Linux-Advocacy Digest #693, Volume #27 Sat, 15 Jul 00 05:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature (Ray Chason)
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses... (Arthur Sowers)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Ray Chason)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Ray Chason)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (CyberSurfer)
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... (Jacques Guy)
Re: Student run Linux server. (B'ichela)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature
Date: 15 Jul 2000 06:29:13 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>What does it take to get this guy to stop attaching his rediculous
>signature to his posts? Most times the content of his replies are 1 or
>2 lines and yet, after many people pointing out that his signature is
>far too long, he does nothing!
>
>It's a shame as his comments are normally reasonable and well put.
I'd plonk him, but Microsoft hasn't innovated the killfile yet.
BTW, Aaron, who the fsck is "Tammy Hahn"? Hell, who the fsck are most of
the other people in your sig?
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: Arthur Sowers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Date: 15 Jul 2000 07:37:07 GMT
I lurk & post from time to time myself. I am supremely annoyed at BG/MS
not just for the business crap they do, but the buggy OS they sucked me
into buying. I actually bought 95 on disks, then another 95 on CDROM, then
98 on CDROM, then 98 on disks, and I had a ton of problems. Fatal errors
on install, crashes on install, crashes on boot, and crashes after
boot. Then, I had that "thrashing floppy drive" problem. Finally it
destroyed a drive because I could not get it to stop thrashing, even after
20 minutes. I've had errors like "drive d: not available, try again
later" and I'd try again later and its still not there. Could get it only
by rebooting. Lots of other problems. One day, the OS suddenly put up a
message all by itsefl "Win has detected that you installed new hardware
and is installing a driver" but I didn't install new hardware.
I know there are people out there claiming their W is OK. Maybe there are
some weird hardware combinations that lead to OK in some cases and lots of
problems in others (this happens in Linux, too, and I have Linux on three
boxes). Maybe there are a lot of maybes. I actually use Win3.1 and, yes,
DOS, for a lot of my routine stuff (email, and bookkeeping!!) and its
faster and doesn't crash!!! I've been playing with Linux (red hat 5.2
and now 6.2) for a year, have StarOffice and WP8 running and printers
conifigured on the three boxes. You can have big problems with Linux,
too. But if you get a good install, you are OK. You do need to do graceful
shutdowns, have a UPS to prevent power failures from causeing an
ungraceful shutdown. If you get into nitty gritty stuff (on the command
line), you really need to know what you are doing. But, it certainly is
reliable, stable, and you can do lots of things that Windows can't.
=== no change to below, included for reference and context ====
On 14 Jul 2000, V'rgo Vardja wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been lurking in c.o.l.a for a while, observing the constant battle
> between Linvocates and Windows lovers. The main point of the Winvocates
> seems to be 'Linux doesn't support my hardware or my Word documents and
> GIMP sucks compared to Photoshop because GIMP is called GIMP'.
> Linvocates retaliate with 'Windows crashes and needs a reboot every 42
> seconds and every minor version changes driver format'. For myself, I
> like Linux. And I tolerate Windows. I won't go throwing it out of the
> nearest airlock, but I sure as hell don't think Windows is as perfect as
> certain you-know-whos try to convince us.
>
> See, Winvocates, you've been trying to get the Linux community to
> acknowledge the imperfections of Linux. Now I'd like to hear what *you*
> can say about the couple of weird Windows quirks.
>
> My home computer is a 486DX/33 (16M memory), which dual-boots Win95 and
> Slackware 7.0. Linux runs perfectly; Windows has a weird bug: it refuses
> to cold-boot correctly. If I turn the power on and let Windows boot by
> itself then the boot process hangs before the GUI shows up. The only thing
> I can do to un-wedge it is another cold boot. So now if I want to use
> Windows I'll first have to hit F8, boot to DOS mode, run Norton Commander
> and then hit *CTRL* *ALT* *DEL* and after that Windows warm-boots
> correctly. I've tried two versions of Win95 and several reinstalls, and
> it still has that weird problem.
>
> I work in a private school as a general all-around friendly
> neighbourhood computer guy, BOFH and/or webmaster. Which means I also
> take care of our computer labs (Windows 95 networked in a WinNT domain).
> So here's a couple of, er, interesting Win95 *features* I've encountered
> so far.
>
> Have you ever seen Win95 forget the hardware it sits on? Well, I have.
> Sometimes a teacher will come and tell me that a soundcard isn't
> working, or a computer is unable to log on to the network. So I'll have
> a look and find that the soundcard or network card definition is missing
> or broken in the System Properties. And yes, we have denied ordinary
> users access to most Control Panel applets with system policies, so it
> could not have been the fault of children removing the devices.
> Reinstalling drivers works with the soundcards but to get the network
> adapters going again I have to remove the software with Add/Remove
> Programs applet and *then* reinstall. And we're *not* talking broken
> hardware.
>
> When you log on to Microsoft Networked computer you are asked whether or
> not you want to save your personal preferences. If you say 'yes', your
> user.dat gets saved to c:\windows\profiles\your_login_name\user.dat. If
> you say 'no' then your profile will *not* be saved - instead the changes
> you might make in the interface configuration will be saved as the
> default configuration, for instance your desktop background and screen
> saver properties. So people would set up a password-protected screen
> saver which happily kicks in after they log off. No one else could use
> the computer unless we did a physical reset. *CTRL* *ALT* *DEL*
> combination doesn't work and there is no administrative password (unlike
> in WinNT where administrator's username and password can unlock a
> password-protected session) and it is not possible to log on to the
> computer over the network like for instance with Linux. After a while I
> finally found a program that can access user.dat on a remote machine and
> crack the password (thank goodness for Microsoft's lousy screensaver
> password encryption!).
>
> Win95 does not do a good job at protecting its underlying hardware. I've
> seen countless of occasions where a game fscks up monitor refresh and/or
> screen resolution so that the screen flickers like something from the
> late 80's. Ever seen a 320x200 screen resolution with 800x600 virtual
> desktop? Not good.
>
> Our system policy makes it unable for our users to access the computers
> without logging on to the network (no pressing *ESC* and gaining access
> to the computer, that is). So the younger children who do not have their
> own accounts yet can only use the computers if a teacher logs them on.
> Unfortunately the kids found a way to bypass that restriction by
> replacing the domain name in login dialog with a bogus one - Win95 tries
> to log on to that non-existent domain, gets no answer but nevertheless
> assumes that it's OK to allow the login. Officially there was nothing I
> could do to stop them; there were no patches we could find from Microsoft
> and no way to get rid of the Domain: field of the login dialog. So I did
> something that probably goes against Microsoft's licence - I used the
> resource editor from Visual C++ to disable (gray out) the Domain: field
> within a Windows DLL... This got rid of that problem. (talk about
> configurability...)
>
> Then there is the issue of filesystem quotas - something Win95/98/NT
> does not have. Our network admin has set the disk space limit on the
> home directories to 5 megabytes for ordinary users... unfortunately the
> NT server does not yet have a way of enforcing the quotas so he checks
> the sizes of the users' home directories every once in a while. So far
> the record is five bloody hundred megabytes of mp3's in one person's
> home directory. And the admin does a nightly backup from the partition
> on the server where home directories are kept... Now someone tell me
> that Windows rules compared to Linux. Hah!
>
> And I won't even mention the number of Windows crashes. My own
> workstation (which is the only one right now that runs Linux) has
> probably the lowest amount of crashes in the whole school complex, and
> those crashes only happen because it also double-boots Windows. The
> only times I've managed to crash Linux was when I tried to compile my
> very first kernel (oops! modularised IDE disk support and ELF binary
> support... guess what that meant) and when I tried to get a scanner to
> work with the poor excuse it had for a SCSI card.
>
> So, dear winvocates, you can now try to present your solutions to the
> problems I just described, which would not exist if the computers were
> running Linux. And please, don't bother with statements like 'LINUX
> SUXXX' and 'Linux doesn't support my printer' or 'Buy Win2k'.
>
> Happy hacking,
>
> Virgo
>
> --
> ERROR: CPU not detected. Emulating.
> -Win2k
>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 03:41:23 -0400
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is where you are simply, completely, and unalterably *wrong*.
>> Software will no more be Lego block building than building skyscrapers
>> will be.
> Actually, I don't think we are nearly as advanced (in the lego sense)
> as they are. Ever watch a construction company bid on a building,
> ever watch software guys bid on software? Maybe I am only surrounded
> by incompetent software folks, but I do get the feeling I am not
> alone.
I've been reading a bit about skyscraper construction -- it's more of
an art than the rest of the construction and architectural business.
But yeah, we're not even to the point of having *routine* things
hammered down. Part of this, I think, is the rapid pace of change in
the 'fundamentals' of the industry -- there's no single solid
foundation upon which one can rest.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 15 Jul 2000 07:04:15 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Such a person is running what I would call a "workstation", not a
>desktop client. They *might* benefit from PMT; they would definitely
>benefit from better design of applications to remove unnecessary
>responsiveness requirements (responsive to what, if not the user?)
How fast might a professional secretary type? 75 words per minute? Let's
assume 4.5 characters per word at 75 wpm. That's about 5.6 characters per
second.
Now consider the humble 56K modem, running flat out at 56,000 bits per
second. At ten bits per byte (eight data bits, one start bit, one stop
bit) the modem is "typing" 5600 bytes per second -- *one thousand times*
as fast as the secretary!
And you don't want to miss any of those bytes. When the modem says it's
ready, the CPU better respond before the next byte comes in, or one byte
or the other will be lost. That's a receiver overrun. And that's bad,
especially if you're running a packet protocol such as IP. A missed byte
means an entire packet is hosed and must be retransmitted. Retransmissions
cut into network throughput, and the user *will* notice.
Switch to something faster, like an Ethernet card, and the same problem
applies. DMA eases the time constraints but does not eliminate them.
Or consider a sound card. A basic sound card is just a digital to analog
converter tied to a DMA channel. When a DMA transfer is done, you need to
have the next one ready *right now* or the sound skips at that point.
Now, if a computer can respond to modems and Ethernet cards and sound cards
in real time, regardless of what else it's doing, why do you think it's so
difficult to respond to us pokey humans quickly enough to appear
instantaneous?
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 15 Jul 2000 07:37:48 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> What is bad is forgetting that the user is supposed to be in control
>>> of the apps, not the other way around.
>>
>>The user can't control CPU scheduling manually. That isn't an option.
>>The choice is either to let the apps do (CMT) it or let the OS do it
>>(PMT), and the OS is much more qualified.
>
>Not the scheduling, no, but the weighting, preference, or priority of
>scheduling. My theory is that with CMT, the market handles whether the
>end result is valid and useful, and with PMT, it was the engineer who
>insists CMT is 'stupid' and ridicules people who question that tenet.
This "theory" has no basis in experience or reason. Indeed, there's an
enormous counterexample. Windows 3.1 was CMT. And Windows 3.1, from the
very standpoint of usability and responsiveness you argue from, was a train
wreck.
Do you remember August 1995? Thousands of people lined up outside CompUSA
and Egghead and all the rest to buy their copy of Windows 95. Now Win95
is dodgy and BSOD-prone, but it's nonetheless a vast improvement. PMT is
a large part of that improvement.
If you say "preemptive multitasking" to the average Win95 user, you'll
probably get a blank look. But J. Random User does know that when he
clicks on "Recalculate," and Excel throws up an hourglass, he can switch
to Word and type on a memo until Excel is done.
PMT in action.
To get this kind of responsiveness from CMT, you need to break up a CPU-
bound task. For a spreadsheet, that might mean recalculating some number
of cells, and then yielding the CPU. It sounds simple, but to do this,
you have to save your place. Also, the need to break up the task distorts
the flow of the code; another programmer will have a harder time figuring
out how it works. You get higher development costs, more bugs, and longer
time to market. It is unwise to make the developers' job harder than it
already is.
I've been there. I've done that. And it ain't no fun. And all too many
Windows developers said the hell with it and just let their apps throw up
that hourglass. All too many apps hogged the CPU when they did anything
non-trivial. *This* is how Windows 3.1 came to be called "Windoze."
You claim that an application that doesn't properly yield will "bomb in
the marketplace." If that's true for Mac applications, then it is user
demand for quality that has kept up the quality of Mac apps. PC users seem
to accept any old POS as long as it has the word "Microsoft" on the
package.
And user pickiness does not have to go away just because Mac OS X adopts
PMT. And if PMT could turn a dogpile like Windoze 3.1 into something
almost usable, imagine what it can do for a Mac.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: CyberSurfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 10:34:44 +0200
Right so you know his girlfriend.......
Please make me a touchscreen driver for my Palmax..1100PD.
Thank You
--
CyberSurfer / Singularity
In a dark room full of windows the Tux said: "E=mc˛", and there was light
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 08:43:39 GMT
In article <LnPb5.80691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Jeff Hummer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's some irony for you. A knowledgeable friend and I installed both
> Windows 2000 and Gentus Linux 6.2 on an HDD last night. Windows took 5.5
> hours to install and it still crashes during boot, despite much tweaking at
> the command line level. This is supposed to be easy?
> On the other hand, at 12:30 A.M., we inserted the Linux CD and began
> installing. Twenty minutes later I was seeing GNOME for the first time, and
> it works beautifully. I still don't know what to do with it, but I can't
> wait to learn!
> I'm converted.
I smell a rat. 5.5 hours for Windows 2000? Twenty minutes for Linux with
Gnome. Sounds like a fishy story to me. They both usually take around the
same time.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:05:27 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> I smell a rat. 5.5 hours for Windows 2000? Twenty minutes for Linux with
> Gnome. Sounds like a fishy story to me. They both usually take around the
> same time.
Caldera 2.1 took 20 minutes on my PC. Mandrake 7.0 took about 40
minutes,
but installed close to 1G of files (Caldera half as much). That was on
an AMD K6 running at 200MHz, and, more importantly, a now long
obsolete 20x CD drive. Twenty minutes for an up-to-date box seems
reasonable. I would never dream of trying to install Win2k. For
one, I have only 64M of RAM. Next, I don't know anyone to burn me
a pirated Win2K set. Finally, if I did, I wouldn't bother. As I
posted earlier here, some day, I might have a go at installing
my pirated copy of Win95, only to play Fallout 2.
------------------------------
From: B'ichela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Student run Linux server.
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 04:14:23 -0400
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000, Pontus Lidman wrote:
> There are some non-violent titles from Loki games,
> http://www.lokigames.com. I can recommend Railroad Tycoon II, or the soon
> to be released Sim City 3000.
>
Railroad Tycoon II, is that for Linux or under the Windows
emulator? If its true Linux.. I might just give it a try (I am a model
railroader btw). I think I heard that Sim City is under Linux. I never
tried Either game so I might give both a look if I can ever get a bigger
HD. (still running on 4 Scsi Hds giving me a total of ~1gb of storage. and
20 MB of ram on my 486.
B'ichela
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
