Linux-Advocacy Digest #202, Volume #30 Mon, 13 Nov 00 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Craig Kelley)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8{ (Jim Broughton)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Jim Richardson)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Glitch)
Re: Windows vs. everybody-else in the desktop/server markets. (Long!) (JoeX1029)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Glitch)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Gary Hallock)
Re: What I dont like about Linux (JoeX1029)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Gary Hallock)
Re: NT/2000 true multiuser? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...) ("Les
Mikesell")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 03:46:46 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:s4JP5.7854$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Multiuser has nothing to do with what the client is running. For
> > instance,
> > > what if I telnet to a Unix server from a Mac or Windows box without an
X
> > > server? Does that make Unix no longer multi-user because the client
> can't
> > > support a remote GUI?
> >
> > Most unix boxes run just fine without X even locally, so X obviously is
> > not a requirement for multiuser access. You can access just about
> > everything in character mode. On windows, there is often no character
> > mode equivalent for GUI programs so telnet access may not be useful.
>
> And there are command line equivelants for ghostview?
Of course. Ghostview is an unnecessary wrapper for ghostscript
whose only use is for viewing in graphics mode. If you don't have
graphics mode you can still use the underlying tool to manipulate
postscript.
> Netscape works in
> command line mode?
That's called lynx.
> What about the KDE utilities?
Again, mostly unnecessary GUI wrappers around work that can be
done in character mode.
> Most of the command line programs available for Unix are also available in
> Win32 ports. If you want to do work through telnet, you can most
certainly
> do the same work on Unix or Win2k.
But can you manage the machine itself? I have no trouble doing anything
short of pushing the reset button on a remote unix box through telnet,
including updating software, tweaking device driver settings and the
like. How do you deal with installshield/setup on a windows box?
It is also very handy to have files containing some canned sets of
command line commands to do particular things that take a lot of input.
For unix systems I just save them in a file and paste the relevant lines
into a telnet window to get them done. I see windows guys saving
screen dumps of systems, then paging through a mess of them punching
all the same buttons again and again. Is there a better way than that?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 19:49:37 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:aFIP5.19735$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Compared to Windows 2000, Win9x is shit. But if I was forced to choose,
> I'd
> > still choose it (9x) over Linux though, even as a webserver.
> > There's probably more choice in webservers under Win9x although I
haven't
> > verified that. One nice one is
> > http://www.sambar.com
>
> I don't think that is likely, but even so all you really need is apache
and
> an assortment of modules that suit your needs. When you can customize
> one program easily you don't need a lot of others.
>
> > > Not everyone is going to forget that - especially the people still
> > > using them.
> >
> > After using Windows.Net no one will care how crash prone 9x was.
>
> Why would anyone keep doing business with the people who brought
> you that?
Why do you choose an OS that allows a root exploit every few days?
Don't you have any respect for yourself?
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 19:57:52 -0800
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:QTEP5.19645$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "PLZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:FxCP5.196$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Nothing on *nix platform comes even close
> > in the ease of use and the selection of languages.
>
> Huh? On unix if my executable file starts with:
> #!/usr/bin/perl
> it will be executed by perl without the user needing
> to know what interpreter is running. Or it can say:
> #!/bin/sh
> for a shell script, or
> #!/usr/bin/perl -w
> to run with perl but with the warning flag set. How
> do you allow any file to specify it's own interpreter
> and command line flags
Create a shortcut with any command line flags you want in windows.
Easy. Intuitive.
Set your own icon if you want to make it easier to remember.
Put it on the desktop if you want.
Or in the quick launch toolbar so its always visible.
In Win2k you can also set the security.
And you can distribute it to every user of the machine by dropping it in
the"All Users" folder.
With Win2K you can also run it as a different user by checking a flag and
specifying the userid and password.
Powerful stuff.
Coming soon to the Windows 9x crowd as Whistler. Linux? Whats a Linux? Oh
yeah. That OS for geeks that no one ever used on the desktop.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 12 Nov 2000 20:58:12 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Ammendment: It is capable of being a multiuser system, but you need
> > > > to spend a bunch of money on add-on products to run any off-the-shelf
> > > > software; and even then you have to be choosy about which
> > > > off-the-shelf software to run (ie, Office97 needs significant tweaking
> > > > before it will run under the Terminal Server and other packages just
> > > > won't work at all [like OmniPage, for instance]).
> > >
> > > That's true for NT4 Terminal Server, not for Win2000. I've run Win2k
> WTS,
> > > and have never needed a special version for any software for it. It all
> > > just works.
> >
> > Even from an NT4 client? A Macintosh? A Linux machine?
>
> Huh? The kind of client is irrelevant. The Win2k TS client works on NT4,
> 9x, 2k, and CE devices. You can use the Citrix client for non-Windows
> clients. Yes, that's an extra expense, but then that wasn't what you
> originally said.
I said you needed to pay for extra software. How many connections to
you get with the Workstation? Server? I routinely have 5-10 people
logged into my workstation at work just for the fun of it. Can I do
the same with Windows 2000 workstation?
It costs money.
> The software (such as Office) runs perfectly fine no matter which client you
> use.
>
> > You need extra software.
> >
> > And you still need to be picky about the software.
>
> No, you don't.
I know for a fact that Omnipage Pro doesn't work and that Office 97
requires updates.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:03:26 -0600
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:GuJP5.19747$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > And there are command line equivelants for ghostview?
>
> Of course. Ghostview is an unnecessary wrapper for ghostscript
> whose only use is for viewing in graphics mode. If you don't have
> graphics mode you can still use the underlying tool to manipulate
> postscript.
Viewing a pdf file or .ps file is "unnecessary"?
That's the purpose of ghostview. I'm not talking about manipulating
postscript, but rather viewing it. How do you view an eps file in text
mode?
> > Netscape works in command line mode?
>
> That's called lynx.
No it's not. Lynx doesn't support Java or DHTML (well, Netscape isn't so
great at it either.. but how bout Mozilla then?)
> > Most of the command line programs available for Unix are also available
in
> > Win32 ports. If you want to do work through telnet, you can most
> certainly
> > do the same work on Unix or Win2k.
>
> But can you manage the machine itself?
Yes. There is nothing you can do in the GUI that you can't do in a command
line as far as managing the machine.
> I have no trouble doing anything
> short of pushing the reset button on a remote unix box through telnet,
> including updating software, tweaking device driver settings and the
> like.
All can be done in Win2k via command line as well.
> How do you deal with installshield/setup on a windows box?
Well, if the setup program doesn't include a silent mode of operation (many
do, including such things as service packs), then I would install it first
on another machine, monitoring the installed files and registry changes with
various utilities that are freely available. Then copy the files to the
machine via ftp, and apply the registry changes.
If that's too much work, then you could always write a WSH script to do it
for you on 1000 machines.
> It is also very handy to have files containing some canned sets of
> command line commands to do particular things that take a lot of input.
> For unix systems I just save them in a file and paste the relevant lines
> into a telnet window to get them done. I see windows guys saving
> screen dumps of systems, then paging through a mess of them punching
> all the same buttons again and again. Is there a better way than that?
I'm not sure I follow you. What's wrong with a script?
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux + KDE2 = 8{
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 04:03:10 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >That didn't take long :)
>
> Oh it gets worse.
>
> I noticed that smb: works just fine when I was connected to the Internet
> via dialup. I checked and found that the DNS addresses from my dialup
> were somehow the system DNS (very good for a setup with no DNS and just
> two nodes!). I tried to configure the network with no DNS (which is how
> I set it up on installation) and now a whole bunch of KDE apps are broken:
>
> klipper (actually when KDE starts)
> konqueror
> terminal
> knode
> kbabel
> katalog
> kmail
>
> Konsole the KDE crash handler
> -----------------------------
>
> (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
> (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
> (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
> (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
> (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
> (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
> (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
> (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
> (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
> (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
> (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
> (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
> (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
> (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
> (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
> (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
> (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)...
> 0x40c2ee39 in wait4 () from /lib/libc.so.6
> #0 0x40c2ee39 in wait4 () from /lib/libc.so.6
> #1 0x40c8f8e0 in __check_rhosts_file () from /lib/libc.so.6
> #2 0x4049b4d0 in KCrash::defaultCrashHandler () from
> /usr/lib/libkdecore.so.3
>
> #3 0x40bcc008 in sigaction () from /lib/libc.so.6
>
> Seems like network configuration has blown away a major section of KDE 2.0.
>
> (Yes I have logged this as a bug with bugs.kde.org).
>
> Ho hum
>
> Pete
Really very interesting. I do not have named running on my personal box
yet kde2 runs just fine. What is in your /etc/hosts and /etc/resolv.conf
files. What does the ifconfig command return. Likewise the route command.
Im running slackware 7.1 and yes I compiled my kde2.
IMHO its still too buggy for everyday use so I stick with 1.1.2. but still
pine for some of the features of 2.0 (better file manager etc. etc.)
I will probably go back to it when they get the sound system and the archiver
program functional ( I cant get sound to work at all and the archiver locks up
on bz2 archives and has taken the machine down with it.)
--
Jim Broughton
(The Amiga OS! Now there was an OS)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
Following Air and Water the third most abundant
thing on the planet is Human Stupidity.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 15:22:16 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:05:46 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:bAsP5.14094$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > Not true. Multiple users can be logged in simultaneously. For
>instance,
>> > Win2000 ships with a telnet server that allows multiple people to log in
>> > at the same time, each using their own user profile and priviledges.
>>
>> Oh yes I forgot about that. However, you can't actually do a great deal
>can
>> you? If you run notepad, it pops up as a window on the main screen!
>
>No, it doesn't. Try running an X program from a telnet login, what happens?
>
>
It pops up on my local display, (i.e. where the DISPLAY variable is pointing.)
Sometimes I like to show a pic or anim to my wife, who is on another machine,
I am lazy, so I have a small script that takes the filename as an argument,
sets the display variable to her machine, shows the anim or pic, and then
resets the display to whatever it was before. Works like a champ, how can I
replicate that in Windows?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:13:11 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
> > >
> > > > The only reasonable tool
> > > > I've found to deal with remote windows is VNC installed as a service
> > > > because you can run the java client in any browser if you don't happen
> > > > to have the client loaded wherever you are.
> > >
> > > WTS has a browser-based ActiveX control client.
> >
> > I take it that is the Microsoft's pretense of portability. Just
> > as warped as usual.
>
> Sounds pretty portable to me. Any machine with IE on it can be used to
> administer a Win2K server.
I'm assuming an admin could also use Netscape if he so wished to
administer a win2k server or is Netscape not included in Microsoft's Ten
Commandments? "Thou shall not have no other browser before IE"
>
> And when the agreement with Citirix runs out, there will be RDP clients for
> all OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: Windows vs. everybody-else in the desktop/server markets. (Long!)
Date: 13 Nov 2000 04:11:30 GMT
>> > > Ummm, do you understand statistics are all????
>> >
>> > Not in english, no.
>> >
>>
>> ???? Statistics are mathmatic.
>
>Terms are in english, which I've failed to successfully translate to the
>terms which I can understand.
>
>> > > Nope, MS isn't even in the top 50! Infact MS W2K is about 245 days
>> > > BEHIND number 50 on the list! And the best Uptime NT/windows98
>> > > www.microsoft.com reports is a stunning 28 days! Yeah, you can pay
>> > > hundreds of dollars on the most popular, I'll take the the best for
>> > > free! WOW, Sounds like you following the lemmings to bankrupcy!
>> >
>> > MS OS currently run 31 of the 100 most popular webpages.
>> > Microsoft.com, btw, is the second most popular one.
>> > Draw your own conclustions.
>> >
>>
>> How did you determine this????? What method did you use to poll ALL the
>> sites on the web (the only way you can find what the "most popular
>> sites" are) If you are using the counter numbers, the best you can say
>> is MS OS runs on 31 of the 100 most popular the counter's customer
>> pages.
>
>
>100hot.com & netcraft.com
>
>It's all in the post that started this.
>
>> MS OS running on 31 of the 100 most popular site means that 69 of the
>> top 100 are running something else! Probably Unix!
>
>No, 20 run linux.
>
>
>
>
>
he didnt say anything about Linux he mentioned UNIX.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:15:47 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Bruce Schuck wrote:
>
> "Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:JgFP5.84353$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:26:24 GMT,
> > Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >I take it that is the Microsoft's pretense of portability. Just
> > >as warped as usual.
> >
> > People who indoctrinate themselves into Microsoft's way
> > of thinking do indeed develop some very odd notions. You will
> > note these yourself as you observe the logic displayed by
> > some MS users.
> >
> > Some common trends:
> >
> > 1. A database is a file.
>
> Or a collection of files.
>
> >
> > 2. A portable application is one which can be easily
> > carried from one Windows installation to another. This
> > is what Bruce had in mind when he told me that Jet is
> > the right choice for "easy portability".
>
> Try emailing a user an Oracle database.
>
tar and gzip it up and mail it, what is so hard about that? With all
the extra formatting that MS likes to add to files within their Office
suite of apps you would probably want to zip the Access db anyway since
it would probably be bloated with formatting, etc.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:10:47 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>
> Huh? The kind of client is irrelevant. The Win2k TS client works on NT4,
> 9x, 2k, and CE devices. You can use the Citrix client for non-Windows
> clients. Yes, that's an extra expense, but then that wasn't what you
> originally said.
>
> The software (such as Office) runs perfectly fine no matter which client you
> use.
>
Hardly! Runs, yes. But Citrix is a pig, at least on AIX. I was forced to
used Citrix on AIX to run Lotus Notes on NT. Absolutely horrible trivial
response times. My life got a lot easier when I moved to running Lotus Notes
with Wine on Linux on my thinkpad and directing the display back to my AIX
workstation.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: What I dont like about Linux
Date: 13 Nov 2000 04:16:38 GMT
>>This is a list of what I dislike about Linux, though easily solved and not
>too
>>big a deal.
>>
>>1) Netscape
>>The Netscape windows is *always* too tall, fixed easily.
>>
>>Well, there it is. Thats what i dont like.
>
>Really? For me, it always opens too small.
>
Yup it opens too big every time, nothing major but damn annoying sometimes. Oh
well, just use lynx...
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:15:31 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> I don't think that happens under Win2k (I'll check though). I think Win2k
> honors the context for the local user.
>
> Similarly, what happens if you have DISPLAY set for a machine you are not
> logged into? Does your app pop up on someone elses computer if you mistype
> the IP address and that IP happens to have an X server running?
Only if the owner of the display has set xhost + or otherwise authorized you.
Of course, who uses IP address directly? Most of the time you would use the
name, which is less likely to be typed in error.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 23:16:47 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT/2000 true multiuser?
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>
> Unless your telnet negotiations propagate the DISPLAY setting for you
> as current versions do. Then it just works transparently.
>
Yes, of course. Some do that automatically.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion.
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 04:20:03 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> What's so hard about that?
> >> It's included. We were talking about what Admin tools are needed that
> >> are not included.
> >
> >You buy a larger hard disk an want to copy your existing setup
> >over to it. How do you do it? With Linux you would connect
> >it up, 'cp -a' all your partitions to their new destinations, swap
drives,
> >boot with a floppy and run lilo to be back in business. Cloning
> >an existing setup to a new machine is equally trivial.
>
> Assuming you know how to do all of that under Linux. I don't.
I suspect you do just so you could point out any flaw you might find.
Let's see: you spell 'cp -a' c, p, space, dash, a, then it takes a
source directory and a destination directory. Too hard yet?
> Under
> Windows best thing would be install new disk with the software that
> comes with it (partitioning program) and re-install from the image CD
> included with the machine.
Then it could take weeks to install all your software on top of that.
> You could always use Drive image by PPQ
> though.
Ah, yes back to admin tools that aren't included. Why didn't you
just say you need a bunch of other stuff in the first place?
> >How does that help with moving installed programs?
>
> It doesn't, but that is not what he asked.
> Moving programs around under Windows is a pain, no doubt. It is
> quicker to re-install, or use drive image. I prefer a re-install
Then you must not have many programs to deal with. I think the last
Dell I got came with 20-odd CD's of software, device drivers and
the like.
> >> I liked Mandrake 7.0 / 7.1 but after using it for several weeks I
> >> found that the ordinary tasks I do under Windows are more of a pain in
> >> the ass with Linux for me. As an example reading news. I had to set up
> >> 4 different programs (leafnode, slrn and the editor and spell checker)
> >> then I had to fire off leafnode to retrieve messages.
> >
> >What's wrong with Netscape or Knode?
>
> Netscape is years behind IE in terms of look and features. Just
> looking at it even with tt fonts makes my eyes hurt.
7.2 comes with Netscape configured for a larger and nicer font
which is easier to read. Postscript fonts are best - if you have
some, drop them in.
> It locks you out
> when loading certain pages and you have to wait till it stops before
> you can do anything. Nasty program, even under Windows.
It only locks when DNS doesn't respond. Personally I agree that running
everything in one process is a bad design.
> Never tried knode. What is it?
The KDE newsreader. I assume StarOffice has one two. I haven't
been able to figure out how to export a .newsrc equivalent from
outlook to get the articles in sync on anything else so I haven't
tried either yet.
> >> Printing was another problem.
> >> I was stuck with a monochrome printer.
> >
> >Odd, no one else is.
>
> And it would print under Netscape and from a command line but nowhere
> else including from kde or StarOffice.
Bizarre - but probably not at all difficult to track down.
> >> The permissions thing
> >> was another pain, su'ing to root all the time to do things is just
> >> extra steps.
> >
> >Just like admin under NT/Win2k only easier because you don't
> >have to kill all your other windows and logout first.
>
> But I find I rarely have to go into Admin under Win2k.
That makes one of us.
> Under Linux I
> was always screwing around trying to make something work.
Likewise under any flavor of windows.
> >> My wheel mouse half worked in
> >> that the wheel worked but you had to click on the window first where
> >> as under Windows it hovers and knows what window you want to scroll.
> >
> >Hmmm, are you really complaining about the lack of mouse configurability
> >in the window manger? I think you know better.
>
> I'm saying there IS no mouse configurations other than making the
> wheel work.
> At least none that I could find.
Did you try the kde control center? There are a dozen or so specific
settings
for mice under hardware/mouse, and another screenfull under
LookNFeel/Mouse Behaviour, but what you are talking about may
be window focus, not a mouse-specific thing so LookNFeel/Actions
might have what you want in the drop-down for focus policy.
> >> Finally I realized that I was spending too much time fiddling with
> >> Linux to customize to work as easily as Windows does for me and that
> >> is why I dumped it.
> >
> >Tell us - how long did you work to find something to complain about
> >this time? Takes longer and longer doesn't it?
>
> Same complaints all along, going back to version 4.1 of Redhat.
There is no accounting for taste.
> The current Linux distributions suck for a desktop user.
Who wants something from some other vendor just because
it is from some other vendor.
> They are
> getting better and maybe in time will get to to point that they are as
> easy to use and as productive as Windows. I never screw around with
> Windows settings, they just work.
That makes one of us. Mine generally don't, my office and every other
office I know about has a whole team of people who just go around
fixing them.
> Under Linux it's play, play play and
> play again. Read, read read and read some more and then ask on a
> newsgroup and get 10 different answers none of which works. Then find
> out that you are one of many that are having the exact same trouble.
Perhaps, if you are doing something obscure and probably impossible
on other systems. Normal things just work and you can clone a working
system to a new machine without special tools so you never have to
do it again.
> Waste of time Linux is.
> Claire
And your purpose in posting this is?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Journaling FS Question (Was: Re: Of course, there is a down side...)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 04:22:36 GMT
"Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:MGIP5.125975$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > The thing you are missing is that journaling does not mean you won't
> > > > lose anything, it means that the operations are ordered so you can
> > > > always recover to a consistent state. Journaling metadata means that
> > > > the directory structure and free space tables are always consistent
> > > > or at least recoverable even though any particular file's contents
> > > > may not be correct. Journaling everything usually requires writing
> > > > changes to a log, performing the real update, then clearing the log
> > > > so that incomplete operations remain in the log and can be completed
> > > > during recovery. Making this set of steps come close to the speed
> > > > of non-journaled operations is non-trivial.
> > >
> > > Sounds like NTFS does it.
> > >
> > > http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q101/6/70.ASP
> >
> > There is really not enough information in that article to tell whether
> > the log is just metadata or not, and I doubt if the omissions were
> > accidental.
>
> It is exceptionally clear (and note this was NT 3.1 so it was in NT from
the
> beginning)
>
> When a user updates a file, the Log File Service records all redo and undo
> information for the transaction. For recoverability, redo information
allows
> NTFS to roll the transaction forward (repeat the transaction if
necessary),
> and undo allows NTFS to roll the transaction back if an error occurs.
Where does it say that what it considers as a transaction includes the
data? I question this because I have seen other sources that said it
didn't.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
