Linux-Advocacy Digest #433, Volume #27 Mon, 3 Jul 00 00:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux code going down hill (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux not ready for primetime!!! ! (Ben Walker)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I thought only Windows 98 SE did this! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm not ready.)
(Jonadab the Unsightly One)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: 3 Jul 2000 02:14:07 GMT
On 2 Jul 2000 23:47:30 GMT, abraxas wrote:
>It is extremely well defined (for the layman) thusly:
>
>Any operating system which is either A. BSD or B. System V in design and
>application. Oddly and perhaps ironically, this includes SunOS but not
>Solaris. :)
I'd call anything that ships something resembling X/Open standard "UNIX".
One could dispute this definition, because apparently if you dress NT up
the right way, it meets UNIX 98 standards. But in this instance, I would
still suggest that NT had "a UNIX subsystem".
--
Donovan
------------------------------
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 21:17:32 -0500
In article <giI75.2917$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >I think I must be on to something; both you and Leslie have felt the need
>> >to try to change the subject away from support for client/server security
>> >to other security-related issues (in your case, Visual Basic for Viruses
>:D
>> >and in Leslies, NT's poor implementation record compared to some.)
>>
>> Before you can dismiss my observation of reality as changing the
>> subject, I suggest that you show why you think the poor record
>> is a simple matter of implementation bugs instead of overall
>> design issues where the unnatural integration of functions
>> into places they don't belong introduces new weaknesses.
>
>Hmmm..
>
>I'm not sure I can prove that. But I think that if you wish to claim
>that NT's design is causing these security problems by virtue
>of combining things that shouldn't be combined, then I think
>it is up to *you* to prove *that*, not up to me to disprove it.
>
>I mean, the usualy standard is "he who asserts must prove";
>otherwise it's just crazy, since I can assert all manner of strange
>things, and it would be silly to demand that you disprove them
>all.
Sorry, but it is the theory that differs from observations
that must either be discarded or proven. Mine predicts
the problems that have been seen in practice. You are
the one who claimed it is just poor implementation, so
perhaps you would like to elaborate on why you think
someone with a problem implementing the details would be
able to generate a flawless design. Or why you would promote
something like this as an improvement.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ben Walker)
Subject: Re: Linux not ready for primetime!!! !
Date: 2 Jul 2000 20:38:39 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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).
I agree with everything above. I would just add that Linux and Microsoft
have quite different philosophies and niches. Microsoft's goal is
domination, pure and simple. Linux and the open source movement started
out with a totally different objective: produce quality non proprietary
software to actually get things done. Early on, software was produced
primarally for programmers by programmers and other technically inclined
folks. Linux didn't start out with the intent of dominating the OS market.
People used it because they liked it. They liked the stability, control,
and efficiency of the system. Being able to run a stable UNIX like
operating system on cheap PC hardware was a cool thing. That is why I
started running Linux in 1996. I personally wouldn't mind if Linux had
never gotten a lot of the attention and publicity it has had in the last
couple of years. It was nice when it was a little known secret.
That being said, I really don't care if Linux becomes the dominant OS
of the future. I use it because I like it. It does what I need it to do.
It gives me stability, control, and low cost. However, one nice thing
about increased market share is better support for hardware. With more
Linux users, hardware vendors are more willing to release specs and even
provide drivers in some cases. I never understood why hardware vendors
were so reluctant to release specs. By making their product usable by
more people, they stand to gain increased sales.
I don't see Linux becoming a desktop substitute for Windows. The desktop
of KDE and Gnome has improved dramatically in the last year or so. But I
am not so sure I want to see nor do I think is really possible for Linux
to look as much like Windows as possible. This seems to be the direction
things are heading. But a Windows like desktop running atop Linux is
of course better than running Windows. At least I can choose which desktop
and window manager to run. I am not locked into what Microsoft forces me
to use.
Just my $.02.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 02:58:44 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Shepherd) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >I believe his point was that if you are comparing an intermediate to
> >advanced Win2k user to a Beginner or absolute Novice KDE user, you're
> >making an unfair comparison. Hell, I'm a linux beginner, let alone any
> >of the extra packages that go with, but even I would have figured out to
> >reload kfm.
>
> Ah, but I didn't know it was kfm that had died. You see, nothing would work
> after that. All the menus were dead, including the background menu. There
> was no error message (I mean, even Windows gives you a BSOD!), so how
> should I know what just happened!
When W2K bluescreens you have to re-boot. When 98 bluescreens, you re-boot.
When NT blue screens, you re-boot.
There's no way to re-start anything on windows without re-booting it.
Even applications which DIE and leave the OS intact OFTEN leave you
re-booting the OS anyway due to the thrash and left over .DLL's they leave
lying
around in memory.
>
>
> >What exactly do you do in Win2k when a program you need to run dies? You
> >run it again right?
>
> See above.
See above = re-boot machine.
>
>
> >Perhaps this was all spawned because when explorer goes in '98, Windows
> >reloads it for you (providing further crashes for your viewing
> >pleasure).
>
> No, it was because I was not informed by a message from the system as to
> what just occured. Kfm did not display an error message. Maybe one was
> recorded in the system log, but Windows at least displays something _there
> and then_ that Kfm did not.
Well Pete,
If we operated our machines such as you do and only wait for some warning
message
to alert us something is wrong, then why did you have a problem with KFM in
the first
place? No warning message occured!
>
>
> >No, you're talking to a bunch of people who happen to know what you are
> >talking about, and are correcting you on your usage of terminology,
> >which you can't seem to accept. If I were to go around and say that I
> >was using the Windows Document Editor, what are you going to ask? Are
> >you perchance just going to assume I mean word?
>
> If you happen to know what I'm talking about then why do feel the need to
> correct me? Why am I called "moron" and "complete idiot" huh? Is that the
> way to correct someone? Does it not "get their back up"?
>
> Pete
It's because you are a total fool Pete.
You continually blow the Windows Horn as if they had a tommorrow!
It's as if you were a marketing executive for the doomed AMC motor
corps and were planning your advertising comeback for 2001!
You represent Microsoft, a corporation with a reputation lower than snakes
piss!
Then you expect people to buy into your crap about Windows!
Windows 2000 is an operating system which couldn't survive a month
without re-booting, even if you were only using it for your bedroom
nightlight!
Linux on the other hand is an actual operating system with
so much control and functionality, I'll say there is no other PC
operating system which can match it in the last 5 years.
This is why people call you moron and idiot Pete!
It's because of your infantile messages of futility for
Microsoft....
Charlie
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 21:01:16 -0400
Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:395f6524$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >I've seen it many times before from many different
>> >people on many topics. I know I can't break through
>> >it with mere facts.
>>
>> Why are you trolling here?
>I'm obviously an addict. Any sane man would have given
>up by now. :D
That's what happens when you fish in a dry hole. <g>.
>By the way, where's here to you? This one's crossposted
>to everything .advocacy.
OS2 advocacy.
>But then, there really is only One True Advocacy Forum.
>All the others are pale imitations. :D
I have no idea what that is.
>> Do you work for M$?
>No. Wouldn't it be nice if they paid me for this?
I suppose, but my conscience would never permit it.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I thought only Windows 98 SE did this!
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 03:01:31 GMT
abraxas wrote:
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I shut down my Linux server, fine, no problems.
> >
> > I shut down my Linux workstation and it hung in Postfix... I tried logging
> > in as root, but all the virtual terminals wouldn't let me even type 'root'.
> >
>
> How *exactly* did you shut it down? There are 'nice' ways, and there are
> 'mean' ways.
>
> > So, reboot.
> >
>
> This is never nessesary. Pop into console when this happens, or if youve
> lost keyboard functionality (exceedingly rare), telnet or ssh in from
> somewhere else.
>
> > Now this is the second time Linux has fallen apart on shutdown. The first
> > was a kernel oops when it tried to dismount an smbfs mounted drive. Now it
> > hung in shutting down Postfix.
> >
>
> Indeed. I remember you; youre the one who doesnt understand that you cannot
> simply unmount an active filesystem.
>
> -----yttrx
Bill Gates dumming down of Operating systems has converted a whole
class of typewrite experts into so called computer experts during the
decade of te 80's.
It's a whole new class of idiot above the old class of idiot.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 03:04:16 GMT
Tim Palmer wrote:
> On 2 Jul 2000 01:13:08 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>> No, that's not the problem, the problem is with your perception. As I
> >>> stated in a previuos post the Linux world is not homogenous like the
> >>> Windows world, but is actually quite diversified. Most Linux users
> >>> like it this way and consider it an advantage because Linux is about
> >>> freedom and choice. Some people like driving a sports car and others
> >>> like driving a van. Thus there are different UI's for Linux with
> >>> different looks and feels, and yes, they sometimes contradict one
> >>> another. That's becuase peoples personal tastes sometimes contradict
> >>> one another. I think that's a good thing. If you don't, then you
> >>> should probably stick with windows.
> >>
> >> I'm arguing for some consistancy in the various types of desktop.
> >> Diversity is fine but anarchy is just crazy. If each and every desktop
> >> on Linux redefine the basics like Cut, Copy and Paste, that means if I
> >> switch desktops, the basic ground rules change. That's what I'm arguing
> >> against!
> >>
> >
> >i.e. you want ten years worth of development done RIGHT NOW, because
> >YOU NEED IT.
> >
> >If you werent such a helpless putz, youd be helping create it.
> >
>
> Microsoft already did it and it didant take them no 10 years. Consistancy was hear
>in Window's 3.0. So Window's 3.0 was 10 year's ahead of were LIE-nux is today.
Sir,
Your weenus comments exceeded 80 columns so I corrected them for you so that others
could
read them.
BTW, why didn't IE correct your ability to type past 80 anyway?
Charlie
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >-----yttrx
> >
------------------------------
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 22:02:26 -0500
In article <fiI75.2916$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snip]
>> >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.
>
>I don't agree. It does *not* in fact permit you to change
>one endpoint at a time; you cannot switch protocols that
>way, but only implementations- and this is very limiting.
How is it limiting? Take email as the example where you
can interchange any conforming SMTP implementation with
any other and you can switch among file access to the
message store, POP, IMAP, or some other protocols, one
endpoint at a time. Please give an example to the contrary,
where a proprietary protocol proves to be better, especially
in a mixed environment.
>The MS plug-ins approach does let you switch an endpoint
>at a time, because each client can be made to support
>multiple protocols and can use the appropriate one,
>depending on who it is talking to. You can switch clients
>one at a time until all are switched, and only then delete
>the older protocol.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the argument that
the wire protocols involved should be standards so you
are not limited to this single plug-in implementation
or whether one exists for the platform in question.
>> >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?
>
>But you can. The API works with something like a driver;
>you can add unforseen new entities by obtaining (or writing)
>such a driver and installing it wherever it matters.
You can't do any such thing if the network protocol
is unknown.
>You can do this easily if the "unforseen new entity"
>supports such drivers- just give it the drivers for your
>network. If it doesn't, you have to install a driver
>on every *other* computer so they know whatever
>protocol it is using. But either way you can do it.
So, where is this mythical driver-like thing that will
allow a non-MS product to be a domain controller?
>> >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.
>
>Sure you can. Haven't you noticed me claiming left and right? :D
And I've politely refrained from saying you are lying, since
you may simply be confused.
>> There is no requirement to be
>> open, but misrepresenting a sealed box is a bad thing.
>
>You really do seem to be *defining* "interoperability"
>as "fixed wire protocol". I don't think that's a promising
>approach.
OK, so don't claim interoperability.
>I do agree- they've done the work. The interoperability
>you see to day between Windows and Unix,
>such as it is, is largely due to Microsoft's efforts.
That's is too funny for words, given that it isn't a bit
better now than what could be done with Windows 3.1, Trumpet
or any 3rd party TCP, and Netscape, back when MS was
still in the dark ages.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm not
ready.)
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 03:29:42 GMT
The Sokos Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Buying the CD from someone does make your life easier, though.
Given that the original poster is IIUC constructing systems
to sell to users (his customers), he could just buy *one* CD
from www.cheapbytes.com for under $10 even with S&H, and the
license lets him put it on as many computers as he wants.
Given that, there's not much cost to pass onto the user,
other than installation and configuration time. And once
you've installed it once or twice, that's a breeze,
*especially* if you do a full install, and extra-especially
if you're put it on essentially the same hardware each time.
> Make sure you use a monitor that can do at least 1024x768. Linux
> is worse than windows in lower screen resolutions (IMHO).
Actually, I set my desktop size to 800x600 and my screen
res to 640x480. YMMV. You probably want to show your
customers a couple of different resolutions and ask 'em
which they prefer. Odds are better than even they will
pick 640x480 so they don't have to squint, particularly
since monitors are fairly expensive and you're talking
about cheap systems here.
> I don't think linux is ready to dethrone windows as the primary
> operating system for the PC.
No, but it's ready to start competing for part of the market
share, even with new users, IMO. There's something to be
said for distributing dual-boot systems.
> First of all, linux is a form of unix,
> and unix is not user friendly (the old joke is that unix is very
> user friendly, it's just particular about who its friends are...).
The term "user-friendly" means different things to different
people. The simple truth is this: Unix is easy to use,
once you know how to use it. If you don't mind a little
ASCII art (fixed-width font required), I draw the learning
curves for the major systems approximately thusly (I ignore
installation here and assume a non-novice has already taken
care of that.)
Windows '95 Series
Infinite
Effort | *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| **
| ***
| ****
| *******
| *******
Zero | ****
Effort |**________________________________________________
Trivial Basic Medium Advanced Master
Use Use Use Use Use
MacOS
Infinite
Effort | *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| **
| **
| ***
| *****
Zero | *******
Effort |********__________________________________________
Trivial Basic Medium Advanced Master
Use Use Use Use Use
Unix (No X)
Infinite
Effort |
| *
| **
| **
| ***
| ****
| *****
| ******
| ******
| *******
| *******
|******
|
|
Zero |
Effort |__________________________________________________
Trivial Basic Medium Advanced Master
Use Use Use Use Use
Unix (Modern X)
Infinite
Effort |
| *
| **
| **
| ***
| ****
| *****
| ****
| ****
| ***
| ****
| ****
| ****
| ****
Zero | ****
Effort |*_________________________________________________
Trivial Basic Medium Advanced Master
Use Use Use Use Use
DOS
Infinite
Effort | *
| *
| *
| *
| *
| **
| **
| ****
| *****
| ****
| ******
| *******
| *******
|*****
Zero |
Effort |__________________________________________________
Trivial Basic Medium Advanced Master
Use Use Use Use Use
> The command prompt is much more powerful than the dos command
> prompt, but it's also significantly less intuitive.
Yes, that's true. 4DOS is somewhere in-between.
> Emacs takes a little getting used to,
Emacs takes a *lot* of getting used to, although not quite
as much as vim, but it's *incredible* once you do get used
to it. Use of Emacs is highly addictive, let me tell you.
I don't know how I ever managed to get by without regular
expression support in my text editors, for example, not
to mention custom-written editing commands. I can now do
stuff in 2-3 minutes that would have taken me 10-20 minutes
to do before, even with macros.
> and you do NOT want to use VI (the default
> editor) to muck around with configuration files.
Not until you're used to it, and the learning curve
is high for a typical Windows user. (What *IS* this
nonsense about not supporting the cursor movement
keys every other application on the planet uses? Oh,
you say vi was written when keyboards didn't *have*
those keys? Whoah, that must've been before Windows,
when people were still using that old thing I've heard
people talking about but never actually seen... what
was it... oh, yeah, DOS. Oh, no DOS either? Dude,
that explains a lot...)
I wouldn't recommend trying to convince people who
are afraid of a command prompt that they should use
vim. Not a high probability of success there.
> Linux is getting
> a lot easier to set up than it used to be, but it's still a long
> way from point and click like windows.
You're out of date. It is entirely possible these days
(although IMO not desireable) to use Linux without
bothering to type in any commands. KDE is basically
like Windows with extra features. (Some applications
still require knowledge to use, but you can steer
newbies away from those applications. Give 'em
shortcuts to StarOffice and such on the desktop and
in the panel menu system and if they want to play around
with cron and grep they can jolly well read enough
documentation (or usenet) to figure out on their own how
to get a VT.)
> Linux works very well for e-mail and web. It works for business
> stuff as long as your business isn't standardized on Microsoft
> (word format for documents, etc) as the linux apps available aren't
> microsoft compatible. Game support is poor. There are very few
> games that run under linux.
Descent is an excellent one. A little dated, but still
a very good game. It was WAY ahead of its time in '95.
Lincity is fairly addictive, too.
But really, if they've got a dual-boot system, they can
boot the other OS to play games if they want.
> My linux box dual boots linux and win98. Do NOT, under any
> circumstances,
> use LILO.
I concur. LILO doesn't make it painfully obvious how
to select the other OS. Install LILO on the beginning
of the partition where Linux resides, and leave the MBR
to a capable boot menu. Were it me, I'd give 'em OSBS,
it's free[1] and doesn't suck.
> I personally use the
> loader that runs from DOS, and I made a shortcut to it on my Win98
> desktop (make sure you check the little box that says run this in
> MS-DOS mode). All I have to do is double click on it to boot linux.
But then you have to wait for Windows to boot and *then* wait
for Linux to boot. Bleh. Okay if you only boot Linux rarely,
I suppose, but I prefer the boot menu.
> I wouldn't complain about getting a reasonable set of documentation
> for your operating system. You should be bitching to microsoft
> about the fact that they DON'T document their operating system.
Exactly. The worst case scenerio when you get documentation
you don't want is that you never read it.
> My documentation for VMS (which is roughly equivalent to unix in
> terms of complexity) fills an entire bookshelf. How's that for
> intimidating? :-)
I actually rather like VMS. Our Galaxy system at work
runs on OpenVMS, and it's rock-solid, and rather more
user-friendly than I expected. The librarians have more
trouble figuring out how to help the patrons use Navigator
and MSWorks on the PCs and educational games on the iMacs.
Galaxy is pretty straightforward.
Don't think I'd want to try to teach them to do word
processing on that system, though.
Incidentally, the Alpha is the only thing Compaq sells
that I might ever potentially buy, I think. If I were
swimming in money, that is. (I might get a Vax used,
if I could get it cheap. I'd get it as a curiousity,
though, not for real use (unlike the Alpha).)
[1] Meaning you don't have to pay for it. It isn't GPL.
- jonadab
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
