Linux-Advocacy Digest #810, Volume #27 Thu, 20 Jul 00 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses... (Tim Kelley)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Tim Kelley)
Maximum Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Mikey)
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... (Jerry McBride)
Linux and UNIX98 (J.H.M. Dassen (Ray))
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Maximum Linux (Charles Razzell)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Maximum Linux (Brian Langenberger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 08:49:37 -0500
Russell Wallace wrote:
>
> Tim Kelley wrote:
> >
> > Russell Wallace wrote:
> >
> > > FAT is one of the very few pieces of software I've ever come across that
> > > I really trust. I've seen any number of DOS/3.1/W95/W98 machines
> > > hard-shutdown due to power failures, crashes or whatever in the 12 years
> > > I've been working with them, and FAT doesn't mind in the least - all
> > > that happens is any uncommitted data was lost (obviously) and
> > > CHKDSK/Scandisk sometimes finds some lost sectors (that wouldn't have
> > > done any harm except waste a little bit of disk space).
> >
> > The problem with FAt wasn't that it was "unreliable" but that it
> > has no features to be unreliable. It has too many stupid
> > limitations, but it's still good for formatting floppies or
> > something.
>
> Happened again this evening. Power went out, two Windows 95 machines on
> (and actively doing stuff) at the time. When it came back, both
> machines came up again no problems, no lost data - as I was sure they
> would. I knew I didn't need to worry. I'd sacrifice a lot of features
> for that if it came down to it.
>
> That said, if one can have both reliability and features, so much the
> better. What do you see FAT as missing? (Aside from the cluster
> allocation inefficiency.)
The problem is if you start adding features it will be unreliable
... that's the point. There is very little for FAT to keep track
of so it does not have much data to corrupt.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 08:52:22 -0500
Adam Warner wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Paul Thurrott's WinInfo has this report on Microsoft sales:
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2832
>
> And it contains this paragraph:
> "And the U.S. Navy announced that its next generation aircraft carriers, the
> CVN-77, will use Windows 2000 for its mission-critical Integrated Warfare
> System."
>
> Frankly I'm dumbfounded.
Well I don't particularly like the government or the military so
I don't care. Actually it's pretty funny.
Maybe we will be able to overthrow the government one day after
all :-)
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Maximum Linux
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 08:53:58 -0500
Does anyone here get the Maximum Linux magazine? I have a question for
everyone in here, but it is especially applicable to those who read this
magazine.
I recently finished reading the previous issue and read Mae Ling's
(spelling?) column on window managers. Now, normally I wouldn't be
bothered by such a small issue, but this was one that I really have to
wonder about. I've noticed the magazine leans heavily towards the
Windows side of things (much like COLA, there is just as much about
Windows, good and bad, as there is about Linux). Anyway, the main gist
of the colum was about window managers, but she continously throughout
the column wrote Windows Managers. Like I said, I nomally wouldn't have
cared but she repeated it over and over and over and ....
Now, I'm going to pose the question to those of you in here. Which is
correct? I was always under the impression that it was window manager
(and plural window managers), but before I write to correct her I
thought I should see what the concesus is. I'm assuming that her bias
towards Windows (or the editor's bias towards Windows) made every
appearance of the window into Windows and the word manager just got
capitalized along with it. So, what do you say? Is it 'window
managers' or 'Windows Managers'?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:08:01 -0400
Thus Sprake Stuart Fox:
> > >And
> > >> the cause? It was traced back to someone entering a "0" in the wrong
> > >place
> > >> in a PC in the stores - the resulting "divide by zero" error killed the
> > >> ship.
> > >
> > >So do explain to us all how a poor app is NT's fault?
> > >
> > A poor app is not NT's fault - that a poor app is able to crash the
> machine
> > it is running on, never mind the whole network, is NT's fault.
>
> It was never NT's fault. An app dying is an app dying, not matter what OS
> it's on. If the app that's controlling your ship dies, the ship is
> uncontrollable. Doesn't matter what the OS does at this stage. And there
> was never any mention of blue screens/nt failure. It was always an app
> failure.
Actually, it could be NT's fault. I've had people run programs off of
my NT server and when the program crashes, the server dies and needs a
three finger salute. On my Linux/FreeBSD boxen, I've had user apps
crash, but, because Unix/Linux is a *TRUE* multi-user system, the apps
had no effect on the server performing it's task. The user just had to
run their programs again, and the rest of the network goes on working.
--
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
Linux- Because an OS shouldn't have to depend on a web browser
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerry McBride)
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 09:44:20 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>Jerry McBride? ([EMAIL PROTECTED]?) wrote (Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:57:11 -0400):
> >I've ever been exposed to. For crying out loud... OS/2 is easier to install
> >than windows!
>
>Except that, out of the box, it won't install on any machine made after
>1997 or so: disk has to be < 8 GB, for one.
>
Ooooo.... that's a tough one... Browse the os2 usenet groups, find out there's
a freely available udpate for large IDE drives... ftp it, apply it to install
disk and... fixed... Boy... that was really tough... Huh! Looky here... IBM
even has updated install disk images you can ftp... Wow! that's really tough
too...
>No, OS2 is not an easy
>install for anyone not already familiar with it. Besides, it's sort of
>fragile, the install, especially if you install peer support -after-
>the regular OS since the peer install GPFs dead when it sees any line
>longer than 512 bytes in config.sys. Add to that that the out-of-box
>OS2 experience is dated August 1996 (if you can find a copy that's what
>you get) and you can imagine the driver situation.
>
Gee... I took a copy of MS greatest, newest OS (w2k) and it won't even begin
to install on some of the boxes and laptops I have... Linux, OS/2 and even
Solaris go on them JUST FINE...
Come on... get real.
--
*******************************************************************************
> When life gets weird, the weird get a life. :) <
*******************************************************************************
> 1:05am up 2 days, 9:14:28, load: 18 processes, 84 threads. <
*******************************************************************************
* NetRexx - The onramp to the Internet - http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx *
*******************************************************************************
* ICQ# 76727806 *
*******************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J.H.M. Dassen (Ray))
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Linux and UNIX98
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:44:35 +0200
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The biggest stumbling block
[for Linux compliancy with UNIX98]
>right now seems to be including Motif (If you believe Jakob Kaivo); which
>shouldn't be a problem for much longer because of the license change(?).
Motif's licensing terms have changed, but "Open Motif" does not meet the
Debian Free Software Guidelines (aka "Open Source"), or the Free Software
Foundation's notion of "free software". Thus, GNU/Linux will not be UNIX98
compliant [*], though some Linux distribution may want to pursue compliance.
Personally, I'm not sure whether UNIX98 is very relevant. GNU/Linux has
become a force of its own, and the proprietary Unix market seems to be
converging towards a reasonably small number of players with increasingly
similar APIs.
>Linux 2.4 also has a few UNIX 98 changes included (most notably, the pty
>system).
Erm, UNIX98 pty support was already part of Linux 2.2
[*] Assuming Motif is indeed required for UNIX98 compliance, and LessTif
(http://www.lesstif.org) is not sufficiently complete to act as a substitute
for it - I'm no expert on UNIX98
--
Ray Dassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:38:39 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Stuart Fox wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8l6db4$7e1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8l5uf3$3dr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Frankly I'm dumbfounded.
> > >
> >
> > yes, you can't believe the navy would make the same mistake twice (
> > http://www.cs.clemson.edu/~steve/Spiro/stories/node75.html )
> >
> >
> >
> It was an application problem. If the same application error had been coded
> into the app running on say, a Solaris server, same result. Ship dead in
> the water. I can't believe they put it live without testing it on land
> first...
"Risks? I'll fall back on British understatement and say that there is a
distinct chance that software and hardware which is (a) purchased off the shelf
(b) designed for civilian applications (c) tailored for the specific
requirements of higher management and (d) brought to market in a relatively
immature state may not perform consistently to military specifications. "
--- taken from the article in the URL mentioned...
Here I can see the power of open source... With Linux (and other open source
OS's) any military power can have full access to the systems core code and
adapt that code to *prevent* apps crashing critical systems. This is especially
true for mission critical systems.
If only engineers put as much effort in their systems as in the old days
(Voyager I & II)... Fact is that even though a Naval Vessel is not the same as
a Space Craft, it still costs Millions of US$'s and you have thousands of human
life's depended on that technology. As usual the same rule applies - We must
first kill a couple of thousand people, then investigate to see if there were
better alternatives.
My opinion: Military systems must be developed in house and must have nothing
in common with commercial systems. Exeptions maybe for administrative systems
and "office" work such as word processing etc.
I worked for a some time with military computer systems (1996 - 1999). NT4 was
definitely not for critical systems back then. W2K... Haven't worked with it in
that role, so I can't really say. I did believe back then that Linux had some
potential.
Well, there you have it...
Nico.
--
==============
The following signature was created automatically under Linux:
.
When Dexter's on the Internet, can Hell be far behind?"
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 09:37:07 -0500
Saul Goldblatt wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
> > Linux = Yet Another Unix. I think that every one of these Linux cult
> > members should be sentenced to one year of having to perform tech support
> > for end-users of that OS.
>
> There aren't any end users running Linux, at least none that are
> officially supported by the corporate policy. There are however,plenty of
> idiots that take it upon themselves to wipe out the corporate pre-load of
> Windows and "TRY" and use Linux. When they hose up their entire system,
> not to mention flood the network with packets, they call me. I am a
> manager of a technical support help center and unfortunately we have a
> few bad apples that insist upon trying to run Linux on their corporate
> issued PC's.
> It usually ends in disaster.
This is sloppy corporate management of PCs in my opinion. At my company
(a completely Linux based company in fact, except for one Mac in
marketing and one Windows emulator 'VMWare' for directo deposit to
banks) once the OS is loaded, the BIOS is set to only boot from hard
drive and then password protected from any changes. Why don't more
businesses do this. It keeps you from having to explain to users that
they aren't allowed to load other operating systems.
> No, they don't get it and never will. They are too busy fighting editor
> wars and playing with their compilers.
Actually, most of us manage to use Linux to get some damn work done for
a change. I know that's why I switched to it.
>
> > Unix has been around for 30 years and has not "revolutionized" the computer
> > world. It never will because the Unix world is run by cultists rather than
> > business people.
>
> It's run by anti-social, pencil necked geeks who need to get laid more
> often, even if they have to pay for it and chances are good they do.
The anit-social part I won't argue with. Bein social, and being trashy
seem to be about the same thing nowadays. Pencil necked isn't really an
insult. It's a description, and one that doesn't apply to me or most
Linux geeks (most of us are a bit overweight, and for those that aren't,
they probably still aren't 'pencil necked'). As far as getting laid,
I've heard this one a lot and can't quite understand it. I for one am
married (and quite happily thank you very much) and have no trouble in
the "getting laid" department. More than likely all of the people that
proclaim Linux geeks can't get laid are simply jealous because they
realize the Linux people can actually get sex more easily than them.
>
> Tip: Make sure and pick a fresh one!!!
Or just do what real and "sane" people do and find an actual person to
have a "relationship" with. It's not that difficult there you little
Windows loving high-school freak. Believe me, if there's a woman out
there willing to put up with my shit, there's bound to be a woman out
there that can put up with some of you.
>
> Students are another source of Linux supporters. Green, starry eyed
> nymphs who have not a touch of reality having been shielded from the
> reall world for four or five years. They end up being clones of their
> professors, who wouldn't be professors if they actually had any talent.
>
> I see a couple every week here trying to get a job. They are textbook
> idiots with absolutely no grasp on reality.
>
I didn't get into Linux as a student either. I have a job supporting
about 24 Linux workstations and servers. I got into Linux when I was
working in the service department at Gateway. Talk about the real
world. Spending 10 hours a day being told by people what a fucking
idiot you are for not knowing how to fix the problems with Windows was
more than enough incentive to give Linux a go.
> > What a JOKE!!
>
> The joke is on Linux.
>
> Linux = Loser = Waste of time = no interest = sewerage = garbage.
>
We could all play this game:
Windows = illegal = BG's ego = World Domination or else = stupidity =
waste of time = stability issues = (need I go on?)
> Linux is the collective septic system of all of the open sores waste that
> is given away (lord knows they could never sell such junk).
Yeah, wouldn't want to point out the number of web sites running on
"open sores" software now would you.
>
> We just sent out a memo today forbidding any alternative operating
> systems on the corporate personal computers including lap tops.
Ah, a mandate from Billy G. I'm sure Microsoft is very proud of your
decision. Again, a mis-management of corporate systems. If you leave
the system in an easily tampered with state (don't lock people out of
the BIOS and booting from floppy/CDROM) expect it to be tampered with.
Basic security should teach you not to leave the system vulnerable to
such things, but basic security seems to be beyond most IT departments
(sad situation, and one MS actively encourages for some reason).
>
> The only thing Linux has going for it is that it is cheap. I can relate
> to that. After all, "Why pay retail, when you can get it wholesale"?
Especially when the wholesale is actually a better product at a better
price? It'd be neat if just one "Windows is better" post came through
without saying shit that has nothing to do with the OS. But it's always
easier to say we are a bunch of geeks that can't get laid than it is to
find real problems in Linux. There are some problems, and I won't deny
that. But they aren't nearly as bad as some would want people to
think. It's too bad we can't get over this "You suck, you can't even
get sex without paying for it" high schooler attitude and have a genuine
debate.
>
> Saul Goldblatt
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Charles Razzell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Maximum Linux
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:51:28 GMT
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> So, what do you say? Is it 'window
> managers' or 'Windows Managers'?
>
What do you say:
* picture framers or Pictures Framers ?
* car drivers or Cars Drivers ?
* fire fighters or Fires Fighters ?
I'm no gramarian, but I have no hesitation here: window managers!
Charles Razzell.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 20 Jul 2000 14:46:04 GMT
In article <8l4vu0$q5o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is because BASIC was designed about a decade before the structured
> programming movement and about two decades before that object oriented
> programming movement.
Wasn't ALGOL standardised in 1960? (And again in '68!) I also
don't remember when SIMULA was created...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 20 Jul 2000 14:50:50 GMT
In article <8l6k7f$kge$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OOP is not normally suitable for a teaching language - you must
> learn to walk before you can run.
I'd disagree at least partially. You definitely don't want to go
round teaching people bad habits, and you can teach practically with
an OO language as a first (imperative) language provided you do not
jump straight in at the deep end, but introduce other features
(notably arithmetic, variables and structured programming) first.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 20 Jul 2000 14:57:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ attributions trimmed ]
>>> But there are a great many tasks for which it is not really
>>> suitable.
>> Outside of a few performance critical areas, these would be ?
> Anything on a larger scale than "quick & dirty". Or anything
> interfacing with hardware (i.e. drivers).
The real problems with VB are that it is pretty much Windows specific,
and many other languages (even other scripting languages) scale better
to large applications.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Maximum Linux
Date: 20 Jul 2000 15:01:43 GMT
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
: Now, I'm going to pose the question to those of you in here. Which is
: correct? I was always under the impression that it was window manager
: (and plural window managers), but before I write to correct her I
: thought I should see what the concesus is. I'm assuming that her bias
: towards Windows (or the editor's bias towards Windows) made every
: appearance of the window into Windows and the word manager just got
: capitalized along with it. So, what do you say? Is it 'window
: managers' or 'Windows Managers'?
"Windows manager" doesn't sound quite right. Even though the manager
handles multiple X11 windows, the word "window" should remain
singular. Just like while feeders may feed multiple birds, we call
them "bird feeders" and not "birds feeders". So that's one error.
Capitalizing the term is just plain silly. Window managers are a
whole class of products, not a proper name of any particular one.
We don't call Apache a Web Server, but rather a web server.
The error could be the author's, but I'm inclined to believe the
author knew what she was talking about more than the editor did.
So perhaps it was a glitch in editing that resulted in this
bizarre term. But that's just my guess.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
