Linux-Advocacy Digest #432, Volume #27 Sun, 2 Jul 00 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux not ready for primetime!!! ! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux not ready for primetime!!! ! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux code going down hill (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Why linux sucks and why linux is best (Charlie Ebert)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: CommyLinux vs Microsoft (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 2 Jul 2000 20:16:05 -0500
In article <kJO75.3557$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not enough, but that's not the point. This was about the
>> damage MS caused by trying to force ISPs to install IIS
>> as their web servers by providing desktop client software
>> that refused to interoperate nicely with anything else.
>
>They have no interest in impoving a competitors product;
>only their own. That's pretty much standard issue, though.
They also have no interest in allowing their customers to
continue to use any other vendor's products, so they make
it as difficult as possible.
>I don't see that they caused damage that way.
You don't appear to see a lot of things.
>> It isn't difficult to update files on a unix server, so there
>> is no need for a web server to integrate a file transfer
>> protocol.
>
>Is not HTTP-PUT part of the hypertext transfer protocol? Is
>it optional or something?
It wasn't at the time we are discussing. It might be in
a current standard. But, I doubt if that is what frontpage
used anyway. If it were any standard, MS could have just
have mentioned the RFC instead of supplying extensions
that had the side effect of breaking other vendor's server
security.
>[snip]
>> >Cool. So if you have a plug-in layer like this, why are you so
>> >insistant that everyone else must use your protocols? Doesn't
>> >this PAM work properly?
>>
>> Yes, but as I said, you have to touch every client to modify
>> it, and change the server at the same time. That is not the
>> same as interoperating with a standard protocol which allows
>> changing one component at a time anywhere. Being forced
>> to change an entire enterprise at once is annoying to
>> the point of making any changes impractical.
>
>Sounds like it doesn't work very well, compared to MS's;
>with MS's you can have more than one protocol installed
>at once. That can save a lot of trouble.
PAM allows stacking multiples, but who wants to wait
for all the non-existing services to time out?
>[snip]
>> >That was before MS decided to embrace the Internet, and
>> >brought TCP/IP to PCs. At that time, PC LANs ran on
>> >NetBEUI or IPX/SPX or something like that.
>>
>> Hardly. TCP was there before MS-TCP.
>
>Sure. Running Unix hosts and the Internet. But not LANs.
LAN's are local networks. Like just about everything else,
they existed long before Microsoft did anything with them.
>The demand for Internet access was great enough that
>MS had to do it.
So now they pretend they invented it...
>It's a pity that Unix boxes weren't more amenable to other
>network technologies, but such is life.
Why do you say this? I can't think of any protocols
that haven't been done for unix, although of course
I am only interested in ones that interoperate among
different systems.
>[snip]
>>
>> Ah, so you define 'decent' as something that doesn't
>> interoperate? Interesting....
>
>I define "decent Windows programming tool" as
>"able to access the Win32 API".
Same thing.
>> >And that's what gets Sun so hot.
>>
>> As they should. Portable byte code is the whole point.
>
>It's the whole point from Suns vantage point, certainly. But
>don't confuse Java with Sun. Java has real virtues as a
>programming language. It's most unfortunate that Sun
>seems it solely as an MS-killer.
Sun developed it as an interoperable network tool with the
portable bytecode being the distinguishing feature.
Giving it away may have been a strategy to take business
from MS, but cross-platform operation is the reason it
exists.
>[snip]
>> No, you work to get the features that users need added to
>> the standard, which normally is only a problem if those
>> features are platform-specific and don't belong in a standard.
>
>I don't think this is a good way to run the industry; we've
>seen how letting standards body run things turns out:
>you get a codification of existing practice as best.
Yes, existing practice that works, often selecting the best
of several different attempts.
>We can do better than that.
Not by using closed protocols that don't interoperate at all.
>We just have to be willing to tolerate a little diversity. We
>*can* cope with it, techncially speaking. There's no good
>reason to avoid it.
There are very good reasons to avoid being locked into
a single vendor.
>[snip]
>> Facts? All I've seen so far are your misconceptions
>> about interoperability that just show you aren't
>> actually doing any.
>
>Well, it seems to me that we're using different definitions
>of "interoperability".
Yes, mine involves different systems, hence the 'inter'
part. Yours seems to be a matter of fantasy.
>You mean by it "uses the same protocol Unix does"; or
>at least I've not found any counterexample where something
>is "interoperable" to you but doesn't use a Unix protocol.
Are you still confused by the fact that unix conforms to
standard protocols - along with many other systems?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux not ready for primetime!!! !
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 20:24:07 -0500
leg log wrote:
Car gets me there
You know, I'm about sick of this car analogy thing. Everything else
that computers get compared to is something that any three year old can
use (open the fridge and pull something out, pop a tape in the VCR and
hit play, turn on the TV, etc) but this car one kills me. Do you just
walk up to a car the first time you see it and know how to use it? I
mean, let's be serious here. You have to be trained how to use a car.
Whether that training is watching a relative expert (Mom and Dad) or
from Driver's Ed (which is usually a requirement now) you have to KNOW
WHAT YOU ARE DOING before you get a license. People expecting a
computer to be something they can just turn on and use with absolutely
no knowledge whatsoever is just sickening. Actually, those with no
knowledge (read pre-concieved notions) are much better off when they
first sit down in front of a computer. Why do you think kids do so well
with them right away. You have to learn a little to run a computer, you
aren't just born with that innate ability. I'm sorry for the rant, but
a computer is not a toaster. The sooner people realize that, the sooner
they can get on with thier lives. You don't have to use a computer.
And if you fell you 'need' it, perhaps you should learn how to use it,
not just whine away when it isn't instantly usable.
Flame away, I'm ready.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 02 Jul 2000 19:27:27 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8jnueh$1hb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >???????? you're the one wrongly blaming Linux for KDE problems! I am
> >NOT a troll for objecting to your false accusations! You
> >however, knowing the difference between KDE and Linux, continue to
> >wrongly blame Linux for KDE problems. What should you be called? By
> >continuing to make such false claims when you know better, I certainly
> >would no call you someone who is interested in the truth!
>
> I'm not blaming Linux for KDE problems. I'm blaming "Linux" for the
> problems that I'm seeing. Do you not understand the difference? Is it
> really necessary for me to spell it out every time? I mean "Linux desktop,
> as in KDE". Can't you guys figure it out from the context?
Funny that you never mention that explore.exe crashes all the time
(even under Windows 2000)...
> As for false accusations, what false accusations?
>
> My Linux system has done the following:
>
> (i) Kernel oops on shutdown
I've seen BSODs under NT for no apparant reason at all.
> (ii) Freeze in postfix on shutdown
I've seen the same thing happen under Windows (ie, "Please wait while
NT finishes saving data to disk" and you wait and wait and wait and
wait...)
> (iii) All desktop applications disappeared and my only recourse
> was to logout.
> I also descovered the following:
>
> (i) USB ZIP 250 are currently _not_ supported according to the
> HOWTO files installed on my system.
Complain to iomega.
> (ii) System logs indicate my USB scanner is _not_ recoginsed as
> a known device.
USB isn't officially supported until 2.4 comes out. Try installing a
USB scanner under NT 4 sometime.
> >Yeap, that's about the meaning I intenened for about a person who knows
> >the difference betteen KDE and Linux yet blames Linux for a KDE problem!
>
> Sigh. See above.
Sigh. Give up and just use Windows.
We won't care. Honestly. All your anecdotal evidence can be easily
counterd with other anecdotal evidence. Linux isn't perfect. Windows
isn't either.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
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: 2 Jul 2000 20:25:16 -0500
In article <biI75.2913$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> A free upgrade would
>> have been nice, but I don't see how bundling it into the
>> cost of the not-free upgrade to 98 is good for anyone. It
>> just takes away the choice of getting it or not.
>
>This is entirely nonsensical.
Bundling/unbundling. It is just a question of who has the choices.
>> How is anyone being screwed by unbundling? If the cost of
>> IE is unbundled, the people who don't want it come out
>> ahead and the people who do aren't hurt.
>
>The people who do *are* hurt; they must pay extra simply
>to support an inferior (in their view) competitor.
Who said anyone was going to have to pay extra? If MS
continues to include the cost of IE in the OS where it
doesn't belong, that is entirely their own fault and you
should take it up with them.
>Consider this more extreme, but similar, example: If a band
>of Armed Thugs (tm) compelled RedHat to 'unbundle' X-Windows,
>so that RedHat users had to buy it separately, from a different
>vendors, would those users be harmed?
Not if the price for the total doesn't go up.
>> It is not clear at all that it would be bad for anyone.
>
>You can't expect anyone but the most devoted MS-bashers
>to believe *that*.
Look at it like a trip to the grocery store. You might prefer
to be handed a pre-filled basket with one price and no choices
but that makes one of us.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 2 Jul 2000 20:28:45 -0500
In article <8iI75.2911$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The whole point of java is that it is portable. Destroy
>> the portability and you have destroyed the language.
>
>Java has some strong points, but the portability Sun claims
>for it is simply not real. It is if anything *less* portable than
>C++.
Who besides MS has broken it so it is no longer portable?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux not ready for primetime!!! !
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 20:31:01 -0500
leg log wrote:
>
> Linux as it stand now is STUPID!!!!!
>
Linux as it stands now is in a constant state of change and
development. If you call that stupid, then that is your opinion. But I
call locking users in and not really improving anything for the last
five years stupid. Linux is improving. Considering where it was about
five years ago, it's blowing a lot of people away. Nothing starts on
top. You have to start with a solid foundation (something MS has
screwed up twice, once with WinDOS and once with WinNT) and Linux now
has that foundation, and much of the work above it is already complete.
What isn't complete is because the work is being focused on the lower
parts first, getting it stable and solid. You don't build a house from
the roof down. You start with the foundation, build the walls and first
floor and work your way up. The roof is the last part of the equation,
just like the eye candy that you are bitching for is the last part of
any good operating system (although BeOS is one that kind of leaves me
wondering about that).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 20:41:04 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> It seems Linux is really going down hill do the lack of
> proper source control and testing. I have been trying out the
> latest release of Redhat, and the clear command core dumps on me,
> the "xterm" terminal definition is wrong, man pages are
> consistenly wrong, and various include files do not support the
> standards. Code that compiled on earlier releases, now bombs
> trying to include stdio.h! Is this code being worked on by a
> bunch of kids that failed software engineering class?
Linux in general? No. RedHat? Possibly. Red Hat just plain old sucks
when it comes to consistency. I started having problems during the 5.x
releases and these problems never went away (I try every new release and
then run screaming back to SuSE or Debian to get some work done). If
you want Linux, for the love of God (Linus) use something other than Red
Hat. BTW, if you are trying to say that Red Hat=All of Linux I could
come to your place and kick your head for ya a little. Maybe that would
losen up the gears enough for you to think straight again.
> I'm convinced Solaris x86 is the way to go for a
> generalized PC OS now. The code is mature, tested, and doesn't
> have every hack with a C book messing it up. It's also free and
> the source code is available. Why bother with Linux anymore?
Because, Linux is still killer, even though Red Hat sucks.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why linux sucks and why linux is best
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 01:46:02 GMT
Tim Palmer wrote:
> >Scores of corporations and regular companies have come
> >and gone over time. Religion is still here.
>
> It doesant matter that LIE-nux doesant work, just as long as everyboddy uses it.
> "Thow shalt halve no other gods before LIE-nux!"
It's linux nitwit.
>
> >
> >Linux DOES support USB and plug and play.
>
> Out of the box? Or after how manny kernal patches and reompials?
>
No Kernel patches for me....
2.4 is supposed to have MORE support.. But 2.2 stuff seems to work good.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 03 Jul 2000 01:56:45 GMT
>
>I'm saying peepal want the best tecknollagy there is, and that
>tecknollagy requiars the latest hardware.
Not inherently. The *best* technology is the right technology for the job.
Not necessarily the latest. The latest solution may not be the best for your
specific application, and/or it may lack the refinement or reliability of
tested approaches.
Example: USB may be more recent hardware than 100M Ethernet, but which is
better for networking?
>
>The Windows "window mannager" (if Windows has such a thing) runs fine on the
>computers its encluded with.
No, it doesn't. I've seen the Win95 GUI weird out to the point it requires
driver replacement. I've never had to replace an XF86_S3V that I didn't
delete/overwrite myself.
>Then why does KDE have a tascbar?
Give people what they're familiar with. The taskbar actually has some design
merit, as a convinent list of all available windows.
>
>Big deal. Moddern computers can handle the lode just fine.
Why did Win98SE, with its extra bloat, feel only as fast on a K6-2/400 as Win95
did on a K6/250 then? I don't call that graceful handling.
>
> ...and peforms no ussfel function.
Odd... I'd bet you can use it to run up your distributed.net or seti@home or
whatever scores. Or use it as almost any type of server.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CommyLinux vs Microsoft
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 01:59:53 GMT
Ah: Excuse please, excusa!
Steve Mading wrote:
> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> On 1 Jul 2000 19:25:27 -0500, Tim Palmer wrote:
> :>
> :>>Lern to speal EXCALLENT you FUCKING LIE-NUX IDIAT
> :>
> :> You are a fucking moron. If you can't get through a
> :> single sentence without making a spelling mistake,
> :> I suggest you leave the literary criticism to your
> :> intellectual superiors.
> :>
>
> : I suggest you learn the fine art of trolling before falling
> : victim to the same. :)
>
> Trolling is not an art form, and should never recieve any praise.
> The willingness to lie in public about what you believe is not
> art. Being able to "sucessfully" troll is trivially easy, just
> follow the following steps:
> 1 - Remove any self-esteem you may have. It will get in the way.
Yes, OR use windows.
>
> 2 - Pick a newsgroup which has really stupid opponents.
Well, COLA doesn't really have stupid opponents.
WE have a bunch of fuckin wintrols here.
Then we have some dedicated, intelligent Linux Hackers here!
>
> 3 - Pretend to be one of those stupid opponents.
There is no pretend in the Windows world!
They have no pretend there!
>
> That's all it takes. The silly thing is that trollers like to
> think they've pulled a fast one on the newsgroup, and that the
> newsgroup is full of gullible idiots. They don't seem to understand
> that the fact that trolling is successful is due to the stupidity of
> the opponents, not the stupidity of the newsgroup. You see, the reason
> we can't tell whether or not an idiot is sincere is that there exist
> people who really are that dumb, who would really say those silly
> over-the-top things and actually mean it.
>
> --
> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
> Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
Ahhh , excusa please.
Charlie
------------------------------
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: 2 Jul 2000 20:50:45 -0500
In article <eiI75.2915$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >Well, if you are going to rely on the internal inplementation
>> >> >details of NT, you can't be too shocked when this happens.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, this is precisely why wire protocols are the correct
>> >> level of interoperability.
>
>I'm leaving this statement in because I don't understand
>it; clearly my interpretation is nonsense, but what
>interpretation would make sense for this?
Start with the observation that there are many CPU types
that have different bit/byte ordering. Start with the
concept that having to be backwards compatible to any
single CPU type or any single vendor's OS is going to
turn out badly sooner or later. If you want to use
a mix of products or just don't want to be locked into
anything, your machines must interoperate at the network
level.
>And you know my objection to it: Interoperability
>by standardizing on Unix and Unix clones isn't
>really interoperability. You have to be able
>to work with *different* products, rather than
>insisting that everything be made the same.
I know you keep saying that. But it has never
made any sense, given that there are dozens
of vendors who use standard protocols and
MS is the one who will only work with itself.
>[snip]
>> >This just isn't reailty.
>>
>> Perhaps it has been changed after the uproar. It was
>> the reality when we used it. There was no indication
>> that it was not going to work with Netscape.
>
>What they changed (when sued) was the default
>setting of a checkbox so the extensions were turned
>off by default.
Then they still continue to produce something that isn't
java? I'm amazed that this is allowed to continue.
>> I didn't do this myself so I'm not sure I am describing
>> it correctly, but the impression I got was that you
>> had to give up the visual tools that were the main
>> reason for using it in the first place to do portable
>> code.
>
>I don't know. That's possible; If J++ works like Visual C++,
>you'd have to use MS's class library to use the visual
>development tool, and this library may well use
>MS's extensions.
Surprise, surprise...
>[snip]
>> When we tracked down what was really happening we found that
>> many others had made the same mistake. And MS was in the
>> courts, again...
>
>You're scaring me. You found many others who also couldn't
>handle unchecking a checkbox, and who didn't think they needed
>to know anything about Netscape to make an applet portable
>to it?
>
>We're doomed.
Yes, MS succeeded in breaking any hope of using their tools
to do something useful.
>> Visual Cafe had no similar problem at all. We developed
>> both applets that worked correctly across platforms and
>> server-side servlets that ran the same on both NT and
>> Linux servers with it, just copying the compiled byte
>> code around.
>
>You got lucky, I think. The JVMs out there are not
>interchangable.
No, they just did not generate intentionally broken
byte code.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 02:06:07 GMT
Steve Mading wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Yes, Linux wins as it's a world wide effort.
> : They have in-excess of 100,000 people working on Linux world wide.
>
> I'm curious, what does this figure count? Kernel-only developers,
> or does it include anyone who's worked on the GPL'ed apps that come
> with Linux? (100,000 seems a big high for just the kernel hackers,
> but a bit low for all people who've ever been on a GPL project.)
>
You are correct sir.
The 100,000 people are working on everything you see in a typical
distribution,
not just the kernel.
>
> --
> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
> Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
