Linux-Advocacy Digest #650, Volume #27 Thu, 13 Jul 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why use Linux?
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: C# is a copy of java
Re: C# is a copy of java
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Re: C# is a copy of java
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Re: Why use Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Numbers for users,hackers? ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Loren Petrich)
Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:48:11 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:30:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>For instance, I installed XFree86 4.0.1 on top of Linux Mandrake 7.1. I
>>found after installation a lot of the tools that I would use in 7.1
>>don't really work too well now.
>
>Just checking --- you *did* install it via an RPM from Mandrake's Web
>site, right?
I too have been playing around with XFree 4.01 under Mandrake 7.1.
The only sort of thing that has thusfar caused any problems for the
previously installed tools was when I completely relocated the old
X11R6 tree in favor of the one that the source tarball for Xfree 4
creates. The DrakConf tools get quite broken under these conditions
as they tend to look for things in particular, fully specified places.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:51:08 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting Nathaniel Jay Lee from alt.destroy.microsoft; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
> [...]
> >I guess the conceptual glitch in my head doesn't apply to Unix like OSes
> >because at my current job (in the aforementioned Wood Working company) I
> >run all Unix systems and don't have near the trouble that I had with
> >Windows.
>
> Bingo. You're catching on.
>
> Unix systems might appear to not do what we expect sometimes, but they
> do not act (apparently) non-deterministically, and I must assume (sorry)
> that it is because it is a solid design for an OS, which I don't believe
> Windows is. Unix does not crash *randomly*. Windows does, apparently.
>
> Now do you see why I've been saying that I wasn't criticizing you for
> "defending Windows", but rather for your assumption that someone else
> must be to blame (since you knew you weren't, and assumed that
> competence could prevent crashes) when you stated, without even a hint
> of reservation, that competent admin, users, and networks will
> statistically decrease the number of Windows crashes? More important,
> do you understand why you didn't believe me when I said that?
>
> Is it insane to think that Windows crashes are Windows fault, even if
> they can be traced in retrospect to incompetent admin, network, or user?
> The first two, I might be able to accept. But that last one is too much
> for me; I start asking questions. And the answers don't seem to make
> sense.
>
> In any one case, you have a crash, and you may be able to prevent it
> from happening again through administration. But I've noticed that to
> most people these days "proper administration" and "competent end-user"
> equates to "knows how to avoid doing the things that make Windows tend
> to crash", when the fact is that Windows isn't supposed to tend to crash
> to begin with, any more than any other computer system. All too often,
> everybody ends up just waving dead chickens, proud of their voodoo power
> to keep Windows from crashing. Most of the trick to a successful
> Windows experience is pure blind luck, as far as I can see.
>
> And that is as much a problem of troubleshooting and system management
> technique as it is crappy software, because a lot of people should have
> picked up on this a lot sooner. (Some might argue that many did, which
> is why "reboot/reinstall" is the primary technique for dealing with
> problematic Windows installations.)
>
OK, so again you say what I said in a different way and tell me I was
still wrong. I guess I really don't understand you. I say you can slow
down the number of Windows problems with competent administration but
you will not ever eliminate them. You say the same thing with the
exception of saying this non-deterministically thing you seem so stuck
on. Everyone knows that you can never predict whether any load of
Windows will succeed or fail. Are you trying to tell me that all of
this "you are blaming others for your problems, and you have a glitch in
your head" is because you think that I believe Windows can be made
stable? If that's where this entire conversation is coming from then
you sir are the one who is mistaken. Saying you can lessen the effects
of Windows random crashed with competence does not imply that it isn't
random. All that says is that you can make it less crash prone. That
isn't saying anything at all to the effect that Windows isn't crash
prone to begin with. It is, and no amount of competence will change
this. So, is the only way for you to accept what I say has any merit to
somehow word everything I've said to include your
"non-deterministically" crap in it?
Saying you can slow down a problem does not mean you believe the problem
should even exist in the first place. It just means that you have found
a way to slow it down. You seem so stuck on the idea that I believe
Windows isn't crash prone, or is stable or whatever. Yet I never said
that. You seem to think that saying there are ways around some of the
problems is justification for the problems to begin with. In fact, all
it is is saying that the problems are there, and this is how you can
work around them (in some cases). This still doesn't seem to make my
statement false. It just makes it something that you took to imply
something else entirely. Wherever you came up with that, that is not
what I meant.
In short, I know Windows has problems, I also know some ways around a
few of those problems. If you take that to mean that I am justifying
the existance of those problems to begin with, well to me this indicates
a glitch in your brain, not mine. Of course, that's the wonderful thing
about perspective. If you are pig-headed enough you can believe anyone
is wrong (even when they agree with you). Beautiful isn't it?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!!
Date: 13 Jul 2000 18:00:53 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Sorry for the subject, I'm just looking for help and expediantly
: resorting to a cheap attention grabbing line (-;
: I'm having a hard time with an NFS server. It's running:
: Kernel 2.2.5
: knfsd 1.2 ( IIRC )
: Something's definitely wrong with this NFS version -- it crashes frequently,
: and since it's not a userland program, when NFS goes out the server needs
: a reboot. Needless to say, this is a PITA.
: So my question is -- what is the recommended configuration for a Linux box
: running NFS ? SHould I upgrade the kernel ?
: What is currently the most *reliable* version of NFS ? The
: server is not busy enough that I care that much about performance. I just
: want it to work, dammit!
We had some minor probs with NFS back in 6.0 I found this page:
http://nfs.sourceforge.net/
Great little site with a whole mess of nfs info.
-jeremy
--
"In the Serengeti, there is a small outcropping of rock which conceals a rich
oasis. Tucked away, hidden from the burning sun by a stone ceiling, is a
small pool of fresh water, and in this pool grow clues by the moist
thousands. See your travel agent."
-'dire wolf'
Usenet message ID<<884oql$4opa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+================================================================+
Jeremy Hallum, Assistant System Manager & Grad Student,
Astronomy, Boston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:::[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 18:01:27 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 17:32:32 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> 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.
>
>You know, you keep calling me a liar and not point to any lies I say.
Sure I do. You just have this dellusion you're not lying.
>Are you lying?
>
>I know you don't like me, but could you at least keep an appearance of
>honesty in your actions?
You represent it to be more likely than it actually is that
a shared library will be GPLed. This blatant lie can be
verified by anyone that chooses to do so in any of the
usenet archives.
You also do this while claiming to be software developer for
the sort of project that tends to undermine your own position.
[deletia]
While RMS may infact want to infect the world, the framework he
created has taken on a life of it's own and is not under this
thumb.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:26:03 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> Obviously, one should end the source module with .cpp or .cc.
.. or .C or .cxx or whatever the local standards are.
But that is only to identify the intended language of the source file. That
was not what I was referring to.
The real problem it knowing what features belong to which language, more so
when the same syntax is valid in both C and C++ but with different meanings.
A program would compile but kept failing to link, the programmer that was
not too clear on the dividing line between C an C++ so he wrote three
functions that had to exist in global scope. Each of the functions were in
sepperate source files and their prototypes were included in sepperate
headers that were not included into the same source files, so the compiler
could never catch the error; which was that all three functions had the same
name. The programmer in questioin was so used the having the parameter
encoded into tha object codes name for the function, that he could not see
his error. I corrected the problem by renaming the three functions.
In another problem like that a program was written that required a certain
value to be a constant in the overall program but to be a global variable
for a particular set of functions. He used a construct like this
#ifdef INTERNAL
int variable;
#else
const int variable = 999;
#endif
This construct is legal in both C and C++ but with different results. Some
linker would choke on that but not the one that was being used. It just
quitely combined all of the refferences to variable. The runtime errors
caused by this was untraceable for the shop. The suspected that the old
hardware was beginning to fail. The were using a C compiler but were
expecting C++ behaivor. I solved that problem by replaceing that construct
with:
#ifdef INTERNAL
int variable;
#else
#define variable ((int)999)
#endif
> Are there
> any environments in which if C is available, C++ is not?
Oh yes! There are shops that for management or political or economic
reasons upgrading their compilers is not possible. There are orphan systems
in use that had only an early ansi C or a K&R C compiler and no possibility
for an upgrade. There are embedded and other special environments that
cannot tolerate C++.
Just like there are still installations that use Fortran IV or COBOL,
Snobol, RPG, APL, Prolog, Algol, etc. as their primary languages. There are
also installation that use BAL for their language for their business
applications.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:43:06 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree, I see C++ as with just C with a few nice addons. But knowing
the
> > > difference is handy when you have program in an environment that
support C
> > > but not C++ or if you have to port to one of them.
> >
> > Obviously, one should end the source module with .cpp or .cc. Are there
> > any environments in which if C is available, C++ is not?
>
> Apple ][ ?
Did a full C compiler ever get implemented for the Apple ][ or was the Tiny
C compiler the only one that ever made it to the Apple ][?
The old Apple ][ was far more powerful than the crummy implementation of
microsoft basic (Applesoft) made it seem. Tasks that would take hours in
Applesoft could take minutes in UCSD Pascal (Apple Pascal).
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 09:37:31 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I have the same impulses on the rare occassions that I sit in front of
an
> > already booted Windows machine (but of course, they get frustrated).
*While*
> > booting a Windows machine, I find myself anxiously watching it, to see
whether
> > it will succeed or fail.
>
> Yeah, I've had that feeling before too. Tell me something. Have you
> ever been using Windows and caught yourself hitting CNTRL-ALT-F1 to get
> to a console. I don't use Windows often anymore, but when I do I spend
> about half of my time hitting keys for consoles and then being
> disappointed when it doesn't drop the GUI. Another thing some of us
> can't live without.
I have done that with Dos. I fireup a lengthy job and then by reflex I hit
an ALT-F's to switch the the next virtual console. Then get up get the key
and take a walk down the hall to use the facilities, stop in at the little
store at the other end of the building. Return, and do some busy work until
the system is ready for the next command.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 08:30:22 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > I agree, I see C++ as with just C with a few nice addons. But knowing
the
> > difference is handy when you have program in an environment that support
C
> > but not C++ or if you have to port to one of them.
>
> When I was in college, C++ was merely a pre-processor before running
> the C compiler.
Good old cfront! I remember him.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 10:16:31 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> This is one point that I would disagree a little with. I appreciate
> that there are people out there that can dedicate time to programming
> for nothing ( a labor of love). And I appreciate that for some people
> this is even fun, exciting and something extremely worthwhile. But,
> there are times when you just want to get something done. During those
> times, you want to get on with the project you have in mind. You don't
> want to dedicate three or four years to a sub-project to just get
> started on what you wanted to do in the first place. This is one of the
> reasons I still have a Windows box at all. The one area I find Linux
> lacking is in multi-track recording software (yes, I know there are a
> few projects out there working on this). I have yet to find something
> comparable to Cakewalk (which is what I use). So, instead of dedicating
> however many years of my life to a project to make such sotware (and the
> number of years it would take to get myself familiar with audio software
> creating in general), I use what I already know works for me. I'm not
> happy about it, as I don't much enjoy using Windows, but I have a
> totally dedicated machine for it and all of the recordings are done on
> network drives which are actually Linux Samba shares so I won't lose my
> work (happened to me once back in the day).
>
> I realize this pisses off a few of the more rabid Linux people. But
> when I have a song coursing through my head I really can't stop, set it
> aside, write software for a few years, and then try to pull that idea
> back up. It just doesn't work. Sometimes you need to get it down.
> While I refuse to use MS software unless it is absolutely necissary, I
> use it in that one instance. Hopefully I can find some Mac software to
> do this with soon. I'm seriously considering purchasing a Mac sometime
> after OS X is out and audio multi-tracking sounds like it would be right
> in the domain of a Mac machine. For anything else, Linux suites my
> needs, but in this one little area I've thus far been disappointed. I
> realize this isn't a popular view in the Linux community. Many times
> when I first started using Linux the response to "how do I do this" was
> often "write the program yourself". I can code a bit, but it's not my
> strong suite (yet). I could coordinate a project, but I'm not a good
> manager (and even if I was I wouldn't have the time). So, for some of
> us, your option isn't a valid one.
>
I agree with you position in most reguards.
I have my favorite midi sequencer which is a dos application. I have looked
at some of the Linux midi apps, but they just don't measure up for my taste
and requirements. But then neither do any sequencers I have tried on the
Windows platform either. I don't blame Linux for the lack of a sequencer
that fills my needs any more than I blame Microsoft Windows for also lacking
one. I just use my Dos sequencer and I am happy.
I have a 3D rendering packages for CGI work, some are Dos only, others are
Windows only, and some are unix/Linux only. Some have been ported to Dos
and Linux. There are two which I have a particular need for. Their native
file formats are supported directly be them only and they will run on
Windows only. They both support exporting files to other formats but the
exports loose details and I have a need to maintains these files in the
format of those applications. So I run those two applications in Windows,
which is why I am posting this from OE. I don't blame Linux for not having
programs to replace those two, just like I don't blame Windows for not
support some unix only and Dos only applications I need for CGI work.
I am not a rabid anything. Rather I was presenting the argument as a tactic
that I have used to shutdown the constant singsongs of the rabid anti-Linux
people like Mr. Goodwin. The argument is derived from the saying : if you
choose not to vote then you have nobody to blame but yourself.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 11:01:21 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8kklpr$gr8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> That is no excuse. They could at least have someone proof read it.
Anyone can proof read those documents, even you. Instead of complaining
about the issue, why don't you take note of the errors you have detected and
notify the authors of the needed corrections. As long as you don't attack
them in your communiques, I am sure that they would be happy to have that
information for the next release of the ducuments.
Since you have such a good grasp on spelling and english grammer, you could
put your skills to use and may even become an acknowledged contributer and a
valued member of the Linux community.
The time you have already spent in this thread already could have been well
spent helping to improve the image of the Linux community in an area that
seem to bother you so much.
Learn to a builder and not a destroyer.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 18:18:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is why:
>
> === script output ===
>
> Mon Jul 10 13:42:15 SAST 2000
> 1:42pm up 28 days, 1:23, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.14, 0.29
> USER LINE LOGIN-TIME FROM
> nicc tty2 Jun 12 14:13
> nicc :0 Jul 5 15:07
>
> === /end ===
>
Check this: http://www2.linuxjournal.com/lj-issues/issue56/3170.html ->
you need to search for the heading: How Do You Spell Stability?
Handling 200+MB Mail per week on a 486 with over 400 days uptime...
Come now trolls - can you beat this stability with your winloose boxies?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Numbers for users,hackers?
Date: 13 Jul 2000 18:34:23 GMT
Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Still not accurate.... typically one CD is used to install several machines.
No. Linux CDs are US$12 at local 'fancy' retail stores. Smaller shops,
swap meet vendors, and user groups sell factory pressed (not recordables)
Linux CDs (ex. Redhat) for around US$3. I know many people who spent $3 or
$12 out of curiosity, tried Linux briefly, and then decided it isn't for
them. Of people I know use Linux many have multiple CDs. For many it is
easier and/or cheaper to buy another CD for an incremental release (say
RedHat 6.0 -> 6.1 -> 6.2) than to download.
In college dorm/lab type environments I saw much of the behavior you
describe, the one CD is so easily accessible few bother to get their own.
However in home environments it seems more people like to have their own
CDs, and with the cost being so low there is virtually no dis
Things are far more complicated than you suggest.
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 13 Jul 2000 18:38:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>2.) It actually surveyed the "brochure sites" (their term) of those
>companies. Hmm, wouldn't their e-commerce sites be somewhat more
>important? If those companies actually have one.
"Brochure sites"? LOL.
>3.) Selection of software at big companies has at least as much to do
>with company politics as with technical merit. Anyone who worked for a
>large company knows this (hehehe, I remember when it was decreed that
>SNI should run all the mail servers on Exchange but the admins actually
>concerned sabotaged the plan to kill their trusty Unix servers, same
>where I work now - no Exchange for us even though Exchange is the
>offical party line :-).
This may explain Apache's low market share here; since it is not
produced by some Big Business, it must therefore be a toy.
>4.) It probably left out quite a lot of hosting companies - whose
>servers probably get way more hits than that of some boring Fortune 500
>company (most of them are boring, aren't they?).
However, how much of the Fortune 500 is hosting companies? I'd be
surprised if these are much of the F500.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX NFS SUX !!!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:36:14 -0500
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> 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 ?
>
Mine came with my distribution (SuSE 6.4, but I would suppose it is on
most distro CDs until kernel NFSd is a little more mature). If you are
using Red Hat it is probably still in there somewhere. (Sorry, I don't
use Red Hat any longer).
> > 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.
It never hurt to upgrade the kernel:). In my opion the userland server
is also easier to configure than the kernel based one (especially if you
need to change something without taking down "everything"). Of course,
this could just be an opinion.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
