Linux-Advocacy Digest #694, Volume #27 Sat, 15 Jul 00 10:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... (Cihl)
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... ("Philo")
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: My soapbox (Re: Are Linux people illiterate?) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature (Pim van Riezen)
Re: My soapbox (Re: Are Linux people illiterate?) (Jacques Guy)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Jay Maynard)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:56:52 GMT
Jeff Hummer 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 tweakin=
g 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 read some replies about this post being exaggerated, and i think it
is. But that's not uncommon in a Usenet-group like this.
Hmm. Well if you don't count anything but installing the basic OS
software itself. It should take Linux anywhere from 30 to 60 minutes
to install, depending on the distribution and including
options/package selection and partitioning.
Windows 2000 should take somewhere between 60 and 90 minutes to do the
same. (Hardware detection takes a LONG time, indeed. Why?)
Now there's another problem. If you install Windows 2000, you still
need to get the drivers for all of your hardware together. Installs
and reboots included, this should take from 1 to anywhere up to 3
hours. (depending on amount and combination of peripherals installed)
In Linux most hardware works upon basic install because of monolithic
kernel-policies. The rest, scanners, camera's and such, should take an
extra hour, 2 hours maximum. (It did for me the first time, second
time is much faster, once you know what to do exactly.)
Note: i'm talking about a new distribution here, like MDK7.1 or
SUSE6.4. Windows 2000 is very recent as well.
True for both is that some hardware will not work, because no drivers
are available for that particular OS. Also for both, this is likely to
change in due time.
For me it's:
Linux: 1.5 hours
Windows 2000: 2.5 hours
-- =
=A8I live!=A8
=A8I hunger!=A8
=A8Run, coward!=A8
-- The Sinistar
------------------------------
From: "Philo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 07:07:40 -0500
OK OK OK I just have to put my 2$ worth in (inflation and my inability to
find a "cents" key)...BUT why would someone knowledgeable try to install
Win2000?
(And I am a Windows user myself and only use Linux occasionally)
Philo
Jeff Hummer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:LnPb5.80691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 12:10:42 GMT
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>oh, grow up and get a life child. You couldn't possibly know how much code
>I've done and copyrighted in my life. Yep, as in registered at the copyright
>office, not just a little (C) in some remarks somewhere.
Then how come searching for "Drestin" at locis.loc.gov (that's a telnet
address) does not reveal a single entry with your name on it?
Must have done all your coding before 1978, eh?
Bernie
--
Anybody that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years
organizing and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the
office
David Broder
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: My soapbox (Re: Are Linux people illiterate?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 12:10:43 GMT
Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>you must realize that many highly intelligent people cannot spell,
>even for peanuts. I know one, a former colleague (the only chap with
>whom I could have a thought-provoking conversation), and I was
>absolutely appalled at how he misspelt "caipirinha" (a computer chip
>architecture announced two years ago).
Uhm, if you are thinking of the Phase5 A/Box, then two years is way too
recent. Four would be closer --- the announcement came out sometime in 1996.
And it is also the name of a cocktail, of course.
Bernie
P.S.: Phase5 recently went bankrupt ;-)
--
It is easier to make war than to make peace
Georges Clemenceau
French Prime Minister 1906-09
Verdun, 20 July 1919
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 15 Jul 2000 12:17:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump) writes:
>In article <8kmrvb$ivk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Lee Hollaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Wow! That's really impressive.
>
>[ bowing and smiling ] Thanks. I knew I was pretty impressive.
Too bad you snipped it. But I've put it in below ...
>>But can you cite one case where the FSF has litigated the issue in
>>court and a judge has decided it?
>
>Actually, I don't think the FSF will ever get to court.
Here's what you previously wrote --
>Surely you have no clue what the FSF is or does or can do. Hint, hang
>around here for another decade or two, hang around the FSF's lawyer
>in court, watching him loose the first round of a case, undeterred,
>fully prepared to go to the Count of Last Resort if necessary, spend
>time with rms talking about stuff.
You that was purely speculative, and you don't even think it will happen?
I'm now less impressed ...
------------------------------
From: Pim van Riezen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:16:24 CEST
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tapped some keys and produced:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > It's a shame as his comments are normally reasonable and well put.
>
> And my .sig is written they way it is for equally valid reasons, even if
> they are not immediately clear to you.
Would it be a problem to elucidate this reason? Either that signature is
intended for people who already know what you have to say (making it
redundant) or you're trying to convince new people of your standing on
whatever issue it is that you're trying to get across, in which case you are
failing at it completely. It might aswell be uuencoded EBCDIC, it would make
just as much sense to me.
Pi
--
I need an enemy.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 12:29:22 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My soapbox (Re: Are Linux people illiterate?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Uhm, if you are thinking of the Phase5 A/Box,
Yes!
> then two years is way too
> recent. Four would be closer --- the announcement came out sometime in 1996.
Four? Already? Could very well be. Time flies. Yes, I got the arse
from
Telstra two years ago, so four it might well be.
> And it is also the name of a cocktail, of course.
With rum, so did Prof. Jorge Stolfi of Sao Paulo university tell us
("us" is the nuts interested in deciphering the Voynich manuscript).
"Caipirinha" also just means a peasant girl in Brazilian Portuguese.
I suspect it is borrowed from one of their hundreds of aboriginal
languages.
> P.S.: Phase5 recently went bankrupt ;-)
Pity. The Antikythera Orrery Company also went bankrupt ;-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 15 Jul 2000 12:36:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 04:38:06 GMT, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>No. He can only use GPVed software in his programs if he then agrees to
>>license the whole of his work under the GPV.
>This is not true, thanks for playing.
Of course it is. It's the entire point of the GPV.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 13:53:47 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting Daniel Johnson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 09 Jul 2000
> [...]
[snip]
> >Computers, well, compute, and were very popular before
> >the web came along. "Exchanging" data you can do with
> >the post office; Computers can do much more.
> >
> >Don't get fixated on the web. Comptuers are used for
> >much, much more.
>
> This in the middle of a discussion of network protocols? This attempt
> at mis-direction is a 1.3, at best; it may be buried deep, but its
> hardly subtle.
<shrug> We all have our off days. I'll try to do better next time! :D
However, network protocols aren't exactly limited to the internet
either. I do think he is being fixated one *one* application
of these technologies to the exclusion of all others.
Leslie's arguments on this subject isn't entirely clear to me,
but it does *seem* to depend upong computers being
simply "internet terminals", and no more.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 13:53:52 GMT
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> > It's true that these protocols don't miraculously solve the
> > problem of interoperability; no protocol can do so unless
> > it is forced down the throats of everyone.
>
> These standards are described by IEEE.
Some of them are, I believe. There are other bodies
too.
> The Standards are usually decided upon AFTER a sufficient time
> (usually over a year) of taking responses from an officially
> issued "Request for Comments"
Yes indeed.
> The Unix community doesn't unanimously jump on the bandwagon
> until AFTER some standards organization has defined the standards.
It's less than unanimous before that, I'll grant you. That's why
you have those standards bodies, after all.
However, none of this bears on my point: a protocol doesn't solve
the problem of interoperability unless everyone is somehow
made to use it.
And this, I maintain, isn't really practical to do.
> > Unix *has* been able to do a certain amount of htis, because
> > it has dominated the Internet and it *refuses* to interoperate
> > with anything. So everyone else has learned to use some of
> > Unix's protocols.
>
> Conforming to PUBLICLY PUBLISHED STANDARDS is "refus[ing]
> to interoperate with anything" ??!?!?!?!
No. However, so conforming is not the same as interoperating
with anything except, of course, for other conforming systems.
> This must be a new definition of "refuse" that nobody else has
> ever heard of before.
I didn't mean to suggest that merely be conforming to
such published standards, Unix should be considered
non-interoperable.
What I mean is that Unix has made very little effort to
interoperate with anything but itself.
I object to saying that the mere fact of standards
conformance is, in and of itself, interoperability.
I do not mean to say that standards conformance
prohibits or prevents such interoperability.
> You're fucked up1
> You're so fucked up, you don't even know you're fucked up!
> And that's what's really fucked up.
Oh no, I am well aware of it! :D
However, in this case I think you have misunderstood
me.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 13:53:58 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8keb65$1tf0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Fb1a5.2498$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >Hey, you brought up these protocols. If you meant to end
> >the discussion by doing so, then I must offer a different
> >strategy:
>
> I brought up some actual widely used protocols on the hope
> that you could say something meaningful about them instead
> of your usual unfounded rants about how bad protocols that have
> been designed by groups of well-informed people are.
I didn't say that, actually. I have tried to avoid harping on
the *bad* open protocols out there, because I don't think it's
relevant: I am not questioning whether such protocols are
good or not, but whether they amounts to interoperability, all by
themselves.
If you say these protocols are good, I'll take your word for it.
> >> SMTP is the transport protocol that handles delivery to
> >> the destination host where it is stored for access by the
> >> user.
> >
> >"the"? You mean its the one Unix uses, right?
>
> And everyone else that uses internet email.
Oh yes. This is one of the standards everyone else
had to adopt because they wanted to use the internet,
and Unix won't understand *your* protocols, so
you've got to learn its.
[snip- agreement! We can't have that. Must snip.]
> >You mean SMTP the *most popular* one, and thus
> >everyone ought to use it, right?
>
> It is the one you can use without pre-arrangement.
This is sounding very like Windows.
> >Sort of like Windows? :D
>
> Except that it works well...
Windows works well for it what it is for, you know.
No, on second though, you probably have weird ideas
about what "works well" means that involve
not crashing. :D
[snip]
> >I suspect the devil is in the details, really.
>
> Of course it is possible to get them wrong, but that turns
> out not to be a problem when you can easily replace a buggy
> implementation with any other version you like. If you
> are stuck with a proprietary protocol with only one version
> any problem is fatal.
I wouldn't say that. The thing I would wish to avoid is
being stuck with *any* protocol, open or not.
[snip]
> >It's true that these protocols don't miraculously solve the
> >problem of interoperability; no protocol can do so unless
> >it is forced down the throats of everyone.
>
> There is no need to force anyone to use open protocols. They
> are always the best choice.
You do say this, but I don't buy it. They *may* be the best
choice, some of the time, but clearly not all of the
time.
It's too much to expect the standards bodies to get it
right all the time.
> >Unix *has* been able to do a certain amount of htis, because
> >it has dominated the Internet and it *refuses* to interoperate
> >with anything. So everyone else has learned to use some of
> >Unix's protocols.
>
> Perhaps you can name a few of these systems that will not
> interoperate via SMTP. I can't think of any offhand. I don't
> think it was developed under unix and it makes no particular
> concessions to unix systems.
I doubt there are any left; the Internet has become too
important, and Unix has leveraged this to shove its protocols
down everyone's throat.
But once upon a time there were LAN mail programs that
didn't use SMTP. Microsoft Mail, for one, didn't; you needed
a separate gateway to translate.
Microsoft, of course, realized that Unix wasn't going to
interoperate with Mail, so they provided SMTP
support in Exchange itself. Like I said, MS is into
interoperability- at least insofar as they think it will
serve their interests.
> >But I don't think this makes Unix's weak interoperability
> >a virtue.
>
> Because it doesn't exist.
Oh, that's too hard. In truth, many Unix's do make some effort
to interoperate, despite my bellyaching. It's a bit ad-hoc,
but it's out there.
[snip]
> >I must say this kind of phrasing makes me a little nervous. You
> >seem to be saying that everyone in the world should be made the
> >use your technologies because their doing so is convinient for
> >you: it "increases the value" of your technology.
>
> No one is made to do anything, but following standards is what
> permits communications to occur, and communication is valuable.
You keep on saying it, and I keep on not believing it. Are we having
fun yet? :D
[snip]
> >Of course not; you've thrashed about until you found a subject
> >I don't know very much about; this allows you some security
> >in demanding details.
> >
> >It's a useful rhetorical trick, I guess.
>
> You are the one who has been trying to make some point about
> open protocols being bad in some way. I was politely letting
> you attempt to show why you think that.
I think you've exaggerated what I've been saying a shade:
I don't mean to say they are necessarily *bad* (sure, sometimes,
but not always) but that using them does not confer interoperability
in and of itself.
[snip]
> >> No, it doesn't have anything to do with it because no one ever
> >> said anything about using only a single protocol.
> >
> >Surely that was exactly the thing you proposed as a solution
> >to all our interoperability woes?
>
> One for each purpose for public interchange. Additional ones can
> be used for private purposes where the standards are unsuitable
> in some way or where the intent is actually to restrict interoperation.
> However, since the standard protocols have been developed to
> meet the usual needs, it is unusual to need anything else.
I see, so you are saying that everyone ought to be made to use
your favored protocol for "public" interchage; ie, I can have
LAN Manager on my LAN, but I can't be permitted to have people
outside my company dial into it, right?
Or do you just mean "Internet" when you say "public"?
[snip]
> >That's nice, and with some kind of plug-in approach it's quite
> >useful.
>
> Under unix most services are handled by ordinary user-level
> programs, and shared libraries can be replaced or
> specified at runtime, so there is no particular need for
> a specialized API to limit the things you can do.
No, indeed there is not. But your shared libraries ought
to have a well defined interface: that is an API.
It is useful, however, to have an intermediate layer that
arbitratates between the many plug ins you have loaded;
for this approach to interoperability to work, you need
to have multiple plug ins of the same kind at once.
If you don't have that, you are still better off than with a *fixed*
standard protocol, handed down from on high. You can select
a protocol that all of your computers can handle, and standardize
on it.
But it is a pain, and it won't work if there is no single protocol
that all your computers can handle.
> If your
> OS makes loading a program or getting it to use a specific
> library difficult, I suppose you might be concerned about
> such things.
:D No, it makes it easy: You use the OSes API, and it connects
you to the network modules you need.
> >[snip]
> >> Standard protocols exist for most necessary
> >> services and can always be created for new ones. You don't
> >> have to be trapped by any single vendor.
> >
> >Being trapped by a single protocol is hardly an improvement.
>
> You aren't trapped by standards.
That's true; I use Windows. :D
[snip]
> >> But it requires replacement of the client. That's not
interoperability.
> >
> >Sure it is. You say it isn't because it isn't what Unix does, and for
> >you, "interoperable" is synonymous with Unix.
>
> How can something interoperate if you have to change the other end?
Well, first you change the other end, then you interoperate.
It's not *that* hard, really.
'Course, if you have this plug in stuff I've been going on about,
you can change *your* end instead. This is often a lot easier!
(Indeed, sometimes it is necessary: there are times
when you *can't* change the other end.)
[snip]
> >Where do they say this?
> >
> >I betcha they are saying something *else* is impossible, not this:
> >Something like using Windows 2000 Actice Directory servers
> >with NetWare clients, perhaps.
>
> I believe it is the win2k kerberized domain controller scheme
> that they can't match.
That suggests the limitation is in NetWare, if it can't do the
things Active Directory can do.
> [snip]
>
> >I think we've reached an impasse; neither of us will
> >back down on what "interoperability" is, and our
> >definitions are clearly fundamentally in conflict.
>
> Reached? I think that has been the case all along.
I have to admit you have something there.
[snip]
> >Not at all; having an infrastructure for doing this makes it
> >easier. It is possible to kludge this kind of thing, but is it
> >not better to have some sort of design?
>
> Yes, the wire protocol should be designed such that multiple
> vendors products can use it without requiring all the
> others to be changed to match.
No-one has ever managed to do this. Standardizing on
an 'open' protocol still means getting everyone else
(who isn't yet using it) to switch to it.
Sure, Unix has already standardized on many of
these particular protocols, and you'd like it if
everyone else did likewise- save you the trouble
of changing *your* computers a second time.
But that's just saying you'd like someone else
to do the work, not you.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 13:54:03 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8keeto$29lg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Gb1a5.2499$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyone who lived through the era in the communications business
> knows they had to update the firmware in all their dialup
> equipment or replace it when Win95 put MSCHAP on every
> desktop.
Well, interoperability often *does* sell, after all. If your
competitors are going to interoperate with the new OS on
the block, and you won't, you'll be in a world of hurt-
especically if its a really popular OS.
But this is not the same thing as breaking anything. The
dialup equipment continued to work as it always had,
and you could still get and use a PPP dialer, could you not?
It's just that being interoperable is better than not being so.
*Insisting* that the most popular OS on the planet has to
do things your way is just a waste of time. It doesn't. And
because it doesn't, this approach to interoperability does
not work very well.
And this is my point: insisting that everyone use the same
protocol- even if it really is the *best* protocol- is not a
realistic strategy for interoperating.
Microsoft's later embrace of Unix protocols was done
so they could ride the Internet wave, as you know. MS went
out of their way to interoperate with Unix because they felt
they needed interoperability to sell. But it was the Internet,
not Unix, that MS was interested in, and the more MS
computers are on the net, the less MS needs to worry
about interoperating with Unix per se.
Your approach to interoperability leaves you at
the mercy of MS. They decide if they want to be
interoperable with you, or not. And if they decide
not to be, you would seem to be out of luck.
Quite simply, a strategy that depends on your worst
enemy to provide you with interoperability isn't much
of an interoperability strategy.
Letting MS do all the heavy liifting leaves you very much at
their mercy, if they decide to be not-quite-so-compatible next
time around. And they are hardly above that.
Embrace and extend anyone?
[snip]
> >> No, they just worked with standard PPP dialers before. No
> >> need to distribute anything proprietary.
> >
> >Who cares about "propretary" versus "standard"? They
> >had to distribute their dialers *somehow*, regardless
> >of what protocol.
>
> You really don't understand the concept of following
> standards, do you? There is no 'their' dialer. Any
> standard ppp dialer worked. There was no need to
> match any vendor's dialer to their dial-up hardware
> until MS entered the picture.
Windows 3 did not include a dialer; these people
had to get a dialer- maybe not "their" dialer,
maybe its owned and operated by the IETF,
but *some* dialer- to the desktops *somehow*,
did they not?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
