Linux-Advocacy Digest #494, Volume #30 Tue, 28 Nov 00 10:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Netscape review. ("MH")
Re: Things I have noticed................ (kiwiunixman)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Tore Lund)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Tim)
Re: Whistler review. ("MH")
Re: Whistler review. ("MH")
Re: Why Java? (Mike Raeder)
Re: Whistler review. (J.C.)
Re: Whistler review. (J.C.)
Re: Is design really that overrated? (Mike Raeder)
Re: Ok, putting money where my mouth is... (Mike Raeder)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:06:50 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What does the cow has to do with the eagle?
> > > >
> > > > You are confusing totally different subjects here, are you even
aware of
> > > > that?
> > >
> > > You're a real Dale Carnegie!
> >
> > Who is he?
>
> Old guy, probably dead now <grin>. Author of
> "How to Win Friends and Influence People".
I favor Atila & "The Prince"
Much more straight-farward approach.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Netscape review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:14:36 -0500
Let me help you with the wordiness problem.
Anything browser by Netscape + AOL == second rate shite.
Pure & simple. Penguinites may love it, but that's all the penguinites have.
You can't convince them. They'd cut off their penis to spite their balls.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Things I have noticed................
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:13:32 GMT
I know the post I did was very "wintroll like", however, I am only
trying to stir a bit of shyte in this newsgroups :) with the absence of
Claire Lynn and co, things have been getting pretty boring, needed to
post something to liven up the atmosphere.
Here are the proper things I have noticed:
Windows, although getting better, still remains very bloated. Compare
the number of lines of code to UNIX, 20 Million vs 5 Million for Linux.
Microsoft advocate's, however, use the typical, superficial rebuttle of,
Microsoft has 2,000 developers, whether Microsoft has two thousand or
two million, at the end of the day, it is whether the original plain
that was set out, carried out, communication between the various
developers is constructive and targets are promptly kept. Generally
speaking, the most successful OS's have not always had thousands of
developers, and example of this would be BSD (and its variants).
Here are the main three main OS's I have tried:
Windows 2000: (from my experience), fairly stable, pretty good hardware
support. However, the hardware requirements of Windows 2000 are pretty
steep when compared to it's competition. Also, whether Windows 2000 is
more secure than previous NT releases, this has yet to be proven. For a
dedicated Wintel user, yes it is a defininate upgrade, however, for
Linux/UNIX users, Microsoft is still playing catch-up in terms of
realibility, stability and scalability.
UNIX/Linux: (from my experience), very stable, average hardware support.
The minimum hardware requirements are not as steep as Windows 2000, yet,
able to provide the realibility, stability and scalability required in
an enterprise situation, from the Workstation to Server, Linux/UNIX has
all the bases covered.
MacOS X Public Beta: From my limited experience, this OS will definately
bring the stability and reliability Mac users have been asking for.
Built on a Unix core for rock solid reliability, yet made easy with the
re-design of the MacOS GUI (Aqua). The main outstanding feature I found
were, Internet access was alot faster as the TCP/IP stack had been
replaced with the more robust BSD TCP/IP Stack, Both carbonized and
Cocoa apps thrive in the pre-emptive multi-tasking environment and the
speed of the booting is considerably better than that of MacOS9.
In terms of ease of use, MacOS X would be the winner, however, in terms
of rock solid, "built like a brick shit house", reliability, UNIX is the
clear Winner. Although the reliability of Windows NT has improved, it
still has a way to go to reach the same level of respect UNIX has in
large corperations.
kiwiunixman
<ZIP>
------------------------------
From: Tore Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:13:23 +0100
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> Microsoft was hot for the desktop. Now that they've
> won (at least this round), they're going back to the
> old server model that they so abjured back in the
> days when all they wrote was toy operating systems
> for toy computers.
Just wondering, why is it so despicable to write "toy" operating systems
for "toy" computers? The PC of 15 years ago made excellent sense as a
home and business desktop machine (well, apart from the IBM design). It
was no "toy", unless you consider a bicycle to be toy in relation to a
car.
Was not Unix designed on machines that would be considered "toys" by
today's standards?
For that matter, why do people buy "toy" lawn mowers when perfectly good
tractor size models are available? (Hint: because the former type is
cheaper and more appropriate for small lawns.)
If Unix people had been able to overcome their revulsion against "toy"
machines, they could have made a scaled-down version of Unix for the IBM
XT or AT and secured a user base in the PC market.
Actually, QNX did just that, but they stuck to a specialized niche and
never went for the general desktop market. Typically Unix...
--
Tore
------------------------------
From: Tim <[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: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:18:36 -0600
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >Easy? Just:
> >
> > apt-get install wine
>
> rpmfind has been around for more than a year now, so this
> debian-is-better-because-of-apt-get doesn't really cut it any more.
>
Actually I think it still is. When I do "apt-get install packagename" all
of it's dependencies are checked and downloaded too and installed in the
right order. rpm doesn't do that, and when you're installing a large
complicated series of packages with a lot of dependencies rpm is a massive
pain in the ass ... I don't know what new features rpm v4 has, hopefully
it's a better system.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:26:42 -0500
> >> Spicerun, calm down, I think Ayende is a little excited because Windows
> >> may actually reach the realiability of UNIX/Linux (which is very
> >> unlikely due to its very poor design/achitecture), however, I don't
> >> think it will happen. From the description, it seem like Whistler will
> >> be mega-mega-mega-mega-mega-mega-mega-mega-mega bloatware that will
> >> require a 1Ghz processor and 512MB RAM just so that it can run a decent
> >> level of responsiveness due to all the hairy-fairy addons a gizmo's
> >> Microsoft has added to the OS (which most people don't really need).
Odd, I run whistler beta on the same machine I ran linux on for over a year.
A pentium pro 200 box with 128 mb's of ram. Hate to say it folks, but it's
true... Whistler smokes linux for gui responsiveness. Not to mention, the
machine, while taking more ram than w2k or nt (debug code you realize) seems
like a very, very good beta. I've run it for weeks now, not one crash.
Read the linux groups concerning upgrading to Redhat 7, you wanna talk about
bugs??
If that's the linux revolution, you can have it. Whistler beta upgraded w2k,
migrated all apps and settings without flaw. And this is BETA code we're
talking about. Redhat releases every 6 months and STILL presses shite onto
CD's and calls it an upgrade. Where's the outrage over THAT Mr. Fung?
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:30:03 -0500
> NTFS is a mutated version of HPFS,32 bit pre-emptive multi-tasking,
> multi-processor capable, protected mem, all the qualities of OS/2 except
> will alot more bugs, and yes, I use OS/2 Warp 4 for a
> server/firewall/netgateway (got it free off APC CDROM (July edition)).
I didn't realize the high performance file system was the source of
multi-tasking,
smp,and protected memory,? I thought the os handled those chores. Oh well,
back to the books.
As for os2 --that's about ALL you're going to use it for. Unless you like
old versions of smartsuite & Nutscrape.
------------------------------
From: Mike Raeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Java?
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 23:41:21 -0500
mlw wrote:
>
> Let's not get into a language war, but I ask the quetion: Why Java.
Because Sun spent so much money and their future depends on
it. :)
--
My Australian Shepherd is smarter than your honour student
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J.C.)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 29 Nov 2000 01:40:18 +1100
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:31:06 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"J.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 06:43:38 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>
>> >> Just use it like the other 10,000 people did in
>> >> a business environment or with napster and
>> >> just watch that peice of shit bluescreen.
>> >
>> >Obscure statement, provide some proof.
>>
>> "Napster crashes."
>>
>> "Obscure statement"...
>
>How is Napster crashing has anything to do with 2K stability?
I dunno. Should I care? You said that "Napster crashes" was an "obscure statement".
I'm just wondering what led you to the conclusion that it was an "obscure statement".
>I've used Napster on win2k, both pro & server.
>It never blue screened on me.
>> >> Or you can read it in the reviews.
>> >
>> >Provide a proof.
>>
>> How about you get some experience as a sysadmin? Try to get 2k boxes up to
>> (okay, sorry, somewhere-remotely-distantly-approaching) the stability and
>> security of unix boxes. If you succeed, _then_ report back to us. Until
>then...
>
>Why would I? Sun already did it.
>http://www.sun.com/software/white-papers/wp-dhbrown00/#1.1
*shrug*
You'll notice that Solaris comes out on top of NT in all the categories in that link
that _I_,
as a sysadmin, care about (resource management, product maturity, resiliency,
clustering,
multiprocessing, remote management, resource managing).
Where Solaris gets beaten? "GUI management tools" Hahaha, I'm laughing already.
"Application
availability"? I use mostly free and open-source, and that which isn't, is readily
available.
Unix has no lack of server apps...
And security wasn't mentioned as a separate category... hrmm... don't get me started...
>> I'll provide objective proof as soon as you can get the hands (legally) on
>the
>> 2k source and turn it over to me, so I can fossick through it...
>
>Sure you can.
>All you've to do is pay a ridicously high amount of money to MS and sign a
>draconian NDA license that basically says, if you even think about this code
>in public, they've the right to kill you in many interesting ways.
>Adminning ME, for example.
So, until you get the 2k source for me, I'll have to come to my conclusions
regarding NT/2k's security/stability/whatever else by empirical observation...
(_if_ you get me the source, i'll tell you _why_ NT/2k is crashy under load,
insecure etc, but until then, I can't tell you _why_, I can only give you my
empirical observations and opinions formed thus).
>> >None of the reviews I've seen on win2k (and I've seen many) "proved it to
>> >NOT be stable"
>>
>> Oh, well, silly me and silly charlie. If a review didn't say it to be
>unstable...
>
>Show me the review from a credible source that claim that Win2K is unstable.
I consider myself to be a credible source, as a sysadmin of some years...
(I mean, how can one determine the stability of a product with a _review_? Are
you naive or what?)
--
J.C.
"The free flow of information along data highways being piped into our
homes and offices will permit unimaginable control by a small elite..."
-- 'The Thunder of Justice', pg. 264
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J.C.)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 29 Nov 2000 01:55:45 +1100
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:26:03 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Stephen Cornell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I've the OS installed for about 24 hours now.
>> > How am I to test something other than look & feel in this time span?
>>
>> Exactly. This is why your conclusion that Whistler was so `cool' is
>> so meaningless. That was what AK was parodying.
>>
>> > Beside, as I'm using the desktop version, it's the most imporant part of
>the
>> > OS.
>>
>> Agreed, at least for Whistler's prospective market, but the way it
>> looks has nothing to do with the way it performs.
>>
>> > The underlying OS is very unfinished, of course, that is why it's a
>*beta*.
>>
>> No, a Beta should have most of the functionality in place, but need
>> more thorough testing to assess stability and iron out bugs. What
>> you're describing is an Alpha.
>
>No, it's a beta1, assuming it would follow win2k, it would've three or more.
You obviously have no concept of what alpha/beta releases actually _mean_. The
original poster is absolutely right. If the "underlying OS is very unfinished"
then it's an alpha, for fuck's sake. If it isn't, then it should be.
A beta release indeed _should_ have most - almost all - of the functionality in
place, and only bug-squashing is needed.
>And, for what it worth, aside for minor glitches (two places where I noticed
>unwrappable text) and things like that, I've found no problems in Whistler
>so far.
>(Although, during CPU & Memory intensive &
>
>> > Do you mind telling me what those propriety standards are?
>>
>> Here's a few, off the top of my head: Broken HTML (created by
>> FrontPage) that can only be read by MS browsers; ActiveX; Java that
>> contains `features' that make it incompatible with standard JVM;
>> closed formats for Office documents that change whenever they have
>> been reverse-engineered.
>
>The only useful use front page has is in making templetes.
Agreed. That's because of that munted HTML it turns out.
And I've read
>documents created in FP from variety of browsers (the most horrible part of
>web designing. I'm trying to stick to HTML 3.2 for the most part, it's
>widely supported.) There have rarely been problems with it.
Thank God...
>ActiveX is not a standard. It's a de facto standard, which is different.
I'll let that speak as a testament to your mental capacity.
("...which is different." How? You haven't even defined what makes something
"a standard". In any case, the only thing that matters is market penetration,
and when you integrate this shit with the OS, MS gets a lot of penetration...
get it?)
>IIRC, the Java they wanted to develop would've supported windows spesific
>commands or libraries.
... so that way, it wouldn't run on OSs other than Windows... (duh...)
>If you wouldn't use the windows spesific commands/libraries, then you should
>be able to move it around.
... but if you do, then your portability goes to shit, which is exactly what
MS wanted...
>They can do whatever they want with the office documents, there isn't a
>standard for office documents, therefor, you can't claim a propreity
>standard here.
Um, you need a good English-language dictionary. It might help your spelling as well.
MS "can do whatever they want with the office documents" precisely _because_ the
various
Office file formats are _proprietary_.
>> As for the whole .NET thing... Remember,
>> it's a documented fact that MS have illegaly used their power in the
>> market to enforce their own position.
>
>illegally?
Yes.
>It's not illegal to use your power to enforce your position.
That leads to...
>It's illegal to prevent competitors from competing,
... by using "your power to enforce your position", say?
> which MS hasn't done.
You are very naive. Are you not old enough to remember, say, DR-DOS? Try
http://usvms.gpo.gov/ for infos.
>That is about as far as my understanding of US laws reach, though.
... which is not very far. If you didn't know the facts, just keep your virtual
trap shut. It'd help your credibility.
--
J.C.
"The free flow of information along data highways being piped into our
homes and offices will permit unimaginable control by a small elite..."
-- 'The Thunder of Justice', pg. 264
------------------------------
From: Mike Raeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is design really that overrated?
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:07:47 -0500
the_blur wrote:
> Oh, and I think that if they got rid of all the stupid looking penguins,
> water buffaloes and got a decent graphic designer to design their logos /
> login / installation screens, people, upon seeing linux for the first time
> would realize that it's not a hobby/toy desktop OS. But we got a long way to
> go for that. It's called brand building, Linux has none and no brand
> building = no mindshare, no mindshare = no users. It doesn't matter how good
> it IS, until it LOOKS good, no one with any sense of style will use it.
This is *too* weird. Are you proposing Calvin Klein Linux,
Armani Linux, Hugo Boss Linux, Gap Linux, etc. Look for the
Linux ads in Vogue magazine. :)
> Unfortunately,
> due to lack of proper (serious) graphic design tools on Linux (killustrator
> is not a serious graphic design tool, neither is CorelDraw until it stops
> using WINE), I'm doing it all on Windows and MacOS =(
Howzabout GIMP? It sounds like a satanic alliance when
you're using Win or Mac for Linux design. There can be
nothing but bad karma coming out of that one. And, IMHO, it
really defeats the purpose of free software.
--
My Australian Shepherd is smarter than your honour student
------------------------------
From: Mike Raeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Ok, putting money where my mouth is...
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:12:57 -0500
Frank Van Damme wrote:
> One remark: Tux was never meant to be taken serious. It reflects the
> character of the linux community: just a stupid picture, don't think too
> much about it, it's part of the fun. Your penguinos look good, very good,
> but they're too serious. Does making your penguins humorous sound like
> rape?
I'm waiting for someone to do a Japanese Anime Tux!
--
My Australian Shepherd is smarter than your honour student
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
