Linux-Advocacy Digest #475, Volume #27 Wed, 5 Jul 00 14:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? ("Alex DeLarge")
Re: lin for win (sylvain hutchison)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Linux 3X faster than W2K ("Rich C")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: lin for win ("KLH")
Re: Linux not ready for primetime!!! !
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use?
Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use?
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How fast is your text? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Which Linux should I try? ("KLH")
Re: LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do not resond (was
Re: Linux is junk)) (Roberto Alsina)
Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway? ("Rich C")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Alex DeLarge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 23:24:08 +0100
> Why is it that all you LIE-nux nuts alwase clame that Windo's crashes all
the time when its not trew?
I don't find that windows crashes all the time, in fact I use windows for
lots of things, including this post. But I do know for a fact that it slows
down over time because of the registry getting bigger. I do know that it's
memory management is awful (NT's is better but not much, and I've not had a
chance to test 2K's). I do know that it's TCP/IP stack is absolutely
diabolical.
>
> >Downloading files with my Linux box
> >is about 66% faster.
>
> PPFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT. What a nice, rownd number. How long it took
you to make it up?
This is usually a configuration/driver issue. On winmodems that work on
linux, in some cases this can be true. On serial modems, it's usually down
to the serial port driver, or it's to do with different configurations as to
which os is faster.
> Come across this: Windows 2000. It blo's LIE-nux away It blo's LIE-nux
away It blo's LIE-nux away
Windows 2000 is hideously bloated. It is much better than NT though. I
wouldn't count linux out exactly on that. Linux had IP6 support before 2K
was out, and it still seems to benchmark a lot better than 2K.
(Incidentally, services on 2K servers are generally slower than on NT -
things like DNS etc crawl from what I've heard - why?)
There's also the big issue you've missed as to why people choose linux over
doze. Open Source. Open Source isn't free software, it's about making the
source availabe. You know that there aren't any NSA keys in the registry,
you know there aren't any hidden 'undocumented features' like the one that
sends your hardware details to microsoft.com when you connect to the
internet.
Some people prefer doze, some like nux. I like nux but find doze is the one
I'd set up for my grandmother to use.
Alex DeLarge
------------------------------
From: sylvain hutchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lin for win
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:19:19 -0700
I am interested in this kind of site, I don't think I can help much as
I've been using linux for just about more than a week now, but would love
to contribute. When / if you set it up, it would be coolif you could send
it to me: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good luck!!!
Sly.
Ben Donnelly wrote:
> I'm thinking of creating a site for linux newbies (I'm fairly new
> myself) which is oriented towards explaining how linux and unix work
> as compared to window/dos.
>
> The idea here is to help people who have installed linux and are at
> the *now what* phase. If they felt confident to go through the install
> process, they probably know a good bit about how wintel computers
> work, but are having trouble translating their knowledge into linux.
>
> My questions are
> 1. Would you like to contribute? If so, contact me.
> 2. Is there a similar site or set of resources already in existance?
>
> --
> ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
> Ben Donnelly UNC-CH Med School
> Server Adminstrator (919)966-9900
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] fax: (919)966-6923
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:18:12 GMT
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 11:33:16 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting Roger from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Tue, 04 Jul 2000 05:50:49 GMT
>>On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 00:18:34 -0400, someone claiming to be Rick wrote:
>>
>>>Roger wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 17:43:42 -0700, someone claiming to be Peter Ammon
>>>> wrote:
[deletia]
>>>> >be in a certain order. And if, in the end, your tortured sense of the
>>>> >rational survives, then all the bounty of Windows shall be yours...until
>>>> >you want to install something else.
>>
>>>> Which is the fault of Windows .. why, exactly?
>>
>>>Um, becasue its designed that way?
>>
>>Um, tell me, exactly where in the software known as Windows are IRQ's
>>defined?
>>
>>hint: it's a hardware thing, not a software thing...
>
>So why doesn't Linux have IRQ problems?
Linux doesn't second guess the hardware.
Linux doesn't second guess the end user.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:19:11 GMT
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 00:39:11 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> I have much less PC experience than you, and even I've been there. Rick
>> is right: it is a nightmare.
>
>And, as usual, blown *way* out of proportion. I've been using PCs for a
>long, long time and the number of IRQ conflicts I've ever had has been
>miniscule and taken all of about 5 minutes to resolve.
...for whom? A guru or a novice?
It only takes one hardware configuration failure to completely
nullify the apparent advantage of WinDOS for the novice end user.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 3X faster than W2K
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 13:24:02 -0400
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8jvfmd$8m0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 3 times faster, right, Pete?
>
> Pete who?
>
> The title of your post says "Linux 3X faster than W2k". A better
> description would be "Linux 3D faster than W2k in tests XXXX" and
> replace XXXX with the actual name.
>
> Otherwise people get the mistaken impression you're claiming Linux is 3
> times faster than W2k in everything.
>
> Now, for everyone who has been trying to convince me my statement "Linux
> lags behind Windows" is unclear - this post is an example of someone
> else doing exactly the same thing I am doing.
>
> Of course, we all know he meant Linux is 3x faster than Win2k in the
> tests outlined, don't we?
Yup. Since he posted the reference and all.
--
Rich C.
"Because light travels faster than sound, many people appear to be
intelligent until you hear them speak."
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 05 Jul 2000 13:25:11 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard) writes:
> Now, apply that question to the GPV. Why should the author of a
> GPV-licensed program - who has already made the choice to give away
> his services - have the right to demand that I do so, too?
They don't have any such right. They are asking, not demanding.
When Mike Tyson boxes, he has no right to demand that you pay
an exorbitant fee in order to watch him do so on television.
He merely asks that you do so. You have the right to refuse,
but then he has the right not to let you watch.
------------------------------
From: "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lin for win
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 10:25:22 -0700
Ben Donnelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm thinking of creating a site for linux newbies (I'm fairly new
> myself) which is oriented towards explaining how linux and unix work
> as compared to window/dos.
>
> The idea here is to help people who have installed linux and are at
> the *now what* phase. If they felt confident to go through the install
> process, they probably know a good bit about how wintel computers
> work, but are having trouble translating their knowledge into linux.
>
> My questions are
> 1. Would you like to contribute? If so, contact me.
> 2. Is there a similar site or set of resources already in existance?
Try linuxnewbie.org and decide if your site is redundant. They may be for
different things than what you aim for, I don't know.
Good Luck in any case
>
> --
> ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
> Ben Donnelly UNC-CH Med School
> Server Adminstrator (919)966-9900
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] fax: (919)966-6923
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux not ready for primetime!!! !
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:34:00 GMT
On Sun, 2 Jul 2000 11:45:51 -0500, leg log <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I made the list of other real world things not because I'm spoiled, but to
>make a point. The point is about what I think should be the point of a
>computer operating system. That is individual productivity, not individual
>computer operability. My black fridge works. I can take care of food, the
Your black fridge is also a simple single purpose device from the
point of view of the end user. A computer is not. It still remains
a device where the bulk of the intellegence must still come from the
end user. This is true even if the user interface is nice and shiny.
A general purpose computer is an infinite collection of tools, not
merely one tool. It is the greater than the whole of a contractor
grade tool/supply store in terms of scope and scale.
[deletia]
It is not merely a hammer.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 05 Jul 2000 18:36:05 +0100
>>>>> "Jay" == Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jay> On 05 Jul 2000 12:38:02 -0400, Hyman Rosen
Jay> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why should someone have the right to demand that others give away
>> their services?
Jay> Why, indeed? Now, apply that question to the GPV. Why should
Jay> the author of a GPV-licensed program - who has already made the
Jay> choice to give away his services - have the right to demand
Jay> that I do so, too?
Thats it. I give up. I'm just going to kill myself, because
its all got to much for me.
Phil
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:37:47 GMT
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 07:51:52 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> KDE and Gnome are working towards consistency. But Linux and the tools
>> that run on it have always been decentralized and theirs nothing you
>> can do to change that. Whining certainly won't help. If you can't
>> accept that, you should stay with Windows. Of course, Windows may not
>> be centrally controlled much longer of the USDOJ gets it's way with
>> the Antitrust case. If you want, you can contribute to KDE or Gnome.
>
>"Whining", as you so crudely put it, might make someone pay attention
>and make the changes that could make Linux into a real Windows beater.
Fascist consistency is too high a price to pay to turn
Linux into a "Windows beater". At that point we're better
of encouraging wider acceptance of Be or iMacs.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:40:28 GMT
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 07:41:07 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8jlqhs$m5u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Many of the incosistancys your are whining about come from legacy
>> applications. KDE and GNOME are both new. Applications are in
>> developement that will take advantage of the desktops you are using.
>
>So, Linux is still playing catchup then?
No, the universe of Linux applications isn't some "garden of
pure ideology". Windows isn't either actually. Throw some
older apps into the mix and suddenly Windows isn't the height
of foolish consistency you make it out to be. HELL, just throw
winamp into the mix and it fails to be that.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:54:58 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Conversely, the damn LoseDOS98 box *insists* on trashing at least one
>>filesystem every month or so....
>I've never seen Windows trash a filesystem. Is this FUD I wonder?
In a word: NO!
Believe me, it's no fun trying to talk my 60 year old mum who lives
9 timezones away and doesn't know much about computers through the
motions of getting her Windows box to at least boot again....
Bernie
--
Thomas --- Jefferson --- still surv--
John Adams
2nd President of the US
Last words, 4 July 1826
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:54:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>But how many people are actually USING Linux?
>I have some 15 different distributions/versions on my shelf and use
>none of them.
May I assume that you will soon donate them to your favourite
Linux-Giveaway initiative?
Bernie
--
This is the Fourth?
Thomas Jefferson
US President 1801-09
Last words, on 4 July 1826
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How fast is your text?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:55:01 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows) writes:
>In article <8jd57k$h5v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It's useful for printf-debugging. Sometimes you just have to put a printf
>> in the innermost loop of a program that crashes only 15 minutes into a
>> run, and saving the stuff to a file (even when you make sure there is
>> no nasty buffering) is just not practical.
>So, just what isn't practical about multi-gigabyte logfiles?
The speed at which they can be written, the amount of disk space they
require (which often influences the speed at which they can be written
by forcing one to use the bigger but slower disk), and last but not least
the fact that many systems still can't handle files >2GB very gracefully ---
and there is nothing worse than creating that sort of log file, only to
find that it stopped logging two iterations before it crashed ;-)
Of course, I sometimes *do* use such big files, particularly when I am
not interested in "what was the last thing before it crashed", but rather
"when did the first discrepancy between *this* implementation and *that*
implementation of the same stuff appear" --- "cmp", "dd" and "diff" are your
friends ;-)
Bernie
--
Anybody that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years
organizing and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the
office
David Broder
------------------------------
From: "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which Linux should I try?
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 10:51:31 -0700
cpliu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > You can try them all. It's cheap.
> >
>
> Do you guys actually install all flavors of Linux with multiple boot
> system? If it's the same, why do you need to have multiple. Which one do
> you finally settle on?
No, at least I don't. I don't think many others do it either: it would
really take up HD space and be rather redundant. But the guys point is that,
while we can give you pointers of what the major differences between the
distributions are, in the end it is a personal choice and the best
distribution for me may not be the best distribution for you.
I, personally, have settled on Red Hat 6.0 but I am considering a move to
Debian, which is a more advanced and flexible distribution.
>
> > For the price you'd pay for ONE copy of Windows 2000, you can have a
copy
> > of all those mentioned PLUS debian.
> >
> Aren't they all free? I can at least find sites to download mandrake, red
> hat, corel.. The ones sold in stores have more stuffs in it, right?
Yes, they are free. But if you download them, it will take a *lot* of time
on a standard 56K connection---if you have more bandwidth, than sure. But if
you do that, you will need to figure out how to make a boot disk, install,
etc. If you think you are up to the task, than go ahead. Also remember that
you can always get help online if you get stuck :)
The extras in the boxed sets in the stores are usually the manuals and some
propietary software that are red flags to some of us in the community (some
of us don't care either way) --- we avoid them unless we need them.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> cpliu
Welcome to GNU/Linux!
Best Regards,
Kevin Holmes
"extrasolar"
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do not
resond (was Re: Linux is junk))
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 17:45:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Hallock) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >You are the only one that has hit these problems and they have not
been
> >able to be reproduced by anyone.
>
> That doesn't mean they don't exist.
>
> >"For instance, you have two kfm processes running. You want to copy
the
> >text from one t'other. CTRl-C CTRL-V is
> > a standard key sequence (no, it wasn't created by Windows!) and kfm
> > doesn't
> >recognise it. Even clicking on the
> > buttons doesn't work!"
> >
> >This is a lie.
>
> Um, well, the X way of copy paste works but CTRL-C CTRL-V doesn't. I
fail
> to see why you call this a lie.
Because it's not completely true? Ctrl-x does "cut" off whatever is
selected, and ctrl-c does "copy" whatever is selected.
I can't make ctrl-v paste, but RMB->paste does work.
> >"Linux KDE doesn't even have drag to application,
> > sheesh!"
> >
> >This is a lie.
>
> It is? Can I drag a file from kfm to Netscape. Um, by default, it
doesn't
> work. Someone pointed that it can be made to work.
"Doesn't work with netscape" and "doesn't exist" are very different
things. Again, you can't drag a file to a terminal in windows.
Does it mean that drag to application doesn't exist on windows?
[snip]
> >What? What do you think JFS is? You said UNIX filesystems and JFS
IS
> >a UNIX fliesystem. Or are you now claiming that Linux is UNIX but
AIX
> >is not UNIX?
>
> And what do you think ext2fs is? Is it not a UNIX filesystem? Is JFS
_all_
> the filing systems on every UNIX system out there?
"unix filesystems are [X]" means all unix filesystems are [X].
It's like saying "NT filesystems are not resistent to crashes" because
you screw a vfat partition.
You want a journaling filesystem in linux? use reiserfs. It's not even
beta.
[snip]
Pete, if you don't want people to call you a liar, you need to start
writing what you want to say in a way that makes more sense.
Look at the examples above, and you will see that what you apparently
meant is indeed not true. If people believe you wrote it intentionally
(and basic literacy would leave no chance for accidents like these),
then you will be called a liar.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway?
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 14:00:13 -0400
I have been concerned lately about certain attitudes in this newsgroup.
It seems that certain Linux "zealots," when confronted with the issue of a
useability issue with KDE, Gnome, or whatever, argue that these components
are NOT part of Linux. However, when confronted with the issue that Windows
version [whatever] has a nice user interface, they instantly point to KDE or
Gnome being "just as good." This type of two-headed posturing is not
constructive.
Well, which is it? Are the KDE/Gnome desktops part of "Linux," or aren't
they?
All current versions of Windows include a GUI user interface, and for what
it's worth, it IS easy to use.
Linux is claimed to be "just a kernel" which, in and of itself, is not much
good. It requires many GNU utilities, at an absolute minimum, and SOME type
of GUI, to be considered "useable" as a desktop system.
Almost all distributions of "Linux" come with one or more GUI desktop
environments, and 99% of the people who want to try Linux as an alternative
to Windows will install one of these desktops. In order to make Linux an
"equivalent" environment to Windows, you HAVE to say that these GUIs are
part of the overall operating environment, or "system." If you don't, then
you leave yourself open to the argument that Linux is just a kernel, and, as
such, is pretty much useless.
I think it's time we took ownership of the various GUI desktops that ship in
GNU/Linux distributions, even if it means acknowledging certain flaws in
each. After all, to be really "useable" as a desktop environment, a GUI must
be installed.
This of course does not mean that one can't argue that the separation of the
GUI from the kernel adds to the stability of the core OS, and that this
design is superior to the various flavors of Windows. But then we must
accept that this separation invites certain problems, such as a lack of
basic feature integration (cut and paste, drag and drop, etc.)
If this means that we must still be "elitist" in recommending Linux to only
those people who are willing to sacrifice a certain amount of "useability"
in favor of increased stability at the core level, then so be it. I, for
one, am willing to concede that the various GUI desktops are not yet at the
level of Windows in terms of total integration, because I know that rapid
progress is being made, and that they will soon reach that level, and even
surpass it.
I don't yet use Linux for "everything" in my business; as evidenced by the
fact that I am still using OE to post this. I use Microsoft products to
generate quotes, invoices, track my repairs, produce reports, and do my
accounting. I DO use Linux for intranet web servers print servers, CAD
workstations, and programming. I have more Linux machines in my office than
Windows machines, and someday, I will probably do the bulk of my work on
Linux machines. I will probably NEVER rid myself totally of MS products, due
to the nature of my business. But it doesn't really matter, because I am not
out to destroy Microsoft. They are doing a pretty good job of that on their
own.
--
Rich C.
"Because light travels faster than sound, many people appear to be
intelligent, until you hear them speak."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
