Linux-Advocacy Digest #834, Volume #29 Mon, 23 Oct 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
distro suggestions? (Will Day)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Andy Newman)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Drestin Black")
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Drestin Black")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
ReiserFS ("Marc Bonanova")
Re: Astroturfing ("Drestin Black")
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Will Day)
Subject: distro suggestions?
Date: 23 Oct 2000 22:00:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Will Day)
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Planning to install a linux machine, I'm looking for a suitable
distribution. I've installed redhat several times, but it's not quite what
I want. For instance, I don't want/need any of the GUI admin utils,
preferring to edit config files directly. This is for a network server
rather than a workstation, so I don't need an Xserver or most of the X
apps, although an xterm and/or appropriate X libraries to compile one would
be nice. And I prefer to compile/install things like apache and ssh
myself, so I'd just as soon not have those installed.
Essentially, I just want a basic core OS (kernel, /usr/bin, libraries,
etc), without a bunch of unneeded frills :). Now, I realize that with most
distributions I can de-select most of the above from being installed, but
the less I have to "undo" from the default install the better.
Also, I'm looking for something which doesn't tend toward lots of "custom"
tendencies. For instance, I always seemed to have trouble with compiling a
new kernel under redhat, as there were apparently extra files (.-something)
that it used, which weren't generated, and which I didn't know how to
generate, and didn't seem to be documented anywhere.. I dunno, it just
seemed like Redhat always had its own way of doing things. Maybe all
distributions are like that. :)
In the end, I think, I'd love something that's as close to Solaris as
possible, as that's what I know. :) But given that's not really feasible,
I guess I'm looking for something more standard, more streamlined, more
server-centric, less specialized, and less, well, newbie-oriented.
I'm going to take a look at slackware first, I think. Other suggestions
I've heard are turbolinux and debian, and I ran across a "rock linux" that
looks like it might be appropriate. I thought about openbsd, for its
strong security posture, but would just as soon stay away from possible
problems running linux binaries under bsd.
In any case, I was wondering if folks had any other suggestions, or
thoughts on the above distributions and how they might fit what I'm looking
for.
Thanks,
- --
Will Day <PGP mail preferred> OIT / O&E / Technical Support
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Georgia Tech, Atlanta 30332-0715
-> Opinions expressed are mine alone and do not reflect OIT policy <-
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Pennsylvania Assembly, Nov. 11, 1755
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
Comment: http://rom.oit.gatech.edu/~willday/pubkey.asc
iQCVAwUBOfS06BDHlOdPw2ZdAQGcEQQAygvBE4go6AaSmUQoaGaQu7aKRn4th6sY
Av0YD0SW4U3mwgJiFzl3X8vhclIRb2M6s14cYNxbIW4zYlWbZ+CwIpMXP+IJXgqR
Eoiioojum6R6dmJqhyBnoYENdrVJSCwr2PdviGDzAV7nD+F0/PhQ+gaibCg+ibmH
ns7cjc4oSyw=
=Dc+L
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 08:01:58 +1000
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > So why can't you call them an OS ?
>
> Because they are not in complete control of the system.
And in what ways isn't Windows in complete control of the system ?
Remember, by your own description, DOS is but another subsystem of Windows.
> > And which ones *do* provide as much OS functionality as Windows ?
>
> It isn't a matter of quantity of functionality, lets face it, if it
> were, Emacs would be considared an OS. ;-)
Emacs can provide hardware support ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 22:19:49 GMT
Christopher Smith wrote:
>Emacs can provide hardware support ?
Don't give them ideas :) But it could. Just need some native
code primitives to do the basics and whammo...Device drivers
in Lisp.
------------------------------
From: "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 23 Oct 2000 17:37:16 -0500
"Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was the 23 Oct 2000 09:51:10 -0500...
> ...and Relax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Graphics drivers reduce the stability of the system. Graphics are not
> > > needed for servers.
> >
> > As mlw rightfully points out, graphics are needed for printing. Probably
> > also for Terminal Services since apps runs on the server.
>
> To do printing, you need a page description language interpreter with
> a rasteriser and a printer driver. Not a graphics hardware driver.
>
> To do terminal services, you need a network-transparent windowing
> system. Not a graphics hardware driver.
>
You are a bit off. GDI is not a graphic hardware driver. The rasterizer and
printer drivers are - sort of - parts of GDI or at least used by it but GDI
it independent of any particular device or rendering technique, local or
remote. Also, Terminal Server intercepts GDI calls (among other things) and
route them trough the network. If a graphic app running on a server makes
graphic calls the graphic subsystem must be present. Last, a "printer
driver" is precisely a "graphics hardware driver", the only difference is
that it renders on paper instead of on a screen display. Using Windows,
drawing on screen is exactly the same as drawing on paper. The exact same
code can be invoked to do the work (of course, more logic is required for
things such as headers, footers, page numbers, multi-page printing etc, but
the drawing code is the same, you just make the same GDI calls - only using
a different 'handle' - called a device context - that represents your
drawing surface, screen or paper. GDI will just do the right thing and
invoke the proper driver to do the rendering) As a matter of fact, Windows
printing code can be made truly device independent and location independant
with very little effort. You app can run on the client or on the server
unchanged, with the exact same output on many different rendering hardware.
This contrasts sharply with the completely device-dependent pixel
coordinates of X Window, for example.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 23 Oct 2000 17:55:04 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > and considering that both of the ISPs in Luxemburg run BSD we can
announce
> > that the ENTIRE country of Luxemburg is connected via BSD - talk about
> > market penetration! Wow!
> >
> > ...and this means what to the rest of the world??
>
>
> Luxumberg has 100% REJECTED NT.
>
>
> Remember, these people have an even better banking system than the Swiss.
And they have 100% REJECTED LINUX.
... and this means what to the rest of the world??
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 23 Oct 2000 17:55:21 -0500
"Paul E. Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ApZI5.71949$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Drestin Black wrote:
> >>
> >> and considering that both of the ISPs in Luxemburg run BSD we can
announce
> >> that the ENTIRE country of Luxemburg is connected via BSD - talk about
> >> market penetration! Wow!
> >>
> >> ...and this means what to the rest of the world??
> >
> >
> >Luxumberg has 100% REJECTED NT.
> >
>
> Anyone want to point out the two errors in this statement!
>
he wouldn't get it anyway...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: 23 Oct 2000 17:56:34 -0500
"Stephen Cornell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > > Of course, your
> > > > "prediction" that linux will support it is as likely as MS
supporting
> > > > it. In
> > > > other words, it's pure speculation and has NO facts supporting it -
pure
> > > > BS.
> > >
>
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8sndt0$1grh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Actually, youre wrong again, dresden.
> > >
> > > Linux will run on the power4, because the power4 is going into the
next
> > generation
> > > S/* mainframes, under which linux is *officially* supported.
>
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tell me what part of this I've said is inaccurate or wrong? Hmmm? Unless
you
> > actually have a copy of Linux running on a Power4 - your shouting "it
will!
> > it will!" are meaningless.
>
> Take a minute to re-read what you wrote. If IBM have *officially*
> stated that Linux will be supported on this hardware, then saying that
> it will run is more than `pure speculation and has NO facts supporting
> it - pure BS'. Agreed, it's not 100% certain (as you point out,
> nothing in the future is certain), but `pure speculation' is quite
> different - if I said that it was `pure speculation' that Hotmail will
> ever run entirely on Windows 2000, I think you'd quite rightly
> disagree (though others in this group may not).
>
I agree with what you wrote but am unaware that IBM has officially stated
that Linux will be supported on that specific hardware.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 22:51:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > http://counter.li.org/
> >
> > GEEZE look at this thing.
> > Look at the growthrates!
> >
> > They are saying now, with several commercial firms backing it up
that
> > 21% of all web browsers in the world now are powered by Linux!
> >
> > WOW! 21%. WHAT WHAT WHAT 21% WOW!!!!
As pointed out earlier, this article has been unposted.
They may have meant servers, but that's old news. Linux and BSD
jointly hold about 60% of the web server market and about 50% of
the commercial server market. Sun is still the big gorilla in
terms of revenues but you don't need that many E-10K machines,
compared to Win2K which is rapidly consuming the WinNT market.
> > That the growth rate in several countries are consistently over
> > 100% with about 50 being in the 4 digit % bracket.
> > Over 2000% growth!!
This is quite possible. IDC, which is notoriously conservative
has estimated a 185% annual growth rate through 2003. Given that
much of that is "front loaded", the current growth rate seems to be
somewhere between 210% and 270%, again depending what's being counted.
> > Linux is just taking off like wildfire across all of
> > Europe, South America and Asia.
This is very true. Many countries are purchasing discarded U.S.
corporate PCs that can't run NT or Win2K and converting them to
Linux machines. Microsoft has offered some free software, but
getting hardware to run it is quite problematic.
Still. Most of the estimates place the current estimate of Linux
users at roughly 3-5% of the market. This could still be 20%
of the units sold THIS YEAR.
> > The balance of power is changing a lot more rapidly than I
anticipated.
> >
> > I think I can say with confidence that by 2003 Microsoft will not
> > be used outside of US boarders to the degree it is today.
> > Microsoft will be a single digit player by 2003 overseas.
I think we will continue to see blends of Windows and UNIX variants,
including Linux, BSD, and Mac OS/X across the board. Linux and UNIX
will probably be more popular in Europe simply because Europe was
already fond if UNIX (due to internationalization), and Asia has
been fond of Linux, especially TurboLinux since it was developed
by Asians for Asians. Likewise, Linux has become popular in Latin
America because it is supported in Spanish, and in Africa because
it supports Arabic (much of Africa is Muslim).
> > The United States and Canada are still chugging along at
> > 16% to 40% depending on which graph you read.
I will be looking forward to seeing what you are actually looking
at. It's quite possible that if you take the increase in Linux
browsers (including SQUID, Kommander, and Netscape 4.X et al),
> > The other graphs vary but they seem to be
> > consistantly over 500% growth
> > for Europe, South America and Asia no matter how you slice it.
> >
> > That just astounds me! WOW!
> >
> > Clearly this would simply be dismissed had it not been for all the
rest
> > of the private-commercial statistics groups who backed up most of
> > the numbers!!!!
> >
> > SO, we went from 3-5% to 21% of the worlds computer users!
I think we might be looking at current year increases or license
sales. If this is license sales, this could be pretty close.
After all, Win2K hasn't been setting sales records, WinME has
been a yawner, and meanwhile, we've had 3 major releases of
Linux this year (Mandrake 7.X, Corel, Red Hat 6.x and SuSE 6.x).
Even within these releases, there were skip releases, a total
of about 10 releases including Caldara and TurboLinux).
> > And we did this all in the span from May, 1999 to now.
> >
> > So this explains why Microsoft is running that AD in europe!
> > YES! They must already know then that Microsoft is bleeding
> > to death overseas.
Microsoft isn't doing to well when it comes to unit volumes of
their licenses. They are getting more bucks per license for
Win9x to Win2K upgrades, and they are getting more bucks per
license for ME, but they are rapidly getting OUT of the OS
business as a percentage of their revenue. OS sales was a
much smaller percentage of revenue compared to previous years.
Meanwhile, nearly 50% of their revenue came from investments.
Essentially, Bill Gates is turning Microsoft from a monopoly
software company into the "Berkeshire Hathaway" of the IT
industry. He is turning Microsoft into an investment bank
while avoiding most of the hassles of SEC regulation.
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-10-21-017-06-NW-CY-MS
It disappeared! Put it back!
Unfortunately, this article may have used NDA information from
research firms that charge $6000 per viewer. We won't see the
"official confirmation" until about a year from now.
> > http://www.koehntopp.de/kris/msad.jpg
> >
> > Jeez! They are just taking an ass wiping!
> >
> > Charlie
>
> That's quite odd because the combined
> statistics of all web sites (566,000
> of them) using thecounter.com's counter shows Linux OS users to be
about
> "0%" out of 458,991,203 combined visitors last month. Hmm...
>
> September 2000
> 1. Win 98 303539944 (66%)
> 2. Win 95 76819732 (16%)
> 3. Win NT 34527360 (7%)
> 4. Win 2000 15454715 (3%)
> 5. Unknown 12760235 (2%)
You have to refer to some other vendors, but Unknown
includes a number of references to generic unix and "CGI"
browsers, which are actually "SQUID" proxies. And since
Squid itself reduces the number of page hits (by caching
unrefreshed content) this 2% would immediately be an
undercount.
This public counter is also only a count of IP addresses, and
assumes only one browser type per IP address (an invalid assumption).
Since there is only one sample taken daily, the odds are pretty slim,
even with 5-7% web browsers being Linux..
> 6. Mac 9667128 (2%)
> 7. WebTV 3114516 (0%)
> 8. Linux 1373239 (0%)
> 9. Unix 888184 (0%)
As has been discussed earlier, most of the ISPs that support Linux
also make use of IPChains. This would make 100 Linux browsers look
like a single browser to the rest of the counter.
These are known problems, and these problems have been addressed
in other (Expensive) surveys. Also, due to bugs in the Linux
implementations of Netscape, many people use Wine and run Netscape
under Wine (which seems to work pretty well). And some sites
get snitty if they don't see a Windows signature so users spoof
the ID line.
> 10. Win 3.x 755419 (0%)
> 11. OS/2 64124 (0%)
> 12. Amiga 26607 (0%)
>
> And note that numbers of Linux users are
> actually DOWN 11% from July 2000
> even though total visitors are up by 9.5% (43 million).
>
> Now lets look at July 2000 502,483,035
>
> 1. Win 98 318538810 (63%)
> 2. Win 95 101594073 (20%)
> 3. Win NT 41047771 (8%)
> 4. Win 2000 11423496 (2%)
> 5. Unknown 11038874 (2%)
> 6. Mac 10700310 (2%)
> 7. WebTV 4098814 (0%)
> 8. Linux 1543963 (0%)
> 9. Unix 1214391 (0%)
> 10. Win 3.x 1168735 (0%)
> 11. OS/2 79389 (0%)
> 12. Amiga 34409 (0%)
>
> http://www.thecounter.com/stats/
According to their statistics, there are about 550 million
users. With each 2 percent resolving to 11 million users.
At 6-8% that would put Linux at 33 million to 44 million users.
Given the nature of this tool, and the nature of the survey,
it's very easy to see that the margin for error, combined with
the multiplication of these errors (counting extra visitors on
different sites). It could be possible to have 60 million users
who just aren't being counted as Linux users. That would only
be a 2% error.
Conversely, if Linux user community grew from 3% to 6%, or roughly
16 million users, that would still be a substantial portion of the
number of licensess sold last year. If you count the entire 6%
which would be roughly 30 million licenses, compared to the 120
million licenses sold by Microsoft last year, then Linux could have
captured 25% of the market by volume of licenses shipped.
Unfortunately, since the article was "unposted" and I have nothing
but prior Gartner, IDC, DataQuest, and Netcraft surveys with which
to guage growth, the most optimistic estimate would be around
60 million users (based on 2 installs per license shipped).
This would still leave Linux with just slightly over 12% of the
market. If you estimate a lower cloning/piracy factor of just one
install per license, you'd have a minimum of 6% of the market.
Given that last year's figures were estimated to be between 3-5%
of the total installed market base,
using the "cookie counter" estimate (where each counted unit is
uniquely identified by cookie). And a 200+% growth rate (triple)
over the 12 months since the previous report, a 9-15% of installed
base would be a good low-high range for estimating the current
market.
Given Microsofts drop in OS related revenues over last year,
it's reasonable to assume that Microsoft probably sold about
the same number of unitss that they sold last year, perhaps
even a few percent less.
While this isn't an overwhelming argument for Linux, it is a warning
to users who try to tweak their site to exploit all of the ActiveX,
FrontPage, and related Microsoft-only extensions.
Assuming the number of Linux users, Mac users, and Windows users with
these features disabled, putting these "features" on your web server
is like closing your shop during lunch hour and rush hour. You won't
have to deal with those nasty crowds, but you're banker won't be
too happy.
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Marc Bonanova" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ReiserFS
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 22:58:18 GMT
Why the Hell ...
... a) does the kernel include Reiser nowadays ?
... b) doesn't each distro include the possibility of installing
or upgrading over a Reiser filesystem ?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: 23 Oct 2000 18:03:35 -0500
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8_dI5.975$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Mike Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Amazing isn't it? And the windows weenies have the balls to even
> > argue the point?
> >
>
> What's amazing is that with hundreds of millions of users of their
products,
> Microsoft actually pays people to advocate it. The mind boggles at what
> this implies.
>
> jwb
>
What's even MORE amazing is that you know there are hundreds of millions of
users of MS products who are obviously not paid to use those products,
continue to use those products, continue to upgrade and use those products
and you actually are stupid enough to imagine that MS would need to pay
anyone in some lightly trafficed advocacy newsgroup? The mind boggles at
what this implies of the rest of your capacity for stupidity might be...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: 23 Oct 2000 18:05:30 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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+
> > >
> > > Yeah, but Linux had this in 1995.
> > >
> > > M$, playing catch-up with the rest of the industry....AS USUAL!
> >
> > HARDLY! PnP was NOT developed on or for Linux, it was created for
Windows
> > 95. Linux caught up later...
>
> Wrong. Yggdrasil had it first.
>
> MS introduced PnP at the last minute in response.
Wrong on both counts ... I dare you to prove your BS true.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
