Linux-Advocacy Digest #909, Volume #27 Mon, 24 Jul 00 08:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm (Marada C.
Shradrakaii)
Re: apache_server config ("Simon")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why use Linux? ("Spud")
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Phillip Lord)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("David Brown")
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Date: 24 Jul 2000 10:13:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm
>Not only will he be saving some money (lots more than $10 I guarantee
>you), he will also have less headaches.
I use an ESS1869. It's not hard to set up, once you understand that you have
to load sound as a module, and run isapnp while booting. This is a break from
my usual 'compile *everything* into the kernel' pattern
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
From: "Simon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: apache_server config
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 09:42:56 +0100
Have a look in /etc/httpd/conf and edit httpd.conf there should be a
line in there for html access that you will need to change to alow.. can't
remember exactly where the line is , but the file as standard is well
commented..
Simon
"Tom Jaeger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l88dv$gso$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Please help I have the same issue but cant find the resolution anywhere.
> Does anyone have the fix???
> Thanks
> Tom Jaeger
>
> Tom G. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8l3b14$30g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > >From windows Pc i am unable to connect to Apache web server ,it is
not
> > > >even showing "It worked".
> >
> > Simon,
> > Take a look at this web site. I am pretty new at this Linux stuff
myself
> > and have been playing around with this stuff at work. (Nice to have
lots
> of
> > toys to learn on and get paid to do it!).
> >
> > http://www.maximumlinux.com/howtos/howto/2000_04_15/apache.html
> >
> > I followed it step by step and connected to it and it worked! It was
just
> > on our internal intranet, but that is what I needed to do.
> >
> > Good luck!
> >
> > Tom
> > - Another newbie!
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 24 Jul 2000 10:30:43 GMT
On 24 Jul 2000 07:33:48 GMT, Loren Petrich wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 23 Jul 2000 18:24:22 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>while some CEO's do try to live up to their job description, others have
>this taste for awarding themselves big bonuses as their businesses fail.
See below.
>>But if he fails, he loses his job faster than you can blink.
>
> More likely, he will vote himself a big bonus and make a run for
>it, after composing a fancy slide presentation that "shows" that his
>company's misfortunes are not his fault.
Not quite so easy in a public company. The level of disclosure and openness
required means that anyone is free to put their spin on the same data
that the CEO uses ( including the internal auditors !
) If the shareholders will let this kind of thing fly, they deserve to
get screwed.
As for the employees, there's nothing stopping them from
becoming shareholders if the company is public. In fact it's in the
interests of the employees as a group to own some company stock.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 03:37:20 -0700
[snips]
"Arthur Frain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Does Win98 have bugs? Yes.
>
> Obviously.
>
> > Does Linux have bugs? Yes.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Does this bear any necessary relation to usability? No.
>
> Wrong - I've pointed out a case where it does.
Which part of "necessary relation" didn't you understand?
> > So, Win98 can't be usable, because it has bugs.
>
> Strawman, at least in my case, because I've never
> said that. My only point is that Win98SE (in this
> case)
See above; you extrapolated from a specific to the general.
> in the networking problems I've had). My daughter
> wants to run Win9x even though she has the option
> of running Linux and finds it as easy to use as
> Windows for some tasks. I don't belittle her
> (or anyone) for making that choice. But neither
> she, nor most anyone I know who runs Win9x, thinks
> it a good product. From the people I know, you're
> in the minority (and even you admit Win9x isn't
> usable for heavier duty applications).
Umm... don't know why I'd be in the minority; I don't, offhand, recall
saying Win9x was _good_.
You seem to think I'm some sort of advocate for Windows products; I'm
not. I could care less what you or anyone else uses. I've used,
among others, Linux, Windows in various flavours, BSD, a largely
home-brew OS for the HP-1000, OS/2, and probably a couple of others I
can't recall offhand. Each has their place, each has their uses.
Is Win98, in any absolute sense, good? No... because "good" is a
relative term. Is Linux "good" if the person I'm trying to get to use
it is my dear old Auntie, who is largely computer illiterate, and her
main purpose in life is sending documents back and forth to her
friends, all of whom use Windows boxes and Office? Probably not. Is
Windows 98 "good" if you're trying to run a server? Nope. Is Windows
NT 4 Server "good" if your intent is to have a home machine primarily
intended as a games machine? Nope.
My position is simply this: use whatever meets your needs... but if
you've chosen something based on those needs, and it in fact doesn't
meet those needs, then don't come crying because it doesn't - why
didn't you either investigate yourself, or ask someone you know who is
computer literate to investigate for you? That and, if you're going
to criticize a tool, criticize it for its real faults, not maufactured
ones.
Example: I've worked on an HP box running Win98 which did have
problems, almost right out of the box. Firing it up in safe mode and
removing all the crud fixed almost all the problems (one remaining
issue turned out to be an application issue.) So, do I fault the OS,
or the people who set it up - in this case by delivering a horribly
messed up install CD? Personally, I fault the folks who set it up -
they're the ones who loaded it down with all that dross. Why is
forcing in a boatload of totally unnecessary drivers, something done
by the person configuring the box, a fault of the OS - which, it might
be noted, will happily install just the drivers it needs, if installed
sensibly?
Simply put, it's not a fault of the OS. Oh, one might make the
argument that the OS should work reasonably reliably anyway... but
does that really deal with the issue? I don't think so. Sure,
perhaps we can agree it should... but if there's a mechanism by which
it will do that anyhow, and in fact that is the default mechanism,
then what, really, is the issue from the OS end?
> In my daughter's case, Linux isn't "usable" for
> her because it doesn't run "the Sims" or whatever
> game it was she bought the other day, it doesn't
> run Photoshop (which she likes better than the
> Gimp), it doesn't run some of the photo software
> that came with her digital camera. That still
> doesn't mean she thinks Win98 is a good OS,
> and I don't think it is either. And Win98 isn't
> "usable" when she can't make the network
> connections necessary to what she wants to do.
Right; so fix the underlying problem.
As far as I'm aware, there is only one piece of hardware in existence
which simply will not function sensibly under Win98, and that's the
internal Sportster 33.6(?) PnP modem. Apparently, for some as-yet
unexplained reason, whenever the machine does a PnP init, the modem
concludes that the resources _it_ is using are in use, and re-maps
itself to different resources, thereby totally hosing your com port
configurations. At least, it's the only piece of hardware I've so far
heard of which had this sort of problem on a reasonably configured
machine.
> I do feel free to ignore you're *apologizing for*
> and *evading* MS's failings. I've already pointed out
> several times that everything was set up correctly,
Did you? You went into Safe Mode and removed all the dross? Again, I
don't recall your saying that, but it's possible I simply overlooked
it.
> and that in fact it should not be possible for
> anyone to create the problems Win98 has been causing
> me.
Actually, it's comparatively easy... HP managed it without overmuch
difficulty on one box I worked on. A couple minute's work cleared it
all up, though.
> I think it's fascinating that you have no idea
> what the system is beyond HP and don't know how it
> was setup, but you're absolutely certain it was
> HP's fault.
Not in the slightest; I've suggested it _may_ be HP's fault - having
gone through that with one of their boxes myself. I've yet to see
anything from you to suggest that in fact it was _not_ their fault.
I've suggested a possible cause, haven't seen - although I may have
missed it - your statement that you followed the methods I laid out to
verify that the box was, in fact, reasonably configured... so as far
as I can tell, the best you can say at this point is "Gee, I don't
know what might be causing it." Try eliminating one possible cause -
by doing what I suggested. Then let's see what happens.
> > Try Mandrake's latest offering. *Every* time I try to configure
the
> > sound card, it freezes the machine solid. Oh, yeah, well, no bugs
> > there requiring workarounds, eh?
>
> Don't use Mandrake. You probably should switch to
> an OS that meets your needs if Mandrake doesn't.
Indeed. I have. I'm also pondering taking a look at Corel's
offering... but given Corel's currently shaky situation, I'm not
entirely certain, even given how good the product is reported to be -
whether it's worth it.
So if Mandrake isn't the way to go, and Corel's too shaky at this
point, what flavour would you suggest?
> That's why I don't use MS products anymore. If
> Windows does what you need, then you should probably
> use it, and I see no reason to critcize you for
> that. Just like I see no reason to pretend that
> Win9x is a quality product - it isn't.
Ah, but that's where you're wrong; it _is_ a quality product. The
problem you're having is that you think "quality" and "good" are
absolutes. Having your teeth drilled is good - if you need to have it
done. The rest of the time, it's generally bad.
Windows 98 is, in fact, a quality product; it is not, however, an
enterprise quality product. Can it be frustrating? Certainly; so can
Linux, big deal. Can it be unstable? Certainly, so can Linux, big
deal. As long as you persist in regarding Windows 98 as if it were
something it's not intended to be, you'll be disappointed. The same
can be said of Linux. Try this for an excercise... set up a Linux
box, then try to run Office 97 on it. What? Doesn't work? Oh, well,
pathetic, isn't it?
Windows 98 is _not_ Linux. It's not as stable, nor does it have some
of Linux's features. It does, however, allow most home users to do
what they want to do, failry easily and with, generally, a minimum of
hassle. You happen to have run into one of the more annoying
situations with Win98... one that I've also run into (not the exact
same issue, but similar) and I suspect that, in your case as well as
mine, it's lazy vendors configuring things to make their lives easier,
rather than doing it right, which is the cause of your headaches.
It's but one of many reasons I suggest people avoid vendor-provided
"solutions", and not just of Windows systems, but in general.
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: 24 Jul 2000 12:20:10 +0100
>>>>> "Stefaan" == Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stefaan> XML/SGML can be compared to PCL (a data stream with
Stefaan> exceptions triggered by escape sequences). What we really
Stefaan> need is a Postscript-like approach, where the data are
Stefaan> produced as a result of running a program. Databases of all
Stefaan> ilk, spreadsheets etc would all have this "DataScript"
Stefaan> interface, and interpret the data in an appropriate way.
>> You've lost me here. I don't see how this differs from what XML
>> could provide.
Stefaan> PostScript is first and foremost a language, but a language
Stefaan> tailored to producing page descriptions. IMVHO, we need a
Stefaan> similar approach to storing and transmitting data
Okay.
Stefaan> - a DBMS would import the data in appropriate tables
Stefaan> - a spreadsheet would show the data as a graph, or sheet
Stefaan> - validation rules would be embedded in the data
Stefaan> - data produced for visualization could contain its own
Stefaan> display routines
The thing is that XML achieves most of these things I think.
Its relatively trivial to write code to import data into and from a
RDBMS into XML and vice versa (relation tables have a natural tree
representation). XML includes the ability for data validation (I think
its a little primitive, although perhaps I just have not got
completely into it yet!). These rules are not embedded in the data,
but I don't think that they should be...you might want the same rules
for multiple pieces of data. Ditto the last point. Data should not be
restricted to visualisation. The data and the way you show it should
be separate. Hence sytle sheets...
Phil
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 13:31:28 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>>This discussion has got way too long to continue as it stands - I suggest
a
>>big snip, and a change of format before continuing.
>
>Cool by me. Thanks for the indulgence.
>
I take it we agreed on points 1-4? That's what I call progress! (Or maybe
I should call it "innovation"?)
> [...]
>>In the real world, where no body bothered about the illegal practices of
MS
>>(although they were convicted at one point, the "sentence" was basically
to
>>promise not to do it again, and even that was never enforced), the easiest
>>path to success was through crime. Competition would only have slowed him
>>down, so it was eliminated in whatever way was most convenient at the
time.
>>
>>In our hypothetical world in which crime is not tolerated (including crime
>>by other companies, so that no one else could use the old MS's tactics),
>>this would not work. But we can be reasonably sure that, given the
>>characteristics 2) to 4), BG would succeed at making a rich and powerful
>>company. He might fail, but he would not give up easily. Without the
help
>>of crime, this company (MS, or whatever it were called) would not be in
>>nearly the same position as MS today, but it would still be a solid,
>>successful company. It may even be several semi-independant companies.
>
>Is it going to piss you off when I disagree? It doesn't matter whether
>he would ever give up; what matters is that unethical and criminal
>behavior is the only thing he knows. The "several semi-independant
>companies" in collusion to maintain and grow a market is called
>"collusion", and it is as illegal as monopolization or restraint of
>trade.
I think, if there was no other choice, he would learn success without
criminal behaviour. I doubt if he could succeed without unethical behaviour
(you might, if you try hard enough, be able to dig up examples of successful
(in terms of money, fame and power - not my idea of successful, but
certainly BG's idea) self-made people who have not bent the law beyond
breaking point, but very few have "made it" without being unethical). It
would be extremly difficult to enforce the law, but that was our assumption
in this discussion.
>
>You've admitted that he's a megalomaniac, and all but admitted that MS
>(whatever MS) doesn't write good software; they just sell software good.
>So where again does the 'able to compete in a free market' part come
>from?
>
MS took the easiest path to success. All I am saying is that if that was
blocked off, they would take a different road. We all agree that they do
not write good, competitive software at the moment. All I am saying is that
if they had to, perhaps (note - I am entertaining a possibility, not trying
to claim a fact) they *could* if they *had* to.
>>So how would this new MS achieve its success? It cannot break the law,
and
>>the law is designed to promote competition and protect the consumers. It
>>cannot force its software on people through illegal contracts - it must
>>compete for its market share. There are many ways to do this, and you can
>>be sure that, given characteristic 4), BG will avoid competion where
>>possible. But unless the laws are critically lacking in substance, there
is
>>no doubt that the new MS would have to compete fairly in some markets
>>(whether it be competing directly for consumers, or for OEM support, or
for
>>developers support).
>
>Well, at least we've got a more explicit debate, suitably abstracted to
>be good flame-war material. You don't even have to like Bill Gates to
>join in the "religious" argument about whether he *could* compete, or
>whether he just *hasn't* competed.
>
>I'm of the mind that BG, and MS, are incapable entirely of competing.
>Left with no option of dominating through anti-competitive tactics, they
>would essentially be non-existent. I guess you're statement 4) I'd have
>to quibble with. It should read "BG will avoid competition." Note the
>period.
>
My original statements were:
1) When discussing where MS would be, we are really talking about where BG
would be.
2) BG is a meglomaniac. He wants power and money, and has a much stronger
drive to achieve that ambition than most people.
3) He is very resourceful. He is an excellent marketer and salesman. He is
intelligent (I don't want to discuse how intelligent, but he is certainly
not stupid). He understands the computing market and market forces.
4) He wants to get rich fast, and has no scrouples
Surely you are not arguing with 4) ? You want to add a new "fact":
5) BG will avoid competition.
I don't think that is valid, as it is outside BG's control. I happily agree
with "BG will avoid competition whenever possible", but it does have to be
conditional. You can't write "BG will avoid being assasinated by a rapid
a.d.m.'er", because he cannot control it. You have to add "if possible."
>>Now, please let me know if there is anything you strongly disagree with in
>>points 1) to 4). I think they are general enough to be considered valid
>>both in the real world and in the hypothetical law-abiding world. Then
>>think about my conclusions, which are based almost solely on these facts.
>>Then re-read them and think about them some more. Then write a reply.
Read
>>through that reply, delete all the details of what MS has done wrong and
all
>>the "you're wrong because I'm always right" parts, and explain exactly
what
>>is wrong with my reasoning.
>
>We're really back in the same position: where is any evidence at all, or
>even a hint of a suggestion for that matter, that BG is *capable* of
>competing in a lawful environment? I'm not saying "you're wrong because
>there is none." I'm saying "IS THERE????" Because I'm not aware of it,
>and as ignorance is my only enemy (everyone else just has the wrong
>impression), I'd like to know if there is such a thing. You are
>obviously hypothesizing that there is, as there must be for your theory
>to be sound. Please, please, please. Put up or explain why you can't,
>but we should still consider that there might be some reason to believe
>that MS would exist without criminal behavior.
>
You are saying that there is no evidence that BG could compete in a lawful
environment; I cannot give you any good evidence that he can (the snipets of
circumstantial evidence that I can provide are outweighed by the torents of
anti-competitive evidence). But that does not imply that he could not
compete - it just means that we do not know that he could. My theory is
that BG will do what it takes to succeed. If he were put in a situtation
where the only way to succeed were to compete lawfully, then he would try
that. As there is no evidence to the contrary, my theory must stand as a
real possibility. I don't claim it to be anything more than a possibility,
but you have no proof against it, as by your own admission, the situation I
suggested has never arisen. We can disagree on how likely it is, but you
cannot reasonably claim it to be impossible.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 07:06:21 -0500
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Well, Unix doesn't have full remote administration anyways. There are
often
> >tasks which need to be carried out on the console, usually in something
like
> >single-user mode. Also consider a kernel recompile which causes the
kernel
> >to panic or simply hangs upon reboot. You have to go to the console for
> >that.
>
> *BZZT*
> Under linux at least, a serial port can be your "console" so you can
compile,
> boot, tinker and play all you want at the other end of that serial line,
> wherever in the world you want that to be.
Serial ports don't have more than a few hundred feet of distance on them at
best. I suppose if you attach hardware that converts it to ethernet with a
terminal server of some sort it could work, but then you're off into 3rd
party solutions, which similar solutions exist for NT.
> >I liken X to the windows GDI, or the OS/2 GPI. That's not quite correct
> >though, since X also includes some things from the windows USER. No, X
> >doesn't include your wigits, and it doesn't include your window managers.
> >But it does include the basic GUI functionality.
>
> And don't forget network transparancy.
Irrelevant to this portion of the discussion.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
