Linux-Advocacy Digest #226, Volume #27 Wed, 21 Jun 00 09:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: It's all about the microsurfs (mlw)
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: I had a reality check today :( (2:1)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(Charles Philip Chan)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: The Linux Challenge (Bob Tennent)
Re: Linux is awesome! (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Linux is awesome! (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (2:1)
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (2:1)
Re: I've got reiserfs. Drestin, now bash Linux. (Christopher Browne)
Re: The MEDIA this year! (Darren Winsper)
Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ??? (Jorge JUAN CHICO)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (=?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 07:13:51 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Nobody on line at MEI Microcenter buying those HP Pavillion computers
> pre-loaded with Windows gives a rat's ass.
>
> Linux isn't even an option to the 90 or so percent of the public.
>
> These people walk into a computer supermarket and say to the sales
> person "give me your best deal".
Soon that best deal with be HP Linux or Gateway Linux. Just think, take
away M$ software and you can sell the computer for, at least, $100 less.
--
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.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 21 Jun 2000 07:54:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Woofbert) wrote in <spam-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>No, no. no, that line of argument is simply not allowed. I have heard NT
>proponents argue that since Windows NT is superior to the Mac OS because
>at the application level NT has preemptive multitasking and the Mac has
>cooperative multitasking. The advantage, according to this argument, is
>that NT has "real" multitaskng and can run a dozen processes at once,
>while the Mac cannot. NT proponents cannot now turn around and say that
>Linux's superior multitasking is irrelevant.
All I asked is what the processes are doing? Still no answer as yet -
therefore I conclude "nothing useful".
I'm not questioning the multitasking aspect, just what's the point of
hundreds of processes running when nobody seems to know what they're
actually doing?
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:37:37 +0100
> Try vi on you your significant other, assuming she is not a LinoGeek
> of course :)
I didn't acutally bother subjecting her to vi (even though I swear by
it). XEmacs on the other hand is very easy to use and she has no problem
with it.
Actually XEmacs really benefits from this SUN keyboard here, coz it has
lots of useful keys like copy, paste, cut etc, etc.
-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.
------------------------------
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?
From: Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Jun 2000 07:34:47 +0500
--Multipart_Wed_Jun_21_07:34:47_2000-1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>>>>> "John" == John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wasn't saying you need a GUI on an arbitrary machine. I was
> just commenting that given a few more years, and after moving
> the GUI to the kernel for speed,
What gives you the idea that the GUI will be moved into the kernel in
a few years time? Having a GUI an a server (which is usually headless
anyway) makes no sense and is a waste of resources.
> it would make sense for good admin tools to be developed for the
> GUI and hence require a GUI on the machine to use them.
If you really want GUI admin tools what is wrong with a web based
interface through SSL or a ncurses based interface through xterm+ssh?
> The quote was "Just as you practically need perl, python and
> half a dozen other scripting packages to run a full featured
> Linux installation, so you will probably end up needing the
> GUI."
Although you can write graphical applications with most of these
scripting languages, you don't have to.
> For a full featured unix machine, one day you will probably need
> the GUI. It is already heading that way - look at Mac OS X.
Maybe for a desktop machine depending on your personal peferences, but
definitely not on a server. Although Mac OS X uses a BSD kernel, it is
an Apple OS and is *not* marketed as Unix.
> I was the other day, trying to install a NAT system from RH 6.2
> onto a 240M disk. Just wouldn't work. Turned out trying to
> replace Win98 + ICS on that machine with Linux was a stupid
> idea.
Actually, the functionality that you need here can fit on one floppy
image, just look at the Linux Router Project. You can probably acheive
the same result yourself by doing a custom install with just the
packages that you need. You can further slim it down by recompiling
the kernel with just the functionality that you need.
> Graphical applications are tied to interfaces because it is the
> interface that abstracts the hardware. Change the interface and
> the application necessarily has to change.
I thought it is the OS that abstract the hardware. Just look at the
device file system.
Charles
--Multipart_Wed_Jun_21_07:34:47_2000-1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
=====================================================
One Net to rule them all, One Net to find them,
One Net to bring them all, and with Linux bind them.
=====================================================
--Multipart_Wed_Jun_21_07:34:47_2000-1--
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:48:01 +0200
> >>>Adobe Photoshop probably started out on Macs. (Anyone know for sure?)
> >>It doesn't matter wheare it started out. Windows runs it now, and Linnux
> >>does'nt.
*snipage*
> To the OS with the most markit shere. In other words, some version of Windows.
well linux on '86 does run photoshop right now, use the vmware-shell
no problem at all
> Windows supports .JPG's just fine.
does it support 3d-wavelet-compression?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Tennent)
Subject: Re: The Linux Challenge
Date: 21 Jun 2000 11:46:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 20 Jun 2000 17:34:41 GMT, David Steinberg wrote:
>
>One piece of information (just from the introduction) that jumped out at
>me was this:
>
> And Alpha Processors Inc. (API) says the focus on Linux after
> Microsoft decided to stop supporting the Alpha platform has
> contributed to the 45 percent increase API has seen in Alpha sales.
>
>I had never heard that before. In fact, I've never before heard of
>hardware sales INCREASING because a major software product stops
>supporting it!
>
>Although I can't figure out the logic behind it, apparently it's true: the
>market sees the alpha as a more viable platform without NT than with it.
>
Interest in Linux is increasing, independently of whether NT is still
available.
Bob T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: 21 Jun 2000 12:00:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote at 21 Jun 2000 00:24:10 GMT:
>>>>pac4854 wrote:
>>>>>Don't feed the trolls.
>>They have to be answered. Otherwise people reading this
>>newsgroup to find out about Linux may believe the lies
>>posted by the anti-Linux spammers like Steve/Mike/...
>Linux sucks Mark and you know it.
Steve/Mike/Simon posts anti-Linux lies under dozens of differ-
ent names so readers will think many different people are
unhappy with Linux and writing in to complain. He repeats the
same lies, for example that Linux only works with Postscript
printers, over and over again, even when people show him the
proof that it isn't true. He also wants 500,000,000 people --
all the gays and lesbians in the entire world, to die. He is
beneath contempt.
>The only reason you support it is
>because it fits into the cult like left wing, screw the establishment
>ala "Pacifica Radio" which you seem to believe in and support.
What he calls a "cult" are those who believe it's better
that people work together, share, and help one another, than
for some to "win" by making everyone else lose (i.e. to gain
at their expense).
Here's a short article I wrote about it:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=618537352
And here are some references to books and web pages. The
book _The Chalice and the Blade_ is one of the most important
ever written about these two ways of living, and the nature
of human beings.
Links To Reality
http://www.aliveness.com/msb.html
>You are entitled to your opinion as I am, but if you look at Linux vs
>just about any OS out there you will see that it is a work in prgress
True.
>and in need of a lot of help.
Actually, it works very well right now.
>If you are willing to settle for second rate hardware support
People may have to spend $35 for a real modem that doesn't
require MS-Windows (and doesn't suck power from the CPU),
in order to run Linux. A very few people have printers with
the same built-in problem. Of course if one is buying a new
computer system, it's very easy to specify hardware that
doesn't require MS-Windows, and so is compatible with Linux.
The $35 spent on a real modem will be recovered many times
over by using the free software that comes with Linux --
word processors, spreadsheets, graphics, databases, etc.,
instead of having to purchase programs of the same function
from Microsoft, etc., for hundreds or thousands of dollars.
>and second rate applications than Linux may be
>just the ticket to your left wing dreams.
Microsoft constantly adds to its software features that very
few people use, in order to claim that other brands are
"second rate". It also intentionally makes the document
formats of each new version incompatible with the previous
ones, so that if anyone buys the new version, everyone they
want to communicate with is forced to buy it too.
GNU/Linux/OSS software, on the other hand, uses industry
standard, open protocols, runs on many types of computers
in addition to Intel, and also scales easily to very
powerful machines. Its source code is publicly available,
so if the author of a program doesn't fix a problem in it,
other people can; they can also enhance it and pass the
improvements on to everyone else.
Microsoft products have none of these advantages, and are
also designed to coerce and gouge the customer in many
different ways. They are definitely the second rate ones
compared to GNU/Linux/Open-Source software.
>Think about it...
I have, and so have many others:
Linux Was Already On The Desktops In 10% Of Companies One Year Ago!
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=636626636
According to the survey mentioned, Linux is probably now
used in desktop and workstation computers in 30% of all
businesses.
The next LinuxWorld Conference and Expo will be held
August 14-17 2000, in San Jose, Calif. The last one was
huge! See hundreds of companies and organizations with
GNU/Linux/OSS related products. Meet Linus and RMS.
Pet a real penguin! Register now for free admission to
the exhibits, Aug. 15-17 (save $25).
http://www.linuxworldexpo.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: 21 Jun 2000 12:07:18 GMT
In article <8iq176$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>RMS is a pretty good example of a fluff-headed stalinist
You're claiming Stallman doesn't believe in democracy?
That seems unlikely. Would you please give a reference?
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:19:32 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Woofbert) wrote in <spam-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >No, no. no, that line of argument is simply not allowed. I have heard NT
> >proponents argue that since Windows NT is superior to the Mac OS because
> >at the application level NT has preemptive multitasking and the Mac has
> >cooperative multitasking. The advantage, according to this argument, is
> >that NT has "real" multitaskng and can run a dozen processes at once,
> >while the Mac cannot. NT proponents cannot now turn around and say that
> >Linux's superior multitasking is irrelevant.
>
> All I asked is what the processes are doing? Still no answer as yet -
> therefore I conclude "nothing useful".
I said what I run and why I have many proceses, but you've ignored it.
Your comment `nothing useful' is short sighted.
-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]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:35:34 +0100
Casey wrote:
>
> Hey oliver. One of the things you can look at between the 2 systems Windows
> NT/2000 and linux.
> NT/2000 PRO's
> -Easy to use and install.
Depends on how you define 'use'. I'm not in to playing semantic games,
but for basic simple administation, you could say NT was easier (an MCSE
monkey could do it), until you have do do serious work. The scripting on
Linux makes it a lot easer to administer in the long run.
Also, linux installs more easily
> -Used far and wide.
> -Good software and hardware base.
> -Eye Candy value(my friend stated that his boss made
> them move to win nt a few years back because of the way it
> looked not worked.)
omigod.
> NT/2000 CON's
> -Not well liked by hackers. (They see this as the man to be
> overthrown this is why you have more problems with hackers
> virus's and such
> -Not as stable as others (linux,beos,free bsd, novel)
> -In a year or two you will be facing another expensive upgrade
> or be behind in the os war.
>
> Linux PRO's
> -Very cheap free to about 1/3 to 1/2 of what nt or novel charge
Eh? I don't quite understand. It's free (except for a 1 off charge if
you choose to buy instead of download a CD).
> -Runs well on low end system (486 web server)
> -Once set up properly will run well (reports of systems running
> uninterupted for 300 + days.
> -At one point there was a rumor that micro$oft ran its hotmail
> servers on linux boxes cause NT couldn't handle the load.
It wasn't a rumour. IIRC Hotmail runs on FreeBSD, and the attempt to
migrate to NT4 was a failure.
> -Gaining momentum constant updates with little or no cost.
>
> Linux CON's
> -Not alot shown improvements on high end systems (from
> comparisons between linux and NT)
Yes. The SMP isn't so great, but this isn't a con compared to NT because
it's no worse.
> -Takes alot of work to get a system setup properly
That I disagree with completely. The install is easier and quicker than
NT. It install all the H/W drivers for you and you need to reboot once.
Things like samba come working out of the box. The additional setup
needed for a desktop system is minimal after it's first installed.
-Ed
> -Lack of Talented people to admin Linux
> -Cost of Talented people to admin Linux
But (as pointed out earlier) 2 BOFH ($90,000/annum) types are cheaper
than 6 monkey (30,000/annum) types.
> -Not a real strong hardware and software powerbase for linux.
>
> Casey
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: I've got reiserfs. Drestin, now bash Linux.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:35:16 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Ferdinand V. Mendoza would say:
>Terry Porter wrote:
>> Another Linux first. Perhaps dressed in black should sit down and try
>> and rest, all that anger is bad for your heart you know ?
>
>Ha-ha-hahahaha! indeed, Terry. It just simply means that the
>Linux community can reciprocate in so short period of time with a
>quality piece of software. And I, sometimes, like to be angry. On the
>contrary, it enlarges my heart and a good exercise once you have
>release it.
"so short period of time"????
When do you think ReiserFS development started? Last week? My
Linux/FileSystems folder has messages on early releases of ReiserFS
dating back to _1997_.
It is well and good to suggest that ReiserFS is a good thing; it has
not developed into such over a weekend.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #67. "No matter how many shorts we have in
the system, my guards will be instructed to treat every surveillance
camera malfunction as a full-scale emergency."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: The MEDIA this year!
Date: 21 Jun 2000 12:50:55 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:42:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sources?
>
> Evidently you have seen all of these magazines.
> So where are they?
>
> Please tell me so I can look at them....
Computer Shopper, Personal Computer World, PC Pro, PC Plus, .Net. Those are
the only ones I read so I can't give you any more.
--
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: Jorge JUAN CHICO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ???
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:34:00 +0200
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 2 wrote:
> peter wrote:
> >
> > I'm setting up two 486 linux systems, one will be a small web sever,
> > firewall, and ip masq.
> >
> > The other will be a machine to write perl programs on.
> >
> > I have two 250 meg drives, I don't plan to install X, so which distro
> > is out there that will allow me to do what i want to do on the 486's
> > ???
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Peter
>
>
> RedHat 5.2 can fit in to 200 meg with X and netscape. It's quite a lot
> smaller without. As for really small distros, Monkey Linux comes on 5
> floppies _with_ X and there is an apache package for it. That will leave
> loads of space for data and swap.
>
> http://www.spsselib.hiedu.cz/monkey/
>
A basic (not base system) but functional Debian installation will take
under 40MB. Debian is very modularized and allow you to select exactly
what you need. You can try "potato" (pre 2.2 release). The home page will
point you to CD-images (www.debian.org).
jorge.
------------------------------
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:05:00 +0200
"Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Does Win2K load properly from CD nowadays? i.e. a fully useable system
> > with networking etc, or do you just get some cheesy install screen?
>
> Just the install screen.
Windows really gets slapped silly by MacOS, BeOS, [Linux ?] on that one.
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
