show his stupidity
he doesn't seem to relize that
write makes alot more sence
then save ... because you are in fact
writeing a file not saveing it
and then the :quit command
becomes avalible with out the
must write warning altho if he
didn't want to write and still quit
!quit should have worked unless vim
isn't set up right in which case
typeing !quit gives a error msg like he
discribes
--
-=-=-=-=-
Biology grows on you.
-=-=-=-=-
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:03:14 -0400
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 01:06:48 -0400, "Colin R. Day"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Jeff Szarka wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 07:35:06 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The only people who seem to dislike X, are those that don't know X. Yes,
> >> >it is not as fast as it could be, but it is pretty fast. Accelerated
> >> >versions of X are quite fast.
> >> >
> >> >What is X?
> >>
> >> I'm going to forward a copy of this message to my grandmother and see
> >> what she thinks of X. The amount of the market that actually cares
> >> about such things is very small. My grandmother (and her friends) make
> >> up the other 90% Which market do you want?
Why on earth would your grandmother want to know about software design.
This post was intended to show the technical difference between two
methodologies. The same bogus statement can be made were one to describe
the difference between 98SE an W2k.
> >
> >We want an OS that is not dumbed down to your grandmother.
>
> and that's why Turbo Linux and Corel are laying off people. There
> isn't a big enough market for even one Linux company.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> People hate X becuase it's ugly and slow. They don't care why it's
> >> ugly and slow, they just know it is.
But X isn't ugly. X is the device driver, not the code which does the
presentation. As for fonts, there are many very good fonts for X. X,
btw, isn't the fastest display technology, sure, but it is hard to
characterize it as slow.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
