Linux-Advocacy Digest #349, Volume #27 Mon, 26 Jun 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Do not like Windows but ...
Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1)
Re: OS's ...
Re: slashdot ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: democracy? (Bob Hauck)
Re: slashdot
RE: OS's ... ("Pedro Iglesias")
RE: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1) ("Pedro Iglesias")
Re: Number of Linux Users
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Michael Lorton)
Re: OS's ... (OSguy)
Re: Windows98 (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Volker Hetzer)
Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1)
Re: Processing data is bad! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OS's ...
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Kenneth P. Turvey)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Do not like Windows but ... (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Processing data is bad!
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling
Too Harsh (Donovan Rebbechi)
RE: OS's ... ("Pedro Iglesias")
If Linux is desktop ready ... ("Pedro Iglesias")
Re: Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management (Mikey)
Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1) (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: slashdot (Mikey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Do not like Windows but ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:21:18 GMT
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:49:12 GMT, Pedro Iglesias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> No, I did. You want to compare OS's? Let's compare.
>
> Well, I think Unix does a better server than any Windows, was
>this what you wanted to hear to ? Anyway, do not be vaporwareman,
>kernel 2.4 is not still here.
Yes it is. It's just that at this point in time it could only
be considered 'ready' if you applied Microsoft standards to the
situation... <snicker>
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:22:28 GMT
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:49:09 GMT, Pedro Iglesias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Best way of upgrading whatever is always backing up, installing
>and restoring.
The structure of Unix makes such extremism unecessary.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:24:31 GMT
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:49:08 GMT, Pedro Iglesias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Take it to MS advocacy. The 1995 Unixes could still beat w2k and
>> millenium.
Actually, in '95 any of the Unix could go toe to toe with NT5
on the desktop. The only problems on the Unix side would be
lack of graphics design or "running everything".
>
> I did not said a OS was better than other. Anyway, I was talking about
>Windows and Linux evolution, not Unix. Obviously, no 1995 Unix would
>beat neither ME nor W2K as desktop. As server, each of them would do
>then, and do today.
>
>
>
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: slashdot
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:20:00 -0500
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> I don't really care why slashdot is down... It's the irony of it I
> enjoy.
Unfortunately, there's not much irony to enjoy until you know that it was
not a power problem, communications problem, hardware problem, application
problem, load problem, sabotage, etc.
You're grasping at straws, Jeff. No amount of problems with Slashdot will
make Microsoft's products quit sucking.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:24:29 GMT
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:32:19 GMT, Desmond Coughlan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's slightly off-topic for this newsgroup, but I'm not entirely conv-
>inced that democracy is a Good Thing. The average voter has the
>intelligence of a dormouse,
What is the intelligence of the average despot?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: slashdot
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:35:30 GMT
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:20:00 -0500, Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
>> I don't really care why slashdot is down... It's the irony of it I
>> enjoy.
>
>Unfortunately, there's not much irony to enjoy until you know that it was
>not a power problem, communications problem, hardware problem, application
>problem, load problem, sabotage, etc.
>
>You're grasping at straws, Jeff. No amount of problems with Slashdot will
>make Microsoft's products quit sucking.
...for all we know, someone back-hoe'd the locak backbone...
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: OS's ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:35:37 GMT
> Actually, in '95 any of the Unix could go toe to toe with NT5
> on the desktop. The only problems on the Unix side would be
> lack of graphics design or "running everything".
That's no my opinion.
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:36:36 GMT
> The structure of Unix makes such extremism unecessary.
Theory is very good, my experince tells me other thing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:47:59 GMT
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:16:49 +0200, Davorin Mestric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> >and of course, ten downloads, ( or even ten sales) can result in zero
>> >installations. this is much less likely with NT.
>> >
>> >most of the linux cd-s are burned because it is free and people want to
>> >check it out. after that, it is left on a separate partition and never
>> >booted into again.
>>
>> You got it backwards. Most copies of windows are preinstalled on
>computers
>> and wiped off to install linux.
>
>
>is this why complete 0.3% of destop computers have linux?
>
>
You're not very bright, are you. I was lampooning the previous posters
moronic post that nobody uses linux.
------------------------------
From: Michael Lorton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 26 Jun 2000 08:46:16 -0700
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Socialism is great... as long as EVERYONE is a robot who does exactly
> as told, and has not an iota of self concern.
And is told by someone who has total information about the economy and
unlimited accuracy in decision making.
> The problem is, EVERYBODY is greedy, and, in pursuing their self
> interests, each individual person throws a handful of sand into
> the gears.
Actually, incentive is only one part of the significance of the price
system; information-carrying and resource allocation are as important.
M.
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 09:54:56 -0500
Pedro Iglesias wrote:
> Do you remember that by 1995 DOS/Windows users were still
> using DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 ? I point that, because I want
> to denote that Microsoft Windows has done a big and good way
> since 1995, and that Millenium and Windows 2000 are much more
> powerful and stable.
SInce when has Windows ever been stable? Or do you define stability in Hours?
And when was there ever a time any MS product was more powerful than Unix?
Never?
> I mean, in 5 or 6 years, Microsoft has even
> reached the goal of competing with Unix (at least they try to do so)
> and has won the desktop market; remember that by 1995 it was not
> as clear that DOS was the best choice, but now, who do think about
> a desktop without Windows ?
Ever hear of Lisa? MacIntosh? Amiga? Atari?
> Perhaps with DOJ and Linux hype
> people is starting to do so just now, but still far from winning.
>
> On the other side, where was Linux by 1995 ? It was a much more
> difficult OS that today it is; kernel had little features, PnP was a dream
> (or at least a pain), PPP links were hard to configure, and X11 was
> really hard to set up and slow. Applications by then were little, very
> little, and very bad (do you remember StarOffice 3?). What I mean is
> that Linux, has made a big and good way too, it has taken a lot of
> the server market, and now is attempting to get desktop usability.
>
> Windows ----> Stability and Power ----->
> Linux --------> Usability and Power ---->
You've got it wrong. It is:
Windows---->marketing---->hype---->
buy and elminate competition---->DOJ Breakup---->
divestiture beyond repair
Linux--->Stability, Usability, and Power--->
OS that MS can't buy
Now quit trying to rewrite History and make it look like a sales pamphlet. It
might help if you learned some History. Actually it would help if you learned
anything at all.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 26 Jun 2000 10:56:30 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 26 Jun 2000 06:29:45 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:17:15 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>> 2) Presentation
>>>> Fonts are ugly. I know it is an old issue (since I first tried Linux in the
>>>> mid 90s). I understand that this is a patent X problem. Saw some paper on
>>>> the xfree website to improve matters, but no real action. Won't be
>>>> surprised if it takes another few years to solve this problem.
>>>
>>>read the font deuglification HOWTO
>>
>>I have a better solution: Run Windows 2000.
>
> Got an extra $300 he could have?
That gets you a bare OS - not even a compiler. You'd need a few
thousand at least to match the functionality of the things included
in almost every Linux distribution.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Volker Hetzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:02:05 +0000
Phillip Lord wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Volker" == Volker Hetzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Volker> The problem of today is that you can basically demonize any
> Volker> opinion if you tag it with either "fascist/capitalist" or
> Volker> "communist". Then you don't have to think about its
> Volker> contents anymore and the purpose of freedom of speech
> Volker> (diversity of opinion and ideas, IMHO) is defeated. This is
> Volker> bad.
>
> I have to say that I had not thought of it in this way
> but I think that it is a very astute point.
The tactics of demonizing, or categorizing in general instead of finding
a counter argument, or its consequences?
But anyway, thanx for the flowers! :-)
For me this (both) is what makes the western-style "freedom of speech"
such a farce. You are legally permitted to talk, but your power to
change anything is about as limited as with a stalinist-type gag.
First you have to rise out of the general signal-to-noise ratio
and after that, if you want to change the status quo you are much to busy
defending against demonisation to actually get your point across.
OTOH in the eastern bloc countries it was hard to talk but people
did a lot of listening. To western broadcasts, to undertones in their
own broadcasts, to other people. You can't afford this now because
the media are full of people talking your ears off.
> Perhaps it is arrogant of
> me, and I am guilty of projecting my own feelings onto society at
> large, but at the moment it seems that politics is largely in
> flux. The massive upsurge of demonstration that we see in the US and
> many European countries, and also the global nature of this, is new,
> but undirected. I can certainly explain this in Marxist terms, and I
> think this provides a good explanation/description. But I also think
> that it lacks something. I think we need new ideologies for the new
> millennium. I just don't know what they are yet.
Well, Marx formulated a few social laws that are supposed to work like
natural laws, in the sense that they work out largely independent of
conscious will. Like equalisation of living standards across the world.
I see this happening everywhere where countries move into the "developed"
sphere. Like south korea or south africa. Once this has happened to most
countries and they all have things like unions, labour standards or
comparable laws, things will start to get interesting again.
Same goes for socialisation of ownership that dilutes the clear cut
border between worker and company owner. According to marx it's supposed
to happen. And - everybody is getting stock and the managers are just paid
employees.
I'd really have to read up on this a bit more but this is what I remember
from school. I don't remember how this was supposed to be good, but it was.
> I would be quite happy if we could rid society of the class
> divides that make the sort of conflict that you mention. I don't think
> this advances us very far at all! You seem to be arguing that problems
> are good, because then we can solve them, rather than not just having
> them in the first place.
To be honest, that's the biggest problem I see in the paradisic vision
of communism. Marx says a lot about how a specific set of problems have
driven society forward and then he wants to solve those problems and
takes the drive out.
As far as I fear, the result will be stagnation.
Or, communism is something that can be reached only asymptotically, which
rules out a big bang (world revolution).
Greetings!
Volker
--
The early bird gets the worm. If you want something else for
breakfast, get up later.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:05:53 GMT
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:36:36 GMT, Pedro Iglesias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The structure of Unix makes such extremism unecessary.
>
> Theory is very good, my experince tells me other thing.
Whereas mine flatly contradicts you.
I have binaries that have been sitting on my /usr/local since
I was running Slackware: 5 years ago.
Don't 'fix' what don't need 'fixin'...
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:06:13 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows) writes:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But that would be cheating, of course --- you'd still be using "find",
>> only you'd be using the results of a "find" run at some other time.
>So what? One find and a few dozen locates is going to be far faster
>than a few dozen finds. Every time.
Well, for one thing, the locate database is typically a few hours out
of date. Every now and again I find myself wondering where the heck
I stored the file I downloaded 5 minutes ago ;-)
Bernie
--
The chief distinction of a diplomat is that he can say no in such
a way that it sounds like yes
Lester Pearson
Canadian Prime Minister 1963-68
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:06:36 GMT
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:35:37 GMT, Pedro Iglesias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Actually, in '95 any of the Unix could go toe to toe with NT5
>> on the desktop. The only problems on the Unix side would be
>> lack of graphics design or "running everything".
>
> That's no my opinion.
...and apparently a completely uninformed one.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kenneth P. Turvey)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:18:05 -0500
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:22:39 +0000, Volker Hetzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Kenneth P. Turvey" wrote:
>> I think it also implied some use of force during the transition. The
>> workers rise up, the workers force their will on the former system,
>> eventually everyone is happy and voluntarily cooperates.
>>
>> There is a middle step in which consent is not required.
>Yes, however this is based on the assumption that the workers form the
>majority of the population and therefore simply enforce a majority decision.
Even majority decisions may be unjust. Mob rule is not identical to
just government.
[Snip]
--
Kenneth P. Turvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.tranquility.net/~kturvey/resume/resume.html
========================================================
I took the initiative in creating the Internet.
-- Al Gore
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 26 Jun 2000 11:12:16 -0500
In article <IN655.21965$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snip]
>> >Why is that the "essense" of interoperability? Just because you
>> >prefer it?
>>
>> No, because it allows computers of different designs
>> to interoperate.
>
>It isn't the only way to do it. So why are *wire protocols*
>the 'essense'?
It is the only way to do it that allows you to change one
endpoint at a time.
>It almost sounds like you are *defining* interoperability
>to be "common wire protocols"; is that really what you
>have in mind?
It is a matter of perceiving reality, not definition. You
can hide the wire protocol with an API wrapper at the
end points, but unless the wire protocol is known and
stable you can't ever add a new type of end point (say a
new CPU with different byte ordering). If you can't
add an unforseen new entity, how can you justify the
term of interoperability?
>> It is also useful for people connecting to large networks,
>> such as the Internet.
>
>It's an approach that works to a point; it works if there
>actually *is* a common wire protocol. But merely insisting
>that everyone else use your protocol is often futile.
If you don't document the protocol then you can't make any
claim of interoperability. There is no requirement to be
open, but misrepresenting a sealed box is a bad thing.
>My main objection is to the "MS *must* use Unix
>technology because we do, darn it, and we don't
>want to have to both to support MS technologies!";
>I can't respect that. If you want to interoperate,
>why is it that MS has to do the work?
Oh, they've done the work all right - they know
exactly what it takes to make it impossible to
interoperate.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do not like Windows but ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:17:30 -0500
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> Pedro Iglesias wrote:
> >
> > nowadays :
> >
> > winamp is better than xmms or whatever on Linux
> > word is better than startoffice or whatever on Linux (wordperfect,
> > abiword, ...)
>
> Nobody in their right mind would write a book in Word.
>
I remember when I started writing a book under word. Above about 50
pages it got really *interesting*. I finally bought one of those
*Secrets of* books and it said that according to Microsoft you should
never have a document exceed 20 pages. Over 20 pages you were supposed
to break the document up and then use some sort of jury-rigged
hyperlinking that is supposed to seperate *chapters* (I have chapters
way over 20 pages) into seperate documents but still allow it to print
out all together as one. This was very close to the time I gave up on
Windows for my main computing needs.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:20:25 GMT
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:06:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows) writes:
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> But that would be cheating, of course --- you'd still be using "find",
>>> only you'd be using the results of a "find" run at some other time.
>
>>So what? One find and a few dozen locates is going to be far faster
>>than a few dozen finds. Every time.
>
>Well, for one thing, the locate database is typically a few hours out
>of date. Every now and again I find myself wondering where the heck
>I stored the file I downloaded 5 minutes ago ;-)
A find in the files you are able to change should take no longer
than a winfind that would need to search all the filesystems.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 26 Jun 2000 16:24:30 GMT
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:28:08 GMT, MK wrote:
>On 25 Jun 2000 19:24:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>> You were illegally present, MK, so what do you expect?
>
>That govt (of any sort, including but not limited to mine -- or maybe esp.
>mine should I say) fucks off, bc I am no criminal. Unless you count wanting
>to work as a crime.
You didn't merely want to work, though did you ? You wanted to work in a
country where you did not have working permission. Sure you have the right to
work -- but not here.
As for the government, they have a basic responsibility to protect the
interests of their constituents. And I'd suggest that the representatives,
from both major parties have a pretty strong mandate to impose limits on
immigration and working visas. This isn't some evil thing imposed by the
government, this is something that the people from all sides of the political
spectrum expect. The only debate focusses on "how many" visas should be
handed out. To most people, handing them out to everyone who wants one is not
an option.
1.2 billion people live in China, about a billion live in India. What is the
US supposed to do, just let them all in ? ( OK, not all of them want to
immigrate. But at least the majority of Chinese University grads want to
immigrate, and also would bring their families if they could. Ditto with
some of the schools in India. )
[ snip: drivel snipped ]
I guess my question is -- why do you think that you have an inalienable
right to work in the US ? Isn't this a privelige that the government,
acting on behalf of its citizens ( and with a resounding mandate to do so )
has every right to revoke ?
This seems inconsistent with your views about MS. On one hand, MS are allowed
to pull the rug out from under their competitors feet, but on the other
hand, the US government are obliged to let you work here.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: OS's ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:25:13 GMT
> > Do you remember that by 1995 DOS/Windows users were still
> > using DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 ? I point that, because I want
> > to denote that Microsoft Windows has done a big and good way
> > since 1995, and that Millenium and Windows 2000 are much more
> > powerful and stable.
> SInce when has Windows ever been stable? Or do you define stability in
Hours?
> And when was there ever a time any MS product was more powerful than Unix?
> Never?
Do you know to read ? more stable than prior does not mean stability in your
own scale (use whichever you can imagine).
> Ever hear of Lisa? MacIntosh? Amiga? Atari?
I owned a Mac (PowerMac to be exact) and an Amiga 1200, are you
serious or have read at all what you are answering ?
> You've got it wrong. It is:
> Windows---->marketing---->hype---->
> buy and elminate competition---->DOJ Breakup---->
> divestiture beyond repair
When Word won Wordperfect, it was not the dominant one, so it
won 'cause it was better. Besides, it mind me bollocks if Microsoft
split or not, Windows will be the dominant OS for a while. Tell me
a company that does not try to beat the rivals, come on.
> OS that MS can't buy
Why would it want to ? Microsoft can if it want to make the better
Linux distribution ever made, despite all of your crawls.
> Now quit trying to rewrite History and make it look like a sales pamphlet.
It
> might help if you learned some History. Actually it would help if you
learned
> anything at all.
I was just trying to share some thoughts, if you do not like them, do not
answer them
and if you do, at least be a little polite. I am probably working with
computers before
you were born ... anyway, arguing that is stupid.
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: If Linux is desktop ready ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:25:14 GMT
... then tell me why the Hell a home user should to care about compiling
sources ? If he/she gets binaries, what the Hell open source is useful to ?
If he/she learns the ./configure;make;make install procedure, why the Hell
should he/she know that awk 1.0.4 prevents gtk from compiling correctly ?
------------------------------
From: Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 05:34:03 +0000
Thus Sprake The Ghost In The Machine:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on 25 Jun 2000 15:41:13 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/bin/nts/ntsysman.exe
>
> [2] What, precisely, is the point of serving a .exe file? Is this
> executed from the server side, or the client?
I wonder... Could it be an .exe virii or worm that runs on M$ Outhouse?
--
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
CS is about lofty design goals and algorithmic optimization.
Sysadmining is about cleaning up the fscking mess that results.
-Graham Dunn A.S.R
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1)
Date: 26 Jun 2000 11:28:11 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:36:36 GMT, Pedro Iglesias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The structure of Unix makes such extremism unecessary.
>>
>> Theory is very good, my experince tells me other thing.
>
> Whereas mine flatly contradicts you.
>
> I have binaries that have been sitting on my /usr/local since
> I was running Slackware: 5 years ago.
>
> Don't 'fix' what don't need 'fixin'...
Is there some reason you don't want the improvements that have been
made over the years? I can understand not wanting to shut down
a working service to upgrade, but if you are going to replace a
kernel and reboot you might as well take all the new stuff at
the same time. I wouldn't want to run (say) a 5 year old samba
or named - or even keep track of which programs have current
updates. At least with the rpm based distributions it
is considerably faster to do a full install than an upgrade. I
just keep /home and /usr/local on separate partitions that I
keep, and save a backup copy of /etc in my home directory in
case I have any trouble duplicating the configuration after
the update. On productions machines I try to keep a spare
system partition (combined root and /user) and copy it in
from a test machine after an update changing the name and
IP address, etc. Then I can change LILO to use this as the
new root, reboot and come up running the new system with only
the downtime it takes for the reboot.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: slashdot
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 05:37:02 +0000
Thus Sprake Jeff Szarka:
>
> Is slashdot down YET again? As of 10:52PM eastern it seems to be.
>
> If Microsoft.com or hotmail.com was down you guys would say it proves
> NT sucks...
Hate to tell you, but M$ runs hotmail.com on FreeBSD. NT couldn't
handle it.
--
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
CS is about lofty design goals and algorithmic optimization.
Sysadmining is about cleaning up the fscking mess that results.
-Graham Dunn A.S.R
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
