Linux-Advocacy Digest #747, Volume #28 Wed, 30 Aug 00 04:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Courageous)
Re: Just converted ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Mark
Ritchie)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Ok, yeah, Visual Basic sucks, but... (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: businesses are psychopaths (Stefaan A Eeckels)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 05:50:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Missed the original post:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >
> > On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:42:12 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8ogic1
$b4d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >
> > >> I think we should try and move all common admin tasks to a web
> > >> interface. Imagine linuxconf running in Nestcape...
>
> Linuxconf already does that.
Cool! How? A link to a howto or similar will be sufficient, thanks!!!
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 06:19:44 GMT
> >If you truly understand this to be true, you can describe,
> >in simple English, the simple accounting to make this happen.
>
> He didn't say it was easy *or* simple. Are you saying it isn't
> possible?
No, what I am saying is that if someone can't present how
it's possible, then they don't have an argument. All I have
seen is hyperbole. How about you?
C//
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Just converted
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 06:06:36 GMT
In article <hFkp5.7599$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8o2l5j$s3g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > While the Windows 9x TCP/IP stack is a poor performer, it has no
> > problems
> > > with 1Mb/s. My old cable modem under 98 routinely pushed 1.5-
3Mb's
> > without
> > > blinking an eye. Internally, I've gotten as much as 50Mb/s on a
100bT
> > > network. (I'm not bragging about anything here, these are poor
> > numbers, but
> > > nowhere near as poor as you claim).
> > >
> > > There must be some other issue here if this is true.
> >
> > No other issues - Linux performs better on networks right through
the
> > bank. I have plenty examples on site.
>
> You clearly did not read the post. It was claimed that Windows
couldn't
> transfer more than 200kb/s. This is clearly wrong.
>
> > > The only reason why this might be true is if you are using some
kind
> > of
> > > firewall that is sensitive to Windows generated packets.
> >
> > You will be amazed at the speed difference in dial-up access between
> > Windows and Linux boxes. The past weekend a budy and me tried it
out -
> > a Windows 98 box with 550MHz AMD and 128MB RAM vs a Linux box with
> > 400MHz AMD and 64MB RAM. We first connected with the Windows machine
> > and checked how long it took to download the Norton Antivirus Update
> > Files (each about 2.5MB). We then did exactly the same on the Linux
> > box. In both instances we used the command line FTP applications.
Linux
> > performed very roughly 166% faster.
>
> You realize that two dialup connections can route entirely
differently. You
> may not even connect at the same speed, and even if you do, line
conditions
> can change causing the modem to retrain (and lose performance).
>
> Dialup connections are simply not a good benchmark for many reasons.
> Additionally, default TCP/IP settings (which can be changed) may be
> different between systems. For instance, a larger recieve window
will give
> better performance on clean lines, but poorer performance on dirty
lines
> than a smaller window.
>
> > Now, I know this was not very scientific (we only had one tel. line
to
> > start with, so the connection was not simultanious). But still -
after
> > a whole weekend of experimenting the Linux box was consistantly
faster
> > then the the Windows box.
>
> Did you bother to tweak the MTU and receive windows?
>
> > We are now trying to org. a better benchmark run. Two tel. line for
> > example will be a must! I will keep this ng updated...
>
> Telephone lines are simply not going to be accurate. Two calls from
the
> same line can give vastly different performance on the same machine.
>
>
Playing with the MTU settings was a waste of time... I did it last
night after someone else also suggested it. I can't seem to get a
consistant increase in speed.
As for the tel. line, yes... We have eventually got a place with two
lines, running to the same exchange. Our plan is to set-up and optimize
both Win and Linux boxes on Saterday and start the *big* download on
Sunday. The plan is to connect to one of our local RH mirrors and
download the entire RH6.2 via FTP (or a large portion of it). This
download will take some hours, but I think we will get a good picture
of the average speeds at the end of the day. The only other concern I
have now is that our boxes is not standard (HW wise). I still have a
couple of days to dish up two identical stations. Hope I get
something...
I'll keep you posted.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 02:21:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:35:27 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 20:46:55 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>> >> -Children are already the responsibility of their parents.
>>> >>
>>> >> And children are punished for the sins of their parents?
>>> >
>>> >Darwinism in action.
>>>
>>> Darwinism is about "survival of the fittest", not "survival of the fattest".
>>
>>Those who can't feed themselves and their children are not fit.
>>QED.
>
>Again, you make the flawed assumption that the unfitness of the parents
>implies the unfitness of their children.
Darwinism is not "survival of the fittest". That's the "law of the
jungle". Darwinism is "survival of those who survive", which is even
bloodier and more ruthless, if slower. Neither is a fit social model.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 02:40:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Sometimes high intelligence isn't even the most important criterion;
>> good communication skills or initiative can be more valuable in certain
>> positions. You'd almost certainly be doing yourself a disservice by
>> pre-screening applicants based on IQ.
>
>So why do we need laws for this? If companies hire inappropriately
>qualified employees, they'll suffer for it at the hand of the free
>market when their competitors are all doing a better job.
Well, I'd assume the laws weren't written to protect the companies
profitability.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 02:45:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Marion in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> On what grounds do you make the claim that "basic reading, writing,
>> mathematics and history" have suffered ?
>
>Not that I think it was for the reasons he said that they are suffering, but
>one only has to look at the countless people graduating from High Schools in
>the country that can't even read at an adult level to know that something is
>seriously wrong. Lack of money likely isn't it either... I think it's
>probably more like sorry misuse of funds by the school boards.
My guess is we've over-estimated the average adult level. ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Mark Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 06:54:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snippage>
>> Yes, you have to give him credit for that. He doesn't buy the
>> "government should stay out of your life but we're going to pass laws
>> forcing our religious/moral values on you" Republican hypocrisy.
>
>
>What part of Liberty is so difficult to digest?
The torch.
It gives me gas.
--
Mark A Ritchie
http://members.home.net/knowbodies/index.html
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 02:16:41 -0500
"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Win95 is a pig in 8M, much slower than Win3x.
>
> It's a total pig. I read through the rest of the messages posted in
> this thread so far before replying, I have yet to see anyone even
> claim to have run win95 in 4 megs themselves. I did. I had a number of
> IBM PS/Vs, 486SX25 with 4 megs ram. I often used one for server
> administration. My requirements were very minimal - telnet, calc, and
> notepad. This worked in Win3.1.
>
> I reformatted the disk on one of these and installed 95 on it within a
> month or two of release. It started swapping with *nothing* running...
> click on Start and wait for 5+ seconds while it churns the disk before
> the menu starts to draw... I am not kidding. It was NOT usable. 3.1
> was, on the same hardware. I reformatted and reinstalled the old 3.1
> from an image on the server the same night, naturally.
And how does that compare to the start menu under Windows 3.1? What? There
is no start menu under Windows 3.1? Gee, maybe you're comparing apples to
oranges. Remember, Windows 95's installation allowed you to install program
manager as the default shell, which reduced memory requirements by about 4
megs. Yes, it still swapped in 4Meg, but since Win95 was so much faster
than Windows 3.1 at things like file access it more than compensated for it.
> After testing each of the configurations we had, it was determined
> that 95 was only useful on the machines with 16 megs, which ran
> particular large windows programs that were very bad for using up all
> the heap space. It did help there I must admit. But it certainly was
> not usable in 4 megs. It wasn't even an advantage on the 16 meg
> machines that were used primarily for Dbase - we were still using the
> DOS version of Dbase, which was faster and leaner than the windows
> version and of course didn't use any special windows heap space.
This is complete bullshit. I ran Windows 95 in 4Meg as my default system
for 3 months, and ran it on a 486DX2/66 with 8Megs for another 6 months
after that. It was more than useable, especially compared to windows 3.1.
Coming from a P800 today it would seem unbearable, but when your
alternatives are worse, your perspectives change.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 02:26:28 -0500
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8oh5ta$4ld$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > On a 386 or 486 with 4 MB of memory, Win95 is just as fast as Win 3.1
> is.
> > Win95 is *MUCH* faster than Win 3.1 if you give it a few more megs.
> >
> > We're talking Windows 95 without anything else. No IE, no FAT32,
> whatever.
>
> I've used win311 on a PII/233m it was blindingly fast. But we're going
> in circles here. I guess your experience differs from mine.
Win311 on a PII/233 is *NOT* the same as Win311 on a 4MB 386. Performance
does not scale downward, since many factors effect how well something works
in less memory.
> > Explorer can be configured to put the root directory anywhere. And
> you can
> How do you do that?
> That said, it works differently from the normal instances of it.
>
> > in fact go up higher if you enable the toolbar. You can click the
> "up"
> > button or choose with the path combobox.
>
> That doesn't work on this computer. I just tried it.
It certainly works here.
> > > That's another inconsistency. it uses a slightly different instanec
> of
> > > explorer top edit it, if invoked from there,
> >
> > No, it doesn't. It's exactly the same.
>
> The explorer opened from start->open and start->setings... have the root
> directories in different places. That is not consistent. I don't care if
> it is good or bad---it _is_ incosistent.
That's because one is opened in explorer mode, while the other is opened in
folder mode. They are both rooted in the same place, they just give you
different "views".
> > > You cannot just drag an icon to a running app on the taskbar. You
> drag
> >
> > Apps don't "run" on the taskbar. The taskbar is just a button bar
> with
> > process names. It makes no sense to drop icons on buttons.
>
> Running apps have buttons on the task bar. It makes sense to drop
> something on to the icon of a running app. These are avaliable on the
> task bar only, so it makes sense to drop things on to icons (or buttons
> if you wish) on the task bar.
It makes no sense to drop things on buttons, and task bar buttons are just
that, buttons.
> > No, you simply cannot drag files onto buttons, anywhere in Win95.
>
> You should be able to drop things on to an icon of a running program.
> For most purposes, the buttons in the start bar do not behave like most
> buttons (right lcick and DnD ish), so why should you not be able to drag
> stuff on to them. OK, so having some buttons that work with DnD is not
> very consistent, but they are already unlike most buttons.
You can right click on buttons. You can even double right click buttons.
Buttons have no facility to recieve drop messages and never have.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 02:33:01 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ohi5v$1la$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Measuring 'telnet servers' and 'sockets' running in kernel space
against
> >> video drivers running in kernel space betrays your extreme inexperience
> >> in this area. You've just argued against yourself.
> >
> > Please explain the difference then. I doubt you can.
>
> /oversimplifiedforeaseofunderstanding:
>
> Socket operations are *much* littler.
Are they? The standard vga driver for NT is 15k. How big is the typical
TCP/IP stack and sockets libraries (not to mention telnet code) for unix?
> >> > Actually, I believe the Mac design is clearly inferior. The apple
> > design
> >> > forces you to move the mouse to the top of the screen everytime you
want
> > to
> >> > use a menu.
> >>
> >> You are misinformed. When was the last time you used MacOS? (or read
the
> >> instructions?)
> >
> > Gee.. I don't know what having a menu at the top of the screen means
> > otherwise.
>
> You can get there with keyboard shortcuts, and you have been able to since
> at least 7.0.1 (when I started regularly using macos)
We're not talking about keyboard shortcuts. We're talking about where the
menu is situated and how that is more or less difficult to use *WITH THE
MOUSE*.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ok, yeah, Visual Basic sucks, but...
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 07:12:16 GMT
In article <8ogbnv$n3q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You've hit on the reason VB is so popular. It is very easy to make
fairly
> advanced apps. in no time. (Not to say chat is advanced.)
>
> I myself have never wanted to learn VB
> because I'm just principally against
> code a 'real' app. or system in VB.
> Yet all of my co-IT-workers swear by
> it. I prefer rock-bottom C coding myself.
> Although I do most of my
> programming in ASP/SQL/DHTML/Javascript/COM. Hmmmm...
>
> I'm now checking out C#, MS' new language
> that is supposedly a competitor to
> Java. The good news is that it is a
> true standard, ie. they have submitted
> specs. to W3C.
Excuse me. Microsoft submitted DCOM to IETF too, but that
doesn't mean that it became a "Standard" - as in a multiplatform
standard that could be implemented completely in open-source.
As it is, the only function the IETF standard provides is the
language used for the OMG draft for DCOM<->CORBA mapping.
What can be implemented on UNIX is such a small subset of
DCOM, it wasn't worth the bother to anyone but Microsoft
(whose strategy was to relegate UNIX to a back-end dumb-server).
> And MS has no license on C# either, so anybody can create
> their own version for free if they want and/or sell it too
> commercially.
Are you saying that Microsoft is putting this code under a GNU style
Open Source Public License? THAT might actually impress me.
At minimum, Microsoft will reserve the right to do to C# what it did
to C, C++, and BASIC. Today, there is no realistic way you could
implement the Microsoft API, let alone port the existing source code,
to a platform like Linux, UNIX, or even Mac.
> This is unlike Java where Sun controls it 100%.
But at least for a while most of the Java functionality was
available in open source. Eventually, it went so commercial that
it was worse than ActiveX, with some commercial objects covertly
going into "trusted" mode, breaking the sandbox.
> C# looks very interesting. MS knows what they are doing on this one.
Yes they do. They are trying to blow away the CPAN archive, the
PERL language, the Python, TCL, and other interpreter/compilers
available for Linux, UNIX, AND NT, which can be used to develop
projects that can be scaled from wristwatches to supercomputer
clusters of OS/390s, Enterprise 10000s, and HP/9000-Vs.
> Very impressive at first glance.
That's the whole idea. Get people all excited over a new language
they control, promote it as the future of the internet, and then
cut their competitors off at the knees - just like they have with
their last 20 "Standards".
Steve Ballmer put Microsoft's position very clearly - Microsoft is
the standard, regardless of WHAT anybody else has to say.
Microsoft still has to increase revenue (which is currently down
over previous year), has to displace it's own product base
(creating forced churn and 300 million MORE "obsolete machines"),
and protect Microsoft from would-be competitors like Linux, Mac,
and UNIX.
If you really believe that Microsoft is simply going to put C# out
in GPL, and encourage the development of a huge software base over
which it has no direct economic and NDA control, I have ranchland
in Colorado, vacation property in Florida, and a Bridge in New York
you can by "Real Cheap". ;-)
> I'm sure some Linux/Windows guru is gonna have a Linux port soon :)
It wouldn't be hard, but why bother. Without a two-way street
of GPL code coming from Microsoft and vice-versa, without a clear
open-source public license that protects the interests of the
contributors who would have to write support libraries, utilities,
documentation, applications, do testing, helps, provide user support,
and create press releases, provide information for reporters, and
promote the entire open source infrastructure to the development,
business, and student (future supporters and administrators) community,
without SOME GUARANTEE that Microsoft couldn't just pull the plug,
change the rules, and turn the whole mess into a private Microsoft
owned monopoly, like they did with BASIC, MS-DOS, Windows, C++, and
Mosaic, it would be insanity to invest time, energy, effort, or money
into a venture that is ultimately destined for bankruptcy the minute
Microsoft decides to "pull the plug".
> -Todd
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8oeufu$h35$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Sorry, this is probably geared more towards the programmers in this
> > newsgroup, but I have a question:
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: businesses are psychopaths
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 09:53:34 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne) writes:
>
> At any rate, it's not going to be GM (to name a Really Big Company)
> that is "psychotic;" supposing GM is interpretable as such, what this
> _really_ indicates is that the _HUMAN_ managers of the enterprise are
> psychotic.
Not really. The lack of direct contact between the "deciders"
and the "decidees" makes it easy for non-psychotic humans
to make decisions that resemble decisions made by a pyschopath
during his/her interactions with people.
Businesses can't be psychopaths because they are abstractions,
not persons (human or otherwise). What remains true is that
certain decisions made by people acting "on behalf of a company"
would be considered psychopatic _if_ they were decisions made
by humans in the course of their interactions with fellow humans.
--
Stefaan
--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
