Linux-Advocacy Digest #599, Volume #27 Tue, 11 Jul 00 17:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Aaron Ginn)
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k ("James")
Re: DOJ File Suit Against Tiger Woods (Thomas Lee)
SPECweb99 results (Bob Tennent)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! ("James")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Student run Linux server. (James deBoer)
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause ("Colin R. Day")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Perry Pip)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: offering escape, Re: Three things not to say to spam victims... (Edward A. Falk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: 11 Jul 2000 12:44:02 -0700
"James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Aaron,
>
> That was really a risky thing to do. Replacing ALL configuration
> information on a system. The equivalent will upset any OS !!! Wonder what
> the guys in this NG would have had to say if the roles were reversed. I.e.
> if someone complained that his Linux/Unix/whatever box was not working
> properly after giving it a frontal lobotomy :-)
Why was it risky? I restored the registry and applications from a
backup. Isn't that the point of a backup? It allows you to return
the system to a state that was in good condition. This wasn't a
backup I created, it was a system backup tool that came with the
computer. If I can't trust the tools that came from the manufacturer,
who can I trust? Why is the user always at fault when it comes to
Microsoftware? Why can't Microsoft implement a better model for
managing the system settings?
Anyway, the system booted fine until I installed the NIC driver. Then
the dll conflict with the IE 5.0 occurred. Here I am dutifully
updating to the latest version of IE that is the only supported
version in terms of security, and the OS lets a NIC driver render my
computer unusable. If you want to blame me for that, fine. But I
think the blame lies elsewhere.
Anyway, I have no bone to pick with Microsoft. It is what it is: a
kludgy hack that tries to make computing easy for the novice.
Unfortunately, it doesn't do its job nearly as well as a Macintosh.
> Anyway, if you must run a MS OS, why don't you use W2k? And run as
> non-administrator. Then these things won't happen to you.
A better question is why does Microsoft continue to market WinDOS to
the home user? Why is Windows ME still DOS-based? If W2K is as good
as you say it is, Microsoft should be pushing people to it. But
Microsoft isn't concerned about quality. They know Win9x (and ME) are
cash cows.
This incident won't push me to W2K. I have no need of Microsoft
products. I use Solaris at work and Linux at home. My wife uses
Windows. If anything, this has made me decide to take another look at
a Macintosh for her. She likes the Mac, and that's what she had
always used up until the last year or so. I have no desire to send
any more of my money to Redmond.
Aaron
--
Aaron J. Ginn Motorola SPS
Phone: (480) 814-4463 SemiCustom Solutions
Fax: (480) 814-4058 1300 N. Alma School Rd.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chandler, AZ 85226
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 22:13:07 +0200
Also wanted to add that Linux, as one correspondent put it, is finding
itself between an chicken and egg. Users don't use it because the desktop
are not there, and the desktop apps are not there because there are few
users.
The only way to break this vicious cycle is to start adopting the system as
soon as it meets some of one's needs. Therefore the developers should focus
on giving it that final polish [like prettying up those fonts &
concentrating on desktop design/ergonomics] and some basic *high quality*
*desktop* apps to attract these desktop users.
James
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> James wrote:
>
> > Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition of PC Magazine, where MS
> > endorses the study by National Software Testing Labs which states that
> > Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k. I am no linvocate, but
I
> > find it incredible that a company can make this admission and then still
> > push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
> > Shame on you MS!!!
>
> They used to have a Web page touting NT as being k time more reliable than
> Windows 9x. (I forget the k, but IIRC it was more like 40 than 13.
Anyone
> remember?)
>
> Anyway, they supported the assertion with their own poll, which still
showed
> a truly horrendous number of people reporting that they lost time or data
at
> least once a month under NT. (OK, by my standards *one* such loss would
be
> "truly horrendous". But this was much worse than that; something like 30%
> IIRC.)
>
> Alas, I can't find *any* of this either on Deja or Google. Does anyone of
> sounder mind remember the details?
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
>
> p.s. -- Give up WinTrolling, Mr. Bond?
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:13:06 +0100
From: Thomas Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Thomas Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DOJ File Suit Against Tiger Woods
Crossposted-To:
microsoft.public.win2000.general,microsoft.public.win2000.new_user,comp.os.mac.advocacy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Yet Yu Lee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Of course it
>look good, but do you know how inconvenience you're working a M$ Excel file or
>a Word file for more than 2 hours then suddenly you get BSOD you don't even
>have chance to save the file?
I have not had a blue screen on my desktops for at least 8 months - so I
have no idea how you feel. Personally, I tend to save more often than
once every 2 hours - we have lousy power supply here and it cuts out all
too often.
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee
Windows 2000 MVP
Email: tfl @ mvps.org
Want to learn more about Windows 2000 TCP/IP? See http://www.kapoho.com/tcpip
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Tennent)
Subject: SPECweb99 results
Date: 11 Jul 2000 20:26:11 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't believe I've seen the latest SPECweb99 results mentioned here yet.
They are truly spectacular. Three Dell servers with 1, 2 and 4 processors
and running a new open source Linux web server simply wiped the floor with
the competition: 1270, 2200 and 4200 simultaneous connections, respectively.
For comparison, similar Dell boxes running IIS with 1 and 4 processors
managed just 732 and 1598 connections, respectively. The only
configuration that came close was an IBM RS/6000 with *8* processors;
it managed 3216 connections. And one can't help noting the Netcraft
result; on a ProLiant DL360 with 2 processors running IIS, just 1020,
less than the Linux result with a single processor!
Full details at
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/
Bob T.
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 22:28:11 +0200
Aaron,
You are right. MS is wrong with the restore tool & the associated docs.
Experienced users, like the gents/gals in this NG, however should realise
the significance of the registry information and the impact of simply
restoring it - thereby leaving all later installed programs without their
config info.
I agree that Win98 is crap [see my other post]. But you are also implying
that Linux is not for your wife. Therefore the Mac may be Ok for her (as
would Win2k).
James
"Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Aaron,
> >
> > That was really a risky thing to do. Replacing ALL configuration
> > information on a system. The equivalent will upset any OS !!! Wonder
what
> > the guys in this NG would have had to say if the roles were reversed.
I.e.
> > if someone complained that his Linux/Unix/whatever box was not working
> > properly after giving it a frontal lobotomy :-)
>
>
> Why was it risky? I restored the registry and applications from a
> backup. Isn't that the point of a backup? It allows you to return
> the system to a state that was in good condition. This wasn't a
> backup I created, it was a system backup tool that came with the
> computer. If I can't trust the tools that came from the manufacturer,
> who can I trust? Why is the user always at fault when it comes to
> Microsoftware? Why can't Microsoft implement a better model for
> managing the system settings?
>
> Anyway, the system booted fine until I installed the NIC driver. Then
> the dll conflict with the IE 5.0 occurred. Here I am dutifully
> updating to the latest version of IE that is the only supported
> version in terms of security, and the OS lets a NIC driver render my
> computer unusable. If you want to blame me for that, fine. But I
> think the blame lies elsewhere.
>
> Anyway, I have no bone to pick with Microsoft. It is what it is: a
> kludgy hack that tries to make computing easy for the novice.
> Unfortunately, it doesn't do its job nearly as well as a Macintosh.
>
>
> > Anyway, if you must run a MS OS, why don't you use W2k? And run as
> > non-administrator. Then these things won't happen to you.
>
>
> A better question is why does Microsoft continue to market WinDOS to
> the home user? Why is Windows ME still DOS-based? If W2K is as good
> as you say it is, Microsoft should be pushing people to it. But
> Microsoft isn't concerned about quality. They know Win9x (and ME) are
> cash cows.
>
> This incident won't push me to W2K. I have no need of Microsoft
> products. I use Solaris at work and Linux at home. My wife uses
> Windows. If anything, this has made me decide to take another look at
> a Macintosh for her. She likes the Mac, and that's what she had
> always used up until the last year or so. I have no desire to send
> any more of my money to Redmond.
>
>
> Aaron
>
> --
> Aaron J. Ginn Motorola SPS
> Phone: (480) 814-4463 SemiCustom Solutions
> Fax: (480) 814-4058 1300 N. Alma School Rd.
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chandler, AZ 85226
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:31:43 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 17:23:18 -0600, "John W. Stevens"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >void wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 20:42:09 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Except Macs--where things just work.
> >>
> >> Tell that to my friend, who bought an iMac and had a hard time getting
> >> his SCSI Zip drive to work over USB.
> >
> >You do realize, don't you, that SCSI and USB are two *ENTIRELY*
> >different busses!?
> >
> >I mean, they aren't even the same *CLASS* of bus! SCSI is a *PARALLEL*
> >bus, while USB is a *SERIAL* bus (hence the name: Universal SERIAL Bus).
>
> There are USB SCSI adapters. Pretty common on the Mac marketplace.
Where in the original article did he specify he had a converter?
> >> Now, my friend is pretty clueless, but he had someone more knowledgeable
> >> look at it, and they couldn't get it working either.
> >
> >How much more "knowledgable" could they be, if they didn't know that
> >SCSI is not the same as USB?
>
> Perhaps you might want to keep your mouth shut on that one...
Why?
John S.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:40:21 -0500
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:31:43 -0600, "John W. Stevens"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 17:23:18 -0600, "John W. Stevens"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >void wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 20:42:09 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Except Macs--where things just work.
>> >>
>> >> Tell that to my friend, who bought an iMac and had a hard time getting
>> >> his SCSI Zip drive to work over USB.
>> >
>> >You do realize, don't you, that SCSI and USB are two *ENTIRELY*
>> >different busses!?
>> >
>> >I mean, they aren't even the same *CLASS* of bus! SCSI is a *PARALLEL*
>> >bus, while USB is a *SERIAL* bus (hence the name: Universal SERIAL Bus).
>>
>> There are USB SCSI adapters. Pretty common on the Mac marketplace.
>
>Where in the original article did he specify he had a converter?
Should he need to?
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:40:41 -0400
Joe Ragosta wrote:
> > overhead inherent in including a GUI) that MacOS itself has been
> > deployed on for over ten years now.
>
> And yet the Mac still meets the needs of millions of people, still
> provides better TCO and higher productivity than Windows.
>
And Jedi is advocating Windows?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 15:41:04 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting Nathaniel Jay Lee from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >But I won't lie about MS products just to make Linux look good. I
> >haven't seen too many systems running Windows that are *stable*, but it
> >has happened occassionally.
>
> But even that makes Windows look good, unless you are willing to admit
> that there is no way to predict which ones will run stable, and which
> will crash. Obviously, you can lesson your chances by using "the right"
> hardware, but even then you can only determine that in retrospect.
> Newer stuff has more chances of having previously undetected glitches,
> older stuff has more chances of having newly introduced glitches.
> Bog-standard equipment runs the risk of being "cheap PC crap", high-end
> equipment runs the equal risk of being "unusual". Even identically
> outfitted PCs have been known to exhibit differing crash behavior.
> There just is no way to predict before the fact if you will have
> problems, and that is much much worse than simply having the possibility
> of having problems.
I agree completely. But, there are those that run stable. This does
not mean that it is the norm (and it certainly isn't) or that you can
predict in any way shape or form how to make them stable, but it
happens. I'm not trying to make Windows look good (and I don't know
where you got that impression). I suppose since I didn't just say MS
SUCKS, USE SOMETHING ELSE, I'm considered a WinTroll. I do think MS
sucks, and I won't use it for myself, but I won't lie about it either.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: James deBoer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Student run Linux server.
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:44:37 -0400
Hello,
I am in the process of getting a Linux server running in my high
school. This will be a tool for the students (and possibly the staff) to
learn more about Linux, and computers in general. It will have no
'for-credit' course associated with it.
Getting the hardware does not appear to be a problem, but I am sort of
concerned that nobody (expect for the core group of admins) would ever
use it. Are there any ideas out there on how we can teach people about
Linux in a fun, and interesting way, but within the bound of a school
environment; eg we don't want to teach them about Linux by letting them
set up their own warez mirror, or even running a quake server...
Anyways, what are your thoughts?
James deBoer
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:46:48 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:52:49 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I'm not against porting such apps, I just haven't heard of any such apps
> >> > being ported.
> >>
> >> Many of those apps have been ported many times in the past already.
> >
> >OK. Have they been ported to Linux?
>
> They have been ported to OSes with much leaner APIs that would
> have required lots of extra work on the part of the porting teams.
>
> [deletia]
>
> Pretty much if Heavy Gear II can make it over, some edutainment
> title that is user input bound should not be a problem.
I'll be waiting.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:42:27 GMT
On 11 Jul 2000 00:35:23 -0500,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>only 5/6 years? A fortune 50 and a stock brokerage? Is this supposed to
>impress me? I've installed at over 40 of the fortune 500 - ever single one
>NT 4 and now W2K. We push the unix boxes out faster than we can deliver new
>ones (fortunately it takes fewer new W2K boxes to replace the unix clunkers)
>
Well I work for the LARGEST and MOST POWERFULL organization in the
ENTIRE WORLD!! Our revenues are TEN TIMES HIGHER than that largest
Fortune 500 company!! We are so big in fact, that we gave ourselves
(2) three letter TLD's when we CREATED THE INTERNET!! Most of our web
servers run APACHE, with NETSCAPE ENTERPRISE coming in second, and IIS
coming in DISTANT THIRD!! So there. HAHAHAHAHAHA:)
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 11 Jul 2000 20:59:16 GMT
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Darren Winsper wrote:
:>
:> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:09:04 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> > Tim Palmer wrote:
:>
:> > > ...but LIE-nux has more hoals to plug.
:> >
:> > damn, you're dense.
:>
:> Neutron stars have nothing on Tim.
:>
: How about a black hole? You know, Timmy kind of sucks down anything of
: any substance in the surrounding area, just like a black hole. Hmm, I
: may be on to something (or on something)....
Can't be a black hole. Nothing escapes a black hole, but even the
simplest concepts escape Tim. I'm thinking he's more like a brown
dwarf star:
very dense, plenty of heat but no illumination whatsoever.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 11 Jul 2000 15:59:31 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 11 Jul 2000 14:11:00 GMT, Mark Wooding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> You do realize that X exists almost entirely because of funding from
>>> the vendors that released it in commercial forms, don't you?
>
> Actually, X exists because it was a research project at MIT.
Which depended on funding, which beyond the initial version depended
on results being suitable for use by the companies providing the
funding...
>
> XFree86 primarily exists due to it's gratis-ware userbase.
>
> Commercial and proprietary implementations are actually quite anemic.
> This goes the same for OpenGL as well.
Who does it better than SGI?
>>
>>Yes. And indeed I don't believe that the base X distribution should be
>>copyleft. I'm just considering that maybe the XFree86 code should.
>
> Depending on how you structure the thing, copyleft may or
> may not be a burden on commercial development. The notion
> that free software is necessarily a burden on commercial
> development is just FUD spread by those with incompatible
> motives.
The inability to combine code with any existing code not restricted
in exactly the same way has to be a burden on development. The
notion that such restrictions are not a problem or that they
are necessary to prevent some imagined threat is FUD spread by
those with a peculiar political agenda.
> Infact, it is the common and well established condition that
> common facilities are not able to be 'assimilated' by any
> random party and that has not slowed the industry down one
> bit.
This part is true enough, and there is no need for the common
code to assert any restrictions on derivatives to remain
free itself.
>--
> The only motivation to treat a work derived from Free Software
> as your sole personal property is to place some sort of market
> barrier in front of your customers and to try and trap them.
And what possible motivation can someone claiming to produce free
software in trying to assert control over libraries done by
others, or in restricting the ways that this supposedly free
work can be redistributed?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edward A. Falk)
Crossposted-To: news.admin.net-abuse.email
Subject: Re: offering escape, Re: Three things not to say to spam victims...
Date: 11 Jul 2000 21:08:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ron Ritzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 7 Jul 2000 06:19:40 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cameron L.
>Spitzer) wrote:
>
>>Posed that way, it's not "Nyah, nyah, my OS is better than yours"
>>any more, it's "welcome to my community, enter when you're ready,
>>the door is open for you." It's pure empowerment, not a put down.
>
>Point taken.
>
>I was amazed as to the hoops that one had to jump through just to
>do simple things such as getting the sound card working. Windows
>plug n pray had spoiled me.
YMMV. Over the years, I have bought two digital cameras,
a scsi interface, a zip drive, several disk drives
and a CD-rom burner for my laptop running RedHat linux.
IN EVERY CASE, the device plugged in and ran correctly right out
of the box. I have never once even had to break the seal on the
disks that came with the device (not that they would have done any
good). Support was already built into Linux.
Sound cards are special -- there are too many incompatible versions;
you simply have to reconfigure and rebuild the linux kernel.
--
-ed falk, [EMAIL PROTECTED] See *********************#*************#*
http://www.rahul.net/falk/whatToDo.html #**************F******!******!*!!****
and read 12 Simple Things You Can Do ******!***************************#**
to Save the Internet **#******#*********!**WW*W**WW****
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
