Linux-Advocacy Digest #746, Volume #29 Thu, 19 Oct 00 16:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Re: Linux to equal NT 3.51????
Re: The Linux Experience
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Haoyu Meng)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (.)
Re: The Linux Experience
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) (.)
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Help for new Linux users (Ken Schrock)
Re: Astroturfing
Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Which database server? MySQL, Interbase or PostGres? ("David Brown")
Has anyone had much success with plex86? ("David Brown")
Re: Help for new Linux users (Tony Lawrence)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:13:06 -0000
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:17:10 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Drestin Black wrote:
>>
>> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > JS/PL wrote:
>> > > It was enough of a pain in the ass getting it to see
>> > > the modem and work the video card, which Windows manages to do all by
>> it's
>> > > self.
>> >
>> > That's utter bullshit and you know it. Windows does not see anything
>> > more than a VGA card by itself. You give it drivers and tell it
>> > explicitly what card you have. So you had to do the same thing under
>> > linux? So fucking what? How does this now make linux worse?
>>
>> Um. No. Windows PnP sees EXACTLY what card you have and ONLY if it doesn't
>> already have drivers for it does it ask you for drivers. And you can change
>> the drivers effortlessly. AND manufacturers make the *best* drivers _first_
>> for Windows +quickest+
ANY PCI card can be correctly identified by any OS. That's rather
the point of a real (IOW hardware) pnp spec.
>
>Result's the same, windows can't do anything with the card. It's not as
>if you don't know the cards name anyway: it's written on the box it came
>in and on the driver disc.
Actually, these days the question isn't so much anymore "will
Linux support it" but "will the Linux driver be as fast". For
anything more than websurfing, you will need to know what you're
doing under any OSes. Some cards are crap, some drivers are crap,
some MS OSes are less well supported than others.
--
In spite of everything, I still believe that people are good at heart.
-- Ann Frank
We have a equal opportunity Calculus class -- it's fully integrated.
Often statistics are used as a drunken man uses lampposts -- for support
rather than illumination.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:16:37 -0000
On 18 Oct 2000 22:07:57 -0400, Hartmann Schaffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ...
>>>I agree with what you say, but my point is that, these days, using a
>>>computer for word processing is all about content management. A good
>>>word processor will provide you with better facilities for this than a
>>>program that evolved from a typesetting tool.
>>
>> Actually, that sounds backwards. Better content management should
>> be achieved by tools that segregate content from formatting. Tools
>> like Latex do this more cleanly and produce more easily parsable
>> output.
>
>how would latex help with content management. i would assume for that
>you would use sgml or xml
The format is better understood and can be more easily and
effectively manipulated by third parties and the format
more cleanly separates out the content.
Creeping featuritus doesn't prove that win-style word processors
are more suitable for content management.
--
Five is a sufficiently close approximation to infinity.
-- Robert Firth
"One, two, five."
-- Monty Python and the Holy Grail
"my terminal is a lethal teaspoon."
-- Patricia O Tuama
(1) Never draw what you can copy.
(2) Never copy what you can trace.
(3) Never trace what you can cut out and paste down.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux to equal NT 3.51????
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:17:54 -0000
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:14:24 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It was the Sat, 7 Oct 2000 12:09:08 -0700...
>> ...and Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > One annoyance I have with the windows explorer vs KDE's Konqueror, is
>that
>> > Konqueror lets you "drill down" the dirtree, just grab a file, and drag
>it
>> > over a dir, and after a half second, the dir opens and you can drop down
>> > another level. This is a lot more convenient that with windows.
>>
>> This idea is called "spring-loaded folders" in recent versions of the
>> MacOS Finder. Would be fun if it is originally a KDE idea ;)
>
>In the words of Linux/UNIX fanatics, Linux *stole* the idea from the Mac.
>
>Isn't this the same sort of thing that everybody here accuses MS of?
>
>Hypocrites.
Except he'll gladly change his tune once corrected.
[deletia]
--
I guess I've been wrong all my life, but so have billions of other people...
Certainty is just an emotion.
-- Hal Clement
What passes for optimism is most often the effect of an intellectual error.
-- Raymond Aron, "The Opium of the Intellectuals"
Zippy's brain cells are straining to bridge synapses ...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:21:54 -0000
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:23:56 GMT, Haoyu Meng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Linux is not ready for the desktop. Functionality offered by KDE/GNOME is
>relatively imature and unstable, compared to Windows, especially Windows2000.
>GNOME and KDE crash way too often, is slow unless used under root account, and
Not in my experience. Then again, neither kfm or sawmill are
at all required to run KDE or GNOME and get the full benefit
of them.
>has almost no cross-application integration (ActiveX).
Neither does Windows really. Typically ActiveX is merely used
to build the subcomponents of a particular super-application.
In general, the sort of vendorlock that Win32 tends to perpetuate
with it's file formats doesn't lend itself well to the collaboration
of many smaller tools.
>
>I use many Linux boxes to do data intensive batch jobs. Another friend of mine
>use a personal farm of about 10 identical Linux boxes to do data-mining and
>spamming.
>There is definitely use for Linux, just not on the desktop -- yet.
You haven't even begun to support that assertion.
[deletia]
--
Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there.
-- Will Rogers
Don't lose
Your head
To gain a minute
You need your head
Your brains are in it.
-- Burma Shave
You never gain something but that you lose something.
-- Thoreau
------------------------------
From: Haoyu Meng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:25:05 GMT
U need to read a whole book to understand how to use Latex. I am in the business
of writing books using computers. I don't want to have to learn programming to
do that.
MH wrote:
> No.You're SOL. Word's revision feature is one of the reasons writers use it,
> and indeed, comes in very handy for what you allude to. It's a dream for
> multiple-writer collaboration.
>
> Latexlahex is a keystroke users dream, but it is not a modern gui, point &
> click fancy word processor. Do what most do. Use Word under Windows as it
> meant to be and just do your work.
>
> "jazz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <qEqG5.3541$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jan
> > Schaumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Well, then you probably want to take a look at
> > > -abiword
> > > -StarOffice (BLOATware)
> > > -ApplixWare (payware)
> > >
> > > Or you can just distribute your documents as pdf's...
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > -Jan
> >
> >
> >
> > Please tell me more. For example, I just wrote a paper with someone in LA.
> > I'm in New Jersey. I wrote a draft, emailed it to them, they revised it,
> > resent it to me, I revised and made additions, sent it back, he revised,
> > and I sent some additional parts, he put it all together, and sent it out
> > to all the other authors, as a word attachment they all can read and make
> > changes to.
> >
> > So these would have to import/export files in word-readible format.
> >
> > Can they do that? I doubt Bill would put up with that, and would instruct
> > his minions to make a couple of tweaks in Word for insurance.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Jim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: 19 Oct 2000 19:26:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?articleid=RWT101600000000
>>
>> That's the headlines once they fail to support this chip.
>>
>> Linux will be supporting it just like they currently have IA64 working!
>>
> <snip crap>
> Lesse... a MS operating system that doesn't support an Intel chip. Gee, how
> likely is that?! HA!
> Hmmm... MS doesn't have released OS support for a chip that's not sold yet -
> boy, that hurts! NOT!
> Gosh, linux supports a chip that NO ONE running Linux would(/could) afford.
Fermilab can afford it. Ooops! You werent banking on something other than
a fake, profitless, windows-based .com were you dresden?
> From the ranks of the "if it's not free we will steal it" linux types - why
> would IA64 support be important? It's not like linux is used by enterprises
> in high powered computing (apart from some showpiece specials).
Actually, its exactly like it is, dresden. Fermilab uses linux *extensively*
(replacing both SCO (thats a kind of unix, dresden) and NT machines with
large linux arrays).
> And, IBM couldn't afford to buy MS - it's that simple. But Bill could buy
> IBM if he stopped donating CASH (not promises) to charities and non-profit
> foundations.
He could if he didnt stop too.
But microsoft is not a hardware company. They would drive IBM into the
ground and they know it; its more profitable for both sides for IBM to be
left alone.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:27:32 -0000
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:02:29 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Haoyu Meng
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:23:56 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[deletia]
>As for the speed of X under a non-root account, that should make
>little difference unless you're using something like Wine and
>are running a DGA-aware Windows application in it...a configuration
>that is still not quite ready for prime time AFAIK. This may
>be a configuration setup problem and/or bug.
I have never found myself wanting for more X speed at home,
even when faced with much faster machines at the office
running NT. Also, while SO could use a boost in some places
it typically only slows down when doing things beyond the
capabilities of msoffice.
>
>Dunno what to make of ActiveX. It's certainly not appropriate
What I really wonder about is what do these novices "that just
want to get work done" under Windows think about object
embedding technologies? Are they even aware of them? Could they
use them if they were. Does all the flim-flam even have any
relevance for them.
>for Web development, although it seems to be useful for
>limited internal communication (Office appears to be highly
>depenent on it, for example).
>
>But you're right, Linux isn't quite ready for the desktop. And if
>certain businesses have their way, it never will be.
Also, there are simpler methods of application interaction
available. What a win32 programmer might have to do OLE
summersaults over in WinDOS might just be a matter of IO
redirection in Linux. There are many instances were a simpler
method of application interaction will be more than adequate.
WinDOS has it's own warts and it doesn't take much to trip it
up to the point where Linux is in a good position to best it.
This is especially true if you choose not to throw money at
the problem.
--
If one studies too zealously, one easily loses his pants.
-- A. Einstein.
Some parts of the past must be preserved, and some of the future prevented
at all costs.
None love the bearer of bad news.
-- Sophocles
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:33:19 -0000
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:34:54 GMT, Haoyu Meng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Windows 2000 is rock solid. I have used it for almost half a year. Only
>had to reboot twice, both times due to conflict from newly installed
>hardware devices.
Until Windows forces every application to have a separate
window management thread, Windows on the desktop will always
have a handicap compared to X.
>
>Windows 2000 is stable, powerful, and easy to use. So does anyone see it
>as seriously challenging the relevance of pushing Linux to the desktop?
Just conteplate the fact that Microsoft is actively discouraging
NT5 for personal home use.
[deletia]
--
The road to ruin is always in good repair, and the travellers pay the
expense of it.
-- Josh Billings
Excessive login or logout messages are a sure sign of senility.
All the passions make us commit faults; love makes us commit the most
ridiculous ones.
-- La Rochefoucauld
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 19 Oct 2000 19:39:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>which has been proven to be more expensive in
>> the long term that having two big fucking servers, the first is the
>> primary one, the second mirrors the first and automatically takes over
>> if the primary server fails for some unknown reason.
> Proven? By whom?
By people who have been in the business for obviously *far* longer than
you have, dresden.
> How long would they have had to prove such things as this
> is a _relatively_ new technique in this realm.
By "relatively", I trust you're talking about something less than the last
17 years, since I first ran across this technique at Carnegie Mellon's
VAX (VMS) installation in 1983. And they didnt invent it.
> AND, what good does it do to
> have two big fucking servers with a single failover if a) the two combined
> still do not equal even half the performance of a cluster for more than
> triple the price,
But they do, dresden. You're simply too incredibly stupid, ignorant and
retarded to understand how and why.
> b) in that scenario, server one does all the work and
> server two is an idiot mirror only until it's needed
Wrong. You have no idea how this sort of topology works. Stop pretending
that you understand computers, dresden.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:40:08 -0000
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:53:49 GMT, Haoyu Meng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I do not like Microsoft. I am just pointing out some strong points of one of
>its flagship products and the challenges they inevitablly pose to the Linux
>platform, which I so very much would like to advocate.
So?
NT has been out for over 5 years already. If consumers were
concerned enough with stability to actually fork over the
extra money for NT, they would have already.
Meanwhile, NT still has compatibility issues relative to Win9x
and it's adoption for casual use is being actively discouraged.
If NT could have seduced you to the dark side, it would have
done so already.
To me, it's pretty much like NT4 so far...
(although, not tanking on my Rock Ridge disks is a nice improvement)
--
If you keep your mind sufficiently open, people will throw a lot of
rubbish into it.
-- William Orton
Political T.V. commercials prove one thing: some candidates can tell
all their good points and qualifications in just 30 seconds.
QOTD:
"I only touch base with reality on an as-needed basis!"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:43:31 -0000
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:13:02 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Haoyu Meng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[deletia]
>
>> Windows 2000 is stable, powerful, and easy to use. So does anyone see it
>> as seriously challenging the relevance of pushing Linux to the desktop?
>
>Linux isn't going to make it to the desktop for quite a while, if ever.
>Only the UNIX radicals will use it on the desktop. Others will try it out
>and forget it.
That says more about market dynamics and the mob mentality then
about the qualities of various operating systems.
[deletia]
>Linux is cetainly fun to toy around with, especially given the fact that you
>have source code to look at. This has got to be its most compelling feature
>for a number of reasons.
>
>However, Windows 2000 has so many more features and just seems to do
Such as?
[deletia]
>> Any similar stories?
>
>Yup. I can never go back to NT. 2000 is vastly superior in stability and
>feature richness. Linux couldn't edge out NT, so I don't know how it is
>going to compete with 2000.
Puleeeze. NT4 could be brought down by the wrong type of CD.
Those that pushed it, had it on it's knees on a daily basis
and were actually losing data even with ntfs "journaling".
[deletia]
--
I don't want people to love me. It makes for obligations.
-- Jean Anouilh
Parsley
is gharsley.
-- Ogden Nash
Free Speech Is The Right To Shout 'Theater' In A Crowded Fire.
-- A Yippie Proverb
------------------------------
From: Ken Schrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.imux.help,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Help for new Linux users
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:41:46 GMT
I am a Linux user and advocate...
I am a former Windows user myself...
I want to help other Windows users convert to Linux.
I feel that this forum and others like it are poorly suited to this
purpose.
Most Windows users don't read manuals and aren't programmers and
therefore...
Answers like "RTFM", "Have you read the FAQs?", and "Just re-compile the
kernel"...
Are not good answers for Windows users trying Linux for the first time.
This isn't helpful, feels like an attack, and drives these folks away...
Which is not good for Linux in the short term or long run.
If you feel the same way, and are knowledgeable about Linux...
And can spend a little time answering questions...
And don't mind answering simple questions...
Don't mind answering them repeatedly...
And can do it without anger, contempt, egotism, condescendence, etc...
Please e-mail me so we can create a place condusive to the goal...
Of helping average Window users try Linux and convert to Linux.
--
Ken Schrock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:54:17 -0000
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 04:17:48 GMT, Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:6BYG5.11100$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > "Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >> When I said use your brain, I meant use it, not repeat the same stuff
>> in
>> > > >> detail. There is probably something very badly wrong with your
>> > > >> installation. C corrupted filesystem or a bad harddisk or something.
>> > > >> There are kernel options to allow Linux to see more memory.
>> > > >> Try mem=256M or something like it.
>> > > >
>> > > >That's the point, my objective isn't to hack the kernel, it is to
>> insert a
>> > > >disk, hover over the return key for a few minutes and have the thing
>> work in
>> > >
>> > > You don't need to hack the kernel, there's a point in the Mandrake 7.1
>> install
>> > > where you get to enter how much memory you have. All you do is amend the
>> > > 64MB value in the text box and change it to 256MB. Not rocket science.
>> >
>> > But be careful!
>> >
>> > If you install on an box with an Intel 810 chipset, it's usually 1 less
>> > than the MB you have installed. 128? No... 127. 256? No... 255 or 254
>> > Otherwise? Kernel panic! There's quality software for you.
>>
>> Neat! How many Microsoft people are paid to do research on Linux's
>> weak points?
>
>How about the wildy successful ABIT BP6? Remember the hacker's cheap dual
>overclocked celeron system? I have one. $200 bought the UATA/66 mobo and a
>pair of celeron 366s last year. I had a box with 1.1 GHz combined processing
>power, supported by beta3 of Windows 2000 and no distro of Linux save Gentus
>from ABIT itself will run on it. Mandrake and others install just fine and the
>kernel panic when they try to boot.
>
To recap: The board manufacturer explicitly & officially supported
their hardware under linux.
The board manufacturer even included a full version of Linux
to go with their minor driver mods.
You did not claim that the vendor supplied version of Linux
did not work with the vendor's hardware.
--
Hate is like acid. It can damage the vessel in which it is stored as well
as destroy the object on which it is poured.
Chicken Little was right.
Bill Dickey is learning me his experience.
-- Yogi Berra in his rookie season.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:54:58 -0000
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:04:59 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> JS/PL wrote:
>> >
>> > "Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >> When I said use your brain, I meant use it, not repeat the same
>stuff
>> > in
>> > > >> detail. There is probably something very badly wrong with your
>> > > >> installation. C corrupted filesystem or a bad harddisk or
>something.
>> > > >> There are kernel options to allow Linux to see more memory.
>> > > >> Try mem=256M or something like it.
>> > > >
>> > > >That's the point, my objective isn't to hack the kernel, it is to
>insert
>> > a
>> > > >disk, hover over the return key for a few minutes and have the thing
>work
>> > in
>> > >
>> > > You don't need to hack the kernel, there's a point in the Mandrake 7.1
>> > install
>> > > where you get to enter how much memory you have. All you do is amend
>the
>> > > 64MB value in the text box and change it to 256MB. Not rocket science.
>> >
>> > I've done that on the second of three installs, it still shows 66mb when
>the
>> > install is complete. I also have a pretty good feeling that just typing
>> > mem=256M will not magically work if it doesn't already see the maximum
>> > amount available.
>>
>>
>> It's a command line argument for the kernal
>>
>> boot: linux mem=256M
>>
>> There's your fucking answer, now quit whining.
>>
>> read the man page on lilo.conf, and insert it there as well.
>>
>> and remember...STOP WHINING!
>
>Well I guess there's really not a nice way to put it - I DONT WANT TO EDIT
>SHIT!!
Do you need mommy to wipe your face too?
[deletia]
--
Is something VIOLENT going to happen to a GARBAGE CAN?
Once harm has been done, even a fool understands it.
-- Homer
QOTD:
"When she hauled ass, it took three trips."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:56:40 -0000
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:31:24 -0400, MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>More Linux BS. Windows has a very large driver database. WinMe found my
>Matrox video card, yamaha opl3 sound card, both cd roms..in other words
>EVERYTHING.
What about next year?
[deletia]
OTOH, I just put a Matrox card in my machine and it found it
just fine and set up the driver for me.
--
To every Ph.D. there is an equal and opposite Ph.D.
-- B. Duggan
Writing free verse is like playing tennis with the net down.
Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Which database server? MySQL, Interbase or PostGres?
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:40:44 +0200
We are putting together a web application which makes use of a database.
The prototype is running on WinNT, using Apache, Interbase and PHP4 for
scripting. The finished system will almost certainly be running Linux (I
might consider FreeBSD, but I am more familiar with Linux). As far as I
know, there are three free database servers for Linux (and NT - it is very
helpful that both Linux and NT ports are available): MySQL, Interbase and
PostGres. I choose Interbase first as I am also using Delphi, so I had an
old version on the PC already.
Are there any particular benifits and disadvantages of these three DBMS's?
Are there any others available that I should consider? Money is definitely
an issue, so I would prefer to avoid a commercial package unless there are
overwhelming reasons. The application is unlikely to have to deal with many
simultaneous users for reading, and only ever one user at a time for
updating the data, but some of the pages will involve extracting and
analysing large quantities of data.
Thanks for any suggestions!
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Has anyone had much success with plex86?
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:55:37 +0200
Has anyone tried plex86? I know a number of people use VMWare to run other
OS'es (most Windoze) under Linux, but plex86 does much the same thing, as
far as I understand it, and it's free. Does anyone know how well it works
in practice?
------------------------------
From: Tony Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.imux.help,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Help for new Linux users
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:00:26 -0400
Ken Schrock wrote:
> Answers like "RTFM", "Have you read the FAQs?", and "Just re-compile the
> kernel"...
> Are not good answers for Windows users trying Linux for the first time.
> This isn't helpful, feels like an attack, and drives these folks away...
You are right, but you are never going to stop that type of
answer. Ignore it, and post a better answer when you can.
>
> Which is not good for Linux in the short term or long run.
>
> If you feel the same way, and are knowledgeable about Linux...
> And can spend a little time answering questions...
> And don't mind answering simple questions...
> Don't mind answering them repeatedly...
> And can do it without anger, contempt, egotism, condescendence, etc...
> Please e-mail me so we can create a place condusive to the goal...
> Of helping average Window users try Linux and convert to Linux.
No, this is the place. Nothing wrong with directing people from
here to answers elsewhere, though. I do that when I have already
written an appropriate article and have it on my web site. But
the answers *start* in the ng's 'cause that's where the people
ask..
--
Tony Lawrence ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
SCO/Linux articles, help, book reviews, tests,
job listings and more : http://www.pcunix.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
