Linux-Advocacy Digest #622, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Greg Yantz)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
From: Greg Yantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 12 Jul 2000 15:00:42 -0400
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoting Greg Yantz from alt.destroy.microsoft; 12 Jul 2000 10:35:55
> [...]
> >This does not seem unreasonable to me, and I am no MS fan. Yes, Windows
> >is essentially unreliable and unmaintainable. However, it is possible
> >to reduce the symptoms somewhat (if not effect a cure) with careful,
> >conservative administration.
> In other words, smoking is good for lung cancer, because some people who
> have lung cancer and smoke don't die. I say it "may be possible", to
> reduce the symptoms with careful administration. But "may" isn't good
> enough to establish a causal link. I have seen carefully,
> conservatively, and properly administered Windows systems, with reliable
> and stable network interconnectivity, and users who are merely
> data-entry personnel who would never use the Start Menu, let alone the
> control panel, fail. Other systems with identical hardware and
> identical software (but for typical use divergence), do not fail.
I have seen similar things. So? Noone here is saying "careful administration
will make Windows reliable" or even "careful administration will always
improve the reliability of Windows".
> Thus I believe your impression is wrong, and am asking you to reconsider
> it in light of these considerations.
I still am convinced you are more interested in hearing yourself talk
than in reading what is written.
> >> > It sure sounded to me like what I said. Again, you are not defending
> >> > MS, or saying it is OK. You're defending Microsoft's *position*, and
> >> > saying that Window's crashes can be avoided by competence. This is a
> >> > mistaken position, so forgive me for disagreeing with it.
> >Are you kidding? I suspect you have a personal agenda that interferes with
> >your reading comprehension. To quote:
> > "in some cases it is possible to set it up to run
> > without crashing *a lot*"
> But, I will yet again point out, unless you can be much more explicit in
> identifying precisely how this is to be done (I've already stated
> unequivocally that proper administration is not sufficiently explicit),
> it is a meaningless statement, even if it is true.
2 basic concepts:
1) Install only the bare minimum of applications that you know you
will use (to reduce possibility of dll problems)
2) Keep your drivers up to date, or use only known stable versions
> "In some cases it is
> possible" is only a useful concept if you can know in advance which
> cases these are. Taking each system that crashes, and finding a fault
> you can attribute to "improper administration" or other concerns is not,
> I'm afraid, a valid approach to learning how to avoid crashes, as it is
> a troubleshooting technique which can *appear* successful to large
> degree, without actually benefiting from any empirical validity.
You are assuming way too much. I certainly make no claims about
troubleshooting problems in Windows. It is my opinion that such is
at best difficult, at worst a pointless waste of time.
> >This is something I have said myself (if not in those words) and it is
> >in no way an admission that all Windows crashes can be avoided by
> >competence. You're trying way too hard.
> No, you are assuming way too much. You know, if you change something,
> and the problem goes away, so you say "that fixed it", you're setting
> yourself up for what we call "voodoo troubleshooting".
You once again seem to be a write-only system.
> Once again, not because I'm an asshole, but just because I want to be
> clear:
> The statement "in some cases it is possible to set it up so it doesn't
> crash *a lot*" is, indeed, logically controvertible. There are some
> cases where it is not possible to set it up so that you know in advance
> that it won't crash a lot.
We all know this, unfortunately.
> Since you cannot know in advance which cases
> these are going to turn out to be, maintaining that the original
> statement is either useful or factually correct is, in my opinion, the
> equivalent of stating that *any* (not all) Windows crashes can be
> avoided by competence.
Finally! Yes, that is indeed another way of expressing what I was
saying. In my observation, Windows is non-deterministic. Under the
exact (as closely as I can determine, anyway) same conditions,
performing the same action twice often produces differing results.
This does not make for a reliable system where troubleshooting skills
get you anything at all. However, by following some simple principles
that serve to avoid situations that are *known* to cause crashes (listed
above), then hell yes *some* Windows crashes can be avoided by
competence.
> Competence is NOT sufficient to stop Windows
> from crashing! (Though competence and luck is certainly a better bet
> than luck alone.)
Competence is enough to remove the situations where Windows will
*always* crash, leaving only the (normal, unavoidable) state of affairs
where Windows sometimes crashes. Is that clear enough for you?
> Now do you understand what I mean, and why I couldn't just let you guys
> go on basing your troubleshooting on invalid assumptions?
I see what you mean, and where you are failing to understand what is
being presented to you, yes.
> If you *really* want to be a master at troubleshooting computers (and,
> yes, I do consider myself a master, capable of instructing others in
> this regard, even those with a good deal of experience, and possibly
> even a greater duration in the trade then myself), then you have to
> remember that the fix for the problem needs to be validated and tested
> every bit as much as the original problem you're fixing. You can't just
> assume that correcting something is what fixed it, or even, if this is
> true, that it fixed it for the reasons you think it did. I think maybe
> at least some of these cases that convince you guys that proper
> administration improves Windows behavior substantially is that changing
> an incorrect setting often forces Windows to re-construct part of its
> internal interconnections, and it was the loss of these
> interconnections, as opposed to the incorrect setting you identified and
> changed, thus re-applying those connections, which fixed the problem.
You put an awful lot of words in other people's mouths.
> This is also why I remarked that I have observed that Windows is more
> likely to change control panel settings by itself than the user is, and
> many times when administrators assume their problem is clueless users
> monkeying with things they shouldn't, it is actually Windows puking on
> its registry. Since to the admin coming in late, all they have to do
> is "fix" the registry settings through the control panel, or
> re-installing, or what have you, they assume that the problem was caused
> by a registry setting being misconfigured, when it could also be the
> registry setting misconfiguring itself which was the problem, and
> changing it back to the correct setting doesn't "solve the problem", but
> merely ignores it. Because the problem wasn't that the registry setting
> got changed; the problem was that it changed itself. And its going to
> do that again, or something like it, over and over, until somebody has
> the balls to admit that proper administration is not sufficient to
> ensure a working Windows system.
You are progressively convincing me that at best it is impossible to
communicate with you, at worst you are a moron. Noone (certainly
not I) has claimed that proper administration is sufficient to ensure a
working Windows system.
> Here's another example, more specific because it is a true experience
> which occurred to me no more than two weeks ago:
[example of Windows eating itself snipped]
We've all had things like that happen. We share your pain.
> But is the "problem" fixed? Not to my thinking. The problem is still
> there, because it is a flaw in the software. It was not "improper
> administration", nor "careless users", nor "a network problem". It was
> Windows doing what Windows does: proving itself to be an unreliable
> piece of software.
Yes, I know. I happen to agree. Please read what I have written.
> That isn't of course, Nathan's issue, and my
> repeatedly deriving it is no doubt why he is convinced I don't
> understand his real issue. But I guess then the real issue is whether
> an administrator that doesn't know that Windows can screw itself up very
> easily with no help from humans doing so accidentally can truly consider
> himself competent in this regard.
I don't understand why you are convinced your experience and knowledge
in unique. Perhaps it has something to do with your inability to pay
attention to what others say (and write).
> Maybe its just a difference of perspective, but I think my perspective
> is a larger one. I will not draw lines and say "well, that's someone
> else's screw-up". Whether it be fault management (failure
> response/troubleshooting) or configuration management (administration),
> or any other professional implementation area, with any kind of
> computer, the issues are often more extensive than the front-line
> person, be they user or administrator, is often willing to accept.
Odd. I don't fundamentally disagree with you, we just seem to have a
certain failure to communicate... fed, perhaps, by your bloated ego.
-Greg
------------------------------
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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 15:00:43 -0400
ZnU wrote:
>
> In article <8kh0e4$ts1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > The method used by the Mac puts whatever program is running in the
> > > foreground in charge of yielding to background programs if it wants
> > > to, while pre-emptive multitasking allows Windows to have
> > > background processes take control without waiting for the
> > > foreground process to yield.
> >
> > Yes. Thus, your 900 page print job doesn't stop the rest of the
> > system dead so you have to take the next two hours off.
> > Additionally, it means that if some background program gets the CPU
> > and refuse to yield, you don't have to reboot.
>
> You could just force the program quit. The force quit command applies to
> the app that currently has the CPU, not necessarily the foreground app.
> I have to do this when IE5 freezes at random while sitting in the
> background every now and then. (You have to wonder how it manages to
> freeze while not doing anything....)
Never underestimate the inginuity of an idiot...especially if the
idiot is a coder in Redmond, Washington.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 15:03:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 10 Jul 2000
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Why do you think removing the freedom to build works that are
>>>also derivatives of other licenses is in any way increasing
>>>freedom?
>>
>> Rights granted remain consistent and equal and rights are
>> encouraged to remain more widely enjoyed rather than
>> continually more narrowly enjoyed.
>
>No, the restrictions only narrow the scope of what can be
>done.
Your statement is correct, Les, but it doesn't in any way contradict the
fact that Jedi's statement was correct, as well.
Government regulations and laws are an equivalent situation: the law
narrows the scope of what can be done, but it does so to ensure that
rights granted remain consistent and equal and widely enjoyed rather
than to continually narrow the rights themselves. Laws which prevent
you from doing things which infringe on other's ability to enjoy their
rights are not an imposition, but rather a support, of your rights.
Likewise, the GPL is a restriction which is implemented in order to
ensure that no further restrictions accrue.
>> As far as the GPL being "less free" than the BSDL or even PD,
>> there is one thing that is being forgotten. Traditional US
>> copyright law acknowledges a sort of ultimate GPL on the
>> common pool of invention.
>
>Yow, you mean you can't combine anything you know with anything
>anyone else knows?
That is correct. If you were to make a "Star Wars" movie, even if it
had different characters and story than Lucas's epic, it would be an
infringement on his property if you set it in "his" universe. You are,
of course, free to implement your own epic space saga, and can even
include the idea of an unseen energy which binds all things together and
gives magic powers. It is not an absolute issue, and must be examined
in court if infringement is a reasonable accusation. No, Les, you
cannot combine "anything" you know with "anything" anyone else knows.
The line between plagiarism and scholarship is clear in literary work
only because of the wide and familiar understanding of language which we
possess. The computer languages in which software makes the situation
more difficult to discern, but at the same time the relative simplicity
(free from nuance, certainly) of the work due to its functional nature
makes the idea of derivative works all the more clear, at the same time.
BTW, the idea of an unseen energy which binds all things together and
gives magic powers was not meant to be a metaphoric reference to
software, GPL, or Linux. Its a coincidence, honest.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 14:03:31 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:35:11 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>But what is the point of preventing derivative works?
>>Promoting innovation! Come up with your own works!
>
>This is exactly the argument advanced by those who favor softwar patents.
>Don't like having to pay someone patent royalties? Come up with your own
>way to do it!
Copyrights let you re-implement if you don't copy anything. Patents
cover the process or thing itself so you can't avoid the
patent license even if you re-invent it without seeing the original.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:07:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <hp79msg167most3fs4t6sj3n0hkrqrpk2i@
4ax.com>:
>Mr Goodwin: you are a moron. At least, that is the impression of you
>that I gain from reading your posts. Hell, _Scientologists_ do less
>squirming and evading the issue than you do...
So I'm a moron because you think I evade the issue (whatever it was)? If
that were true, this group is full of morons judging by the amount of
evasions I've seen.
Pete
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 11:57:57 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On the other hand...
>
> b) Games do not put a high premium on interoperability between
> applications. You don't embed game components in one another the
> way that people try to do when putting spreadsheets inside Word
> documents, or embedding graphics in spreadsheets, or connecting in
> a DBMS query using ADO or DAO (or the likes).
Data base management systems got their start in the mainframe and unix
environments. Applications that used embeded DBMS queries that would
communicate with a DBMS server through its query language was pioneered in
unix.
The idea embeding objects was also pioneered on unix. It never really
caught on, it was viewed as being to much trouble and there were other
methods available without the overhead. It was from unix that Microsoft got
the idea for embedding objects. Just like they did for the other process
intercommunications and other unix style features that has been introduced
into Windows and Dos over the years.
If there is a need for the Windows style implementation of embedding and the
rest, they can be ported. If you think this would be worth while, then why
don't you do it? On a personal note, When considering all the trouble that
these methods have caused under Windows, I hope that this won't become
standard feature of Linux applications.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:43:43 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 07:15:02 GMT,
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> And Windows lags behind Linux in some hardware products.
> >
> >But Windows has more hardware support than Linux (I'm thinking desktop
> >PC's).
>
> Well you didn't say desktop PC's. You allways seem to leave out
> qualifiers, in an attempt to create false generalizations. Also, you
> are talking about 98SE, not W2k, which has no better PC HW support
> than Linux.
>
>
>
> >> Totally subjective. Most people are just used to one desktop or
> >another.
> >
> >Have you seen the desktops on Linux? Two unfinished ones, and six
> >minimalist!
>
> Have you seen the desktop on Windows? One inflexible unfinished one!
> And not even a usable CLI environment to fix your system you out when
> you're GUI fails you. (On Windows a 'usable CLI' would include at text
> based registry editor capable of fixing broken configurations).
It would also require to have the purpose of ALL the registery enteries
documented so that with that none GUI editor anything could be repaired or
tweaked as needed. The same could go for the rest of the files, *.inf,
*.ini, etc. The command shell and environment would have to be powerful
enough so that someone could never touch the GUI and not even install it in
the first place and use nothing bu the command line interface, if they so
choose. Until then Microsoft Windows is not a valid general purpose
operating system/operating envrionment. Until Windows can again be used
effectivly with any hardware from a 386SX to any new processer of the future
in the Intel style processor lines (not even considering other processor
families) and can run for years without attention, it is unusable in to many
situations.
Lets face it Microsoft Windows in all of its incarnations is nothing more
than a niche operating system (and it is not really an operating system at
that). The niche may be quite large but it is still just a niche operating
system.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:17:45 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >
>
> Pete, I think you've missed this point. I will answer here rather than
> watch this turn into the typical shouting match (which will probably
> happen anyway). He isn't talking about different desktop environments,
> he is talking about different desktops within the same environment. In
> KDE or GNOME or Enlightenment or most other desktop environments, there
> is a way to set up multiple "virtual" desktops. This is what he is
> talking about. You can switch between your 4 or 6 or 8 or *however many
> you've picked* desktops in real time. You have one desktop filled up
> and want a clean one to start something else, click on desktop two and
> start whatever you want there. It is something that is indespensible
> once you get used to it. I typically have netscape up on desktop one,
> GIMP up on desktop two, XEmacs on desktop 3, and desktop four circulates
> between an office suite (StarOffice or Corel) and whatever other thing I
> may need. It's an extremely useful feature.
>
> In KDE and GNOME this feature is accessible from the "Control Center"
> application (much like Windows control panel) that allows you to change
> options. You can set up as many or as few desktops as you want. Most
> Windows users never even realize what those extra desktops are, if they
> ever even realize they are there at all. They are quite useful. If you
> want a blank desktop at any moment you don't have to minimize everything
> to get there, just move to another unused desktop and there you go.
> Some people never get the hange of it, others never want to, but if you
> do get used to it you really miss it when you have to use an OS that
> doesn't have it.
>
> If I'm mistaken on your interpretation of what he was talking about,
> forgive me. Just trying to enlighten what could have turned into a big
> useless fight.
This feature of virtual desktops have been in X Windows since before Windows
3.0 came out of Redmond. There were some freeware utilities that gave
Windows 3.0 this feature as well. I turns out the Microsoft did put
everything into Windows 3.0 that could be manipulated to provide virtual
desktops; but they didn't provide the means to activate them. These little
freeware gems provided what Microsoft failed to. They worked great with
Windows 3.0 but with Windows 3.0a most of them became became unstable. By
Windows 3.1, those that were unstable just wouldn't work any more at all
and the remainder of them were unstable. By Windows 95, they were all
useless. There are some utilities that come with some video cards that
provide that feature but they need special support from the driver of the
card and so are not portable. I am unaware of any tools that can do this
for any of today's versions of Microsoft Windows with any video card without
special support from the driver.
In this feature, Microsoft got it right in 1990 and have gone down hill from
there. So in this case Microsoft Windows is not laging behind Linux and X
Windows, it is running backwards against traffic.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:55:22 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:396c9218$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Aaron,
>
> The fact is that W2k has yet to crash on me in about 5 months of use at
work
> and at home. That is adequately reliable for me (as a desktop).
With how much continuious up time?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
