Linux-Advocacy Digest #173, Volume #27 Sun, 18 Jun 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Darren Winsper)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (tinman)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Godzilla)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Ray Chason)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
("Quantum Leaper")
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Ciaran)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Number of Linux Users (Charlie Ebert)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Ray Chason)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
("Quantum Leaper")
Re: What UNIX is good for. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: 18 Jun 2000 22:10:24 GMT
On 18 Jun 2000 20:40:27 GMT, Darren Winsper
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:16:51 +1200, Lawrence DčOliveiro
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Psst...your newsreader's broken. Why doesn't it use "Reference:"?
Make that "References:"
--
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] ()
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 18 Jun 2000 18:12:05 -0400
On 18 Jun 2000 11:36:10 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Palmer) wrote in
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> >1. It scails down
>> >
>> >Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of
>> >RAM. Windows runs on todays computer's, and the fact that it doesn't run
>> >on some obsoleat piece-of-shit computer from 1991 doessn't mean shit.
>>
>> Actually I means I could hang onto my older PC and use it as a Samba file
>> server. Windows works on it, but see later.
>
>And with Microsoft's new "No Windows CD" policy, they will need to
>purchase a new license for Windows every time they get a new hard
>drive or motherboard/processor/BIOS.
They won't have to wait that long. They just have to wait for a
corrupt Registry.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:19:08 -0400
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 15:39:13 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
>
> >> I see the future as thin clients using technology like Microsoft
> >> Terminal Server. With a fast network (100BT, but soon gigabit
> >> ethernet will be affordable) it becomes more and more difficult, for
> >> non-games, to tell a difference between local and remote access. When
> >> gigabit (or perhaps one step beyond that) gets here, I doubt most
> >> people will be able to tell the difference. For the office
> >> environment, that makes for a very easily controlled but very powerful
> >> setup.
> >
> >
> >You're right about the central administration advantages, but the problem
> >there is getting enough umph in the server and the network near the server
> >to service those clients.
>
> The network bit is solved with gigabit (or one step beyond) Ethernet
> and a switched network.
Switched helps tremendously of course, but gige's going to be expensive
for a while (certainly until more vendors are doing it over copper). And
feeding a gige line is a bit tough right now.....
> The Server bit can be solved in a variety of ways - many servers, or
> high horsepower servers, or both. For what many people need, present
> servers each hosting a dozen or two dozen people would work just fine.
Sure, but to get the same level of responsivness as you get locally is
kind of expensive (on the networking side). I think we will see a good bit
of what you describe, but I also think performance will in practice
generally lag a bit behind what you get with a standalone desktop (which
is fine, since most machines in the office environment are under utilized)
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:04:25 +1000
"Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:nU835.5498$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Hardly. I am still unable to read multiple partitions on removable
> drives.
> >
> > Eh ? Far as I know you can do this now since NT treats things like a
Jaz
> as
> > a removable hard disk - ie you can partition it. I don't personally own
> one
> > though, so I could be wrong.
> >
> > I also can't think of any reason why you *couldn't* have multiple
> partitions
> > on removable drives.
>
> Perhaps I have misunderstood somewhere back there: Lets say that I have a
> Zip disk with two partitions. The zip drive has the drive letter Z:. So,
Z:
> lets me get to one of the partitions on the disk (apparantly the primary
> one). But which letter do I use to get to the other partition?
I think Zips are treated like a big floppy disk, but things like Jaz drives
are treated like removable hard disks. So, if you have a Jaz disk with
multiple partitions, you just get more drive letters added when you chuck
the disk in. I don't own one, so I'm not entirely sure.
There's no reason it _couldn't_ work that way.
> > 30 seconds ? Try about 5, if that. If you don't have a floppy drive
> > installed it won't even look at the floppy at _all_ since it doesn't
know
> > it's there.
>
> For some reason Windows assumes that I have a floppy. I have told the BIOS
> that I don't have one, but I still see a generic removeable drive icon in
My
> Computer, and get an enormous and annoying delay whenever anything tries
to
> access it. Does anyone know what I can do about this? :)
Good question, I don't think I've ever had a machine without a floppy :).
At a guess, I'd say if you go to the "Devices" control panel, scroll down to
"floppy" and set it's startup (button on the right) to "disabled", that
would do it. Hit the "stop" button to stop the driver.
> > If you do have a floppy drive installed and just don't have one plugged
> in,
> > well, you deserve anything you get.
>
> :)
>
> > > And unless I
> > > specifically spread all the drives out amongst the letters of the
> alphabet
> > > before I install anything then adding a new drive will still screw all
> my
> > > shortcuts and programs up.
> >
> > No, because in NT you can set any drive to any letter you want (except,
I
> > believe, floppies).
>
> That's mighty nice for those able to run NT. :)
Well, it's hardware requirements are hardly what you'd describe as extreme
today.
------------------------------
From: Godzilla <[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: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:03:06 -0500
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> Besides, most(all?) unix shells will let you wildcard all parts of a
> path that will resolve unambiguously, or will do tab-completion on
> a directory level at a time, so you really don't have to type all
> those letters right. But you do have to click exactly in the right
> spot.
The operating system I am proposing will solve this problem. It is a GUI
where the entire screen is taken up one button at a time. You will be able
to click anywhere on the screen and get the one button we provide you.
Julian
--
http://www.comm.csl.uiuc.edu/~waldby/
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: 18 Jun 2000 22:38:15 GMT
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I would suspect not. As for getting rid of vi, isn't that why we have emacs :-)?
(must...control...fist...of...death...)
s/emacs/vim/. Emacs is what we'd get if Micro$oft wrote GNU software.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[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: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 23:29:54 GMT
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:20:15 GMT, Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:35:00 -0700, Stephen Edwards
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >[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 isn't quite correct.
> >>
> >> Unix is an actual operating system and X is a graphical shell
> >> that runs on top of it. However WinDOS is a different sort of
> >> beast. The "whole OS" does not exist in DOS. Most of the OS is
> >> embedded into the GUI shell making the boundary between system
> >> components murky and DOS itself crippled.
> >>
> >> They aren't quite comparable... Unix/X vs. DOS/Win.
> >>
> >If so much is imbedded in the GUI shell, why can I change that shell?
> >LiteStep and the other available GUI replacements for Window 9x or NT 4.
>
> You're just replacing the top layer and doing it BADLY.
>
> Run LiteStep and you lose the explorer desktop.
>
All I reply too, was it CAN be done, there alot more than LiteStep out
there for shell replacements. MJCR implied you couldn't replace Explorer
because it was too tied to the OS layer.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
From: Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:28:02 -0700
Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I would suspect not. As for getting rid of vi, isn't that why
we have emacs :-)?
>
>(must...control...fist...of...death...)
>
>s/emacs/vim/. Emacs is what we'd get if Micro$oft wrote GNU
software.
>
<Gasp>
We emacs users have to put up with a lot of unfounded abuse from
you funny little vi/vim users... but thats just plain nasty.
Emacs is the editor that God would use.
Cheers,
Ciaran
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 23:30:34 GMT
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> 1. It scails down
>>
>> Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of
>> RAM. Windows runs on todays computer's, and the fact that it doesn't run
>> on some obsoleat piece-of-shit computer from 1991 doessn't mean shit.
>>
I think Tim is acting as if the Linux community went out of it's way to make
their OS compatible with older PC's. This is not true.
It was Microsoft who chose to make their latest OS incompatible with previous
generation CPU's. They claim it was because the new software wouldn't run
under such underpowered CPU's.
Linux on the other hand, WILL have a greater degree of backward compatility
because they have no GOAL of making your PC obsolete. This is not a part
of Linux criteria, to obsolete machines before their time.
You actually HAVE to make it a goal to obsolete machines like 386's and 486's
to do so.
>> 2. It's multi-user
>>
>> Linux ganes NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user. All that meens to
>> me is that I have to remember a password just to be able to get into my
>> own computer. Users want to get their work done, not waist time "logging
>> in" screwing around with usernames and passwords that can't even be
>> disaballed, and having to remember the "root password" every time
>> somethign goes wrong. Those "other users" that UNIX is dessined to
>> support through VT100 terminals can get the're own computer, and the
>> "administrative identities" aka daemon, nobody, mail, news, bin, sys,
>> and uucp, can all go to hell. It's not the '70s anymore.
>>
It's multi user in the sense that MULTIPLE users can actually use it all at the
same time. Microsoft tried this and failed in 1995-96 years.
Finally after several years of effort, Microsofts remote gui terminal is now
available and on the market. It isn't selling well due to the poor performance
of the system. But they are working on it. It is a goal of Microsoft to
provide business a true multi user experience.
>> 3. It's "flexibbal" (in other words you can turn off the GUI)
>>
>> And noboddy cares. Linux is just as useless without its GUI as Windows
>> is. There is NO REASON to turn off the GUI, and NO REASON to turn off
>> the desktop, and NO REASON to turn off the Window manager. These are all
>> useless feetures, and Linux gains NOTHING over Widnos for halvign them.
>> Yet Linux isn't flexibble enough to allow you to turn off the multi-user
>> "feature". Now THAT would be a somewhat usefull feature.
>>
Not true. I can edit and compile software, maintain databases, write letters,
work on spreadsheets all from a dumb terminal or the terminal on the console.
You don't have to have X but it's nice. Linux on the terminal is what I wish
dos would have been capable of doing years ago.
>> 4. You can logg in remotely
>>
>> ...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) to keep hackers out, where they don't need one if
>> they run Windows.
Hey, you can log in remotely to NT...
I guess you've never done this?
There are a variety of software add on packages which even make the experience
easier for NT users.
Linux is a natural at remote services. You can remotely control X program on
a high powered X server and have the gui represenation displayed on your
desktop.
Windows is just behind Linux/Unix in this area. Maybe that's what he's trying
to make a point of.
>>
>> 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.
>>
Yeah. X works over a network. Windows can't do that yet.
Their multi user windows terminal has the same idea however.
This is their corporate baby! They are trying.
>> 6. The CLI can multitask and network.
>>
>> ...which still doesn't make it any more usefull than DOS. Multitasking
>> is only usefull to normal
>> people in a GUI, which is why DOS doesn't do it.
>>
I don't get where the cut is on Linux here....
Dos doesn't multi-task, true.
Windows don't multi-task either, it timeshares.
Linux offers true multi-tasking with their kernel.
>> 7. It gives you "choice"
>>
>> ...betwean one crappy program and 50 others just like it. Most people's
>> "choice" is MS Windows
>> and the fine MS software that goes together with it. They would never
>> give up all that just to run Linux and its shitty little beta-test apps
>> except if they were tricked into it.
>>
I know there is beta software for linux.
There's alot which isn't beta anymore also.
Linux software is comparable to Windows software if you use the best
instead of the beta/alpha.
It's all in your common sense. If you have any, you don't have any problems.
IF you have no common sense then sticking to Microsoft might be your final
bet then. Just pay them the huge bucks and when you application causes
your OS to blue screen, which it will, shut up and smile.
>> 8. It's "free"
>>
>> ...but it costs lots and lots of time, a little time at first durring
>> the installation, and
>> then more and more time after the installation as one thing after
>> annother goes wrong.
>>
I've installed 4 seperate OS's in the last 2 years.
Debian, Redhat, Mandrake, Suse.
I've had 0 trouble with any of them.
Some had nicer installs and were more user freindly than others.
But they all worked just fine.
>> 9. It's Open-Source
>>
>> ...but nobody want's to waste time fixing all the bugs it has when they
>> can just run Windos
>> like they've been doing and have world-class sofrware.
>>
Windows won't be a company shortly. We merely suggest starting
to use Linux or perhaps a MAC so that you might still be a PC enthusiast.
Buying into Microsoft at this time is fool hardy at it's finest.
Microsoft won't be a major player 5 years from now.
>> 10. It's been ported to 16,000 different hardware plattforms that
>> alreaddy shipped with UNIX
>> to beagen with.
>>
>> Yawn.
>>
I'm aware of no factory freebies in the Unix world.
You can pay to have it installed but nothing free.
Well, I guess we won't be seeing from you in the near future then.
Microsoft's freebies are about to end.
People are going to have to decide whether or not to PAY to have
Windows 2000 installed at the stores shortly.
It won't just BE ON YOUR COMPUTER anymore.
And that goes the same for Internet Explorer. It won't be available
to download or for FREE anymore.
Those days have ended and with them has ended Microsoft.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 23:30:34 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Brian Langenberger wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: "Michael Born" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>:> If a product has increasing market share each year (which Linux has
>:> achieved in the server os market), they are taking over.
>
><snip>
>
>: Only if the market size itself isn't increasing.... which it is.
>
>Market *share* is a portion of the total market.
>This means that if Linux grows from 30% market share to 40%,
>for example, either:
>
>*) Linux is growing and everyone else is standing still.
>
>*) Linux is growing faster than everyone else.
>
>*) Linux is staying the same and everyone else is shrinking.
>
>*) Linux is shrinking slower than everyone else.
>
>Think about it.
I have yet one more idea!
Since Linux can't possibly go bankrupt or get split into 3 peices by some judge,
they isn't it a SHURE shot that it's going to take over Microsoft's slot in the
end?
Even if people have diarhea of the Mouth about Microsoft, it's still true that
we live in a MARKET ECONOMY and free or nearly free beats $350 anyday.
110,000 programmers worldwide beats the 17,000 at Microsoft.
So on and so forth.
It is absolutely absurd to believe otherwise.
Anybody who realizes this and knows that Linux, or BSD for that matter, is more
of a RELIGION than a business, they they have to see the light here.
To believe Microsoft is going to come out the other end of this pipe unscathed
in the end is the thought train of somebody on cocain.
You'd truely have to be a crazy moron to believe that current market forces will
NOT change because this is what YOU like NOW.
That somehow, Microsoft Windows 2005 will be back to $65 a copy again like
Windows 3.11 will. Hell, if there is a Windows 2005 it will be over $1000 a
copy my friends.
I have an important message for all of you. All of you on Cola.
All you fine Cola people...
I want you to develop a brain.
Thank you.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: 18 Jun 2000 22:45:22 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Seeing as WebTV has a higher market share than Linux, it might not be
>a bad idea.
Market share isn't everything. There are more Fords than Ferraris on the
road. But which would *you* rather have?
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 23:55:09 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ijb91$gka$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Answer what question? You had no question directed to me. Your posting
> provided evidence supporting my position and I was acknowleging it.
>
>
> Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:5x_25.7144$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8igu96$tb2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > If so much is imbedded in the GUI shell, why can I change that
shell?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is a question, you do know what a Question mark means right? (Thats
another question)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:08:55 GMT
But Ferrari is not trying to compete with Ford in a
Ford/Chevy/Chrysler etc marketplace. In other words the Ferrari and
the Ford are 2 different animals.
Linux IS trying to compete with Windows and is doing quite a poor job
of it. The rash of poorly thought out and inconsistent Windows
imitation gui's proves that point.
Linux should have stayed a CLI operating system IMHO because it is
extremely powerful in that application and quite frankly Linux is
embarrassing itself by trying to graft a slow and obviously inferior
GUI on top of a stable system.
The facts are:
1. Linux may be a superior technical design vs Windows 98SE.
2. Linux is for all practical purposes free.
3. Applications for Linux are free.
4. Add many more Linux advantages............
5........
6....
etc
100. Linux's market share STILL stinks as a whole. A .3 percent (up
from .2 percent I might add) is a crock. Even fudging the numbers to
account for multiple installs and so forth, Linux isn't even close to
Windows in market share.
The myth of Linux taking over Windows is just that a myth.
The public at large is generally ignoring Linux.
On 18 Jun 2000 22:45:22 GMT, Ray Chason
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Seeing as WebTV has a higher market share than Linux, it might not be
>>a bad idea.
>
>Market share isn't everything. There are more Fords than Ferraris on the
>road. But which would *you* rather have?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
