Linux-Advocacy Digest #586, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 08:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? (Stuart Fox)
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? (Stuart Fox)
Re: refrigerator using Linux? (Karri Kalpio)
Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet! (2:1)
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? (2:1)
Re: refrigerator using Linux? (Stuart Fox)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451780 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? (Stuart Fox)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 07:49:20 GMT
In article <8nuvtl$kii$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At the other end of the spectrum, RAID 5 SCSI systems require time to
> poll and settle the SCSI bus, servers often need to be synchronized,
> dynamic configuration parameters such as DHCP take a few seconds,
> synching up the browsers, and initiating servers that require
secondary
> authentication such as LDAP or Kerberos add even more time.
About 1-2 minutes to sort out a Compaq RAID 5 array - but they seem a
bit smarter than some...
>
> Typically, when I look at the logs for these systems, the shutdown
time
> to startup times on key services averages about 10 minutes. Once in a
> while, such as during an unscheduled outage such as a BSOD, Lock-up,
or
> overloaded partition, the recovery process can take quite a bit longer
> (since the RAID may have to recalculate checksums).
I'm willing to accept 10 minutes as reasonable - which is certainly a
reduction from your claim of one hour.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 07:53:37 GMT
In article <q6Ko5.7416$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> More lack of knowledge on your part Rex. The NT4 CD shipped with
MIPS,
> ALPHA, and PPC as well as x86. 3.51 didn't have an Alpha port, and
> considering that NT was *DEVELOPED* on MIPS and ported to x86, it
makes your
> statement even more ludicrous.
>
Actually NT 3.51 did have an Alpha port - we ran it for quite a long
time at a customer site. Of course, the app we were running on it was
a piece of shite, so the performance gains of running on Alpha were
almost completely lost....
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Karri Kalpio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: refrigerator using Linux?
Date: 23 Aug 2000 11:15:24 +0300
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Karri Kalpio wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > my .sig doesn't interfere with readability.
> >
> > It does interfere with the netiquette, however.
>
> "netiquette" was written in the days of 10MB hard drives and 300 bit/sec
> modems.
>
> Get over it.
Internet (and USENET) were developed that time. They are still here.
Some things do not change.
Netiquette defined the good behaviour that time. It still does. Some
things do not change.
--karri
--
/"\ : Karri Kalpio
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X Against HTML Mail : [+358] (40) 5926895 (mobile)
/ \ : [+358] (9) 75111771 (work)
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:40:09 GMT
In article <TJHo5.2413$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"DES" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am an average guy who also got fed up with MS and decided to give
Linux a
> try. Being an average guy I guessed I would need help so paid Red Hat
for
> their 6.2 Delux version which came with telephone help for 30 days.
Yes I
> did RTFM and you know what I found!!! A whole new bloody language!!!
For
> those of you new to Linux; "Image" now means "copy", "Server" now
means
> "driver" etc. At least Mrs Gates little boy tried to make things easy
for
> us!
No, you didn't find a new language, you found a different language. This
hes its roots very clearly in UNIX, making it an older languae than the
one spoken by Microsoft. So, why exactly should Bill G sticking to his
own language be in any way different to the linux world stickling to
_its_ own language?
How does image mean copy---in what circumstances (disk image? that's a
copy of sorts, but a specific type and deserved a more descriptive name)
And where does 'server' mean 'driver'. I have never encountered this
one.
> Give me a break, keep yor eye on your objective instead of trying to
spite
> MS. Make it easy for Joe Public.
You're the one with his eye way off the objective. If we wanted to spite
MS then we would make it as easy for Joe Public as possible to try to
steal as many users. Most of us don't want that, what we want is a
stable, powerful OS that lets us do what we want[1]. Since the OS is
made by us, we get what we want.
How long have been using Windows for? My guess is several years. Now you
are expecting to have the same proficiency with linux after 30 days as
you do with windows after years. I think that you are expectiong too
much.
[1] Having a erally powerful OS and having one that is accessible to Joe
Public has so far prooven impossible. Sure I would like it if it were
possible, but I'd rather have an OS that lets me get the most out of nmy
ageing hardware than one that is easy for someone with no experience to
use.
-Ed
**************DISCLAIMER*******************
These are _OPINIONS_. If you don't agree, remember that they are
_OPINIONS_.
--
BBC Computer 32K
Acorn DFS
Basic
>*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 09:55:49 GMT
In article <8nvvls$ob5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8nuvtl$kii$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[quoted from earlier post in this thread]
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 07:32:54 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Furthermore, with operating systems consuming 100
> > > > >megabytes and taking nearly 10 minutes to reboot
[end quote from earlier post in this thread]
> > At the other end of the spectrum, RAID 5 SCSI systems require time
to
> > poll and settle the SCSI bus, servers often need to be synchronized,
> > dynamic configuration parameters such as DHCP take a few seconds,
> > synching up the browsers, and initiating servers that require
> secondary
> > authentication such as LDAP or Kerberos add even more time.
>
> About 1-2 minutes to sort out a Compaq RAID 5 array - but they seem a
> bit smarter than some...
> >
> > Typically, when I look at the logs for these systems, the shutdown
> time
> > to startup times on key services averages about 10 minutes. Once in
a
> > while, such as during an unscheduled outage such as a BSOD, Lock-up,
> or
> > overloaded partition, the recovery process can take quite a bit
longer
> > (since the RAID may have to recalculate checksums).
>
> I'm willing to accept 10 minutes as reasonable - which is certainly a
> reduction from your claim of one hour.
I Snippped/pasted my exact quote from the initial posting that
triggered this entire subthread. I said it took 10 minutes
to reboot a large NT server. In fact, I even understated my
case. Most NT Servers I've dealt with recently seem to need
about 1-2 GIGABYTES of RAM and take 10 minutes to reboot.
And although Windows 2000 is much FASTER, it requires much more
RAM than NT 4.0 did. I've managed to milk decent performance out
of Win2K by using a dedicated swap drive and 128 Meg of RAM, but
that swap is VERY Busy. Most single drive systems need around 256 meg
of RAM for Workstations and at LEAST 1 gig for Enterprise Edition.
Add to this, nearly 1-3 gig of swap space.
I have several Linux servers that run quite comfortably in 64 Meg plus
as large (128 meg) swap area. High performance workstations running
Netscape with Memory leaks tends to suck up more memory.
Many Linux 1.2 kernels had LIMITS of 64 meg and 128 meg swap.
These were the grand-daddys of many of today's most popular web
sites (many of which upgraded to Solaris BECAUSE of those limitations).
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:18:09 GMT
> Windows 2000 brings the experience Microsoft has gained since 1997
> to bear on it's design. Essentially, Windows 2000 is comarable in
> quality and experience to AT&T System III. I would even say that
> Windows 2000 is even better than AT&T System III or Berkely 2.1.
has a little more overhead though...
> Had K&R known about Multics,
> they wouldn't have bothered with UNIX - but Multics would have
> probably been more like Open Source too.
Hey, that's poppycock. K&R new about multics. The multics project was
abandoned and some of it's members (K and Thom(p?)son) decided that they
wanted a decent multi tasking etc etc OS and took some of the ideas from
multics to create UNIX. In fact, 'UNIX' is a joke on the name Multics.
> Attempts to port NT 3.51 to MIPS, Alpha, PPC, and 68000 were so
> bad (lack of ISV support) that NT 4.0 was only ported to the ALPHA.
> And now, Windows 2000 isn't even available on the ALPHA.
NT4 ships with PPC and Mips ports. However, I know someone who tried to
install one on a PPC. Nedless to say, it never showed any hope of
working. Calling them ports is misleading. Hopeful attempts is more
accurate.
> Of course, UNIX and the X Consortium had just come out with the
> R3 release of X11 which contained "Widgets". Widgets made programming
> GUIs much easier. About the time Windows 3.1 came out, X11/R4 was
> touting not only X11 but the resource database (like the registry),
> that could be initialized using app-defaults files).
I thought Xtk(+ athena) was avaliable before R3.
>
> Under X11R4, communication between clients such as text editors or
> drafting tools and clients such as window managers had been
> stanadardized.
Cut buffers were a standard method of communication before R4 (although
not to WMs)
> > IPC cannot cause deadlocks in and of itself.
> > If your apps don't use any kind of synchronization
> > (such as a semaphore or mutex), then the deadlock is
> > your own fault.
IPC can cause deadlocks if not properly synchronised.
-Ed
--
BBC Computer 32K
Acorn DFS
Basic
>*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: refrigerator using Linux?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:33:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mind setting your line length to 70 columns or thereabouts, so that
> people can read your posts...
>
Mind setting your sig to a few lines, so that other people don't waste
bandwidth on your posts...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451780
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:40:51 GMT
Here's today's Malloy digest. Notice how he's ignored the evidence
for the fact that he likes to "hear" himself, as well as the
evidence for his reading comprehension problem. Nor did he explain
why he's ignored Slava's question. And he's still plagued with the
illogical conclusion that a response to someone who used an incorrect
attribution must mean that the attribution was really correct in the
first place, failing to comprehend how someone can recognize their
own text, despite a misattribution.
172> Here's today's Tholen digest. Notice how he's ignored the evidence for the
172> fact that he likes to "hear" himself, as well as the evidence for his
172> reading comprehension problem. Nor did he explain why he's reiterated
172> Slava's question -- guess he's running out of his own limited supply. To
172> the digest!
172>
172> [Nope, Tholen has yet to say anything new.]
172>
172> Thanks for reading!
173> "Little man" Tholen makes an attempt to communicate but finds that he
173> doesn't know how to do that simple thing:
173>
173> No, (little man), he's identified you perfectly, witness the fact that you
173> responded to him.
173>
173> No, (little man), he's identified you perfectly, witness the fact that you
173> responded to him.
==========
Malloy likes to hear himself. The evidence:
"I take it Tholen has attempted to digest me, but since no message
to that effect appears on my newserver today, I present an oldie:"
--Joe Malloy
Maybe it's because he has trouble seeing. The evidence:
"Where does he say anything about clergy, Tholen?"
--Joe Malloy
"It follows from your pontificating actions and the discussion
of the clergy..."
--Eric Bennett
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 10:43:34 GMT
In article <8o0730$av$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I Snippped/pasted my exact quote from the initial posting that
> triggered this entire subthread. I said it took 10 minutes
> to reboot a large NT server. In fact, I even understated my
> case. Most NT Servers I've dealt with recently seem to need
> about 1-2 GIGABYTES of RAM and take 10 minutes to reboot.
"On some of the really big systems, I have to wait for as much as an
hour from boot to fully functional availability."
>
> And although Windows 2000 is much FASTER, it requires much more
> RAM than NT 4.0 did. I've managed to milk decent performance out
> of Win2K by using a dedicated swap drive and 128 Meg of RAM, but
> that swap is VERY Busy. Most single drive systems need around 256 meg
> of RAM for Workstations and at LEAST 1 gig for Enterprise Edition.
> Add to this, nearly 1-3 gig of swap space.
Our Win2K Advanced Server Systems run on 256MB for the most part - and
about 300MB or page file. Of course, we haven't got any huge memory
hogging running applications on them - at the moment it's just basic
file & network services, serving about 80GB worth of data.
Win2K professional ran on my laptop faster than NT 4.0 ever did - in 96
MB of memory. The only blue screen I ever had was with InoculateIT...
>
> I have several Linux servers that run quite comfortably in 64 Meg plus
> as large (128 meg) swap area. High performance workstations running
> Netscape with Memory leaks tends to suck up more memory.
>
Linux certainly does have lower memory requirements. Given that memory
is so cheap it really isn't an issue
> Many Linux 1.2 kernels had LIMITS of 64 meg and 128 meg swap.
> These were the grand-daddys of many of today's most popular web
> sites (many of which upgraded to Solaris BECAUSE of those
limitations).
>
Which shows somewhat of a lack of foresight - I guess that's less
likely to happen these days.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 23 Aug 2000 11:15:48 GMT
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:02:14 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>You mean there is no per-copy licensing fees?
Correct.
> Well, that's a slightly
>different story then. But it does bring into question where those who
>produced KDE are expecting to make up for the cost.
No, it doesn't. KDE IS A FREE SOFTWARE PROJECT !!! I mean, free as in 99%
of the KDE software is GPL, the other 1% is released under artistic or
BSD-like licenses.
> Dammit, *somebody*
>should be making money.
Troll Tech, the makers of QT, are making money.
> Where's it coming from?
Sales of the "professional edition" of QT.
>>No more than you do by using GPL'd software.
>
>Then why isn't it GPL?
Because Troll Tech wanted their library to be available to the authors of
proprietary software for a fee. Basically, they wanted to be able to sell
it, but they wanted it to be free for free software authors.
>I use these discussions, in fact, as the most expedient and (bizarrely
>enough) efficient method of finding out what is going on. You see,
Perhaps you could use dejanews ! I mean this issue has been beaten to
death which is partly why I'm displaying less than my usual level of
patience.
>'balls' in posting 'drivel', but I am not going to apologize for not
>knowing something that an average person wouldn't know. An average
It's OK to be ignorant, but it's not OK to launch poorly founded personal
attacks on developers from a state of ignorance.
>>You're forgetting that Roberto, and the KDE people use QT because it is
>>FREE SOFTWARE.
>
>Maybe "free" as in "free beer", but not *quite* free as in "free
>software".
How do you consider it to be "not" free ?
>So, if you would be so kind, could you explain "this issue", in your own
>words?
I believe that initially, there were concerns about what would happen if
Troll Tech went out of business because there were fears that if this
happened, QT would be orphaned and no one would be able to fix it. TT have
now addressed the issue and it's not a concern. The main "issues" ( if you
want to call them that ) are
(a) restrictions on forking the software, and
(b) vague mumblings about QT being "incompatible" with the GPL.
(a) is a non-issue in practice, as very few projects are forked,
(b) is not an issue about free software, it's an issue regarding
whether it makes sense to license KDE software under the GPL,
or if a slightly different license needs to be used instead.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 23 Aug 2000 11:27:05 GMT
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:11:54 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>So what did they require, what does QT require, what did they require,
>what did they change, when did they change it, what didn't they change,
>why didn't they change it, how much is the "professional edition"
>license, and where do you plan to make that money back?
If you don't know the answer, you should lower the tone of your posts
to one that is somewhat less aggressive. You are basically launching
attacks from a position of ignorance, and then getting upset when the
guy you attack points out your ignorance instead of trying to
educate you. Perhaps a less combative approach would elicit mor helpful
answers.
> Others have not
>been so reticent in providing information, you see, and this only
>highlights how difficult you are being in this discussion.
May I remind you that you are the one who called him a "whore", not the
other way around. And then you are demanding he politely explain in great
detail why he is not a "whore" instead of simply dismissing your
"arguments" on the grounds that they are founded on verifiably false
assertions.
>whether you do or not. So give it up: what *are* you seeking to make
>money on. I doubt they're paying your salary through philanthropic
>sentiment.
KDE DOES NOT PAY ANYONE'S SALARY. IT IS A FREE, NOT FOR PROFIT SOFTWARE
PROJECT. Roberto does *NOT* work for Troll Tech. Roberto writes or
used to write KDE software, on a completely voluntary basis.
>>It's so free you could link it to GPL code, and the GPL would
>>be the license deciding the distribution restrictions.
>
>Well, see, that's true of *all* software, according to the FSF. So the
Wrong again, ambassador of the clueless. Stallman's position, is that code that
is linked to a library is a "derivative work" of that library. A somewhat
controversial position no doubt. In any case, it's clear that software that is
licensed under the GPL is not meant to be linked to be non-GPL software.
There is another license, the LGPL, which explicitly allows linking, to
other software, and those that wish to allow this use the LGPLand not the
GPL.
>information only in the breach; could you (or somebody) tell me what's
>going on?
He was not being obtuse.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 23 Aug 2000 11:30:24 GMT
On Wed, 23 Aug 2000 01:13:03 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Well, yes it does, Roberto. Does QT pay your salary?
In case you haven't got it yet, QT is a widget set, not an organisation.
QT dialog boxes do not jump out of the screen and hand you money when
you use the kit ( though I wouldn't mind if they did ). QT are made
by a company called "Troll Tech", who do pay salaries. But they do
not pay the KDE developers ( such as Roberto ). KDE is a free, not for
profit project.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
