Linux-Advocacy Digest #818, Volume #30 Mon, 11 Dec 00 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (kiwiunixman)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:50:39 GMT
Jeff wrote:
>
> Russ Lyttle wrote:
>
> > As a person who lives in one of the out-of-the-way places, I don't want
> > one built near me because :
> > a> I don't need it.
> > b) The don't want to pay me for the right to build the plant.
> > What they (being government and utilities) want to do is steal the land,
> > build the plant, not pay local taxes, sell the power to California, and
> > leave the pollution with me. I, for one, am tired of being jacked around
> > because California and New York are too stupid to simply build a nuclear
> > plant in their states.
>
> Having once lived in Lone Pine, Idaho, population 20,
> just north of the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
> where they still haven't found or even located all of
> the nuclear waste that they've buried over the years,
> sloppy record-keeping, I understand your sentiment.
>
> Unfortunately, the plants are eventually going to end
> up being built in sparsely populated areas. We know
> that they eventually have to be built, just look at
> California's current situation, and nobody's going to
> stand for them being built near cities and towns.
>
> So folks such as yourself in out-of-the-way places are
> going to end up getting screwed. Instead of having the
> environmentalists fighting against a cause that they
> eventually have to lose, they could at least create some
> goodwill and fight for you guys to get a fair shake
> in the deal.
>
> The majority of the voting population is going to get
> seriously pissed when they start experiencing rolling
> blackouts or brownouts every year, and we've seen that
> conservation doesn't go far enough.
>
> The plants are going to get built.
As long as they agree to pay what I want to charge, I have no complaint.
I might decide that I don't want to sell my nice river, though.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
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, 12 Dec 2000 02:41:21 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> If you allow me to add my opinion to this long thread, I believe that
> the basic problem is to determine what means "user specific".
Agreed.
> If you can define it exactly, then you're right, but if you can't then
> it's just an arbitrary constraint.
> One must keep in mind that we're speaking of a general purpose desktop
> computer, which purportedly should fill any conceivable need.
> In most cases different "users" are set up just to differentiate
> activities of the same user, while in other cases different users are
> really different persons using the same computer (much less common
> actually). But also in that case those different persons may perform the
> same job (two secretaries working on different shifts), or very
> different ones (students using the PC for their training, or for their
> thesis).
I just setup
> As you can see from those cases, which are very far from describing all
> possible variations, you have a number of settings which should be
> common to all users, and some which should not, depending on the way the
> system is used.
Agreed, but defaulting to HKCU if you aren't sure about where this setting
should belong is never a bad idea, IMO.
> But in general, because of the prevailing usage of PC, settings which
> are common to all users are more likely than those which aren't. As
> Windows NT and Windows 2k are much less used that Windows 9x (maybe
> you're not aware of it, but Linux is by far more used than Windows NT
> and 2k), it's therefore quite understandable that developers privilege
> the most diffused platform, and the most common usage of PC, ignoring
> the arbitrary MS distinction between user-specific and machine-specific
> settings.
I wasn't aware of Linux being more widely spread that NT/2K, do you've some
numbers to indicate this?
The only ones I can give you are thecounter.com, which state that 2K is
about 3% and NT is 7%, they are more than all the other non windows platform
*combined*.
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2000/October/os.html
Desgined for Windows Logo has quite a bit of power behind it, and it
requires your application to adher to some rules about programing to
windows, this is one of them.
It's annoying as hell to open the registry and discover that it left
window's size & locaiton in HKLM, and that is why it crush when a non-admin
try to use it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 02:42:01 +0200
"Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9odZ5.25370$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.x Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jerry Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
> > | > Even with Win2k here, which I don't lift a finger to maintain in any
> > | > active way, I experience nasty conflicts between applications and
have
> > | > to either not use one of them or avoid using them altogether. It's
just
> > | > that with Win2k, the machine invariably (always in my experience)
stays
> > | > up, while with Win9x, the machine often goes down.
> > |
> > | I agree with you on this, but the root cause is a _poor_ design of the
> > | OS. Or actually, from what I know of windows, no design of the OS,
> > | just add whatever to it (like ie). The fact that a critical system
> > | file, like the registry, or dll's can be overwritten by installing an
> > | application is just unbelievable. No wonder windows systems are so
> > | fragile.
>
> > I agree that this is a problem which affected NT as well, though bad
> > registry entries are added by apps; I don't know of the registry being
> > overwritten by apps. However, Win2k comes with system file protection
> > that prevents apps from overwriting these dlls winny-nilly. Just the
> > other day I was trying a piece of software and got the message from
> > Win2k that the installation was trying to replace a system dll and that
> > this would be prevented. Of course the application malfunctioned, but
> > who cares ... good riddance.
>
> IIRC OS/2 used to look for dll's in the executable's directory first,
> then the LIBPATH (DLLPATH? it's been several years). This allows you
> to use "special" dll's for certain apps without replacing the system
> ones. I wonder why MS doesn't do this?
There is absolutely nothing to prevent you from doing this.
In fact, I do believe that this might be the case.
I usually spesify full path when calling DLLs, but IIRC, if you simple call
a dll by name alone, the system first look in the directory which you
launched the application from (assuming from application's home folder, then
that it where it would be, assuming shortcut, then the "start in" field in
the shortcut) and only if it isn't found there, it look in the directories
specified in PATH.
I may be wrong, though.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 02:43:29 +0200
"Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:NIdZ5.25404$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:ZfAX5.43$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:ZRdX5.4296$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:LEyW5.2831$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > "Kenny Pearce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> >> > > Eric Meyer wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > > > >They should really try doing a Windows install before
> >> >> > complaining.
> >> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> > > > I have many times. It may not be as easy as installing
> > Office
> >> > (or
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> > like),
> >> >> >> >> > > > but it's still a hundred times easier than linux.
> >> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> >> > > > Em
> >> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> >> > > RedHat installation is really easy... at least as easy as
> >> > win95/98
> >> >> >> >> > > installation... I've never installed any other distros...
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Redhat custom install can be hard, because you need to
> > repartition
> >> >> > your
> >> >> >> > HD.
> >> >> >> >> > Server install should be avoided at all cost, RedHat somehow
> >> > figured
> >> >> > out
> >> >> >> > if
> >> >> >> >> > I choose to install a server, I have no need for information
on
> > my
> >> >> > HDs.
> >> >> >> > And
> >> >> >> >> > so it deletes them happily without even asking my opinion
about
> >> > it.
> >> >> >> >> > Never installed a workstation RH, can't say anything about
it.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Just read the guides first.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > I know that it is in the docs, the reason I've problems with it
is
> >> > that
> >> >> >> > Redhat neglected to put a simple warning box through the
> >> > installation.
> >> >> >> > You may disagree, but on every other possibly distructive
action,
> > you
> >> >> > get a
> >> >> >> > warning saying this may be dangerous. Why not on one of the
most
> >> >> > dangerous
> >> >> >> > thing that you can do to your computer?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Reminds me of Windows, "are you sure ... " etc on every stupid
> > thing.
> >> >> >> Now even xcopy whines when you copy over a file. But, just double
> >> >> >> click on a .reg file and it merges it into the registry! No
> > questions
> >> >> >> asked. I remember reading of someone that did this on a .reg file
> > from
> >> >> >> NT on W9x (or maybe vice versa) and destroyed his system.
> >> >>
> >> >> > No, if you double click a reg file, it tell you "Are you sure you
> > want
> >> > to
> >> >> > add the information in <file name> to the registry?"
> >> >>
> >> >> No, it doesn't, it just blithely merges it into the registry.
> >>
> >> > It asks you, it doesn't merge anything to the registry by default
> > without
> >> > asking you.
> >> > Here is what the path of the default actions ("Merge", in the
registry
> >> > [HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\regfile\Shell\Open\Command\]) is: regedit.exe "%1"
> >> > In order for the registry to accept these without giving warning, you
> > need
> >> > to do this: regedit.exe /y "%1"
> >> > So, no, the default is to *ask* you first.
> >> > This behaviour is consistent with every windows that I've worked with
> >> > starting with 95 and upward.
> >>
> >> NO IT DOESN'T I have done it. Don't tell me what I know happened
> >> didn't.
>
> > I explained to you how this is done by default, I also explained that
you
> > need to change the default settings in order to make the program accept
the
> > reg file without prompting you.
>
> You can "explain" all you want. I did _not_ change the registry.
Then someone else did.
> > You changed the defaults, your problem.
>
> Read the above. Don't tell me what I "did" just because it doesn't fit
> with your preconceived notions.
Then someone else did.
type "regedit" in run and take a look yourself, I have explained you how to
do this.
> > The default is that the regedit will ask you whatever you are sure you
want
> > to do this.
>
> But it didn't! How many times do I have to repeat myself. Have you
> been using GUI's too long?
Then someone else did.
type "regedit" in run and take a look yourself, I have explained you how to
do this.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 02:48:31 +0200
"Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:0AdZ5.25390$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:hIyW5.2834$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:BieW5.5326$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >> Then let's discuss the registry, another stinking pile of dung
from
> >> >> >> MS. The same information repeated multiple times under
> > indecipherable
> >> >> >> keys with little or no documentation. I'll take text format files
> > any
> >> >> >> day.
> >> >>
> >> >> > The registry is hard to deciphere.
> >> >> > You aren't suppose to work with it directly, not unless you've a
good
> >> > level
> >> >> > of understanding about it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh yeah, little things like software that puts run some crud at
> >> >> startup in the registry that you want to get rid of.
> >>
> >> > msconfig.exe
> >>
> >> >> > As for it to be undocumented, this is *false*.
> >> >> > There are *plenty* of resources to find out what each key or node
or
> >> > value
> >> >> > does.
> >> >> > Take a trip to *any* good NT/2K focused site, and you'll find
plenty
> > of
> >> >> > tips on what the registry does, how it does it, and how to change
it.
> >> >>
> >> >> But I shouldn't have to read anything or know anything to admin my
> >> >> computer, recognize the quote? At least the old *.ini files made
some
> >> >> sense, the registry is just crap.
> >>
> >> > No, if you want to use the registry directly, you need to read.
> >> > If you use the tools that the OS/Application supply, you generaly
don't
> > need
> >> > to use the registry directly.
> >>
> >> Ecxept that the OS and applications have a habit of doing things that
> >> I don't want, and the only way to fix them is to edit the registry.
> >> The typical windows mentality, BTW, "we know what's best for you".
> >>
> >> My major reason for editting the registry is to remove all of the junk
> >> that various apps add to startup. If they would only just add the damn
> >> things to the startup folder so I could remove them.
>
> > Why are you doing this via the registry?
> > msconfig.exe, the last tab.
> > You can disable/restore/delete programs that run from startup.
>
> Perhaps because I don't have a program called msconfig.exe?
what version of windows are you using?
It is on 98.
If you are using older version or NT/2000, get it from here:
http://www.techadvice.com/files/w98/msconfig.exe
It took me 5 seconds to find it "download msconfig.exe" in google.com, and
clicking on the first result.
You may also want to get:
http://www.mlin.net/StartupCPL.shtml
To have something similar on your control panel
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 01:00:56 GMT
In NZ we have a few mega-watts we can sell to california, however, its
just the issue on how to get a long enough extension cord that may
course problems :)
The easiest short term solution is to raise the price of electricity (as
in accordance to the supply and demand theory), so as the price of
electricity increase, the demand decreases. Whilst at this high price,
the central Govt. and local governments promote energy efficiency
through the promotion of energy efficient light bulbs, laws requiring
insulation to be installed in all houses, and numerous other measures.
kiwiunixman
<snype>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:43:07 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>> Les Mikesell writes:
>>>>> No, you should understand the pattern so you know how to
>>>>> represent your intentions, assuming you are past kindergarten
>>>>> and already know the shapes of the letters.
>>>> Understanding patterns won't do any good if you don't know how
>>>> to create new text (i and Esc) and save it (ZZ).
>>> On the contrary, vi is extremely useful as a document viewer, and
>>> those commands are not necessary for that function.
>> more is extremely useful as a document viewer. If all you want to
>> do is view the document, you don't need to move the cursor around
>> with hjkl.
> That's hilarious - yo do realize that more uses hjkl too, right?
You do realize that you don't need to use hjkl to view a document
using more either?
> Sure, you can go down a line with 'return', but that's the same
> as in 'vi'.
You can go down a screen with the space bar.
>> There is no need to move a cursor around in an unmodified document.
> Not true. What if you want to look for something ("Please find the
> word "goose" in this document")?
You don't use hjkl.
> The cursor can show you where the match was.
It didn't get there with hjkl.
> Do that in traditional 'more' and you still have to scan
> the page with your eyes once it comes up.
Finding an occurrence of a string is a rather different matter from
simply viewing a document. The latter was what he brought up.
>>>>> d/foo<enter> = delete until the pattern "foo"
>>>> As opposed to "delete the pattern 'foo'".
>>> Yes, /foo positions you to the beginning, not the end of the
>>> matched pattern.
>> My point is that its action isn't intuitive.
> To whom?
To someone who hasn't used it before. Who else? Intuition
doesn't apply to something that someone already knows.
> You can't use that word without a lot of qualifiers.
You just used "a lot" without qualifying it. How ironic.
> Weren't you the one arguing with Aaron that it is not meant to
> be used as an absolute term? Practice what you preach.
I am.
> To a certain set of people, d/foo is highly intuitive - the set
> of people who already know the following things about vi
> d {some mover command} means delete a range of characters from
> the current cursor spot up to, but not including the point
> the mover command moves to.
> /foo is a mover command that moves to the start of the next foo.
> Knowing that, the behaviour of d/foo is completely intuitive.
You have a peculiar notion of intuition. Needing to know a bunch
of things suddenly makes something intuitive.
>>>>> d$ = delete to end of line
>>>> As opposed to delete to the end of the file.
>>> $ always means end of line to commands that work on
>>> characters.
>> One could argue that >1,$s/q/z/ works on characters, yet the $
>> means end of file.
> If you stick '$' in where a character or character mover could go -
> it means eoln, if you stick it where a line number could go - it
> means last line. It's 100% consistent.
You mean the $ never means the dollar sign?
> In the statement :1,$...something... the '$' is being used in the
> place of a line number.
Thus the symbol is overloaded, and not consistent.
>>>>> 4dj = delete current and 4 lines going down
>>>> Assuming you remember which letter is for up and down.
>>> Which you don't have to consider a special case.
>> Is 4dk a special case?
> It fits the generic pattern: {number}{command}{movement}
I see you missed my point.
>>> Carriage-returns are control-M characters
>> So one might expect to enter a control-M into the document by typing
>> control-M. Doesn't work. Oh, so you need a prefix. Now, what is so
>> intuitive about control-V as the prefix? A UNIX novice might expect
>> the backslash to be used as the prefix.
> Ctrl-V is common in many other unix interactive tools.
Backslash is common in many other UNIX applications.
> I use it at the shell all the time.
Do you consider yourself a UNIX novice?
> It's mnemonic is "verbatim", as in, "Do this next character verbatim,
> ignoring any special meaning it may have."
And do you consider the mnemonic intuitive?
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
