Linux-Advocacy Digest #863, Volume #29 Thu, 26 Oct 00 02:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (2:1)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (2:1)
Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux. (2:1)
Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is why.
(Goldhammer)
Re: An entire morning wasted on a Linux install. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake (2:1)
hardware problem ("none")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Astroturfing ("Christopher Smith")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("JS/PL")
Re: Astroturfing (Marty)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 03:06:41 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Now, fixing that is not a bit deal...I add a line to lilo.conf that says:
> > > >
> > > > append = "mem=163264k"
> > >
> > > Note: If you get this wrong, KERNEL PANIC...
> >
> >
> > No shit Sherlock!
> >
> > Guess what? If I put random crap in the registry, then BLUE SCREEN.
> >
> > Guess this makes windows real shitty...
>
> No, because you wouldn't have cause to go in and edit the registry
> for basic OS functionality, which Linux lacks.
>
> In Linux, I am forced to edit my lilo.conf which teeters on the
> brink of OS failure because the OS is too dumb to detect the
> basic geometry of the system.
>
> -Chad
Well, you better start learnin how to use that
thing Chad. Old man time is eating away
your environment over there.
Don't get caught in a vacuum.
--
Charlie
By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[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: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 06:06:31 +0100
Relax wrote:
>
> > > > "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > There is not OS graphics subsystem. The graphics is done simply via
> > > > socket calls.
> > >
> > > It *has* to be a little more than that :) The libraries certainly
> provides
> > > things such as drawing surfaces in memory etc.
> >
> > That is not necessary, you can do it by hand. All that is needed is
> > socket calls, since that is how all communication is done. In X terms,
> > Xlib is assembly language and the socket calls are machine code.
>
> OK, but what if you are assembling things in memory, or apply transforms or
> whatever in your app code? Do you have to do it pixel by pixel with a
> network round trip for each pixel? (I hope not :)
No, you tell the server to do the transform. Or you do the whole thing
locally and then send the pixmap to the server.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 06:13:34 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Now, fixing that is not a bit deal...I add a line to lilo.conf that says:
> > > >
> > > > append = "mem=163264k"
> > >
> > > Note: If you get this wrong, KERNEL PANIC...
> >
> >
> > No shit Sherlock!
> >
> > Guess what? If I put random crap in the registry, then BLUE SCREEN.
> >
> > Guess this makes windows real shitty...
>
> No, because you wouldn't have cause to go in and edit the registry
> for basic OS functionality, which Linux lacks.
>
> In Linux, I am forced to edit my lilo.conf which teeters on the
> brink of OS failure because the OS is too dumb to detect the
> basic geometry of the system.
Meanwhilst, my Linux box detects all 72 M of ram, but I have to hack the
windows registry to met mousefocus.
Here is my point:
You said if you put a wrong number in mem=, you get a krenel panic.
I said, of course you do. If you put wierd stuff in the windows
registry, you get a blue screen.
As you can see, your point about the kernel panic proves nothing about
Linux, except that (like all oss) wierd configurations will kill it, if
they are wierd enough.
I wasn't refering to auto detection of anything.
Besides, Windows can't see my CDRW (thinks it's a CDR). So I guess it
isn't perfect.
-Ed
> -Chad
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I don't like about RedHat Linux.
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 06:16:04 +0100
>
> One thing that really ticked me about redhat (6.1) was the output configuration
> files from linuxconf being so tightly integrated with the system init scripts and
> daemon inits. It made it almost impossible to remove linuxconf from the system.
> With slackware that problem does not exist. It is straight forward no nonsense
> linux and it works well.
Mabey it's not as bad in 5.2 I've had no real problem. If you remove
it's boot hook, then it's easy to get rid of.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Goldhammer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS an operating system, Windows 9x and ME are not, here is why.
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 03:18:18 GMT
In article <aVJJ5.86$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of my favorite features of VMS was its file versioning concept.
> Did the VMS guys bring that to NT?
No.
> And does NT use the huge number of inter-related user and
> process privileges that VMS did?
No.
> Playing with those privileges was
> crucial to tuning a VMS system.
You bet.
> I have no doubt whatever that NT is in large part based on VMS.
Prior to PRISM/Mica, Culter worked on RSX, VAXeln, compilers, and
debuggers. IIRC the only VMS he was involved in was version 1.
He worked on PRISM/Mica starting in 1981, and when Digital canned
Mica in 1988, he migrated to Microsoft shortly thereafter, and like
any good disgruntled employee, probably brought some of his work
with him. A logical question naturally arises here: shouldn't we be
looking at comparisons between NT and Mica, rather than NT and VMS?
> One thing clinched it for me: the 32 priority levels,
> with the top 16 being "real-time" and the bottom 16 subject to
> "boosting." It's a good system, and clearly not coincidental.
The Psion PDA also has 32 process priority levels, and a similar
inheritance behavior for created processes.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An entire morning wasted on a Linux install.
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 03:35:47 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Did you call the help-desk? LinuxCare provides installation support
> >for the first 30 days. You might need to install CDrom.
>
> No. I called you guys :)
>
The #1 bitch of Wintrolls is no support for Linux.
And yet you managed to install it on an unframiliar
laptop and get it running in just an hour or so.
With the help of people from COLA yet!
--
Charlie
By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Debian vs RedHat/Mandrake
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 06:30:30 +0100
> Actually, Bill realized he made a mistake shortly after he sold
> Xenix (and all rights to the UNIX market) to SCO. He figured he
> could buy the company with pocket change (less than $100 million
> would give him controlling interest?). And if anyone tried a
> hostile take-over, Microsoft would be "off the hook". Instead,
> a number of investors, most not terribly fond of Bill Gates or
> Microsoft, purchased nearly all of the outstanding shares. At least
> enough to keep Gates from getting control of the company, and widely
> disbursed enough that it couldn't be classified as a take-over.
>
> Unfortunately, Bill Gates had not seen X11R3 until after he had sold
> his right to UNIX.
>
> > > Charlie
> >
> > Windows is slowly and painfully becoming UNIX.
In one way: it's beginning to see the same sort of functionality.
However, it's limited by uninterpolable stuff, and it's trying to
duplicate 30 years work in 10 years, which it is (fairly obviously)
failing at.
> Yes and no. Microsoft has always resisted even the most basic
> of standards, preferring proprietary substitutes which it protects
> with a razor-wire network of NDAs. While the bulk of the Internet
> runs PPP w/CHAP, TCP/IP, DNS, and fixed addressing (for security
> reasons) using RARP or static IP,
>
> Microsoft uses PPP with MS-CHAP (a perverse extension protected
> by NDA until cracked by Linux users frantic to use AOL POPs).
>
> Microsoft uses NETBIOS/IP for many of it's functions which
> advertises servers and services in the most unsecure way possible.
>
> Microsoft uses WINS which adds even more security holes, especially
> when trusted domain relationships are astablished inappropriately.
I'll take your word on that, I don't know anything about WINS or NETBIOS
(link?).
> And Microsoft uses DHCP which thwarts most attempts
> to identify hackers (who simply release the address by changing
> MAC addresses manually).
>
> While the rest of the industry uses CORBA, Microsoft brought us
> DCOM and ActiveX, sponsors of the Melissa, Explore-zip, Iloveyou,
> and Internet Exploder viruses.
Activex is a wretched security hole. You may as well post your password
to alt.2600 :-)
> Even simple ascii text is treated differently. Attempting to view
> UNIX text files on Notepad (the default handler for text files) result
> in a nearly unreadable display which will be further mangled and
> unreadable to UNIX if word wrap is enabled and the files is
> subsequently saved. Similar uglification occurs with other attempts
> to convert Microsoft content into industry standard content.
Thay seem to be ble to mangle even the most foolproof of things.
> The GNU manifesto explains why Microsoft does this. Quite simply,
> when you save a document in Microsoft's proprietary formats, Microsoft
> now owns an interest in that document. To read that document with
> unlicensed software creates a legal and financial oblication even
> when the technology is possible.
>
> > Look at it, it now has a remote GUI,
>
> Which again is completely unique and incompatible with everything
> else. SMS/PCAnywhere... are poor substitutes for X11 and VNC which
> allow multiple users to run graphical programs remotely at the same
> time. With Microsoft's platform, one user at a time can use a very
> slow interface to the full windows screen.
Despite what people say, I like X11. I've never even notices the bad
fonts (I use fixed width mostly). It seems to be very responsive over
the network.
>
> > a POSIX subsystem,
>
> Actually, only POSIX level one. Which is just short of useless.
> There are three levels of POSIX compatibility and Windows couldn't
> even get the forks and pipelines managed properly. Again, they have
> proprietary alternatives, which are completely incompatible with all
> other POSIX level 2 systems.
Of course... I dodn't realise the POSIX subsystem was worthless.
>
> > symbolic links, etc.
>
> But how these links (shortcuts) are interpreted is up for grabs. While
> symbolic links require special interrogation to distinguish them from
> regular files, Microsoft's shortcuts require special handling to be
> treated as shortcuts. Command.com will not follow shortcuts, nor will
> many other applications, especially in terms of paths.
Shortcuts are an ugly hack, seing as they are not interpreted uniformly.
It seems as though they pride them selves an nasty, inextensible hacks.
>
> > Besides, wasn't NT3
> > a better UNIX than UNIX?
>
> Actually, Windows 2000 is a better UNIX than SunOS 4.0.
Was SunOS4 pretty poor? (not considering the hardware).
>
> Of course, when comparing the Win2K machine with 512 meg of RAM,
> 40 gig hard drive, and 1 gigaflop/BIPs processor to the SunOS 4.0
> with 8 meg of RAM, 512 meg hard drive, and 10 Mips processor, it
> would be silly to thing that little underpowered toy would be a
> useful as a machine nearly 100 times bigger and 100 times faster.
It's not such a fair test...
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "none" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: nz.comp
Subject: hardware problem
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 16:58:17 -0700
small problem, I have a new 30G ATA66 Drive, with a new BX2000+ motherboard.
Redhat 6.2 didnt like ATA66, so I switched off the ATA66 support, and moved
the drive to plain IDE (ATA33), which for some reason the drive doesnt boot
even with w2k or lilo on the MBR. I was intending use RH6.2, and upgrade to
2.4-test-xx, too support ATA66. I have 21G for Windows 2000, and 9G for
Linux (8.5G Linux/500Mb Swap) but the problem, if i switch the drive back
the ATA33 slot, install linux, how could I get W2K installed knowing that
the drive wont boot from it.
What I want is ATA66, Linux and W2K, working together, either with lilo or
W2K bootloader.
btw i dont wanna buy/download the latest version of any distro. Rh6.2 is
good.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 03:55:53 GMT
> Windows NT and 2000 are. Win9x are irrelevant. They are inferior
technology,
> MS even admits this, but consumers keep buying in droves and they're
> not about to give up their biggest cash cow and force everyone to
Win2K.
Of course not, its not like any end user pays for a copy of Win2k. Only
the business customers. Microsoft knows that. The only reason that
Microsoft is making so much money is because businesses have to lisence
the thier software for EVERY computer in thier building that uses it,
because of audits. Smart end users/consumers that want Windows
9X/NT/2k/ME just copy it from friend*. The end users don't give a dime
to Microsoft. Microsoft practically gives away thier Win9X/ME OS to
hardware vendors just to get them to sell computers with it pre-
installed. Thats why everyone has Windows. Its not like consumers
directly chose the operating system on their new computers.
*I do not participate in, or advocate software piracy, just a my point
of view.
<snip>
> No you don't. You are either strawmanning or grossly misinformed.
>
> <SNIP: ignorant blathering about how MS has a conspiracy to nuke the
> internet>
>
> Give me a break. LOOK OUT! BLACK HELIOCOPTERS! STICK YOUR HEAD BACK
> IN THE SAND!
>
You didnt understand what I said. I was just pointing out that our web
servers and accounting database servers seems to run better under
Linux. Maybe its just my imagination that we get 0 complaints from our
clients and impecable reliability when we use Red Hat 5.2 (not even the
newest version [currently 6.2, we recently upgraded]), and crashing
servers with memory leaks when we used SQL server and MS Win NT 4.0
w/SP 5.
<snip>
> See, this is the problem with you idiots. You think all Windows are
Windows
This is the problem: there is no need to call names, we are not in high
school. Attack the issue, not the person.
ISSUE:
Windows bases its program execution in the THREAD. When a process is
mapped into memory the main thread is started and can then spawn
multiple child threads. Although all Windows systems (I'm talking
NT/2k/ME/CE or 9X anything that uses Win32) guarantee that if a process
has to be shut down externally (freezes up [a common occurence i might
add]), all the system resources used by the PROCESS will be freed, the
resources allocated by child threads will are not. Spawing child
processes (which would guarantee cleanup) is HORRIBLY inefficient under
all Win32 platforms. This applies to ALL Win32 based systems
(NT/2k/ME/CE or 9X).
However under Linux the situation changes. The Linux OS uses the
PROCESS as its executable model. Spawing child processes (which
creates its own main thread) is the way the system handles it best. You
can spawn threads too, but generally child processes are the way to go
because the system will always guarantee cleanup. If you have an
Apache module, that hands off client connections from a server to
seperate processes, it maps its OWN resources, so it doesn't interfere
with its big daddy process.
If a each client were handed a thread (Win32 system), if the thread
screws up resources, the whole process has to be WHACKED out of memory
and the MAIN PROCESS DIES (leaving extra stuff allocated by child
threads behind with NO cleanup). Meaning the in the web server world,
you just lost 100+ client connections, for one thread that acted up,
and you'll probably have to re-boot just to free the memory. Sad isn't
it.
> 95. Yes, Win9x sucks, we all know it and agree. But you must really
get a
> basic education and understand that NT/2K are completely different in
> all regards.
Not really, as I aforementioned
Basic education? Well it seems that through this conversation, that
someone needs a basic education in conversation. You don't through to
people through demeaning statments and calling names. Just the facts.
<snip>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 14:56:56 +1000
"Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > My impression of the average OS/2 advocate remains unchanged....
> >
> > *plonk*
>
> Looking in COOA for an example of an "average" OS/2 user is not unlike
looking
> in a maximum security prison complex for an example of an average man.
1. I did say "advocate", not "user".
2. I'm actually looking in comna :).
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 01:16:47 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> If a each client were handed a thread (Win32 system), if the thread
> screws up resources, the whole process has to be WHACKED out of memory
> and the MAIN PROCESS DIES (leaving extra stuff allocated by child
> threads behind with NO cleanup). Meaning the in the web server world,
> you just lost 100+ client connections, for one thread that acted up,
> and you'll probably have to re-boot just to free the memory. Sad isn't
> it.
Funny you should mention having to re-boot to free up memory - assuming a
Win2k machine was being actively used for an average 18 hrs a day running a
large assortment of different applications, by at least five users, three
being kids 8-14 years old, banging away at random all afternoon, every day
of the year. How often, in your opinion, would said machine need to be
re-booted to free up the memory it so poorly handles? While your putting
together an answer I'll be looking the cd archives for some old screenshots
I made before making the machine a dual boot computer.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 05:41:51 GMT
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > My impression of the average OS/2 advocate remains unchanged....
> > >
> > > *plonk*
> >
> > Looking in COOA for an example of an "average" OS/2 user is not unlike
> > looking in a maximum security prison complex for an example of an
> > average man.
>
> 1. I did say "advocate", not "user".
My mistake, but the distinction is fairly minor. Most folks who are still
using OS/2 are doing so because they like it a great deal and would recommend
it.
> 2. I'm actually looking in comna :).
Then you'll have even less luck in finding a sane OS/2 advocate. ;-)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
