Linux-Advocacy Digest #884, Volume #29 Sat, 28 Oct 00 01:13:03 EDT
Contents:
learn linux in 24 hrs ("E B")
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: The BEST ADVICE GIVEN. ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux (Jacques Guy)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Why should I keep advocating Linux? ("Brandon Van Every")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux ("Brandon Van Every")
Re: MS Hacked? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux ("Brandon Van Every")
Re: The BEST ADVICE GIVEN. (Jacques Guy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "E B" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,linux.redhat.misc,utah.linux
Subject: learn linux in 24 hrs
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 22:19:16 -0600
Teach yourself Linux with these books:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=481107344
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=481112305
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 04:08:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 21:42:31 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Compaq does have a legitimate beef.
>
> No, they don't. For some reason they have made up their minds that
> they must have 2.4 right now. I have no idea why they think that, but
> the stuff you're talking about is *already being done* by other
> companies using 2.2 kernels. What Compaq executives have in their
> heads is not Linus' responsibility.
In the past, Major Linux releases came out in April (Raleigh LinuxExpo)
or July (San Jose Linux Expo) so that new product can be announced
for the October (Atlanta Linux Expo).
Of course, back in those days, the only major Expo was Raleigh,
with the others being more like user's group meetings.
> >They were planning to release the Ipaq and their Internet Appliance
> >with the 2.4 kernel.
>
> What do these need from 2.4 that isn't in 2.2?
> USB is the only thing I can think of,
That's it. Linux 2.4 has been getting formal support from USB
peripheral vendors. Many of the more complex devices (Scanners,
Cameras, Printers, and CD-RW) are getting much better support
because the 2.4 kernel has better support for Binary-only modules.
> and everybody else is shipping backports on 2.2 kernels.
Corporations get very nervous about backports. Users probably won't
care.
> For that matter, just ship 2.4-pre-something and call it good.
Corporations get REALLY nervous about betas shipped as production.
This makes mutual fund managers and market analysts very nervous.
It's considered an irresponsible risk. This was valid for Windows,
where betas were rarely stable. It's less valid for Linux,
but policies are policies. Like it or not, Linux is in the "big league"
complete with NYSE corporate backing.
Meanwhile, IT managers who have been holding out for Linux servers
powered by 2.4 are sweating bullets right now.
> I don't think appliance users are gonna get all bent
> about what version they have.
> Yup, it sounds like the 'problem' lies mostly in the heads of some
> executives.
In the business world, we call this "Managing Expectations". Linus
had prevously delivered major releases every year. With 2.2 there
was a bit more of a delay. The two year delay to 2.4 is blowing
budgets.
The problem is much the same as the newspaper publisher. There are
news stories breaking every 20 seconds, but at some point, the editor
says "Let's go to press", knowing that there is a risk that his paper
will miss breaking the "story of the century". No editor wants to
be associated with "Dewey Wins" headline (many papers went to press
announcing that Dewey had beat Truman. By the next morning, it
was known that Truman had beaten Dewey.
> >Very true. One of the problems right now is that OEMs are
> >assuming that once 2.4.1 comes out, that will be "it" for
> >the next two years.
>
> Then they haven't been paying attention for the last two years. Not
> Linus' fault.
Nope. But Linus is the only one with the authority to say "Go to
Press".
> >There are two many people betting too much for you to wait
> >another 3 months for "perfection".
>
> So Linus should declare it official because some suits have a warped
> idea of reality? Rex, if I wanted a Microsoft product, I'd buy one.
> If Compaq believes that this sort of "thinking" is going to result in
> anything but crap, they are dreamers. How long does it take to make
> an omelette? Can you do it twice as fast if you turn up the heat?
Suits are the ones who make the decision to put Linux instead of
Microsoft on desktop machines.
> AFAICT, the problem as you have described it boils down to the fact
> that the users and the people who are doing the work don't give a
> flying fuck about what corporate America thinks it needs. I count
that
> as a good thing.
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
>
--
Rex Ballard - VP I/T Architecture
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: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 04:11:22 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:j1sK5.11999$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:g_eK5.19477$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > How come no other OS has this problem on any hardware? It's _JUST_ Linux.
> > Why? Why does Linux have this problem?
> >
>
> Have you submitted a patch that makes it work on all machines?
Why would I do that? I'm not an OS developer. Supposedly, these clowns
claim to be OS developers, yet they can't manage the basics.
Hell, maybe that is a good idea, maybe I should write the memory
detection algorithim. It'll probably be the only thing that works
correctly in Linux.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The BEST ADVICE GIVEN.
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 04:22:09 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Considering today's events about Microsoft and
> their being HACKED into,
I wouldn't say "hacked", an employe was deceived
into opening an email.
Unfortunately, the weakest link in any good security
plan is humans. Note that the "hackers" or "crackers"
weren't able to actually "hack" into MS, they had to
deceive an employee to run an app on their system.
MS is no different than any other corporation in this
regards. I'm sure any major business with employees
who are non technical and who receive emails have
caused incidents like this.
> their W2K source code stolen
documentation please. All the reports I've read
(including the ones that Slashdot even posted) said that
either nothing was stolen except passwords, or that only
a few projects had things stolen and that those projects
didn't include Windows or Office.
> their not detecting the break-in for weeks,
Do you monitor your network for every outboud email?
> and their total lack of security in operating system
> development.
It wasn't in the OS development, twit, did you even read
the articles?
-Chad
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 04:44:00 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux
Terry Porter wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2000 23:27:37 GMT, JoeX1029 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >i tend to agree. GNU/Linux was not and is not for the desktop.
> I tend to disagree, GNU/Linux is most certainly for the desktop :)
> I should know, its been on my desktop exclusively since August97.
Look, Claire is busy, so she's asked me to answer you in her stead.
Always one to oblige the ladies, here I go, on Claire's behalf:
"Dork"
(Since Linux has been on _my_ desktop for only a very few
months, here's Claire's answer to me, by me, on her behalf:)
"D"
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 04:44:34 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:u8fK5.19481$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I seem to recal you are people like you continually bashing Microsoft
> for the lateness of Win2K. But Win2K was much better than anyone
> expected and included more features than anyone expected. It advanced
> the state of OS technology. Linux is trying to play catch-up. When you
> look the feature list for Win2k and the feature list for Linux 2.4,
> Win2K still has more features.
One of my busiest Linux web servers is rapidly approaching a year of
uptime while with much less working time than that, I've already had to
bring down the Win2k servers to load security fixes with sp1. Tell
me again which one is more stable...
> > Hardly. You don't see Compaq putting their money where their mouth is do
> > you? Funding kernel development by dedicating engineers to it would
> > probably help.
> They don't? I seem to recall seeing on their site that they were working
> with Linux kernel developers to get Linux working on most of their
> systems (Proliant x86 on up).
If they would just use standard components they wouldn't need all
that extra work. But then you could buy replacement parts from
anyone at normal prices...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Brandon Van Every" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should I keep advocating Linux?
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 04:50:07 GMT
"spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> To the Wintrolls.....Go Away! This post has nothing to do with you.
>
> During the time I've tried to advocate Linux, I keep getting flamed
> about how I'm not doing advocating Linux correctly.
>
> [snip]
>
> So I guess I have to conclude that I'm not a Linvocate that plays by
the
> Linux Advocacy rules (who made these rules anyhow?). Comments?
Before vanishing into the ether from whence I came, I hope to give some
of you younger souls a vision of your future. You think this is about
Linux. It isn't. It's about newsgroups. You are almost completely
wasting your time and your life hanging out in *.advocacy newsgroups
discussing anything. It doesn't really matter if the subject is Linux
or game development or politics or religion or racism or whatever. The
only real value in advocacy discussion is as a training ground for
engineers. Competition in the arena of implementation ideas keeps the
brain sharp. But such conversation must be pursued by sharp brains, who
have an achievable objective. Arguing about religious issues is
dull-witted. And with time and industry experience, you'll realize that
the PC industry has some inherent limitations of efficiency and
engineering quality. Once you obtain this enlightenment you'll start
incorporating these constraints into your design decisions. You'll see
why Linux sucks. You'll see why Windows sucks. You'll see that they
suck differently.
Linux was "neat" for the first 3 years that I was learning everything
about it. Then it got old. After you've learned everything about its
basic capabilities it only continues to be "neat" if you DO something
with those capabilities. That's a much higher level of engineering
concern: what's the application? Are you trying to network virtual
worlds together, or are you easily amused by the fact that you can
manually compile some source code?
--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 00:54:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ermine Todd III in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >
>[snip]
>> >> >I'd actually agree with that opinion -- but for different reasons. The
>> >> >Amigas and STs that most people saw didn't have enough oomph for
>business
>> >> >use. No networking. No real expandability. No hard drive (well, you
>could
>> >> >get some as add-ons, but they were prohibitively expensive).
>> >> >
>> >> >They were really good for home use though.[...]
>> >>
>> >> LOLROTFLMAO.
>> >
>> >Would you care to explain your mirth? Perhaps by pointing out where I'm
>> >wrong?
>>
>> It would be easier to point out where you're right. Nowhere. Very few
>> PCs had hard drives in 1985, if any. Networking was hardly something
>> that was common. And as for expandability, I think most non-PCs were
>> just as expandable as PCs. They just couldn't use interchangeable,
>> commodity-level equipment.
>>
>[snip]
>
>Funny - I clearly remember setting up several offices and businesses with
>networked PC's (with harddrives) running Windows in that timeframe. Looks
>like you are wrong again (as usual).
I'm not sure at all what parallel universe your talking about, but it
certainly wasn't this one. Windows, in 1985? I don't think so.
Apparently, you're mistaken about the timeframe.
--
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: "Brandon Van Every" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 04:56:38 GMT
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tdbv1$oce$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > Computer enthusiasts are the smaller market, the ones who want
> > >
> > > They are the trend setters and the peole who other people go to
for
> > > advice! I advise Linux now.
> >
> > They aren't "trend setters," they're a subspecies of computer user
> that
>
> insults, is that the best you can do???
>
>
> > has existed since the dark ages of computerdom. A rareified and
> > distinguished clan. The trend setters are the AOL idiots who buy a
> > computer for $500 to get on the Internet.
>
> Yep, and
It seems that you agreed with the use of insults when it suited you. I
prefer to think of them as fair characterizations of different market
segments.
> > People pay money for ease of use.
>
> But you should look a the new stuff coming out for Linux! IT is better
> and easier to use that MS!
Could you give me a few specific product examples?
> Linux is only easy to use if you have the skill of a
> > super-hacker and want to exercise that skill a lot.
>
> what a laugh, you really have not looked at the new releases have
you???
To be honest, no I haven't. I have looked at recent deja.com archives
about people's user experiences however.
--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Hacked?
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 05:01:51 GMT
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8tcn7a$mc3bl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Stuart Fox wrote in message <8tbp20$clh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >Could the source code get out somehow, or is this just a hoax?
> >
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_993000/993933.stm
> >
>
>
> Who will ever trust any of their products ever again.
>
> First they are a company who claim to care about security of their
products
> and claim to have security certificates for their network oprerating
systems
> yet it takes them 3 months to detect hackers on their own system.
>
> Next there is no easy way to know if their source-code has been modified
so
> in future versions as well as the usual bug-riddled crap you may also get
a
> free bundled russian virus or trojan hidden so deep inside the code it
could
> take months or years to find it.
>
> I cannot see many corporations buying something knowing about these risks.
Nothing has really changed here. There never was a reason to trust
the code - that is still the same, and the same people will continue
to trust it regardless.
> Before anyone points out that the open-source nature of linux makes it
easy
> to compile viruses into the kernel note that the open source nature also
> means that there are thousands of people reading that sourcecode so
nothing
> can hide in the code. Closed source code relies on the company compiling
it
> to find these things and if they cannot detect hackers for 3 months how
long
> will it take to find any source code modifications.
It is more a problem of thinking in terms of passing around 'objects' that
can only be approached through methods that they provide internally.
This leads to thinking that 'opening' an attachment means executing
code it provides. How do you handle an object you don't trust?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Brandon Van Every" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 05:03:54 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> Well this is really nice Microsoft crap.
That's weak logic, that because I have criticisms of Linux that I like
Microsoft, let alone promote it. Frankly, my computing paradigm is that
all systems suck in some way. They have to.
> I personally think Microsoft Windows
> is the worst OS mankind has produced
> since the invention of the computer.
Then you haven't tried many. For instance, consider all the crappy *NIX
that Linux has displaced.
> It is a poorly thought out, warmed over, pancaked, overlaid,
Yep. But the higher truth is that all engineering sucks somehow.
> virus eaten
"Virus eaten?" You realize it's virus eaten solely because it's got the
mass market volume, right? Trust me (but I'm sure you won't), if Linux
were as popular as Windows you'd see plenty of viruses for it. Better
under-the-hood engineering does not magically confer an immunity to
viruses. It just makes them a little harder to write. Which makes it a
little more fun for an enterprising hacker to write them.
--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 05:08:45 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The BEST ADVICE GIVEN.
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> I'm calling for a total halt by all corporations
> in continued investment in Microsoft products.
Perhaps (but perhaps again I am wrong), perhaps
it is premature. Better allow them to get burnt,
badly burnt. The lesson will be better remembered.
> Continued investments of corporate funds
> must have some reasonable guarantee that
> there will be a future Microsoft in your company
> for these investments to be maintainable.
> That these investments are TRULY investments.
> And that Microsoft will even be with us in
> 5 years time.
Weeellll, if enough source code has been
stolen, and if it is made public, then
M$ users will be able to maintain their
system. Even... (rosy thoughts)... get
rid of the bugs, the bloat, the M$ innovations!
Covertly of course, but that is still better
than being completely helpless, at the mercy
of Mr Billy Goats (aka Shub-Niggurath, the
Goat with a Thousand Kids -- playing gamez
under Win9x -- Lovecraft was truly a prophet,
wasn't he? And Nyarlathotep, the Crawling
Chaos, wasn't that the prophecy of Winblows?)
> A great many companies have a tremendous
> code base tied up in Microsoft infrastructure
Serves them right. There is another side to
the coin of the Darwinian "survival of the
fittest" and that is the demise of the
crappiest.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
