Linux-Advocacy Digest #234, Volume #29 Wed, 20 Sep 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux (Roberto Alsina)
Re: The Linux Experience
Re: The Linux Experience
Re: Unix more secure, huh? (sfcybear)
Re: Unix more secure, huh? (sfcybear)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Jeremy Harbinson)
Re: Unix more secure, huh? ("Stuart Fox")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("samurai")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. (Andres Soolo)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (John Thompson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:03:28 GMT
In article <8q7ql8$2hcg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In comp.unix.admin Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > Perhaps dropping a few thousand copies of linux over a few big
cities or
> > maybe
> > getting a few newspaper companies to give away copies will have a
similar
> > effect
> > as who is going to spend the prices MS charge for windows when they
have
> > just
> > had something better delivered free with their morning paper -
especially if
> > it includes
> > eqivalents of all the applications they could be considering
purchasing.
>
> Bwahahahahaha ROTFL :)
>
> Yeah, right - the average computer user can't work an ftp client
unless it
> looks *exactly* like Windows explorer, so I'm sure they'll get along
just
> *grand* with Linux. (And don't waste your breathe mentioning the
pre-release
> "Desktop"s like KDE and GNOME in your reply - not till they're
finished.
What's prerelease about KDE 1.1.2?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:11:38 -0000
On 20 Sep 2000 03:20:05 GMT, David M. Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 05:49:58 GMT, Jake Taense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Hmmm... there is that reading comprehension issue again.
>
>Hmmm...at this point you might consider that your writing lacks clarity.
No, he's just a troll. He started out with something inflammatory
and now he is continuing that general pattern. Think of it as some
sort of diversionary tactic.
--
Down with categorical imperative!
War is never imperative.
-- McCoy, "Balance of Terror", stardate 1709.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:18:51 -0000
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:27:22 -0400, Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Jake Taense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> >> >Hmmm...the problem seems to be with the user she went to for font help
>> >>
>> >> >If this person really knew Linux, he/she would have known that RedHat
>> > 6.2's
>> >> >font server already has support for TrueType fonts and that replacing
>> >> >xfs was NOT necessary. Instead, your friend should have read Donovan
>> > Rebbechi's
>> >> >excellent Font HOWTO:
>> >>
>> >> It's very possible to know linux just fine, and not know the ins and
>> >> outs
>> > of
>> >> one particular distribution. RedHat 6.2 uses a 3.3.x-based Xfree86. My
>> >> understanding is that only from 4.0 onwards is truetype a core part of
>> >> the server. I understand his mistake.
>> >
>> > OK, I'll grant that. I just reviewed Donovan's document, which states
>> > that RedHat's version of xfs has truetype support, while Debian's
>> > doesn't. Doing a "man xfs" (in the RedHat system) mentions nothing about
>> > truetype fonts. Also doing a quick search of RedHat's web site with
>> > "truetype" or "truetype fonts" as keywords doesn't make anything evident
>> > pop up at you. So it is conceivable not to be aware of RedHat's Support
>> > of TrueType fonts in xfs if you are not aware of the HOWTO.
>> >
>>
>> That is one reason I do not use redhat anymore. Instead I use mandrake. To
>> install truetype fonts on mandrake just run drakfont and select the fonts.
>> It takes care of the rest. I have dealt with enough redhat boxes and am
>> tired of the older tools they ship (egcs instead of gcc 2.95) and the
>> lack of good easy to use config programs. I have not had a newbie yet
>> that had problems using the mandrake config programs.
>>
>
>Yeah, but the point is RH DOES support truetype....they just don't document
>well the fact that they do.
...and they "really" go out of their way to hide it too. I mean,
just how obscure can you be? An end user would have to go so far
as to enter truetype on Redht's support page. Geez, talk about
end user abuse.
</sarcasm>
No, the problem this time was bad advice.
--
You have all the characteristics of a popular politician: a horrible voice,
bad breeding, and a vulgar manner.
-- Aristophanes
A kid'll eat the middle of an Oreo, eventually.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:25:51 GMT
In article <8q20u8$e8e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> 8q0n8r$ipc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
> > And I supose that all the MS OS users are current on patchs??? I
doubt
> > that.
>
> Huh, that's exactly is point. Windows users are expected to be behind
> security patches, what's funny is that the supposedly smarter Un*x
admins
> aren't all current neither. :)
Hmmm, you did not actualy address *MY* point. If patches are not
applied, then old exploites can be used against *ANY* OS. NOTHING was
said about how smart the users are. I was talking about the OS.
>
> Paul 'Z' Ewande
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:30:07 GMT
In article <sS0x5.2269$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8q0n8r$ipc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > And I supose that all the MS OS users are current on patchs??? I
doubt
> > that.
>
> No, I think that there are lots of users out there under the mistaken
> impression that they can install a Linux firewall and "forget about
it"
> because it "just runs".
Yeah, Linux is more stable than MS's OS's
> I know people running firewalls on 2 or 3 year old
> copies of Linux or FreeBSD. Never applying even a single patch
because they
> aren't Unix people. They just installed the firewall on the advice of
a
> unix person that is no longer with the company.
>
And with MS OS's some clone that thinks he/she is and admin click a few
ICONS and *THINKS* they have installed a firewall. The point I made
still stands. If you do not keep up with patches you are asking for
problems no matter wich OS you use.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:49:52 +0200
From: Jeremy Harbinson <"Jeremy Harbinson"@users.tbpt.wau.nl>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
If I remember correctly, the Shuttle uses three computers for certain
operations and then, democratically I suppose you could say, implements the
majority decision. If they are using an MS OS that would indeed appear to be a
wise strategy. Also, I remember a Hewlett-Packard advertisement claiming that
the Shuttle Captain had an HP programmable calculator mounted on the leg of
his/her flight-suit which he or she depended upon for some critical calculations
(during re-entry I think). I always wondered why they just didn't use their
computers for this, but now that calculator makes a lot of sense
all the best,
Jeremy Harbinson
Trevor Zion Bauknight wrote:
> In article <UgXx5.9584$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Guess they actually want some productivity. They also
> > trust their lives to it because they know that when it's
> > properly set up, NT can be the most stable OS available
> > (2nd only to Win2k, of course).
>
> You're delusional.
>
> Trev
>
> --
> "I think Trevor is an idot. Just the kind of robot President CLITton likes.
> Supid people!" - Husker Kev
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 17:17:22 +0100
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8qakt5$r4e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8q20u8$e8e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> > 8q0n8r$ipc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >
> > > And I supose that all the MS OS users are current on patchs??? I
> doubt
> > > that.
> >
> > Huh, that's exactly is point. Windows users are expected to be behind
> > security patches, what's funny is that the supposedly smarter Un*x
> admins
> > aren't all current neither. :)
>
> Hmmm, you did not actualy address *MY* point. If patches are not
> applied, then old exploites can be used against *ANY* OS. NOTHING was
> said about how smart the users are. I was talking about the OS.
What has the OS got to do with whether admins are capable enough to install
current patches?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 12:31:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>Linux
>> can't ever be a monopoly, itself, though it might well eventually be the
>> OS everyone uses, to some extent or other.
>
>Half right but all wrong.
LOL.
>It already is an OS everyone uses to one extent or another, has been for a
>little while now as it is used to run Apache software.
So simply the barest hint of an opportunity to ankle-bite brings you out
of whatever little hole you hide in waiting for me to say something,
huh? I don't use Apache, and most of the millions of computer users
don't, either. I could care less what web server is running on any
particular server system. Its called 'interoperability'.
>The half right part of your statement is: No software can ever be a monopoly
>(including Linux), at least not without government legislation.
How cute. Let us know when you get out of grade school.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: "samurai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:40:14 -0700
Yeah but that intelligent, artsy guy that played The Fly used an APPLE to
upload the virus that saved earth from the alien invaders in Independence
Day! Besides, I bet those NASA computers are ugly and beige! Remember to
think different!
--samurai
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:UgXx5.9584$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I said almost because their MIGHT be one or two
> pieces of software that weren't for Windows, but
> I couldn't find 'em.
>
> http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/spoc/
>
> (click on a few of the links/screenshots on the left)
>
> They even use Windows (NT apparently) to control
> life-support systems including warning and
> monitoring systems:
>
> http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/spoc/cautwarn.html
>
> Here's an example of one of the three network diagrams
> they have for the space shuttle and space station:
>
> http://www.spaceref.com/shuttle/computer/106.LAN.nominal.html
>
> At least a few of them are windows, but, judging by the
> software it says the no-named-OS computers are running,
> it appears they are Windows as well.
>
> No mention of Linux, MacOS, or *laf* OS/2
>
> Guess they actually want some productivity. They also
> trust their lives to it because they know that when it's
> properly set up, NT can be the most stable OS available
> (2nd only to Win2k, of course).
>
> -Chad
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 11:51:49 -0500
Hey Max. How fast do you type?
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >>Linux
> >> can't ever be a monopoly, itself, though it might well eventually be
the
> >> OS everyone uses, to some extent or other.
> >
> >Half right but all wrong.
>
> LOL.
>
> >It already is an OS everyone uses to one extent or another, has been for
a
> >little while now as it is used to run Apache software.
>
> So simply the barest hint of an opportunity to ankle-bite brings you out
> of whatever little hole you hide in waiting for me to say something,
> huh? I don't use Apache, and most of the millions of computer users
> don't, either. I could care less what web server is running on any
> particular server system. Its called 'interoperability'.
>
> >The half right part of your statement is: No software can ever be a
monopoly
> >(including Linux), at least not without government legislation.
>
> How cute. Let us know when you get out of grade school.
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Date: 20 Sep 2000 17:04:08 GMT
[Removed alt.atheism, alt.christnet, and alt.flame.niggers from the
newsgroups and followup-to lists.]
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Its' Labar day now and every Commy-loving Lie-nux Commy and his
I'm not sure, but isn't the Labor Day celebrated in May 1st?
>>Microsoft, by contrast, could hide mountains of crap in their
>>proprietary system.
> Why would thay? It would caust them monney.
That's an easy one. To spy on the users for their purchasing habits and
send personal spam to them, for example. It would certainly get much
larger incomes than a week's salary for two MS specialists. (AFAIK, at
MS, every piece of code is written by a `code writing engineer' and
reviewed by a `review engineer' before incorporating it into the product.)
>>>If it wasant' for capitlists, you'd all still be living on farm's,
>>>working 20 ours a day and then you'd half to fite off the primait
>>>Indions the other for hours and you think that 12 is bad?
>>"Primate Indians"?
> Munky poepal with bo's and arro;s that shoot cappitolists.
Err ... wrong.
No primate remnants belonging to others than homo sapiens are found in
America. I mean the whole continent here. Apparently, humans colonized
America long after the `monkey's were gone. IIRC, it happened some 15000
or so years ago, when the first people made it to Northwesteern America from
Northeastern Asia.
>>The Native Americans will probably hotly dispute that -- and I
>>certainly hope that they do so! (I am not Native American, myself.)
Should they read c.o.l.a, which I doubt.
>>Um, you're getting *really* confusing here. Capitalists aren't
>>supposed to lean on their government; their primary concern
>>is selling in a relatively free and open marketplace.
> But they nead LAWS or they won't be abal to sell annything it'll all get stolen.
> So you ca'nt have
> annarky you half to have governmant.
Wrong again. Anarchy doesn't contradict having laws--they just aren't
government-enforced.
>>>They make company's worhtless and noboddy want's to by there stalk
>>>so thay half to sell it real cheap. We half to get rid of union's
>>>and there stupit dimmands for higher wages and job securety.
>>"Stupid demands"? Why are they stupid?
> They caust monney, whitch make's company's stalk drop like a rock.
I get it Timmay is not a worker but hopes to get riding rich by just
having stock. Microsoft stock, it seems. Which would explain much
of the fuss.
> All the CEO's that are lissening to Linux zellates now are going out of bisness.
When? Can you give an exact date?
Can you say, for example, "By December 2002, all the companies that don't
pay Microsoft tax, go bankrupt."?
I doubt you can. I doubt you will--it would be too easy to refute.
But then again, your claims are refuted earlier and you don't seem to
mind.
>>>all day, and they make Microsoft's stalk go down the toob,
>>>wich makes everyboddy lose monny, because who doesant own
>>>Microsoft stalk except Linux zellots and those stupit
>>>peopel at McDonnalds that always get the order rong.
>>You want fries with that mangled sentence? :-)
Probably much of the working class do not have any Microsoft stock--
but you conveniently ignored that fact.
> Linux can't even scail to a dual-processer Pentium III with a Radeon 64MB DDR vi
> deo card. Windows beats the
What's a Radeon video card?
> pant's off Linux on that kind of a system.
Quotes?
>>You're seriously suggesting that Microsoft is a better solution
>>for crashes than Linux?
> Yes.
Are you sure you're serious?
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You can move the world with an idea,
but you have to think of it first.
------------------------------
From: John Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 10:07:11 -0500
Christopher Browne wrote:
> Nathan Culwell-Kanarek wrote:
>
> >On 20 Sep 2000 00:58:58 GMT, "Anthony D. Tribelli"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>You do realize that OS/2 1.x was Microsoft's second attempt to dump DOS
> >>and that Microsoft's first attempt to dump DOS was Xenix? WinNT (aka OS/2
> >>NT) a third attempt? But those damn end users ...
> >
> >I thought that OS/2 was IBM, not Microsoft.
> I knew people who did co-op work terms in Redmond, Washington, working
> on OS/2 back in the late 1980s.
OS/2 started as a joint project between IBM and Microsoft to
develop the successor to MS-DOS.
> IBM may have _funded_ it, but roughly until the time of version 1.3,
> Microsoft was contracted by IBM to write a whole lot of the _code._
The work load was split between the two: Microsoft was to write
the filesystem (HPFS) and applications while IBM was to write the
kernel and user interface (Presentation Manager) and the two
companies would share in the revenues. As it happened, IBM and
Microsoft had their own ideas about how this was to work. IBM
wanted OS/2 to be exclusively pre-loaded on IBM hardware.
Microsoft wanted to license OS/2 to other manufacturers in a
similar way to how they licensed MS-DOS (heh!). Nor was
Microsoft particularly interested in splitting this revenue
stream with IBM.
Now, the joint agreement for the project allowed each company
access to each other's code, so Microsoft used IBM's Presentation
Manager code to develop their own GUI user interface for Windows
(Program Manager) that had significantly lower hardware
requirements than OS/2 (also less capable, but that's another
story). They then used their exclusive MS-DOS licensing
arrangements with manufacturers to tie Windows to DOS and force
manufacturers to bundle Windows with their PC's. Meanwhile, MS
kept delaying in their own applications projects for OS/2.
Needless to say, IBM was not pleased with this and felt Microsoft
was diverting resources that should have been used for the OS/2
projects to Windows instead and thereby undercutting IBM's
potential revenues from the project.
To make a long story short, the OS/2 joint project fell apart in
1989 when IBM wanted to make OS/2 fully 32-bit while Microsoft
insisted on keeping it 16-bit. The companies parted ways, but
the divorce left IBM with access to the Windows v3.x source code
and Microsoft with license revenues for copies of Windows bundled
with OS/2 and for the HPFS filesystem. Microsoft later went on
to develop their own 32-bit operating system (Windows NT v3.1 --
what happened to v1, you may ask? Ask the MS Marketing Dept.)
using OS/2 code jointly delevoped in the earlier project.
OS/2 became 32-bit with v2.0 (released c.1991) and thanks to
their access to the MS Windows code, they were able to do what
was thought to be impossible: run Windows programs seamlessly
from inside OS/2. Although Microsoft was undoubtably irritated
with this, in hindsight it appears that allowing OS/2 to run
Windows applications may have seriously stymied the development
of native OS/2 applications. And with Microsoft's now-illegal
exclusive licensing contracts ensuring that virtually all PC's
sold would have Windows installed, the Windows market looked
considerably more profitable to developers than the OS/2 market.
And the rest is history.
--
-John ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
