Linux-Advocacy Digest #603, Volume #27 Tue, 11 Jul 00 22:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux code going down hill (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why linux sucks and why linux is best (Richard Massa)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Jay Maynard)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Jeff Szarka)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Mike Marion)
Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK (tinman)
Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm
ready! I'm not ready.)) (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: 11 Jul 2000 23:37:31 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:57:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Ick, platform specific packaging utilities always suck. If anything,
>they eliminate your control, and you often have to put the software
>where whoever packaged it thought it should go.
In the case of say RPM, the above statement is just plain wrong.
>format. All these "linux advantages" were available for SunOS and other
>platforms long before Linux even existed.
Does SunOS give you dependency warnings if an upgrade will break existing
packages ?
>> Sure. Can do, as long as the patch doesn't require kernel mods.
>
>How many device drivers don't run in the kernel?
Some device drivers do not require changes to the kernel itself. You know
that Linux has a modular kernel, right ? You can compile the module, and
load it.
>IBM, Sun, Compaq have gone to the CDE standard which breaks down a huge
>chunck of the Unix boxes around the world.
Linux makes up a huge percentage of UNIX desktop machines around the world.
And the only reason that the commercial UNIX people are sticking with CDE is
because that's what TOG supports, and TOG is awfully slow to change ( which
is why, for example, X/Open still doesn't support any languages besides C )
BTW, I don't think they can support QT yet -- because IIRC, X/Open doesn't
even require C++ support.
> What's the percentage for QT
>or GTK?
How many Linux desktop machines are there compared to Solaris/AIX desktop
machines ?
> Is there even a standard and certification process for it?
Why do you need a certification process / standard for something that's a
single product ? And why is that an advantage ? A QT app on Linux will work
the same way as a QT app on Solaris, largely because QT is QT is QT regardless
of the choice of OS. Frankly, I don't care whether or not QT is an RFC.
I just want a non-proprietary, object oriented GUI toolkit. Which is more
than Motif offers.
>Like what. 90% is installing top?
... and the rest. C++ compiler, something better than that Motif abomination,
a decent text editor, some decent utilities , tcp wrappers ... the list
goes on ...
>Completely untrue. Applications depend on many things besides libc and
>the kernel. Just take a look at the recommended patches for running
>Oracle under Solaris. A whole lot more sub-systems than that are
>involved.
The "glibc" package contains several libraries, not just libc itself.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Richard Massa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why linux sucks and why linux is best
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:54:59 -0700
I'd just like to point out that last time I checked Linux in all its glory
is a free operating system.
You don't have to pay any money for it at all. If you do, then that's
your choice. You should go with a company that has a good support team,
as opposed to whoever you are talking about
Richard Massa
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> In article <8jv4s0$mc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >HI:
> >I agree. Linux has no regard for service.
>
> Who? What? That makes about as much sense
> as saying 'automobiles' have no regard for
> service. That may very well be true but
> it doesn't mean you can't get service for one.
>
> >They ONLY offer web service for people that
> >pay for the software and then they do not
> >respond I have been waiting ONE week.
>
> Who is this 'they'?
>
> >respond I have been waiting ONE week.
> >Also they have all kinds of gimmicks with
> >their rebates so they can keep your money
>
> If you are concerned about the price, why
> not use a free download or one of the
> cheapbytes-type knockoffs?
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 00:03:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11 Jul 2000 23:27:53 GMT, Lee Hollaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8kg9mq$1op8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>>Going by the example of RIPEM, it may be very difficult
>>to avoid creating something that RMS would consider
>>a derivative.
>Until RMS becomes the federal court judge hearing your copyright case,
>it makes little difference what he considers a derivative work.
Spoken like a lawyer. (Sorry, Lee, but it had to be said.) It makes a
crucial difference in one respect: he appears to be willing to sue over it,
and to the average non-lawyer, getting sued is a Very Bad Thing, costing
large amounts of money and headaches and heartache. The mere threat of
getting sued is, to the average non-lawyer, often enough to produce the
desired action.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:09:27 GMT
On 12 Jul 2000 00:03:41 GMT, Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 11 Jul 2000 23:27:53 GMT, Lee Hollaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <8kg9mq$1op8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>>>Going by the example of RIPEM, it may be very difficult
>>>to avoid creating something that RMS would consider
>>>a derivative.
>>Until RMS becomes the federal court judge hearing your copyright case,
>>it makes little difference what he considers a derivative work.
>
>Spoken like a lawyer. (Sorry, Lee, but it had to be said.) It makes a
>crucial difference in one respect: he appears to be willing to sue over it,
>and to the average non-lawyer, getting sued is a Very Bad Thing, costing
>large amounts of money and headaches and heartache. The mere threat of
>getting sued is, to the average non-lawyer, often enough to produce the
>desired action.
So? Please cite some examples where RMS sued or threatened
to sue someone even when their use of a particular bit of
Free Software was perfectly consistent with the licence in
question and how it in particular defined a derivative work.
--
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.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:13:45 GMT
On 12 Jul 2000 00:03:41 GMT, Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 11 Jul 2000 23:27:53 GMT, Lee Hollaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <8kg9mq$1op8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>>>Going by the example of RIPEM, it may be very difficult
>>>to avoid creating something that RMS would consider
>>>a derivative.
>>Until RMS becomes the federal court judge hearing your copyright case,
>>it makes little difference what he considers a derivative work.
>
>Spoken like a lawyer. (Sorry, Lee, but it had to be said.) It makes a
Spoken like a demagogue.
It also takes money to sue.
[deletia]
--
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.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:15:43 -0400
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> If there existed some libsockets package, the most likley
>>> copylefted licence to be associated with such a package
>>> would specifically be designed to NOT create the artificial
>>> situation you describe.
>> Explain readline.
> An exception.
Except that the FSF doesn't want to be an exception.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:40:28 -0400
On 10 Jul 2000 15:20:27 -0700, Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I have a dual boot system, Win98 and Mandrake 7.1. Last night, I
>decided to restore my Windows registry from a master backup to improve
>the sludgy performance that I've been seeing lately. According to the
>online help that came with my NEC computer, this would simply require
>a few reloads of applications. Like an idiot, I chose to believe
>it...
I assume you mean some sort of restore disk which in most cases simply
images a default install onto your hard drive. Any hardware you added
yourself woudln't be part of the image.
Say for example you had added an ATA66 card into your system and a new
hard drive. Ghosting an old version of Linux with out drivers would
fail too.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:48:23 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
> Get with it - these high profile companies have the money and smarts to pick
> ANYTHING they want, no matter what MS might wanna sell them. Sun is beating
> down their doors, as is HP and IBM and they wanna sell their MUCH higher
> profit unix solutions. And they picked MS....
Heh.. we sure didn't.
Yes, we do use windows for many desktops and such, but our web servers
are almost exclusively Solaris based.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
More favorite error messages:
"Press almost any key to continue"
"System Error: the operation completed successfully"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:57:10 -0400
In article <8kfnrs$i2a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Jensen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> : On 11 Jul 2000 03:54:13 GMT, John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : >That's just the thing. It is less an illusion on the Mac because the
> : >culture supports a common set of GUI values. Things like the single menu
> : >bar at the top of the screen (or the 1-button mouse) are (usually)
> : >praised, while variant interfaces like KAI's tools are (usually)
> : >criticized. Heck, there has been a bit of a cultural rift of late as the
> : >Mac community decides how much of NeXT it can accept. Contrast that to
> : >the UNIX (especially Linux) environment in which novelty is more highly
> : >valued.
> : >
> : >The original essay explains how Linux is not Mac ... and to that extent it
> : >is correct. The flaw (IMO) of the original article is that it did not
> : >come to grips with what open source is on its own (open source) terms.
>
> : No, the original essay was just plain erroneous.
>
> Duh. No one in this thread has said that the article was accurate.
>
> I just find the cultural divide between Mac and UNIX still evidenced by
> this article and others(*) to be a little more interesting than the
> observation of technical errors.
>
> The divide goes both ways. To me it just shows that there might be two
> markets. People who value simplicity and conformity might be happy
> Thinking Different in the Macintosh way. People with a more unrestricted
> view of Different might like the Open Soruce world.
>
> In related news, Apple Alum Andy Hertzfeld will do a keynote at the
> O'Reilly Open Source Software Convention(**).
>
> Choose your music, not everyone has to like the same tune.
>
Gee, John, there you go being reasonable again. Stop it, and get with the
program. ("
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready!
I'm ready! I'm not ready.))
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 00:38:23 GMT
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nah - It means easily guessed.
Yeah, but easily guess by *whom*? By a guy who has been
using a manual typewriter and now wants to exchange email
with his grandkids? One of the *least* intuitive things,
then, would be a wheelmouse for scrolling. A graphical
scrollbar is no better. The keyboard arrows are SO much
more intuitive...
One man's "intuitive" is another man's "bizarre", that's
basically what I'm trying to say here.
> Once you are already familiar with it, the word
> "intuative" isn't really meaningful.
I agree with this.
> It refers to learning curve at first exposure.
And this, too.
But that learning curve at "first exposure" has a LOT to
do with previous exposure to other similar things. How
intuitive are gestures? Heh, heh, heh. Ever travel
to a totally foreign culture? I don't mean going from
the US to France here, but a *completely* foreign
culture, like going from the US to rural Laos or the
middle of Gabon, where the language isn't in the same
language family and the culture isn't from the same
half of what used to be the Roman empire. Even going
from VMS to MacOS or vice versa, you *still* have
SOME shared conventions, like the basic functionality
of the Enter key. (If someone can think of a worse
example of going to a completely foreign computer
system than switching between VMS and MacOS, I'm open
to suggestions. Try to pick two current, modern,
capable systems, though; anybody can say "Oh, that's
easy, ENIAC and anything", but that's not what I mean.)
> (In that regard I disagree strongly with MS's
> claims the Windows GUI is intuative - it isn't, it's just that its
> really hard to find someone who hasn't already learned in the basics.)
It's not as hard as you think. All you have to do is
find someone who has never used a computer (as such).
As long as we don't count using anything with electronic
circuitry (a modern clothes dryer, for example, or an
add-subtract-multiply-divide-no-frills calculator) as
using a computer, there are still millions of adults
in the US alone who have never touched one.
> Just because training in something is widespread doesn't mean it
> is intuative.
True also.
> to do. Why, for example, does the key go into the side of the
> steering wheel?
[snip excellent examples]
My dad used to teach driver's ed. Once he had a Hindustani
man to teach. He was a reasonably intelligent man, fluent
in multiple languages -- he was some kind of diplomat.
But at home he'd never driven, and he'd really only *seen*
driving in movies. My dad tried *everything* to teach him
how to use a steering wheel. He never got it. His natural
inclination was to move the wheel back and forth constantly,
and instructing him to hold it still didn't help a lot,
either, if you can imagine. The whole idea of steering
just never penetrated.
> remember. Anyway, my point is that intuative does not mean
> already-learned (as in the example of the complex act of driving a
> car), but simple-to-learn.
Yes, but as your example indicates, it's simpler to learn
if you have already been exposed to a lot of the basic
concepts, even secondhand.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK
Date: 12 Jul 2000 01:10:17 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:44:05 GMT, Roberto Alsina wrote:
>No software project is designed based on user decisions. Users simply
>can't do that kind of things, because they are not qualified.
>
>That's why UI designers get their fat checks ;-)
I think what it boils down to here is that UI design is skilled work, and
users are really no more qualified to do it than programmers. In fact the
programmers are probably *better* qualified because they often have
some experience with it.
Letting serious UI designers write design standards and/or design user
interfaces is a very different thing to giving unqualified users veto
power.
Listening to users is a good idea, but while the user "knows
what they like", they do not know much about user interface design
-- so they can often identify problems but solving them is another
issue.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 12 Jul 2000 01:21:43 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 21:44:08 GMT, ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Around here, where we get wintrolls insisting that the Mac doesn't
>have plug-and-play because it won't magically work with hardware that
>doesn't have any Mac drivers, it would probably be a good idea for
>people to mention such things.
Mea culpa. I should have mentioned in my post that my friend had a
USB-to-SCSI converter.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 21:49:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Nathaniel Jay Lee from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 11 Jul 2000
[...]
>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.
I didn't say you were a WinTroll, say you were lying, or say that you
were trying to make Windows look good. I think I know where you got
that impression, but it was not intentional. I tried to explain my
response, and you still took it the wrong way, so I'm not sure if there
is anything I can do about it.
You gave a list of things which were apparently necessary for Windows to
run stably, which included "administers that know what they're doing,
and users that don't fool with the control panel." I was criticizing
your comments along these lines because A) having these things is not
necessary nor sufficient for Windows to run without crashing, and B) it
promotes the mistaken idea that the way to get computers to run well is
to not let those who use them (end users) run them (administer, control,
whatever). The first may seem to you to be saying that you are
defending Windows, but it was a criticism of your logic, not your
intent. Yes, it highlights Windows' faults to recognize that luck seems
to be the largest factor in the ability to implement a Windows system
that doesn't crash. No, I wasn't saying that you were lying by saying
that it can be "properly run" in order to provide reliable performance.
I was saying that you were mistaken in saying that.
The second point is the one I wanted to address specifically, though.
Computers run correctly when they are properly administered, yes. But
it hasn't been the case that this needs to be done by someone other than
the user for quite a few years. And Windows, as I've mentioned, seems
to "monkey with the control panel" more than users do, in my experience.
But I guess you'd agree. What you seem to disagree with is my unstated
but nevertheless true impression that these two issues are the same; it
is expectation that you need an expert to run a computer which leads to
acceptance of random Windows behavior. Not because it prevents experts
from running or using computers, but because it prevents people who
aren't experts who use computers, from running them. And a properly
designed system enables the end user to act autonomously without causing
problems for anyone (at least anyone but themselves.) This is a
frequent comment when promoting the benefit of Unix mutli-user host
approach, which allows file system restrictions to the end user. But it
is conveniently forgotten when the alternate case appears, and it is
necessary to allow a user to control the computer they are on without
restricting the control of other systems by other people.
People who run host systems often forget that decentralizing and
providing autonomous authority does not stop with letting the admins run
the computer while allowing data entry people to work with terminals
with limited capabilities. It also extends to letting everyone have
their own host (personal *computer*, not personal terminal, where they
shouldn't monkey with the control panel), without limited capabilities,
but with limits to prevent them from screwing up other's capabilities.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
