Linux-Advocacy Digest #875, Volume #30 Thu, 14 Dec 00 11:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux! (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux is awful ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Whistler review. (Andres Soolo)
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Swangoremovemee)
Conclusion ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Predicting the Future (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Whistler review. (J.C.)
Re: Whistler review. (Josiah Fizer)
Re: Hotmail again {Re: Another UNIX sight is doun!} (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Another UNIX sight is doun! ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: Windows review ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Whistler review. (Josiah Fizer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:09:23 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> To be crashed by applications, of course.
> Not really.
Excuse me, but how would you know? It's my screen, and it's blue
often enough to be a nuisance. Oh, I forgot, you're a telepath who
have audited and formally proven Microsoft's source code.
> This means you have a poorly written printer driver. Contact the
> manufacturer.
Hello? A printer driver's task is to take a document and translate it
into Postscript or PCL or whatever, and ship it to the printer. Now
who would be braindamaged enough to write an "enterprise class" OS in
such a way that this process can take down the whole system? Oh wait,
I think I know the answer.
>> Of course, at the moment, I can't get it to connect to any of our
>> printers
> So you admit that you're incompetent then?
Clearly not competent enough to get it work properly. I'll try to
reboot, but haven't gotten around to, yet.
I notice you don't suggest any possible explanations or remedies
yourself. So, are you competent, or simply lucky? Or perhaps you
don't use NT, but just hang around here to insult people?
> What room, then, do you have to criticize anything?
Well, gee, here I thought I was allowed to use a PC even if I've never
even written a device driver. My mistake.
Why don't you recommend an OS that is suitable for somebody like me?
NT and its ilk is obviously too complex and difficult.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:13:40 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux!
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:919g33$t46$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Even cooler, they've already spent that much already. IBM has 1500
> > Linux developers on the payroll now. That's committment.
>
> Wow... 1500 developers... doing what? They don't seem to have contributed
> much of anything back into the source pool.
You must be joking. How about Linux for S/390 and AS/400. How about AFS?
How about JFS? Then there is Jikes, EVMS, and lots more. Take a look at :
http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:26:57 GMT
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Px%Z5.1575$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snips]
>
> > No, that's not it at all - rather the opposite. Burst mode can only
come
> > from the on-drive cache, and with operating systems that do reasonable
> > caching themselves, on-drive cache is not helpful. Please describe a
> > situation where you think the Linux filesystem cache would not already
> > contain anything the drive cache might hold.
>
> The most obvious would be any data read from the disk which has not yet
been
> transferred over the bus to the OS for it to cache.
>
This will rarely or never happen because Linux will be both more
aggressive and more intelligent about requesting read-ahead from
the filesystem than the drive itself. The result is that you have
access at full memory speed instead of even having to wait for
burst-mode transfers.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: 14 Dec 2000 15:36:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No, Let's just say that Microsoft has no VISION!
>> They stole Windows from apple.
> Actually Apple stole it from Xerox.
One bad doesn't make another one good.
>> They are stealing the operating system very slowly
>> from UNIX.
> Now using open standards is stealing the operating system.
It wouldn't if they'd done it the proper way, calling the OS an Unix.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
My favorite sandwich is peanut butter, baloney, cheddar cheese, lettuce
and mayonnaise on toasted bread with catsup on the side.
-- Senator Hubert Humphrey
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:43:01 GMT
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:02:08 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No, Linux does not run under OS/390. It can run on the bare metal, in a
>logical partition (not under OS/390), or under VM/ESA. Logical partitions
>are part of the S/390 hardware and have nothing to do with OS/390.
This is true. A major Financial house is replacing many RISC boxes
with a CMOS running Linux in various LPAR's (test, development etc).
This is a good use for Linux, but IBM is in it to sell hardware and
they are gonna sell a LOT of it when this use of Linux catches on.
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Conclusion
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:43:14 -0700
After all of the bickering over the last week, I've come to my conclusions:
1) There is no real good study of uptimes. And by that I mean a serious,
possibly double-blind, study of the stability of operating systems over the
long term. To do this would require setting up a bunch of servers on
identical hardware, hitting them with equal loads, and then then recording
the results. It would need to be done in a lab somewhere and would probably
take 12 months to get good data.
2) There are two sources, Netcraft and Uptime.net, that have survey
results. Each one works differently, one is voluntary the other is not.
While these numbers aren't as good as a study like I mentioned above, they
do have some validity. The fact that their numbers corroborate each other
points to their validity. The problems with Netcraft can easily be filtered
out, as can the problems with uptime.net. While the numbers aren't
surgically accurate, they do give one a good baseline, and they also work
well in a relative sense (meaning that we can see that "os a" is x% more
stable than "os b", within the limited bounds of the survey).
3) The most important factor of all is my own experience. No matter how
stable an operating system is, if it's not stable with my mix of
applications, hardware, usage, and most importantly skillset, then its
stability is irrelevant.
4) Uptime isn't as important as availability, and that is much more
difficult to measure.
Thanks for an enlightening debate.
Adam Ruth
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90pm13$2pvo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Where can I find some hard numbers about the best and mena uptimes of NT
and
> Linux? I have my own experience, which I'm sure varies from others. I
have
> Netcraft numbers which don't show NT 4 and W2K hasn't been around long
> enough fro some good numbers.
>
> I keep seeing this debate and they always end up with someone saying, "My
> machine has been up for x months!". Which someone promptly replies,
> "B.S.!". So has there been any research in this area?
>
> Adam Ruth
>
>
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Predicting the Future
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:54:32 GMT
looks like your newsreader could use a better filter.
swango
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 23:33:23 -0500, "Dennis Popov" <dp004i@mail>
wrote:
>nope, just doing my job pl0nking the wintroll (hi claire!)
>Swangoremovemee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The truth does often hurt Dennis. In time you will get used to it and
>> it will hurt less and less each time.
>>
>> Sounds like you might have bought high and are now stuck with
>> essentially useless stock.
>>
>> Swango
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:28:46 -0500, "Dennis Popov" <dp004i@mail>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >pl0nk!
>> >
>> >Swangoremovemee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:22:23 GMT, "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Considering we already have at least four distributions who have
>reached
>> >> >the "Version 7.0" range (Mandrake 7.2, Red Hat 7.0, Suse 7.0,
>Slackware
>> >> >7.1), I predict that in about four to five years, we'll see the
>following
>> >> >headlines:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Linux Mandrake Version 34.2 Released!"
>> >> >"Red Hat 29.0 Now Shipping"
>> >> >"LinuxWorld Takes a First Looks at SuSE 31.4"
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Seeing as Redhat is closing down some of it's offices I suspect you
>> >> may have to remove one of those from your list.
>> >>
>> >> Swango
>> >> "It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
>> >
>>
>> "It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
>
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
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: 15 Dec 2000 02:56:29 +1100
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 02:07:58 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"J.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:41:19 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"Gary Connors" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Monkeyboy wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gary Connors
>> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > > Fascinating.
>> >> > > I've always wondered about this type of reasoning and how it works.
>> >> > > Blaming the user of the computer for it's problems.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > A well done OS, regardless of user, doesn't crash.
>> >> >
>> >> > No such thing exists.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Ahhh...Yet another MS brainwash victim.
>> >
>> >Do check again, anyone with root privileges
>>
>> That's the thing. Don't give just anyone free reign over a server, duh...
>>
>
>The people that administer the server need to have administrator/root
>rights, if they don't know what they are doing, they can kill the system.
>This is what we are talking about.
... and my point, which you seem incapable of understanding for some reason, is that
the
"people that administer the server" should be able to do so *without* (repeat,
shouting)
WITHOUT fucking the goddamn thing up.
If you want to be able to "administer the server", you'll need "root rights". Fine.
But if you
don't know what the fuck you're doing, and you kill the install, then that's the fault
of the
moron in question.
(would you hire an admin that could conceivably "kill the system" that runs, say, your
business?)
My point stands. "Don't give just anyone free reign over a server, duh..."
--
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
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 07:54:18 -0800
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Quantum Leaper wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <PRVZ5.14004$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad C.
> > Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:45:08 -0500,
> > >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
> > ><trimmed>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Windows doesn't have this capability. They never have and they
> > >> >> never will. They are slowly going the UNIX way, but they don't
> > >> >> have this capability yet.
> > >> >
> > >> >.....being dragged, kicking and screaming....all the way...
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> And spell checked.
> > >>
> > >> No, Let's just say that Microsoft has no VISION!
> > >> They stole Windows from apple.
> > >
> > >Actually Apple stole it from Xerox.
> >
> > Four things:
> >
> > Apple was already working on these ideas and visiting Xerox was merely
> > the spark that turned higher management on to the concept.
> >
> Amazing, considing Xerox got the idea from Doug Englebart when he as at SRI
> in the late 60s. So even Xerox didn't invent the idea of GUI.
> Xerox 'stole' the idea from Doug
> Apple paid 6 million, which isn't much considering it was in stock options,
> for the GUI from Xerox
> MS got the idea from Apple.
>
> So everyone stole the idea from Doug, since he never got paid.
Yup. And lots not forget Ethernet and the Laserprinter, both of which came from
PARC (cant recall the people behind them, but I know they didn't make any money
off of it).
====== 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: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Hotmail again {Re: Another UNIX sight is doun!}
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:59:30 GMT
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:18:31 -0600, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is true I couldn't get to my account for about 24 hours or so.
You DO get what you don't pay for, and that includes free internet
access, mail accounts and Linux as well.
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Another UNIX sight is doun!
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:50:10 +0000
BcB wrote:
> System Uptime:
> 18 Days, 1 Hours, 7 Minutes, and 12 Seconds
Uptime "up 122 day(s), 3:03" - and yet this system is rather too
unstable for my taste...
Donal.
--
"Understanding leads to tolerance, which in turn leads to acceptance. And from
there, it's just a quick hop to speeding in Ohio, chewing peyote, and
frottage in the woods with a family of moose. And I just want to claim my
part of the credit." -- bunnythor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 16:02:10 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91ajs4$fi6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > > The point in GUI is not the GUI per se, but to present the user with
> some
> > > easy-to-understand way to work with the program.
> > > If, frex, I want to go to the directory where I saved last year's
> reports.
> > > I can't recall the exact path to the directory, so I've to do
something
> like
> > > this:
> > > cd <directory>
> > > dir
> > > cd <directory>
> > > dir
> > > ...
> >
> > Or just do "find /partofpathyouknow -name <directory>"
> >
> > Roughly similar in effort to right-clicking, selecting "Find", then
> > typing in partofpathyouknow. (Or you can just start at the root with
> > either method.
Your real problem here is that you don't have reasonable wild-card
expansion. In unix you would do something like:
cd /directory_above
ls */filename
or
ls */*/*wildcard*
or
find . -name '*wildcard*' [any of a vast number of options] -print
to traverse a large tree.
or
locate part_of_filename
to do an instant lookup from a pre-built index
CLI vs. GUI has nothing to do with the usability of the available
tools. I don't think anyone would argue that MS provides a
usable CLI toolset, so it doesn't make sense to argue that a
GUI is better because you lack tools. If you want to pit one
against the other you need an equivalent toolset.
> But I can still do it better in GUI or text-based GUI.
> Because I wouldn't have to search for it.
>
> > > And so on until I get what I want, in GUI, it's done for me
> automatically,
> > > and I can get where I want much faster.
> >
> > Not necessarily.
>
> Usually, it will be faster, though.
Only if there are no bandwidth considerations between the
source of the GUI output and the destination.
> > > But text based representation would be just as good, in this case.
> > > Anyone remember Norton Commander? All the power of CLI, plus the
> advantage
> > > of text based GUI.
> > >
> > > As a side note, anything similar for Linux?
> >
> > Yes, Midnight Commander, in the curses version. (The GUI version is
> Gnome's
> > File Manager.) I haven't used it much, but it might offer the best of
> > both worlds for file-management.
>
> curses version?
Curses is the standard (unix) library for character based screen operations
that work on almost any terminal, taking advantage of whatever features
it offers and optimizing the output. For example it can do most operations
with only relative cursor positioning motions, but is much faster with
a terminal that has insert/delete character and line functions. This is
hundreds of times faster than dealing with screens in graphic mode and
if you are dealing with text that you can tolerate (or prefer) in fixed
width fonts, just as useful.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 14 Dec 2000 16:04:20 GMT
On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:36:45 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>That's the technical definition of Liberal.
>
>Unfortunately today, it means, "One who seeks to divide", or "One who
Laughable in the extreme ! Was it the liberals or the conservatives who
were pro-segregation ? Was it the liberals or conservatives who lead
the anti-communist witch-hunts of the 50s ?
>wishes to make government so large that everyone becomes dependent upon it".
Liberal implies moderate. And the differences between the republicans and
democrats are not that great. For example, the republicans still want a
public education system, and they still want welfare, they still want
an accelerated income tax. The only differences are small disagreements
over questions about "how much".
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:06:41 -0800
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Sandman wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ketil Z Malde
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >>> I still have to run into an application that will crush Win2K.
> >
> > >> Me too - I don't use Win2k. NT 4 is, however, quite vulnerable.
> >
> > > To what?
> >
> > To be crashed by applications, of course. E.g. if I print web pages,
> > it will bluescreen every once in a while. Of course, at the moment, I
> > can't get it to connect to any of our printers, so it's been pretty
> > stable lately :-/
>
> Obvisouly a hardware problem. Your printer is incompatible with your mouseball
> and the radiations from your USB extension card makes the harddrive spin
> slower, causing malfunction when readin your printer drivers.
>
> Hence, the OS is perfect, you are mistaken. There is no way NT4 would EVER
> bluescreen if it's exposed to an optimum environment. No way what so ever.
>
> :)
>
Now try printing more then 20 pages at a time to an Apple Share IP6 server. There
is a known memory leak in the print server that Apple has told me will never be
fixed. Thus I dont use Apple file/print servers anymore.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
