Linux-Advocacy Digest #460, Volume #27 Tue, 4 Jul 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux code going down hill (Gary Hallock)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: I thought only Windows 98 SE did this! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux code going down hill (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 18:13:47 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Every major version of Unix now has a journaled filesystem available.
> >
> >It can't guarantee that you will have everything written to disk up
> >to the very last second...but it WILL guarantee that filesystem
> >corruption from crashes are now a thing of the past.
>
> So things have changed.
>
Yeh, for at least a decade. Like I said before, you have zero experience
with modern versions of Unix and so have no business making statements as
if you do.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 18:18:45 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
abraxas wrote:
>
>
> How can you move from VM on an S/390 to linux on an S/390 and lose EBCDIC?
>
> I dont see much of a point of running linux on pure S/390 hardware with
> no intermediary management system (VM)...Unless its one of those new little
> dual G6s. Does that even work?
>
> -----yttrx
VM doesn't really care what encoding the guest OS uses. The hardware does
really care for the most part. There are some instructions that might have
problems with ASCII but the compiler can handle that.
Gary
------------------------------
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 22:21:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Hallock) wrote in <3962619A.1094FF71
@attglobal.net>:
>Yeh, for at least a decade. Like I said before, you have zero experience
>with modern versions of Unix and so have no business making statements as
>if you do.
Such a generalisation is amazing. So you can happily discount anything I
say as "you don't know what you're talking about".
Well, that's a nice defence against ever paying any attention to me - you
know, I might actually have a point? But it's lost on you because you
generalise.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: I thought only Windows 98 SE did this!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 22:28:07 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote in
<8jtjg8$12qp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>If you have a server running all the time, you can configure it
>as a primary DNS server for your local domain (which can be
>fictitious) and otherwise either be a plain caching server
>or slave to your ISP's. That way all local machines can always
>use this as their resolver. You can run a dhcp server here too
>for your local net if you sometimes plug in a laptop or often
>reconfigure your other machines.
I don't need DNS, all the names are in /etc/hosts.
I don't need DHCP, all the addresses are in /etc/hosts.
What you are suggesting seems awfully complex for a two node system. I
could understand it if I were running a larger system permanently connected
to the internet, but I'm not.
>With a stable server in place, you could use fetchmail to gather
>your mail from the remote pop server(s) and deliver locally to
>a Linux mailbox - then you could access it via IMAP from any
>of the machines (Outlook/Netscape on windows, Netscape/Pine/others
>on Linux) You can create multiple folders on the server and
>all are accessable from any client. You can even drag messages
>you have already downloaded back into an IMAP inbox.
Ah I begin to see what you're getting at. It's not really something I want
to do just yet. If I ever decide Linux is worth switching to, then I might.
However, since my favourite application isn't there yet (Kylix), I'm still
evaluating Linux.
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: 4 Jul 2000 17:27:09 -0500
In article <8jtm75$gn1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Do you happen to have any experience with mysql under freebsd?
>> I sort-of inherited a box running apache and mod_perl with
>> a mysql backend under freebsd and periodically it locked up
>> with mysql never finishing it's queries even though normally
>> they complete very quickly. Also top always shows mysqld
>> consuming some CPU time even if it isn't doing much. I moved
>> the myqsl to a Linux box and everything was fine with no
>> other changes (start-up options are the same in both cases).
>> I tried building exactly the same version of mysql on the
>> freebsd box and putting it back, but still had the same
>> problem. Any ideas?
>>
>
>Were the versions of everything identical between boxes?
They weren't to start with, and I thought that might have
been the difference after the first move to the Linux
box (which was supposed to be temporary). However,
after updating the freebsd box to 3.22.32 also, it
still had the problem. This box is running
3.2-RELEASE #2 with software RAID - any known problems?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: 4 Jul 2000 22:43:19 GMT
On 4 Jul 2000 13:26:54 -0500, Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What do you mean by support? Linux is a kernel - only. It provides
>(supports?) the operating system calls needed by the standard
>library to allow the X protocol to work. GUI's run over the
The silliness is obviously contagious. When most people say "I'm using
Linux", you can typically assume that they also have installed libc,
and the GNU utilities. Sure, there is a kernel, but when people talk about
"Linux", they are usually referring to much more than a kernel.
But I don't wish to continue this line -- largely because the other guy
is using it as a smokescreen to cover up the fact that "Linux", or should
we say "operating environments complete with GUIs based on the Linux
kernel" just to keep the pedants happy -- have usability issues.
>X protocol, although not necessarily on the same machine or OS.
Again, completely irrelevant to the average desktop user. More smoke
and mirrors.
>There is really no more connection between Linux and X than
>there would be between ftp and Linux.
If you want anyone to use Linux on the desktop, there had better
be *SOME* GUI ( which will most probably require X ) that is at the
very least remotely related to Linux.
> Likewise KDE and other
>GUIs run over the services provided by the X protocol but
>are not related in any other way.
The code base is not related, no. But this line is just more smokle and
mirrors, and little more than a pitifull attempt to draw attention away
from the argument that "operating environments complete with GUIs, based
on the Linux kernel" have usability issues
>>> The Linux (being a KERNEL) servers an different function than KDE
>>
>>I don't think the guy who's complaining has any problem with the design
>>of the kernel. It seems to be the user interface that he's not happy
>>with (-;
>
>The problem is that he keeps describing this as a Linux problem
>when in fact Linux continues to provide the services required
>by the protocol in spite of a buggy app.
OK, it's a problem with "operating environments complete with GUIs,
based on the Linux kernel".
To which I can just hear the zealots responding -- " But if he'd only
used Debian GNU Linux". Whatever.
As far as GUIs go, the only one that even comes close to KDE in terms
of functionality is somewhat buggier, not to mention that it is largely
based on C ( and not terribly elegant C for that matter )
>In any case, it has absolutely nothing to do with Linux, and is not
>necessary for Linux operation. The fact that a distribution
>bundles it on the same CD seems to confuse people.
Again, see above. If Linux is lacking a usable operating environment
complete with a GUI, then in context of a discussion about desktop
usability, this is a problem.
>>In any case, calling something as essential as a GUI an "application" is
>>dishonest, and once again, you are trying really hard to use stealth to
>>avoid confronting basic usability issues.
>
>It is not essential, never has been, and I hope it never is. I rarely
>run X on any sever machines.
Irrelevant. This is not a discussion about server machines.
Actually, from your Linux-is-a-kernel line, perhaps we should just
conclude that Linux is "unusable" because it is after all just a kernel.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
