Linux-Advocacy Digest #648, Volume #27 Thu, 13 Jul 00 13:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why use Linux? (abraxas)
Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Help with printer (Bob Hauck)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Bob Hauck)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (abraxas)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Bob Hauck)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why use Linux? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why use Linux? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Jens =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pr=FCfer?=)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: 13 Jul 2000 16:30:44 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> and GM, Ford, and Chrysler all sell cars that won't rust if you keep
>> them in the garage.
>>
>> So, like, what's your point?
>
> Because as well as running a web server, it's acting as a file server
> for the rest of the group. You said Windows 98 SE crashes after a month
> of use - care to explain why my machine is still running after a month,
> or could it be your original statement was _wrong_.
>
You are LYING.
You dont know what you are talking about, you lie *constantly*, and you
are incredibly stupid.
Why should anyone on this newsgroup take anything you say as something
other than the ramblings of a lying fool?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!!
Date: 13 Jul 2000 16:34:11 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 10:19:57 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>All NFS servers in my business network are running 2.2.14 kernels with
>the userland NFS servers.
Where do you get the userland server ? Does it come with your distribution ?
Should I just grab the src.rpm for the RH 5.2 userland NFS server
and rebuild ?
> I am not fully confident yet with the
>stability of the kernel based NFS servers.
Neither am I (-;
Thanks, I think I'll probably go with a userland server, and maybe upgrade
the kernel.
Cheers,
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:37:19 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:20:24 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>[snip] I won't debate with you anymore.
>
>> >Honestly, I was in it for fun. People like you make me doubt it's
>worth
>> >the trouble.
>>
>> Why is that? Is free inquiry a bit too scary for you?
>
>No, it's the part where you asked me to die, bozo, and that you deleted
>in your response. I need not take shit from you.
>
>Now, what have you done for this "free software community" you seem
>to like so much? What have you done to pull your own weight?
If he's countering the FUD and lies you are spreading that
would be a considerable service. It might serve to better
inform those that might not be of the same ideological
inclination as RMS as to whether or not it is truely in
their best interests (or not) to use and contribute to
free software.
[deletia]
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:37:32 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:11:35 +0200, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Aaron Ginn wrote:
>
>> words, it _only_ works with Windows. Also, you may not have parallel
>> port support compiled into your kernel.
>
>Youre probably right with kernel support since it does not detect it. Just
>tought it parallel port support was included in all kernels automaticly.
Maybe the autoprobe doesn't like your port. Just for grins you might
try putting this in /etc/modules.conf:
options parport_pc io=0x378 irq=7
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:30:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >Because that's not what I meant? The Debian position is that doing
> >that is illegal, not expensive.
>
> You know what they say about opinions...
Believe it or not, opinions are important. At least the opinions that
are formed based on information, and the opinions that cause effects.
Now, could you either concede the points or debate them? Now you
deleted the entire discussion, and all that's left is the useless
meta-stuff.
You called me dishonest for stating something. Then proposed I would be
more honest stating something else. That "else" is something totally
different, false, and what I stated was something that you don't have
any arguments to call false, and that apparently you had not even
understood.
> [...]
> >> I feel like I'm a Microsoft troll, arguing that OEM's freely agreed
to
> >> pre-load monopoly lock-in agreements, so Microsoft is blameless.
> >
> >That should give you pause.
>
> Except RSM isn't the richest man in the world, and hasn't been
> profiteering and monopolizing for the last twenty years. He's just a
> guy with an idea. You don't like it, ignore him. Bill Gates I cannot
> ignore.
I ignore Bill Gates every day. Why can't you?
> [...]
> >So, your opinion on what the GPL allows changes based on what I say?
> >What kind of opinion is that?
>
> My opinion on what GPL allows changes based on the context of the
> discussion. It works that way for everything else, too. It sucks,
> believe me. I truly wish I could just make assumptions and get on
with
> my life like the rest of you guys.
That's stupid. You said that if I agreed to something, you would agree
to something else (and again you deleted the meat of the argument), or
you would not agree.
This sort of quid-pro-quo is ethically bankrupt.
> [...]
> >I said "some say". It's not only Debian's position. It just isn't my
> >position.
>
> All right, all right. You've acquitted yourself. My apologies. I
just
> wish it hadn't take such a long exchange; you could have explained
> yourself more completely the first time. Its this 'hit and run
> contradiction' that wastes all of our time.
No, it's that you can't read. I said "some say that X" and you jump all
over me calling me dishonest and a liar. Well, dammit, I don't think
your insult was granted. I accept the apology[1]. I think what you say
now is just a silly attempt to save face "ok, sorry to have called you
dishonest, but it's your fault anyway". If you didn't understand what
I write, ask me to explain, or abstain from answering.
[1]: when you apologize, you should say what you are apologizing for. I
hope you are apologizing for calling me dishonest.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
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 16:34:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hope you don't take this the wrong way Pete, but I believe that this
> is exactly why so many people jump on the "you're an idiot" bandwagon.
> When it comes to Windows you want people to add the qualifiers, but
when
> it comes to Linux you expect people to figure out the qualifiers on
> their own. This shows an apparent bias (whether intentional or not)
> towards Windows. Re-read your first two sentences here from the
> perspective of a Linux user and it would bother you a bit. You want
> people to qualify statements about Windows, yet you feel it is fine to
> not qualify statements about Linux. Doesn't piss me off, because I
> understand your general idea, but you will impress people more if you
> actually use the same tactics for both platforms. Perhaps you will
see
> a few more real conversations that way.
I think I was reacting to the lack of qualifiers on Windows, so I
stopped qualifying Linux. If others could lump Windows together in one
breath, why shouldn't I?
Also, I originally saw Linux + KDE (substitute your favourite desktop
here!) as a complete package, rather than a series of discrete bits, as
it made more sense in comparing that with Windows. One person, I think,
picked up that idea and ran with it, the rest, well... you know the
story.
> As for the rude ones, don't let them overly discourage you. Everybody
> has a particular subject that they have a sort of "hair trigger"
> reaction to and you just happen to hit on a lot of people's subject of
> intense interest. Although the appearance at times is that you are
> looking for a fight, I'm sure that's just a result of the Winvocate in
a
> Linux group perspective.
You put people with diametrically opposed views in the same area, you
can expect a shouting match, I guess.
> This question could very easily be turned around on you Pete. Why do
> you feel you need to advocate for a multi-billion dollar company that
> (quite obviously) can afford to pay for their own advertising? Also,
> this statement could be taken to mean that you feel Windows doesn't
need
> improvement (Why advocate for something that needs improving? implies
> that you are advocating for something that doesn't need improving).
> Overall I think you tend to fall for a lot of the "TROLL TRAPS" that
> some of the more vocal and obnoxious people in here set up and it
makes
> you look kind of bad a times. Especially the things done by Charlie.
> You keep restating that "Linux is three times faster than Windows"
thing
> like it was some sort of gospel truth according to all Linux people.
> Yet there were plenty of people in that thread (other than Charlie)
that
> said you can make either system perform faster or slower than the
other
> if you know what you are doing with each. In some cases the best
> performance of each outweighs the other. Stating things that the
> Lintrolls post (and I consider Charlie a Lintroll) as if they are the
> belief of every Linux advocate isn't a very compelling tactic. And it
> is also one that makes you again appear biased (whether intentional or
> not).
I do think Windows needs improvement, I just think Linux needs more.
Hmmm... I don't see too many people rising up to contradict Charlie or
others. So, I took the silence to mean acceptance of what has been said.
> I realize some of this could be taken personally, but that's not my
> intention. In reality I agree with the person above that said you
seem
> to be a reasonable person that has some legitimate information. Just
> don't let people push you into making "tactical" mistakes and you
should
> be OK.
"Tactical" mistakes! Sounds like I'm fighting a war here, doesn't it?
8).
> I'm just trying to help out. Hopefully I do.
You are, you are.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:41:16 GMT
On 13 Jul 2000 00:38:08 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I originally had the machine set up for dual boot with
>internet sharing on the modem, then recently got
>a cablemodem and put in a Farallon card (very new
>with a realtek chip).
I think it is the particular realtek driver that's the problem. I had
a similar hassle with a scsi card and a 100 mb ethernet using that
chip. OTOH, I have a machine at home with a Matrox card and an Adaptec
scsi sharing IRQ 12 and it is perfectly happy.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: 13 Jul 2000 16:42:22 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Proof that David James was correct when he said that all
>> of the intelligent people have left the UK.
>
> Still practicing your peppergun style of posting I see.
>
> So I made a mistake. I thought we were talking about desktops (KDE et
> al), when the conversation switched to virtual desktops.
>
No, the fact is, you are an idiot and you didnt know what virtual
desktops were in the first place, even though it was patently obvious
to every single other person involved in the conversation that thats
exactly what was being discussed.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:44:59 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:53:08 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>What's wrong with minimalist desktops? :)
>
>They're a bit lacking.
Maybe to you. But I like 'em.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| Using Blackbox WM
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:42:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >A choice between "don't do it" and "do it and die" is no choice.
>
> It is when you are a business, not a person.
A company's management has to choose between "do it and go broke"
and "don't do it"? Of course they won't do it.
> [...]
> >Of course, for a publicly traded company, such a behaviour is
perfectly
> >ethical. After all, their main concern is shareholder profit.
>
> Perfectly ethical as long as the corporation follows its charter.
Which
> is not, by the way "shareholder profits", whatever that is supposed to
> mean. Consider; who is the 'they' in your 'their' in the sentence
> above?
"they" is the management taking the decisions in a company.
I thought they are forced to make decisions to make the shareholders
earn money. Aren't they? Isn't that their job?
> [...]
> >> And here is where you go from thought experiment to second guessing
> >> the market and prognosticating.
> >
> >Well, it's not much of a extrapolation. After all, we have been there
> >before. TCP/IP used not to be the standard, and that is what we had.
>
> Depends on what you mean be "used not to" and "standard", I'm afraid.
> Too much to parse that sentence in any way that isn't a tautology, at
> least.
"used not to be the standard" means that years ago, TCP/IP was not the
universally accepted standard it is today. What else can it mean?
> >> Window's didn't invent the Internet. Did anybody ever mention that
> >> before?
> >
> >Of course they didn't. They made it popular, though. They made it
"big".
>
> It made them popular. It made them "big".
Nonense. Windows was popular and big before the internet was popular
and big.
> There is not a valid reason
> that I can think of to indicate that the Internet wouldn't have been
big
> on its own, whether MS hitched onto it (after bombing with MSN) or
not.
Because the internet would have 1/100 of the users, and perhaps 1/1000
of the infrastructure money. The internet existed for 20 years before
MS hitched to it. And it was tiny.
> [...]
> >Ok, I am guessing that a GPL implementation would not have been so
> >popular because it would not have been free enough. I think it's
> >not much of a guess, but sure, it's a guess.
>
> And I can respect that. I understand your underlying issue, and I
> agree. I think all reference implementations for public protocols
> should automatically be public domain, though I can see value in
making
> them GPL, because I share RSM's vision.
Then what do you disagree with?
> [...]
> >> Minus the universities (they're just too smart for that), you've
> >> described exactly what I did: MSN over NetBIOS. That's what *you*
> >> would have as the Internet.
> >
> >Erm, no. That is what someone who says the GPL is better for standard
> >implementations would have.
>
> I am someone who says the GPL is better for standard implementations,
No, you are someone who just said standard implementations should
automatically be public domain.
> and I would have the real Internet, as it worked perfectly well before
> profiteering on software, and it would continue to do so while
Microsoft
> had you locked up on MSN.
Well, I'd like not to work and have money. I just don't see it
happening.
> >> Me? I'd have the Internet, connecting points all
> >> over the globe with open access and not a banner ad to be seen for
> >> miles.
> >
> >Well, me too. I just think that could never have happened,
practically.
>
> Nor would anyone have GPLed the TCP/IP stack, practically.
But I am making a hypothetical case which explains, in part, WHY noone
would have done that. I am SAYING THAT.
> >> For me, you on MSN is useful, yes. Have fun.
> >
> >Ouch. You know, I am starting to feel misunderstood.
>
> Thanks for the humor; sorry if I seem too down on you. It was a
useful
> exercise, for me anyway. Is it true that you work for someone who
makes
> money owning closed source libraries, like Jedi said?
Where did he say that? Because it's not true at all, you know.
> (oh yea, that's right, KDE; its in your sig.)
a) I don't work for KDE. I am PART of KDE, maybe.
b) I work for a company that publishes all it's IP under free licenses,
AFAIK, but I have not checked.
c) what closed source libraries would be owned by KDE?
> I know he meant it as a cut, but I think
> it makes your opinion valuable, even when it isn't valid. ;-)
My opinion is valuable or not based on itself and on who I am and what
I do, not on what wrong things someone says about me.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:55:40 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:10:40 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>SB16 doesn't work I have to massage the configuration files to make it
>work.
Must be a new definition of "not working".
>AHA152x doesn't work, I have to add a string to LILO.
Again.
>Voodoo 5 doesn't quite work, I have to massage the configuration file.
And again.
>These are all examples of the way Linux lags behind Windows.
Your theory then is that Linux lags because it requires more manual
configuration with some hardware than some unspecified version of
Windows (I'm guessing Win98SE since you seem to like it so much).
>Windows installed all these products without batting an eyelid.
W2K doesn't, and even lags Linux in support for some hardware. So I
guess W2K "lags" too then? We just won't count the extra reliability
and more efficient multitasking and security that it brings to the
table. That's exactly what you are doing by saying "Linux lags".
Personally, I find Win9x to be a piece of shit. NT is acceptable for
most things, Linux is better for my particular uses. But there is NO
WAY I would willingly go back to that DOS-based crap. I'd rather have
just plain DOS. It didn't have nearly as many pretensions (and OpenDOS
even multitasks).
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 16:58:16 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:55:27 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>However... people don't buy OS's if they're _that_ bad. Could it be that
>Microsoft actually got some it _right_?
Of course. They got just enough right that they could sell it and they
fix enough stuff with each new version to sell the upgrade. Which is
not the same thing as really getting it right.
MS is the king of "good enough".
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:02:46 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:05:11 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>If I say I have two machines I've not reinstalled in the last year, I
>mean it!
You forgot to say how they are dedicated to one or a very few
applications and you don't ever change the configuration.
I've not ever reinstalled a Linux machine because of a software
failure. Not one single time since 1994.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:05:50 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:09:47 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I think that's the problem I'm harping on about - Linux seems to expose
>its configuration much more so than Windows does.
I think that's a good thing. I can fix what's broken.
>Also, things don't seem to be so well integrated as Windows.
That too. It means that I can make stripped-down versions without
undue effort.
>I'll admit I never liked UNIX.
Well, then you'll probably never really like Linux either.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: Jens =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pr=FCfer?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 19:06:56 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> That is no excuse. They could at least have someone proof read it.
>
I don't think Linux supporters have to do anything, since all their work
and effort is purely volontary. On the other hand I thought a
multi-billion dollar corporation like Microsoft could afford a few
native Germans to proof read through their shit before they pollute most
of our computer systems with their inferior products.
You would not believe how many spelling and grammar mistakes I found in
German versions of Microsoft products. This is yet one more reason not
to support neither their OS nor their puny so called office software.
I am quite sure Linux supporters and developpers are far from being
"illiterate" or even "dyslexic". Most of them do speak several foreign
languages and quite a seizable number are not native English or US
American. On the other hand observing all those pictograms on Windoze
makes me believe the typical Winlooser must be totaly illiterate to be
willing to push little pictures around manually rather than type in a
short command sequence to make the OS do the "pushing".
M$ sucks in every way.
Jens
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
