Linux-Advocacy Digest #491, Volume #27 Thu, 6 Jul 00 08:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Luv Linux but it looses. ("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (phil hunt)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (phil hunt)
Re: Luv Linux but it looses. (Frank Fox)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Apache Up, MS Down ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do not resond
(was Re: Linux is junk))
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Darren Winsper)
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? (J Bland)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Luv Linux but it looses.
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 14:45:56 +0400
JoeX1029 wrote:
> and a much more secure box. If you look at www.insecure.org it has HUNDREDS of
> hacks for Linux
This could be a good blessing for Linux in the long run. The simple reason is
thatthose hacks could be plugged and the mistakes could not be repeated making it
more secure next time. I am not worried if there are lots of security alerts for
Linux
and I, in fact, welcome those. At least I know that lots of eyes are watching on
it's
deficiencies. Over time Linux will become a very secure system.
As an aside, I installed Linux Mandrake 7.1 just for evaluation. A week after,
a dozen or so security updates was made available by MandrakeSoft. I like it that
way. The more weaknesses they can find the more happy I am because at the
end of the day, it would make Linux less vulnerable to attacks.
>
> and 1 for SCO OpenServer.
This is what I don't trust.
Ferdinand
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 06:44:42 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 01:22:50 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Nothing against the content of your posts mate but hows about cutting the
> >> sig. One or two lines of content and >20 lines of signature is just plain
> >> bad netiquette. Four lines is acceptible and good enough for most people.
>
> >1. Since it's at the end... you don't have to look at it.
>
> <sigh> What Roy has asked is not unreasonable. Usenet convention is
> that sigs should not be more than four lines, for various good
> reasons. First, because you're wasting space on newsfeeds by appending
> a large quantity of the same information to every one of your posts;
> second, because it costs *someone* money to transmit all that
> information (and, for anyone in the UK, it costs *them* money to
> download it - we haven't got to completely free Internet access yet).
>
> Thirdly, it isn't polite: if everyone on Usenet were to play fast and
> loose with convention, the whole thing would become very unusable
> pretty damn quick.
You're kidding, right?
How many MEGABYTES of traffic are moved on a typical webpage access.
>
> Finally, this sort of behaviour does nothing to show you, or what you
> post, in a good light: people reading this group will form an initial
> opinion of you and the quality of your posts on the basis of such
> things as overlong .sigs, and how you respond to requests to do
> something about them. Given that you are posting to advocacy groups,
> where personal credibility and points of view are rather more
> significant than in some quiet backwater of Usenet, that should matter
> to you - unless you're really not interested in sensible debate, and
> are just trolling for attention.
There are certain...in-duh-viduals... from soc.singles...who used to
be in the habit of following me around from newsgroup to newsgroup
defaming me.
Since adopting my .sig of innoculation, such activity has ceased...
which if it resumed, would waste even MORE bandwidth.
thus, I am saving you bandwidth by keeping off-topic hit-and-run
attacks against me OUT of the newsgroup.
>
> It is to Roy's credit that he was tactful and polite in pointing out
> your over-long sig - there are many people who would not have been as
> courteous. Your aggressive response is in sharp contrast to his
> suggestion, and serves only to discredit you further.
See above. I have no ability to control the behavior of certain
sadistic personalities who like to commit hit-and-run attacks,
starting all kinds of flame fests in newsgroups across the board.
My current .sig, however, has lessened it considerably.
If you don't like it... talk to the guilty parties listed therein.
>
> >2. This cuts down on the number of flames from the above-mentioned
> >idiots,
> > significantly reducing the need to respond to their idiocy.
>
> So you consider it acceptable to violate netiquette because by doing
> so, you hope to receive less flames? First of all, I cannot see how
Hey, idiot, do you want this newsgroup to become a flame fest?
> that hope can justify your actions - indeed, to take this to its
> logical extreme, you could justify firebombing their homes on the same
> basis. Second, do you *seriously* believe that repeatedly posting the
> same litany of provocation and paranoia will make *any* difference?
>
> If you are after flame-free posting, I suggest that you go and inhabit
> rec.arts.knitting. And shorten the .sig.
See above.
>
> --
> Warning: end of message imminent. Stop reading now.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 06:45:40 -0400
Shock Boy wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Nothing against the content of your posts mate but hows about cutting the
> > > > >> sig. One or two lines of content and >20 lines of signature is just plain
> > > > >> bad netiquette. Four lines is acceptible and good enough for most people.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Since it's at the end... you don't have to look at it.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. This cuts down on the number of flames from the above-mentioned
> > > > > idiots,
> > > > > significantly reducing the need to respond to their idiocy.
> > > >
> > > > Child, please read up on usenet netiquette. Believe it or not some people
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > Written back in the days of 300 bit/second modems....
> > > Forgive me for noticing that ... technology has advanced in
> > > the last 25 years.
> > >
> >
> > The rules of netiquette have not changed much, it is true. But then,
> > neither have basic manners.
> >
> > As for advanced technology, the Net is not fully contained in the houses
> > of well-to-do US citizens. There are plenty of places with slow lines,
> > slow modems, and per minute charges.
>
> While that may be true, the same applies in many other area's.
>
> Not everyone owns a car.. some use a slower bicycle.. shall we all stop using cars?
>Or limit our speed to 20mph?
>
> Not everyone owns a television set.. shall we demand only radio broadcasts?
>
> Personally, the minimum standard that we should even care about is a 56K, unlimited
>time for $19.95/month. If someone has a
> slower/more expensive connection.. than a longer usenet post is the least of their
>worries.
Besides that.. ONE WEB-PAGE hit typically takes more time to download
than
ALL of what I write in a typical day.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 23:41:43 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 05 Jul 2000 12:38:02 -0400, Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In the first case the BBC used to broadcast many of the large
>> sporting events to the entire population, as a "public service". When
>> Sky came along the spend huge amounts of money in acquiring TV rights,
>> and then selling subscriptions to them as loss leaders. Nowadays if
>> you want to watch many of these events then you have to pay for
>> multiple subscriptions.
>
>In other words, the sporting leagues realized that they could make
>extra money by charging television viewers for the privilege of seeing
>games, instead of allowing them to be broadcast for free. That seems
>fine to me. Why should someone have the right to demand that others
>give away their services?
The majority of the people of this country think that football should
be free to watch, on either BBC or ITV. Therefore it should be so;
or are you against democracy?
>> The point remains though that it was not consumer choice at
>> all. It was just the economic power of one company. Nor was it the
>> activity of competition, and the free market as it was a loss leader.
>
>Consumers are not permitted to choose the price at which things they
>buy are sold, because that choice would be zero.
No it wouldn't, because the supply would dry up.
> The choice of the
>consumer is what to buy, and whether to buy it. It is a case where
>someone who was giving something away
Not true. BBC and ITV were paying for football to be televised before.
> decided to begin charging for
>it. There is nothing wrong with that, despite the fact that the
>former recipients are annoyed.
This is only true if you think that money is the only thing of
importance.
Football is something that many people in Britain are interested in;
it is part of our common shared culture. If watching major football matches
is restricted to those will to pay Sky for the priviledge, then our
common culture is reduced, because people have less in common with each
other.
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 23:49:15 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 05 Jul 2000 13:03:12 -0400, Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Hyamn> And why is the gap between the richest and poorest a good
>> Hyamn> measure of anything?
>>
>> Its a measure of the distribution of the power of an
>> individual to affect their own circumstances.
>
>Sure, but you're trying to measure something about a society by
>comparing outlying points in the direction of rich and poor. That
>is very unlikely to give a true picture of what life is like for
>most people.
This is true. There is in fact a better numerical way of describing the
amount of wealth or income inequality in a society, however it's
complicated to describe, and few people have heard of it. (I forget
what it's called).
>> I am aware of the economic theory. The practice is very
>> very different. The "market" is not some free moving force of nature,
>> but by and large a bunch of chinless wonders in red braces. The
>> current "dot-com" crap is a good example. The "value" of these
>> companies exists currently only in the minds of the investors.
This was true 6 months ago; I don't think it is really true now. At least,
not much.
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
------------------------------
From: Frank Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Luv Linux but it looses.
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 10:53:06 GMT
On 6 Jul 2000, JoeX1029 wrote:
> I love Linux but for alot of purposes it just isn't the ticket. Yes it maybe
> free and pretty stable and somewhat secure but for anybody worried about
> security, total stabilty, Solaris and SCO OpenServer win hands down. The
> licenses can get expensive but you are eventually rewarded with longer uptmes
> and a much more secure box. If you look at www.insecure.org it has HUNDREDS of
> hacks for Linux and 1 for SCO OpenServer. Solaris has it's fair share but all
> are easily correctable. Linux is a great OS but for mission critical servers
> and have to go with SCO or Sun. While some people will argue my points there
> really is no doubt that SCO or Sun are better server options if affordable. It
> hurts to say this but, Linux isn't a top choice for servers.
>
There are lots of people out there who disagree with
you. Including companys with enough money to buy just about any hardware
they want. Besides, you are missing the point: we don't love linux because
it is better, we love it because it is 'OURS'.
Frank Fox
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 04:53:53 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> So now I have a console only Linux system. End of evaluation.
That's further than we got trying to evaluate Windows on our S/390.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Apache Up, MS Down
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 04:52:27 -0500
Arthur Frain wrote:
> "However, many of the Windows magazines avoid running
> NT on their own sites. ... The exception that proves the
> rule is Windows NT Magazine which loyally runs
> Microsoft-IIS on NT4."
Looks like W2K has been a big hit with the NT crowd, eh?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [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: 5 Jul 2000 19:43:37 -0400
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 02:54:19 GMT, Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 07:02:36 GMT,
>Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) wrote in
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>>All of the so called problems you have posted on this NG are minor and
>>>could be fixed if you would listen to the responses you get, or,
>>>better yet, post to the technical newsgroups. Problem is you are more
>>>interested in whining than you are fixing problems.
>>
>>I'm interested in pointing out the fact that Linux has problems,
>
>Exactly, you are interested in problems, not solutions.
>
>
>>whereas
>>Windows has less.
>>
>
>Not in my experience. And I find Windows problems are much harder to
>fix due to the closed nature of the product.
>
I just saw an example of this in a FAQ-file about VNC (something like X,
only it works with NT too). Notice what it says you have to do if you
add new software to an NT system after adding a Service Pack.
[ http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/faq.html ]:
Q6 WinVNC causes a 'Blue Screen of Death' on NT!
Again, make sure you have Service Pack 3 or later. If
this happens it is usually due to bugs in Service Pack 1.
Also note the Service Packs' warning that if you add or
change components on your system you should reapply the
service pack. If this doesn't fix it, check for updates
to your network and graphics drivers. VNC makes very
extensive use of both your video system and your network,
and has a tendency to find any bugs in either of them!
There may well be bugs in WinVNC, but we know of people
running it on thousands of machines without problems, so
please check other parts of your system before assuming
it's directly a WinVNC problem.
--
Microsoft Windows. Beyond crappy. Beyond belief.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: 6 Jul 2000 11:24:54 GMT
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 16:21:07 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I mean, all I'm asking him to do is justify the statement that Windows
> 2000 is not based on Windows NT technology. Where does he get such
> knowledge from?
FWIW, I remember reading that W2K was 85% written/re-written from
scratch. Drestin would probably be a good person to ask about this.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://stellarlegacy.sourceforge.net
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J Bland)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
Date: 6 Jul 2000 11:50:14 GMT
>Noboddy cares about Open Sores. Its just an ikscuse for "i calnt rite good softwere
>here are my open sores plese fix it for me."
>
I suspect Troll.
Ignore it and it will slope off.
Frinky
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 06 Jul 2000 12:56:26 +0100
>>>>> "Kenneth" == Kenneth P Turvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kenneth> Quick question... How does one determine what the
Kenneth> reasonable charge for a service is? I agree that the
Kenneth> market does not work well for some industries, and I
Kenneth> believe that large sporting leagues are probably one of
Kenneth> them, however there must be some alternative method of
Kenneth> determining the value of a good or service. What would you
Kenneth> suggest?
This is the difficult bit of course. There are systems other
than that we have now though. The best known example would probably be
price based on custom, which was the system we had in the UK before
the Adam Smith type of economics was invented in the early 19th
century. The system was simple. Everyone knew how much a job cost, and
that was what was paid. Generally speaking your average artisan would
not know what the profit margins were on a specific job, and some jobs
might even lose them money. But there again the same thing applied to
the services that they got.
I don't think that this system is feasible now, but I mention
it because it does demonstrate that there are alternatives. The free
market system is something we invented at some point in time, as
decided was a good idea. Its is not a force of nature, or inevitable,
nor the only way forward.
Kenneth> [On a side note, the Supreme Court of the United States
Kenneth> specifically excluded sporting monopolies from some
Kenneth> provisions of our antitrust law.
Didn't know that.
>> And finally I feel that all aspects of our lives should be open
>> to democratic control.
Kenneth> I don't. Actually I find the will of the majority having
Kenneth> no limits to be a rather disturbing idea.
I think you misunderstand me. The basis for our society should
be personal freedom. However as has been mentioned in other arguments
freedom has to be compromised because peoples freedoms contradict at
times. This is where democracy should always come in. But sadly on the
whole I find that it is commercial interests that restrict my
freedom. I can not give you copies of the software that I write,
because someone else owns it. I can not even tell you what is in my
head. I find that sad.
Actually I can give you copies of my software. The reason
for this is that we have incorporated GPL software into it. Mostly
software written by myself for other employers. It may be that the GPL
is viral but I am glad for this aspect of it, because I can argue to
the companies that give me my cash, either I can do the work using
libraries that I have previously developed, and then release this
under GPL. Or alternatively I can re-write the libraries, which will
take five times as long.
>> government by the richest is an equally bad idea, and by
>> and large that is what we have at the moment.
>>
Hyman> I disagree that that is what we have.
>> Well I have to accept that this is how you see things, although
>> I do find it hard to understand.
Kenneth> I would also question this. The rich certainly have much
Kenneth> more power than ordinary citizens. I don't think this can
Kenneth> realistically be denied.
I find it hard to understand also why people would deny this.
Phil
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 06 Jul 2000 13:02:36 +0100
>>>>> "Christopher" == Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Christopher> The other view of democracy is that it represents "mob
Christopher> rule," the "tyranny of the majority."
I never understood this to be honest. I see no contradiction
between democracy and personal freedom. Indeed I think that they go
hand in hand.
Its is certainly true that democracy does not guarantee
anything. Hitler was elected "democratically". Hitler is generally
considered to be a bad thing. The control of the Monarchy in the US
was broken by violent revolution, and this was a good thing. But
democracy gives people control over their own lives as far as is
possible, gives them self-respect. There are some people on this board
who think I am a lying commie bastard who wants to "rule the werld with
an iren fist", but in reality I am pretty much in favour of anything
which gives the population more control over their lives.
Phil
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 06 Jul 2000 13:06:52 +0100
>>>>> "Hyman" == Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hyman> Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Well the average salary in the US has gone up slightly since the
>> mid 70's, but sadly that number of hours worked has increased
>> faster, so in this sense the average person is worse off.
Hyman> But what money buys has also changed. That is, cars, TVs,
Hyman> appliances, and so forth have gotten much better, so the same
Hyman> salary gets you much more value.
This is true enough.
>> At the same time the wealth of the richest has increased. The
>> point is that our societies are both getting much less
>> egalitarian than they were (which is not saying much). In the end
>> the consequences will be unpleasant I think.
Hyman> I guess we'll see. I point out that over the last three or
Hyman> four decades, many dire predictions have failed to come
Hyman> about.
True. But there again many dire things have happened in the
last four decades. There have been many wars, and we do have a hole in
ozone layer.
My main point is that I want to see society improve
though. Its always worth thinking about ways of doing this...
Phil
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
