Linux-Advocacy Digest #369, Volume #27 Tue, 27 Jun 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Tim Palmer)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies.... (Tim
Palmer)
Re: Windows98 (Tim Palmer)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies.... (Tim
Palmer)
Re: Help setting up a home network. (Tim Palmer)
Re: Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management (Tim Palmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 27 Jun 2000 17:03:19 -0500
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 06:50:49 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 03:05:39 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Time to eat another WinTroll :-) (yum yum).
>> >
>> >I've taken the liberty of correcting some of the
>> >spelling and grammer of the original post.
>
>If Tim wants to appear to be an ignorant redneck, I'll let him :-).
>
>> >> 1. It scales down
>> >>
>> >> Noboddy cares if Linux can run on some geek's
>> >> obsolete 386 in 2MB of RAM. Windows runs on today's
>> >> computer's, and the fact that it doesn't run on
>> >> some obsolete piece-of-shit computer from 1991
>> >> doessn't mean shit.
>> >
>> >There have been over 1/2 billion computers sold between 1993
>> >and 1998. None of which can run Windows 2000 or Windows 98
>> >effectively. Microsoft has told the owners of 1/2 billion
>> >computers that they were idiots, that their computers are
>> >now worthless.
>>
>> Its called progres. Deal with it.
>
>I thought Progres was a relational database for Linux :-).
>
>Are you telling me that corporate customers should spend billions
>of dollars on Windows 2000 only to have it rendered useless junk
>in 2 years? Are you saying that the $200 billion in Windows 98
>PC sales should be written off this year because ME will render it
>obsolete in 9 months? -- Thank you, I'm glad I'm using Linux.
I'm saying peepal want the best tecknollagy there is, and that
tecknollagy requiars the latest hardware.
>
>> >Microsoft expects the owners and users of these machines
>> >to simply "throw them away". Even this is a bit of a problem
>> >since the EPA has identified at least 9 toxic wastes that keep you
>> >from simply "tossing it in the dump". You can't even legally use
>> >an old PC as a "Boat Anchor" due to the arsenic, lead, and other
>> >toxins.
>> >
>> >What to do with 500 million PCs that won't run the latest version
>> >of Windows? You could run the old versions, Windows 3.1 and
>> >Windows 95, but it's getting harder and harder to find new software
>> >for the older computers, and furthermore, you can't read documents
>> >created by Office 2000 on Office 95 or Office 2.0
>> >
>> >Alternative number two, what the heck, plop linux on it. At
>minimum,
>> >you get a really cheap web server, e-mail server, and file server.
>>
>> >It also makes a nice masquerading firewall for that DSL connection,
>>
>> A 386 couldn't keep up.
>
>What's funny of course is that 80386 machines were frequently used
>on ethernets attached to T1 circuits back in 1994. They were some
>of the earliest commercial Web servers. That was back before companies
>started dumping gigabucks into the web. Ironically, most of the E-50
>started as Linux and BSD boxes.
They may have had T1's but they didn't get hit as mutch as today's NT-based Web
servers.
>
>> >> 2. It's multi-user
>> >>
>> >> Linux gains 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.
>> >
>> >True. Do you have you Windows 9x machine connected directly to DSL
>> >and your C drive set to "Share"? Do you realize that anyone can
>> >easily get your history log, cookies, and password files and help
>> >themselves to your checking account, savings account, brokerage
>> >account, and order things using the credit cards you've already
>> >used to make previous purchases?
>> >
>>
>> You don't half to share your hard drive on Windos.
>
>No, but it's so easy to send an e-mail or web page that makes them
>sharable. Then you "just go shopping".
If you don't blindally open attachmants then you'll have no plrobem.
>
>> >I just finished talking to someone who had his checking account
>> >drained of $10,000 by a hacker who made several hundred $22 orders.
>> >The attack was caught and the damage was prevented, but the bank
>> >is still looking for the perpetrator.
>> >
>> >What made matters worse was that his wife had died the day before
>> >the attack.
>> >
>I forgot to mention that the victim was my father. When I flew out,
>I locked up his web browser. His C drive was shareable (not the
>default).
>
>I had to disable all those IE4 features. I shut off ActiveX,
>VBScripts, JavaScript, and Trusted Java Applets. My brother is
>going to teach him Linux.
The bank he hack'd was probly running UNIX.
>
>> >Users also want their work protected from deliberate or accidental
>> >corruption of disclosure by unauthorized users. This is one of
>> >the reasons that Windows NT has logins and Windows 9x doesn't.
>> >
>> >Today, you have 500 million people separated only by a 400 megabit
>> >pipe.
>>
>> And 499,990,000 of them are running Windows.
>> UNIX is still in the '70s with 10,000 users,
>
>Ever heard of Linux?
Yeah. Its' the laffing stock of opporatoring systems.
>There are about 90 million Linux
>users world-wide. Linux is growing at 300%/year, and
>Linux also has backup from the BSD family.
Really? Then were the hell are they?
>
>> most of whom are the same users that were
>> using UNIX during its own time.
>
>That's partially true. Many of the Linux users are using BSD flavors
>for servers. Many of the Commercial UNIX vendors are leveraging
>Linux development. The Linux Distribution.
>
>> >If only 1 in 1 million is a malevolent hacker who makes it
>> >to you door, that means that you might only be electronically
>> >burglarized 500 times this year. Maybe you'll get lucky and only be
>> >hit 5 times this year - how much can you afford to lose?
>> >
>> >> 3. It's "flexible" (in other words you can turn off the GUI)
>> >>
>> >> And noboddy cares.
>> >> Linux is just as useless without its GUI as Windows is.
>> >
>> >But look at the $100 "Mail Machines". Turning off the GUI means
>> >you can put full PC power into a Palm Pilot, a wristwatch, or
>> >a storage appliance.
>>
>> A Palm Pilot without a GUI would be useless.
>
>But a Palm Pilot is essentially a Character based interface, not much
>better than VT100 with Light Pen (curses). Giraffe provides an
>alternative to a keyboard, but it's still character by character
>entry.
It doesnt' make you tipe stinky commands like UNIX still dose.
>
>> >And just because I'm not running X11/R6
>> >doesn't mean that I don't have GUI access - via Web browsers.
>> >
>> >The Cobalt Cube is configured via a Web browser interface that
>> >completely hides the fact that the box underneath is Linux.
>> >
>> >> There is NO REASON to turn off the GUI,
>> >
>> >RAM, MIPS, and GIGs of hard drive require cubic inches and
>> >create heat, they also gobble electricity. If I can run
>> >my thinkpad for 4 hours without a recharge by running Linux
>> >in text mode as opposed to running 2 hours by running Windows
>> >in GUI mode, I'll take VI.
>> >
>> >It's really hard to script GUIs. This means that unless I have
>> >a means to script equivalent functions, I have to depend on a human
>> >being to execute a "script" of mouse and keyboard sequences.
>> >Experience has taught me that a cron job is much more dependable
>> >than a 3rd shift operator who sleeps through 1/3 of his shift.
>> >
>> >> and NO REASON to turn off the desktop,
>> >
>> >Desktops are wonderful things. They provide a convienient display
>> >of some of the most valuable and interesting applications, what's
>> >currently running, and means to control the running applications,
>> >from a single screenful of icons and windows.
>> >
>> >Of course, with Windows, you only need a single screen. There just
>> >aren't that many applications that get the priviledge of "desktop"
>> >presence.
>> >
>> >Linux has so many different applications available that it's often
>> >hard to keep track of all the directories, let alone all of the
>> >commands. Linux applications are typically trivial graphical
>> >interfaces to scripts. The user enters some parameters via a GUI,
>> >presses the "submit" button, and the GUI generates a script and
>> >passes it to a program that executes the script. This makes it
>> >much easier to enhance the script, enhance the front-end, or
>> >automate the repetitive tasks.
>> >
>> >> and NO REASON to turn off the Window manager.
>> >
>> >The Window manager is another useful feature. It provides a means
>> >to arrange multiple windows on a single desktop.
>>
>> Windos does this without making the user fule around with Windo
>> mannajers.
>
>Correct. You get one window manager, and you expend and enhance
>the machine to meet it's requirements.
The Windows "window mannager" (if Windows has such a thing) runs fine on the computers
its encluded with.
>
>> >It enables us to
>> >focus on the most important functions while other tasks take place
>> >in relative obscurity covered by "forground" windows.
>> >
>> >Linux has numerous window managers. In fact, Linux users quickly
>> >found that they really needed more than one window.
>>
>> ..something that came as no suprise to Windows users.
>
>Actually, most Windows users, because of theiir historical experience
>with Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.1 developed the habit of running all
>applications in "full screen mode". This is why Microsoft had to
>rely on the taskbar.
Then why does KDE have a tascbar?
>Multiple overlapping windows are still a problem
>for Windows 9x with many 3rd party products. Ironically, the biggest
>problemm occurr with applications which compete directly with Microsoft
>applications.
>
>> >Of course, Linux has other ways to manage a number of background
>> >and forground processes. Most of these were originally developed
>> >by the BSD folks.
>>
>> Like ^Z and fg and bg. Still in use today, and UNIX
>> still doesn't realise what deckade it is.
>
>Regardless of the decade, new windows require initialization,
>consume large quantities of memory, and consume millions of CPU
>cycles.
Big deal. Moddern computers can handle the lode just fine.
>
>> >We also have emacs. It really depends on whether
>> >you are connected directly via an "in-memory-socket" at 100
>> >megabytes/second to a 500 Mhz processor or
>> >indirectly via a cell-phone that charges 50 cents per megabyte.
>> >
>> >Even with the window manager off, you can switch between consoles
>> >quite easily.
>>
>> But what's the point of turning a Window manadger off?
>
>MIPS (CPU), Megabytes (RAM), and Gigabytes (Disk). A text-only
>machine running basic Linux sells for $99.
...and peforms no ussfel function.
>A full KDE implementation
>requires a K6-200, 32 meg of RAM, and sells for about $300. Windows
>machines running Windows 2000 require Pentium III 750, 256 meg RAM, and
>a 10 gig hard drive and sells for about $2000, not including compilers,
>development tools, backup systems.
>
>> >When you are using a server, nobody really cares what the display
>> >looks like. In fact, if you're dedicating 70% of the CPU and RAM
>> >to video display, the server is probably suffering as a result.
>>
>> Windows doesn't use that much. It's not like UNIX, you no.
>
>Actually, an active windows display take up about 10% of the server
>resources. It actually take MORE than UNIX because the Windows
>memory is mapped by Object instead of by function. Windows 2000
>has better optimization of grouping (which increases speed by about
>20%) but this still doesn't solve the context switching problems
>(which is why Win2K still relies on apartment threading instead of
>processes).
>
>> >A "Windows Server" is an oxymoron. First, it implies that the
>> >server must be maintained through direct interaction with the
>> >server's keyboard, mouse, and display screen.
>> >
>> >> These are all useless features, and Linux gains NOTHING over
>> >> Windows for having them.
>> >
>> >Of course, when you have a report or contract proposal due tomorrow
>> >morning at 9:00 A.M. you're in a hotel room, and you need level 3
>> >technical assistance you immediately become aware of the difference.
>> >
>> >With Windows, the help desk operator tells you that you can set up
>> >an appointment to come in tomorrow morning at 10 A.M. to have you
>> >computer "reengineered" (format the hard drive, reinstall the
>standard
>> >baseline software, possibly restore a few of your personal files,
>and
>> >leave you with a half crippled computer sans the application you
>needed
>> >for your presentation, the report you'd been working on all night,
>and
>> >the reference notes you'd received from the customer the previous
>day.
>> >
>> >With Windows, the help desk operator connects you to a level 3
>support
>> >person in a time-zone where it's between 10 and 4. That person asks
>> >you to start a shell, su, change your password and then tell him
>what
>> >the new password (perhaps he'll give you the password).
>>
>> ...then you get rooted. Nice touch.
>
>But you control the gateway.
If your a UNIX gooroo and can do this, then you dont nead tec sopport.
>There are ways to limit the administrator
>control. The remote administrator can manage dozens of systems
>remotely. The closest you get with Windows is PC Anywhere or SMS.
>
>> >
>> >> 5. "X" Windows works over a network.
>> >>
>> >> Another feature that nobody ever uses.
>> >
>> >If everything works perfectly, the machine is working perfectly,
>> >and no one has any problems, you're correct.
>> >
>> >If only Mr. Murphy hadn't come up with that nasty law. Whatever
>> >can go wrong will, and at the worst possible time.
>> >
>> >Have you ever noticed that the machine runs perfectly when you're
>> >playing Duke Nukem, but when you're an hour from making your pitch
>> >to a client considering a $20 million purchase, your laptop decides
>> >to go berzerk? (you've never made a $20 million pitch before?).
>> >
>> >> This doesn't make "X" Windows more useful to most users.
>> >
>> >Until they need help, you're right. Windows users are used to the
>> >stock answers. Restart the application, Reboot the system, reload
>> >the application, reload the system, reengineer the system.
>> >
>> >Linux users actually ask for help and get it. They can go to a
>> >chat room, newsgroup, search area, or website, but when all else
>> >fails, they can give a trusted service person temporary access via
>> >X11.
>> >
>> >Personally, I'm a lazy sucker. When I have servers in upstate New
>York,
>> >central Pennsylvania, and Jacksonville Florida, I don't like having
>> >to fly for 5 hours so that I can spend 30 minutes pushing the right
>> >buttons to get the desired result and then spending 5 hours flying
>> >back. My clients really hate paying for 10 hours of travel and 2
>hours
>> >of productive time in a single day. When I'm running Linux and the
>> >server is running UNIX, I can avoid the travel entirely.
>> >
>> >> Windows still wins.
>> >
>> >... the masturbation contest.
>> >
>> >That's rude,
>
>No, it's accurate. Microsoft designed Windows to run as a single
>user system directly controlled by the console. Microsoft had a
>contract with Novell to keep NT out of the server market. When
>NT 3.5 failed as a workstation, Microsoft tried to pass it off as
>a File and Print server.
>
>When Linux and SAMBA started displacing the need for Multiple servers,
>Microsoft tried to pass NT off as a multifunction server.
Lie-nux hasn't even begin to displace Window.
>
>And with Linux and UNIX functioning as a multifunction application
>server, Microsoft has announced that it will eventually provide
>a "Next Generation" multifunction application server.
>
>The press is still ignoring the fact that Linux and UNIX have
>had these features for years while Microsoft is announcing this
>function as a future product.
>
>> > > but putting it simply, Windows wins -
>> > by your criteria,
>> >based on the assumption that you are the only person who knows or
>> >cares whether the machine is working, whether or not the machine is
>> >safe. The assumption is that you never connect to the internet, you
>> >never store sensitive information on your computer, and the machine
>> >is locked in a location where you are the only one who has physical
>> >access to the machine.
>>
>> Windows can be on a fucking nettwork without getting hacked.
>
>Actually, this is true with Windows 2000, if you disable most of
>the IE5 features, most of the Outlook features, and most of the
>Messenger features, enable the Kerberos authentication package,
>and disable all shares, AND you lock all the paths, you can
>just barely get a minimum security level.
>
>--
>Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
>I/T Architect, MIS Director
>http://www.open4success.com
>Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
>and growing at over 5%/month!
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
Date: 27 Jun 2000 17:03:29 -0500
On 26 Jun 2000 16:35:27 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>What are you smoking? Do you have any idea what 99.999% uptime is?
>>
>> More than Lie-nux will ever acheive.
>>
>
>Oh really?
>
> 11:17am up 410 days, 14:37, 26 users, load average: 0.72, 0.31, 0.21
>
>What do you call that?
Wait a little more.
>You lose, troll.
>
>>>Now, Tim, you really do have to stop lying.
>>>You never did admit that you were dead wrong about Linux for S/390 requiring VM.
>>>
>
>Actually, that depends on alot. If you know anything about the way VM works, youll
>know that porting the operating system of a guest machine to the actual raw
>hardware isnt actually very complicated, since its running on what amounts to
>raw hardware in the first place.
>
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 27 Jun 2000 17:03:39 -0500
On 26 Jun 2000 10:56:30 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
James wants fonts that don't look like shit. Windows has them. Lie-nux doesn't.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
Date: 27 Jun 2000 17:03:49 -0500
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 07:30:41 -0700, salvador peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 16:21:49 -0400, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Tim Palmer wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> If they're allreddy in Windows, why would they want the option to boot Linux to
>run there Windows app?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Perhaps, like me, Windows can't handle the majority of the work they do while
>Linux can. The occasional Windows app can then be run on Linux without a reboot
>necessary.
>> >
>> >> ...but rather a few sharware versions of crap from TUCOWS will run, whial WINE
>would choke on any large, full-feetured program and take X Windows and the consoal
>down with it.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I run Lotus Notes under wine on Linux with no problems. X and the "consoal" have
>no problems with that. Do you consider Notes to be a
>> >"full-feetured program"?
>> >
>> >> Can you immbed VB scripts? Didn't think so.
>> >>
>> >
>> >And you consider being able to imbed VB scripts a virtue?
>>
>> Millions of people find that feature usefal.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ...and NT 4.0 was registering 99.999% uptimes on at least twice that manny.
>> >>
>> >
>> >What are you smoking? Do you have any idea what 99.999% uptime is?
>>
>> More than Lie-nux will ever acheive.
>
>lol... I have several production servers running linux right now. Not one has been
>down since I installed them. The 1 nt machine that I have, which has a faster
>processor, more
>ram, and handles fewer transactions goes down at least every other week b/c of simple
>things like file transfers.
>
I halve a Linux machine that goes down every day because of Netscape.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help setting up a home network.
Date: 27 Jun 2000 17:03:59 -0500
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 08:14:50 -0500, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> A friend of mine who uses Windoze has just got a new computer to replace
>> the one he already had. Both of them have network cards, and the old
>> one has a modem. He wants to set up a small network between the two
>> computers so that they can both use the same dial-up modem to connect to the
>> local Internet Service Provider. Is this easy to do using Mandrake
>> (probably 6 or 7)? How would they go about doing it? Would the installation
>> process guide you through setting it up?
>
>The cheapest way is to use a crossover cable. You can only hook
>two machines up this way, but otherwise he will need a hub.
Shut up, you WOTHLESS COMMY!
>
>The crossover cable is also very fast/ w ethernet - full duplex.
>
>If he has one machine he just want to use as a gateway, linux
>would be best if there is someone that can quickly set it up for
>him; after that he can just pretend it's not there.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management
Date: 27 Jun 2000 17:04:10 -0500
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 05:34:03 +0000, Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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?
Its a self-extracking ZIP.
>
>--
>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
******************************
