Linux-Advocacy Digest #641, Volume #27 Thu, 13 Jul 00 07:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Peter Ammon)
apache_server config ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why use Linux? ("1$Worth")
Re: Why use Linux? ("1$Worth")
Re: ## NEW ## MULTITOOL for Linux ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux code going down hill (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[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, 13 Jul 2000 01:12:59 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Peter Ammon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > CMT has no place and absolutely zero advantages on any
> > > general purpose machine where the operating system developer does not
> have
> > > absolute and total control over every instruction that is ever executed
> on
> > > it.
> >
> > Then why did the original Mac OS team implement CMT?
> >
> > (Hint: it wasn't because they were incapable of producing something
> better)
>
> Insufficient hardware resources. Coupled with the, at the time, thinking
> that desktop computers were really not going to be used for multitasking.
>
> The Lisa was PMT, IIRC.
>
> > > You could certainly make an argument that on such a system any
> foreground
> > > app receives a boosted priority to improve response time. This is what
> > > Windows does. However, under no circumstances whatsoever should any
> > > user-space application ever be able to wrest control from the Operating
> > > System.
> >
> > It is nice to have the complete attention of the CPU when you're doing
> > something. I miss it in Classic dialogs in OS X, which feel jumpy.
> > Windows is the same way.
>
> I really must say I don't understand what you're talking about.
In OS X Classic Compatibility mode in file open or save dialogs, there's
often a slight delay between when you click the mouse and when the OS
registers the click. All the other apps get to do their thing, so the
foreground dialog has to simply wait until it gets the processor time
again. It's the same way on Windows.
The Mac dialog boxes, on the other hand, register clicks in dialog boxes
instantly. With other GUI elements, such as menus, there's often a wait
before the OS first responds, but once it's down, the system gives you
its complete attention.
I'm looking forwards to preemptive multitasking, for sure, but this
perfect responsiveness is something that I'll miss.
-Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: apache_server config
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:10:17 GMT
Hello Everyone
i recently installed redhat Linux 6.2 with squid and Apache server ver
1.3.12.
>From windows Pc i am unable to connect to Apache web server ,it is not
even showing "It worked". I am wetting error message "403 forbidden you
dont have permission to access on this server.
I am unable to get connectivity. can anyone help
thanks in advance
ssp99
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:38:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Agian you are TOTALLY ARROGANT. If you don't want to produce code for
> the community that's fine. But then DON'T WHINE AND BITCH ABOUT THE
> CODE OTHERS DO PRODUCE FOR THE COMMUNITY!!!
Calm down. You'll feel better.
If people code inferior products for the community, should I not point
it out?
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:42:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right now you are airing your opinions to the community, at great cost
> in time to yourself. Does this pay your bills? Does this help you with
> your
> mortgage? Can you buy a car off the proceeds of any of those of your
> opinions which you are not only giving away for free, but paying for
> the privilege of giving away? Hmmm???
What has this got to do with the price of beer?
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:52:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote:
> You are right. The problem is that us programmers make mistakes. If
you
> really believe that lack of process protection does not correlate to
> system stability
> then I have no hope of convincing you.
What is convincing me is that the machine in question has stayed up for
over a month, whilst the orignal post we're arguing about here stated
Windows 98 SE does not stay up for a month - which is obviously not true
in this case.
> ...ok, N64 then...
Sorry, I don't have _any_ games consoles.
[snip]
>I will
not
> begin to argue that KDE or Gnome is as useable as Win32 because I
don't
> believe this to be the case (at the moment),
So you agree with me them.
> BUT like I said before,
you
> forget the time you needed to spend to understand the inconsistencies
in
> windows, just 'cos Linux WM's are different, does not mean that once
> mastered they are less "powerful" in terms of usability than windows.
> GUI is a problem across all platforms (yes, even the MAC).
I've had a few people here agree with me when I say Linux WM are not as
well developed as Windows.
> I think you'll find my trusty Amiga was ahead of Archimedes in many
> areas (but that's a different thread)
And where is the Amiga now?
> Pass me my guide dog please. <bumps head>
What is that supposed to mean? See above.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:02:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well then how is Pete creating balance when he has repeatedly made the
> statement "Linux lags behind Windows" like a broken record, many times
> without any qualification, and many times in regards to things that
> are subjective, such as user interface? If Pete were to say "Linux
> lags behind Windows in terms of meeting my personal needs", that would
> be reasonable and I could respond with something like "In terms of my
> needs Windows lags behind Linux, but our needs are probably
> different". Then there would be some balance. But Pete is not doing
> that. He is instead defining reality in terms of his needs, without
> regard for the needs of others. Under those circumstances, there
> can't be any balance.
This all started because I got fed up with the rather obvious problem in
COLA. Everyone seemed to refer to Windows, but nobody referred to
Windows 98 SE or Windows 2000. Problems with Windows 98 were referred to
as Windows problems, tarring Windows 2000 with the same brush.
Also, I did not think people had a problem comprehending me with I said
"Linux", instead "KDE desktop on Linux" because I thought the context of
a sentance/paragraph ought to inform a reader of that. I have started to
change my statement from "Linux lags behind Windows" to others, but it
is annoying to still see statements like "Linux is three times faster
than Windows" - which Windows and under what circumstances?
Also, there is a lot of rudeness in peoples replies to many posters. I
get called quite regularly "idiot" or "troll" or whatever. Does anyone
think this will make me change my stance?
No, of course not. But I am changing my opinion because one or two of
you are avoiding the stupid replies I've seen and then begins an
intelligent conversation, rather than the amazing shouting matches that
go on.
> Look at the threads he has started. I think it will become very clear
> that he's frustrated trying to use Linux, and then instead of politely
> asking for help in one of the support newsgroups, he's venting in
> c.o.l.a. If that's his personality, Linux is not for him.
I figured out most of my problems myself, thank you very much. I'm
coming to COLA because I thought this was a Linux Advocacy group - I'm
asking why they are advocates of something that needs improving!
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:07:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Becuase it isn't doing shit.
About the level of response I expect.
> Installing an deinstalling programs?? NOT.
Not what? I've installed a ton of stuff on two machines, and neither
have need a wipe and reinstall for over a year.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:12:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You really are TOTALLY ARROGANT. You conclude "Linux lags behind
> Windows" becuase of features that are important to YOU only and thus
> it's YOUR OPINION. Then you push your OPINION on us as fact, as if the
> things that important to others simply aren't important. In other
> words, you make yourself more important than others. That by
> definition is arrogance.
You have a peculiar definition of arrogance then. If it is arrogant to
point out areas where Linux does not work as well as Windows, then I
have to conclude you do not want to hear about such things as they show
the wonderful world of Linux is not as good as you'd like it to be.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:05:11 GMT
In article <8kiq68$52s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry i do not believe you!
Whether you believe me or not is not my problem.
> I do test Windows machines on a daily base and it just sucks. Simply
put...
> if youre not very nice they bluescreen. You know that very well and
most
> Winvocates even admit this.. Windows 9x is maybe the most unstable OS
in
> the planet in this age. I dont get the purpose for you advocating Win
98.
> Do some NT/W2K advocating man.. then we can talk
I'm well aware of the instabilities of Windows 98 SE. However, it gets
annoying when people overstate their case, like Windows 98 SE requiring
a reinstall every so often. If I say I have two machines I've not
reinstalled in the last year, I mean it!
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:10:40 GMT
In article <8kird4$chj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg) wrote:
> Right. You say this when this case is clearly isolated for you, but
most
> of your claims against the Linux desktop boil down to "it's different
from
> Windows."
Different? If it was different, I'd be happy.
However...
SB16 doesn't work I have to massage the configuration files to make it
work.
AHA152x doesn't work, I have to add a string to LILO.
Voodoo 5 doesn't quite work, I have to massage the configuration file.
These are all examples of the way Linux lags behind Windows.
Windows installed all these products without batting an eyelid.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:18:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's becoming a little tiresome listening to this same tune over and
> over. Why exactly do you think that Linux lags behind Windows on the
> desktop. What are some of the specific areas where you feel this
> way. Is it simply because Linux doesn't support every piece of PC
> hardware on the planet? Is it because you don't have Word/Excel? I
> want specifics, not hand-waving dismissals.
It's getting a little tiresome for me repeating the same thing over and
over again... doesn't any ever read what I post?
[snip]
> Why don't you just say what you mean: Linux doesn't have the things
> _you_ want in a desktop right now. Everyone here will agree with you
> and say "Cool. Wait a while." When you continue to throw out
> duragatory terms like 'lacking' or 'lagging' or 'inferior', you just
> piss people off. Most people use and develop for Linux because they
> _want_ to, not because they want to make a buck, although some do.
> When you disparage a labor of love, people take offense.
Because Linux is supposed to be better than Windows, yet I find areas
that definately need improvement. It's got nothing to do with what I
want, but with what I find on Linux.
I mean, if it is claimed to support hardware, and I find myself doing
extra work to make it happen, what does that tell me? If it works
without any problems on Windows, that tells me Linux is still behind
Windows.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:52:52 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
[snip]
> I've had a few people here agree with me when I say Linux WM are not as
> well developed as Windows.
You will never get an proficient Linux user saying that Windows is "more
developed" and I suspect that you will not admit that the Mac's
interface is "superior". Subjective differences sometimes can't be
equated to better or worse. Win and Mac are more integrated, but you can
do so much more with more with X (the Joy of X) than you can with
Windows. I feel that you probably have expected Linux to act just as
windows does and that you are disappointed that it does not. Have you
taken the time to look at how configurable everything is? Easy: not most
of the time... but whenever you add "power" (configurability) it
normally unmasks the hidden complexities that Windows hides. The trick
of course is to obtain both and I feel that Linux distributions are
being put under great pressure to achieve this in the future. The good
thing is that you know what's going on, which is not the same for
Windows. You may be comfortable with not knowing why things happen, but
I don't want an irate customer complaining about why my software
suddenly fails when it turns out that Windows has gone mad and I don't
know why. Did you know that the attitude of most Windows support help
desks if things go too wrong is just to re-install windows? This is not
progress Pete!
I'll admit that I never liked Windows too much as I have been forced to
use it where I would have liked to use the next generation Amiga OS, but
then I discovered Linux and while I still use Windows as it is better as
some things (like games, hardware support and netscape news client),
Linux has been fantastic for programming and for reliable file/web/data
serving (i.e.: real work). On average every 8-12 months I need to
re-install windows because things have got out of control (yes OK, I do
trash Windows more than an "average" user but this *should* make no
difference), but I have never yet had to re-install Linux because of
heavy use. I enjoy not having to re-boot 4-5 times when installing Word
2000 (I'm not kidding, I installed it last night). Surly you must admit
the benefits a Linux system provides you?
> > I think you'll find my trusty Amiga was ahead of Archimedes in many
> > areas (but that's a different thread)
>
> And where is the Amiga now?
Up in my attic gathering dust, so is my copy of Amos Pro (which I really
liked!).
------------------------------
From: "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:55:54 +0100
[snip]
...and don't get us started on security:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2247443.html?tag=st.ne.1002.bgif.ni
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux.sucks,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.best,alt.os.linux.dailup,alt.os.linux.mandrake,be.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: ## NEW ## MULTITOOL for Linux
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 06:08:40 -0400
CyberSurfer wrote:
>
> The one and only Multitool for Linux.
>
> Download here....
>
> http://www.euronet.nl/users/next/tuxlife
I would sooner die than allow a single line of Microsoft Code to
be installed on a Linux machine....
And I certainly wouldn't do it as root. God knows how many trap
doors, hacks, cracks, and other security holes Microsoft DELIBERATLY
puts into LoseDOS...
Installing code from Microsoft on a Linux machine is the equivalent
of putting fine grit in engine oil so that you can reduce your oil
purchase by one quart (liter).
>
> -
>
> CyberSurfer / Singularity
> In a dark room full of windows the Tux said: "E=mc˛", and there was light
--
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"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: 13 Jul 2000 11:01:37 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 20:48:09 -0400, Colin R. Day wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Not in all cases. I once tried to install KDE somewhere else besides
>/opt, and RPM would not do it. Some packages are not relocatable.
You can easily use a src.rpm to build it to go anywhere you want it to.
If you need more control, use the spec file.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
