Linux-Advocacy Digest #227, Volume #27 Wed, 21 Jun 00 11:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is awesome! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (2:1)
Re: Linux is awesome! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux is awesome! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux is awesome! (Secretly Cruel)
Re: Linux is awesome! (Secretly Cruel)
Re: The MEDIA this year! (Secretly Cruel)
Re: I had a reality check today :( (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Jim)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Secretly Cruel)
Re: how do i change the system date? (Jens =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pr=FCfer?=)
Re: slashdot is down -again- (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: I had a reality check today :( (Martijn Bruns)
Re: The MEDIA this year! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: The MEDIA this year! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill (Darren Winsper)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 21 Jun 2000 14:18:32 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2:1) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I said what I run and why I have many proceses, but you've ignored it.
>Your comment `nothing useful' is short sighted.
I'm sorry, I missed what you said - could you repeat it? Of course, you
don't have to, but then my comment "nothing useful" stands.
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:23:50 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The point is, which you have missed, is that I have seen more come and
> go in my lifetime than you have.
>
> Linux will fade just like the 2821 and it's attached 1403 and 3525
> card punch.
>
Yes, this is probably true. But you fail to see that Microsoft will
also fade in time. Even Billy Gates admits this in interviews and
such. No one technology will last forever. That still doesn't mean
that you know more than the rest of us. Linux may fade tomorrow, or in
thirty years, or in some other amount of time, but that doesn't change
the fact that it is used.
Why am I stupid enough to keep responding to you? It's not likely that
you will give me a valid reason for your usual diatribe. I still
haven't heard an answer to the original question I've posed to you on
countless occassions. This question being: Why does it piss you off so
much that people use alternative operating systems? And, why do you
insist on saying that these operating systems aren't used at all, when
by the volume in this group alone it is clear that "SOMEONE" is using
them?
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 14:37:58 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2:1) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >I said what I run and why I have many proceses, but you've ignored it.
> >Your comment `nothing useful' is short sighted.
>
> I'm sorry, I missed what you said - could you repeat it? Of course, you
> don't have to, but then my comment "nothing useful" stands.
Your comment doesn't stand. Just because you can't use it for anything
useful doesn't mean others don't.
Here is my pervious post...
> It depends what you define as `because I can'. because i can open every
> source file, header and loads of relavent man pages on a program I'm
> working on, I do. I find having all of them open at once very useful
> because they are there when I need them to be.
>
> Also, at the same time (if I was on line)I can have a mail client open,
> a browser open and mabey have a calculation running at a low priority in
> the background, not to mention lots of pretty things like xearth
> running.
>
> If I was that way inclined, I could serve personal web pages too (tho I
> have another computer around to do that for me). So why limit yourself
> to few processes, when many can be so useful.
>
> So because I can run lots of processes, I do and find it very useful. If
> I couldn't, then I wouldn't (obviously).
>
> -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: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:41:40 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On 21 Jun 2000 00:24:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Ha ha....
> >>
> >>If you only knew...
> >>
> >>Ever hear of an IBM 2821?
> >>IBM 3330?
> >>IBM 3340?
> >>IBM 3033?
> >>
> >>Look them up and that will give you a slight clue as to how long I
> >>have been in this (the computer) business.
> >>
> >>You most likely weren't even born yet...
> >>
> >>On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:32:56 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>pac4854 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Don't feed the trolls.
> >>>>
> >>>> Once his acne goes into remission, and he graduates from high
> >>>> school, and he finally gets laid, he'll go away.
> >
> >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. 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.
>
> 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
> and in need of a lot of help. If you are willing to settle for second
> rate hardware support and second rate applications than Linux may be
> just the ticket to your left wing dreams.
>
> Think about it...
>
Your opinion means about as much to me as the opinion of that asshole
that used to think he was cool using three of his friends to hold me
while he hit me in school. He's in prison now, and I got a decent job,
a great wife, and a pretty good life. I ask again, why does it piss you
off so damn much that people use something other than Microsoft? I just
can't believe that someone can be so narrow minded. I use Windows when
it is necissary (which isn't very often, just for music recording), but
you seem absolutely oblivious to the fact that there can be alternatives
to anything. Use what you like and shut the fuck up about it.
As for second rate hardware support, I have yet to see Windows 2000 run
on my laptop. It refuses to load on it. And it isn't some ancient
piece of shit either, a Pentium II 233 with 128MB RAM in a Gateway Solo
2500. Not the greatest, but what the fuck is the problem with even
attempting to load it up on it. And your attempt to say all
applications on Linux suck, well again that's your OPINION. I would
much rather use LyX than M$ Word to write a long document (like the book
I'm currently working on). Even M$ tells you not to write documents
over 20 pages in a single Word document. And why is that?
The fact is that people use Linux because it works better for them than
Windows. Now, maybe other people don't agree with us Linux users, but
we really don't care much. We use what works for us. It doesn't piss
me off that Microsoft is used so much (although the methods they used to
get there do at times). I really don't care what the rest of the world
uses on it's computers. There are much better things to worry about.
But when someone comes at me with an attack on something that I believe
in, then you had better believe it pisses me off. And you don't just
attack what I believe in, you deny that there is any validity in the
belief at all. You remind me at times of a freakishly overzealous
christian. They hear about a tribe in Africa that lives on it's own
terms and get all up in arms because they don't "know Jesus". Well,
frankly, we've seen your Jesus (as it's forced down most of our throats
day in and day out) and we aren't impressed. This is our opinion. You
can't tell a person his opinion is wrong. I've never tried to deny you
your right to your opinion, but I do ask why your opinion is so strong.
Why does it piss you off so much that Linux is available to people? Has
Bill given up on trying to find a way to outlaw free software? Or are
you just so full of yourself that you can't believe the opinions of
another human being can be different? If that's the case, I really feel
sorry for you. I always try to give others viewpoint a fair chance, and
most of the time I learn one hell of a lot from it even if I don't
necissarily agree. Try it sometime. Just listen to someone. Whether
you agree or not, I'll bet you learn something from it. Of course, I
guess you don't get paid to listen, you get paid to FUD (amongst your
multiple other jobs your posts claim you have).
Ahh, I feel better.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:44:12 -0500
"Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
>
> 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?
That's a common claim of anti-Linux people. Free software is communism
to them. Apparently people helping out for the greater good is always
considered communism (and communism is considered evil in most of
America, bonus for them). Amazing that they actually managed to come up
with such a well thought out insult, but it is getting tiring now.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:53:04 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Sometimes the truth hurts Nathaniel.
>
>Linux in terms of market share is less than a hangnail on Microsoft or
>Apples foot.
>
>Things may change in time, I have no crystal ball, but for now
>learn to deal with it. You'll feel a whole lot better about
I've been reading your posts with interest. Is someone paying you to
post your anti-Linux messages to Usenet?
--+==]Secretly Cruel[==+--
(Antispam measure is obvious in email address)
------------------------------
From: Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:07:20 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Linux sucks Mark and you know it. 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.
>
>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
>and in need of a lot of help. If you are willing to settle for second
>rate hardware support and second rate applications than Linux may be
>just the ticket to your left wing dreams.
As a new Linux user, I agree that Linux is still a little less than
intuitive for those of us moving over from Windows systems.
Concerning hardware, it has some catching up to do, sure. But things are
getting better very quickly.
Second rate apps? Maybe as far as browsing the web, because Netscape
(for me anyhow) is a POS. But the Opera browser is going to be an
awesome app once it's finished. Word processing? Wordperfect is good
enough for me. Email? There are many clients that do all I need -
multiple POP, filtering, etc. Graphics? The Gimp handles my needs.
I am an average home PC user. I have used Windows for many years. After
using Linux for 6 months, I have no intention of ever going back. :-)
--+==]Secretly Cruel[==+--
(Antispam measure is obvious in email address)
------------------------------
From: Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The MEDIA this year!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:10:44 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>KDE is markedly slower than Windows at virtually anything from
>redrawing a Windows to using kfm to display directories.
Uhh..... not on my machine it ain't. And it's an ancient 200Mhz with 48
MB RAM.
--+==]Secretly Cruel[==+--
(Antispam measure is obvious in email address)
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:09:58 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Daughter graduating middle school this week and going into high school
> and I thought a nice desktop computer system would make a worthwhile
> graduation present.
>
> I have ALWAYS built every single one of my systems in the past all the
> way from DTK motherboard based PC clones up to the Abit based system I
> have now. Never, ever,ever, bought a pre-load.
>
> This time, possibly due to laziness or just a wearing down by all of
> the glossy advertisements in the Sunday NY Times, I decided to go out
> and look at all of these "ready made" systems that the typical Joe 18
> pack will buy.
>
> BTW my daughter wants an iMac. Anybody know anything about them?
>
> Anyway, I went to CompUSA, Staples, Electronic City and several local
> places, the kind of places I would avoid like the plague on my quest
> and here is what I found.
>
> 1. Win Hardware is EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!
> Motherboards have built in modems, Ethernet, SoundChips, video
> and so forth. Much of this is Win hardware.
>
> 2. The included printer is usually some POS Win printer. Same for
> scanner and USB devices are sometimes included as well.
>
> 3. The operating system is always Win 98SE and no credit is given for
> not getting it.
>
> 4. Internet bundles (you are hostage to Compu$erve for 3 years) are
> typically used to lower price.
>
> 5. You get a bunch of low priced software and nothing of real
> substance. The exception was MS Works which is pretty decent.
>
Are you starting to get an idea why us Linux people are easily triggered
into rages?
> The iMac is starting to look better all the time :)
>
> Anyway, my point is that this is the typical way that a user buys a
> computer. They are not like you and me who build our own, they walk
> into a chain store and buy what seems, to them, to be the best value.
>
> My question is, how is Linux going to realistically overcome this?
>
> Looking at the specs for Compaq, HP, Sony VIAO and others, absolutely
> NONE of these would run Linux and support all the I/O devices the
> person paid for.
Actually, there are an incredibly number of places selling Sony VIAO
notebooks with Linux pre-loaded and everything in them works, including
sound, video, network, and modem.
>
> This IS the computer hardware market, like it or not. And I for one
> DON't like it.
>
> Comments?
Only that I can't believe you don't like this. I thought your entire
objective in life was to make sure everyone see's how superior Windows
is. This sounds like exactly what you want. You come across all the
time like someone that just wants to be sure everyone is locked into
Windows. What better way than to make sure computers sold can only run
Windows? Of course, there are a lot of other places people buy
computers now (mostly through phone or internet transactions with
companies like Dell, Micron, or Gateway). Most of these types of
dealers will actually sell you a computer without Windows and with good
hardware. You would be suprised how many Joe sixpack types order
computers from these companies, or buy from thier retail stores (Gateway
Country Stores anyway, I don't know about the others).
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jim <[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: 21 Jun 2000 10:17:08 EDT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rich C"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rich C"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > So......you type characters to select the file, and type
> > > another command to open it. Where does the GUI part come in?
> > > This sounds like an embedded CLI to me. A GUI is a "graphical
> > > user interface." An interface (to anything) consists of both
> > > output AND INPUT. Clicking icons and buttons, and selecting
> > > menu items with the mouse is graphical input. typing commands
> > > is COMMAND INPUT.
> >
> > The GUI allows one to drag through n levels of nested folders,
> > popping them open with a slight hesitation until the target
> > folder is reached. _Then_ the initial letter is typed to
> > complete the selection (a combination of GUI and CLI inputs).
> > Now, CMD-delete, or click-drag to move it, or option-click-drag
> > to copy it out or whatever is your pleasure.... _You_ may call
> > the entry of the initial character of the filename or
> > cmd-delete a COMMAND INPUT. I call the overall task a _GUI
> > operation_ which took significantly less time than a "pure" CLI
> > would have required, at least in the case where you didn't
> > _know_ the exact path before starting to enter a "pure" CLI
> > input (which must be entered without a single keystroke error
> > or all bets are off).
>
> I have NO qualms with the fact that embedded commands make GUIs
> more efficient, nor do I have any objections to using them,
> EXCEPT when you're doing a comparison of GUI techniques to CLI
> techniques.
>
> You would have cried foul if during a speed comparison between
> the two, I had said that I selected my file in a KFM window and
> copied and pasted the path into my command line.
No, because I'm not too interested in differences which _divide_ GUI
from CLI but rather in the attributes of both which make a user more
efficient in either mode. It turns out, as you suggest above, that
attributes of both modes often (usually?) combine to make either
mode more efficient. And we're not done combining yet -- we'll be
combining elements of other modes as well, as we're already doing
with voice command/GUI/CLI combinations.
I guess I didn't make myself clear earlier on -- I know CLI's (or
their tokens embedded in GUI operations) are more efficient in some
scenarios than a "pure" GUI. That's my whole point, in fact, and in
a previous post, I went into more detail about _combined_ interface
modes. But I have no problem with folks who simply prefer to use a
CLI for everything. I think they're getting rare, outside the
developer community, though, since it doesn't seem likely that
others are willing to make the investment in learning that much
about an OS.
I started out in this field nearly forty years ago when everyone
knew that having character based I/O was living in the lap of
luxury. When debugging was done without a debugger utility. When I
did get one, what a luxury it would have been in some long debug
sessions to have a simple verbal "step" command available so I could
just get my hand off the KB for a while! ;-)
The irony is, now that I think about it, that it wouldn't have been
too difficult to cobble up, had I thought of it at the time.
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:18:00 -0400
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>KDE takes forever and a day to load up.
On my 200 Mhz system, KDE loads in about 20 seconds. Win98, about 55
seconds.
--+==]Secretly Cruel[==+--
(Antispam measure is obvious in email address)
------------------------------
From: Jens =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pr=FCfer?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how do i change the system date?
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:50:55 +0200
mlw wrote:
> In deference to our friend Mr. Tanenbaum, WYSIWYG is a methodology and
> paradigm to allow creative people to create on the computer what they
> wish to see in real life. Does one assume that the paintbrush should be
> allowed to dictate the appearance of a painting to the artist? In some
> cases, the computer can place things logically, in artistic endeavors, I
> shudder to think how a computer would evaluate taste.
If you consider all the WYSIWYG so called "word processors" as tools for
artists and call the result "painting" rather than an ergonomic and easy
to read document I agree. However I still believe that artists would be
greatly disappointed by the result they get from MS Applications. Simply
because WYSIWYG does not work. In fact far more often you see what you
don't want at all!
> The problem with wysiwyg is that people with no taste attempt to
> override the computers defaults.
The problem with the defaults (especially WinWord defaults) is that the
people creating those defaults have not the slightest Idea about
typesetting!
Documents usually are not works of visual art (great novels certainly
are to be considered art, but not because of their layout). They are to
be read to carry information to many people and should therefore follow
at least basic rules of good typesetting and ergonomics.
So Andrew S. Tanenbaum is right. Even though he does not use LaTeX -- my
favourite "word processor".
Cheers
Jens
--
WYSIWYG is a step backwards. Human labor is used to do that which the
computer
can do better.
Andrew S. Tanenbaum
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: slashdot is down -again-
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:36:09 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> It runs Linsux or some deviant version of such (FreeBSD)
BSD isn't a deriviant (or deviant as you put it) of Linux. It is
actually much older than Linux and quite a bit different. While you can
use them to do the same things, they are not the same system.
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:46:53 -0300, "Francis Van Aeken"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Of all the sites I frequent, Slashdot is the only one that is regularly down.
> >
> >Why is that?
> >
> >Francis.
> >
> >
Sorry, but I'm a BSD fan too (Open and Free being my two favs at the
moment) and I hate to see people say that BSD is a version of Linux.
They are different systems.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:48:58 +0200
> Actually, there are an incredibly number of places selling Sony VIAO
> notebooks with Linux pre-loaded and everything in them works, including
> sound, video, network, and modem.
Have you seen the TV-commercial from Sony for these notebooks?
One could say that, in a somewhat hidden sense, it's one of the
first commercials for Linux.
(Just thought of it. Maybe somebody has a thought on it.)
--
It shows everybody's files neatly in a tree,
While Your desktop shows a BSOD,
Your home-made virus can really run free.
It's made by your favorite monopoly!
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The MEDIA this year!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:45:21 -0500
> You come into this group and make all kinds of wild ass claims but
> never back them up.
>
> Where is the proof?
>
> simon
Yep, never seen a wild ass claim from you have we?
Oh, and as for proof, pick up PC Magazine, Maximum PC, even some of the
Ziff-Davis crap rags are featuring stories on Linux. While most of the
ZD rags are full of Linux has a long ways to go stories, they do
occasionally slip over a nugget of truth, kind of like you.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The MEDIA this year!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:46:58 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I never said anything about server market, and in fact I support Linux
> in that area Salvador.
Whoah, that one's gonna leave a mark on your paycheck.
>
> We are in agreement on that fact, and at least you DO post facts
> unlike Charlie who spouts off fantasies...
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:54:07 -0700, Salvador Peralta
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >>
> >> Oh crap! Pick up any computer magazine at your local office they have.
> >> I want other people to post to this and give him your side of it.
> >>
> >> Charlie
> >
> >I would, but everytime that I post some factual data which sheds some
> >light on the fact that linux is the fastest growing os in the server
> >market, WinTrolls like simon777 start scurrying under the floorboards.
> >
> >*sigh* Here's some links...
> >
> >Here's one that gives a figure for how many IT managers planned to
> >replace existing systems with linux:
> >
> >http://www.infotechtrends.com/cgi-bin/cif/sub_read.pl?ux=&quar=99Q2&99245030.htm=on
> >
> >Here's one which says how many it managers intend to put linux on the
> >desktop in the next 12 months:
> >
> >http://www.infotechtrends.com/cgi-bin/cif/sub_read.pl?ux=&quar=99Q2&99245030.htm=on
> >
> >Here's one which charts the growth of the linux userbase from 1995-1998:
> >
> >http://www.infotechtrends.com/cgi-bin/cif/sub_read.pl?ux=&quar=99Q1&99145016.htm=on
> >
> >Add those to the others that I posted on Saturday in the "How many linux
> >users thread.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
Date: 21 Jun 2000 09:52:12 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>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?
There is not much black magic here. Do a 'ps ax' and then a man on
each program you don't already know about. Unix/Linux processes
are fairly lightweight things, so the normal style is to let each
one do a single job. Init always runs as the 'master' parent-of-all
unix processes. You'll have crond waiting to run scheduled
jobs, inetd waiting to accept network connections, shells for
everyone logged in, nmbd announcing netbios names if you are running
samba, plus a master smbd and one for each connection, and a
syslogd writing your log files. You probably
have a sendmail, xntpd, lpd, httpd, nfsd, named and dhcpd if you are doing
much network stuff. There will be a getty waiting for connections
on each of your virtual consoles plus any serial ports you have
activated. And there are a few kernel helper processes to deal with
flushing the disk buffers, etc. And this is before you open a
dozen or so windows for interactive jobs.
Note that you have as much control as you want over which of
these run. Only init and the kernel helpers are really
essential. If you start in single-user mode, most of them
would not be activated, and you can configure your normal
runlevel to start whatever you need.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill
Date: 21 Jun 2000 15:05:18 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:02:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So now we have this Charlie Ebert person, who has YET to back up any
> of his wild ass claims with any proof.
Sound familiar? It should do, it's exactly what you do.
--
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
******************************
