Linux-Advocacy Digest #1, Volume #31 Thu, 21 Dec 00 02:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is free. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! (Kaz Kylheku)
An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: "Is the end looming for the Microsoft monopoly?" ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (JoeX1029)
Re: Windows Stability (Gary Connors)
Re: An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!) (David Dorward)
Re: Linux is free. (David Dorward)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is free.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 04:51:26 GMT
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 22:54:28 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You read that some say Linux is not "free" because you have to pay for
>it in some way.
Yea aggravation and replacement hardware cost's as well as endless
hours trying to do the tasks that are trivial under Windows. ICS with
demand dialing for example. So how DO you do that with kppp?
>The metaphors are free as in "beer" or free as in "speech."
Free is free. If you hand it to me and don't ask for my credit card it
is free.
>The argument that I have heard is that one has to pay do download
>software, or that if you download an ISO image, then you have to take
>the responsibility of a CDR burner.
Bad argument... I have to clean the beer mug in my dishwasher as well,
but you still gave me a free beer,
>This is the most bogus argument I have ever heard. If I gave away free
>beer in a restaurant, would not someone have to absorb the expense to
>get there?
Sure.. I agree with you.
>If I said come to my bar, I will refill your glass all night for free,
>would you not have to buy the first beer?
True. Where's your bar?
You open New Years Eve?
>
>Free is never without some cost. If it is free as in freedom, we must
>stand on some values, if it is free as in beer, you still must have some
>investment in the effort to acquire what ever is free.
Investing 12 hours a day to get an operating system running when I can
run setup.exe with Win2k, is asking a bit too much.
>Notice, no one ever says free as in "free lunch." ;-)
And with Linux all you would get is indigestion.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 04:48:34 GMT
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 20:55:08 -0500, jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Russ Lyttle wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, the correct answer is YEP. You might win, Intel might
>> loose, but in the meantime, who has money to pay for lawyers? I would
>> suggest contacting Intel and clearing it with them first. Otherwise post
>> the code as "anonymous coward" somewhere from a cybercafe.
>
>What I don't understand is why a company as big as Intel won't support
>Linux, even if it was just a driver with an object file and no source,
>that would do.
It is precisely because they are so big. Intel looks like one megacorporation
from the outside, but from the inside view they are a collection of many
divisions, some of them small. One division doesn't necessarily know what
another one is doing. So you cannot have some global Intel-wide Linux support
initiative. Every little project team basically has to decide whether and how
to go about it. However, what is Intel-wide is a general paranoia about
releasing information that comes down from the top. So if someone on the Easy
PC camera team wanted to release the information that would help people make a
driver, he or she would probably have to deal with quite a bit of bureaucracy.
Or maybe nobody on that team has thought of doing that. Or perhaps---you never
know---that team has Linux support already in their future product plan. Aside
from reverse engineering, the only way to get anywhere is to get in touch with
the people within Intel who developed that camera. There could be as few
as only 20-30 people behind that.
> I'd like to use the Easy PC camera as a home security
>intrusion detection camera. If they made the driver available for Linux, then
>I'd buy at least 3 more cameras.
Of course, unless the Easy PC camera people read this newsgroup, they
won't know that. ;)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 05:27:55 GMT
For lack of anything else to do I decided to go cold turkey and run
Linux exclusively for one day and see how it measured up for general
use. No games, no financial packages or Windows only programs, just
general surfing and letter writing and so forth. The idea was to try
the different gui's, programs and so forth for an entire day and see
how Linux compares to Windows 2k.
I have Mandrake 7.2 already set up and running, as best as it can for
Linux that is.
First off, this version of Linux is anything but stable and that is a
fact. Here are a few bugs:
Open a terminal window under kde and that's the end of it. You can
never open another one because it is hung. You can open other programs
and run them but when you try to logout of kde it is hung and it's
kill the xserver time.
Wheel mouse worked fine until I tried Gnome instead of kde and it (the
wheel) never worked again after that. Re-installing via DrakConf
didn't help.
Use the Fontmanager to find my Windows TT Fonts, which it does, but
they never show up in any of the menues to be selected. SO where are
they and how do I use them?
Setting up an account in Gnome Dialer doesn't work. When you hit OK
button after inputting all the data it just goes back to a blank, like
when you started. Real nice applet that one is.
Selecting "Help" in just about any program brings up that totally
useless generic KDE help (How to move a mouse etc), or a message that
help hasn't been written yet. Doesn't surprise me seeing as half of
kde hasn't been written yet. It looks and acts like a toy and is very
unstable.
Menues between the various window managers don't have the same
selections in them. For example:DrakConf is missing from
Enlightenment. So where did they go?
Speaking of Enlightenment (pretty nice BTW), once you run it all of
your menues in kde and Gnome get screwed up. Totally out to lunch
unless you wish to rebuild all of your menus.
Printing doesn't work with StarOffice and CUPS.
Trying to change the fonts under Gnome Terminal is an exercise in
confusion. Couldn't they just have a selection "big, larger,huge like
kde does instead of telling me every fsking detail about the font
except what type it is (tty etc).
XFree 4.x kills the WheelMouse. Never works even with imwheel.
My Matrox G400 with 16 meg is identified as a 4 meg card. No way to
change it because Linux insists it has 4 meg.
Not to mention none of my USB devices work.
Add to this that Netscape looks like crap no matter what font is
chosen. StarOffice takes an eternity to load and doesn't import
correctly from Word for Mac, which even Wordperfect for WIndows does
fine.
MusicMatch Jukebox is a half assed, bloated (13meg) pig that runs like
molasses under Wino.
Typical of Linux programs, it is a generation behind the Windows
version.
I did like knode though and that application has promise.
DrakConf is pretty nice as well.
Konquerer doesn't manage certificates well and has an annoying pause
in it every time you click on a link. The gears pause for a second
before the thing starts going. Very annoying. It is also much slower
than IE 5.5 at loading pages from the sites I frequent.
And on and on and on....
Free or not, one has to wonder if anyone test's these things before
they ship this garbage.
So tell me again, why should I switch from Windows 2000 to Linux? Why
should anyone switch? Is there a compelling reason? Surely just
looking at the painful boxy fonts of Linux is enough to make one run
back to Windows. The way I see it I would be taking a huge step
backwards all for the joy of running Linux.
Nothing much has changed in 2 years from a UI point of view.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Is the end looming for the Microsoft monopoly?"
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 23:30:12 -0600
Tom Wilson wrote:
> My favorite Taiwanese instructions....
>
> "Insert wand holder to base and screw up."
> -- Instructions for a light pen.
When I worked in a VAX shop, we got a new workstation and I happened to unpack
the mouse. With the mouse was a small instruction sheet, about 4" square. It
had the word "Instructions" in about 30 languages, but the only actual
instructions on the paper were a drawing of the mouse and an arrow helpfully
hinting that you should plug it into a computer. Not another word of text on
it.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Date: 21 Dec 2000 05:51:08 GMT
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
>Name any advantage for making the GUI a part of the operating system
>(and don't just say that's "it's the way of the new century" of
>something, just name a REAL advantage.
>
Well, see its like this. If the GUI get built into the kernel and GUI crashes
the whol ebox is likely to crash, thus needing a reboot. See the advantage??
If you can get it to crash 3x a day and it takes 7min to reboot, theres 21min
you didnt have to work!!!!!!
Now try and tell me thats not an advantage ;-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Connors)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 01:06:02 -0500
In article <T5b06.333$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nik Simpson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "mp3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Nik Simpson wrote:
> >
> > > There are a lot of factors. First on the list is to use a quality
> hardware
> > > vendor. The number of times I've seen people complain about stability
> then
> > > when you inquire it turns out they are running some hacked up PoS with
> parts
> > > picked up from the bargain basement parts bin.
> > >
> >
> > OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and Linux all run fine on "bargain(sp?)
> > basement parts". Are you saying Win2K can not? Are you saying you need
> > to pay a premium price for Win2K hardware to get stability?
> >
> I'm saying anybody in their right mind concerned about stability regardless
> of OS buys quality hardware. I'll bet money that all the high-uptime
> commercial sites running LINUX are doing so on good quality hardware.
>
Why should they test drivers? That's the point of getting a tested OS. It's
not their job, it's the OS Distributer and the hardware makers job. They
may and should test their own software to make sure it does exactly what
they expect it to, but thats it.
>
> > These reasons for getting stability are exactly why no self respecting
> > admin should use Win2K.
> > 1. "don't go loading any old piece of software, just the applications
> > you need for the task at hand"
> >
> > Are you saying installing old applications can make Win2K
> > unstable? Every Unix I've seen old applications either run or
> > don't run, they don't make the computer unstable.
>
> No I'm saying that some applications and drivers have memory leaks etc and
> installing them on a production server that doesn't need them is bad idea,
> regardless of OS. Problems like memory leaks don't make an OS unstable, but
> they will make you reboot it from time to time, again, this is regardless of
> OS
Memory Leaks. Goodness, never heard of those in Unix, what do they do?
>
> >
> > 2. "Above all, don't go looking for the driver-de-jour and loading it
> > just because its available, this is particularly true with Graphics
> > drivers. In a serious NT environment you have a system that
> > you can use to test out new drivers, service packs etc and don't
> > install on production machines"
> >
> > Are you saying that 3rd party manufactures don't actually test thier
> > own drivers and leaves that up to the customer to do? That can get
> > pretty expensive.
>
> Damn straight I'm saying that. Part of the problem is the sheer number of
> possible permutations of hardware make it impossible for a vendor to test
> more than a small
> subset of possible hardware combinations. Again, anybody running a serious
> system with concerns about uptime would be well advised not to load the
> latest drivers just because they are available. If they solve a problem that
> you have and they are stable in your test environment go ahead, otherwise
> leave 'em alone. Again, this is not a OS specific peice of advice, ask
> anybody in an IT shop where uptime and stability is a concern whether they
> automatically load drivers just for the hell of it!
>
> Unfortunately, many people running NT have no uderstanding of these sort of
> issues and just assume that if it's available they should load it.
>
Stability issues with drivers in Win2K result from the sheer number of
them that run in the kernel. Using Linux as an example, no driver gets
kernel mode unless its been TESTED in a BIG way. At worst a lousy driver
should make that device not work. You work with a strage OS that has
strange quirks.
> > Never had that problem running Unix.
>
> then all I can say is that you've been bloody lucky or that your experience
No. Most Unixes are well designed (Ultrix comes configued all wrong for
large memory uses, if I get 2GB of RAM I want to run Jobs that take over
1.5 GB of RAM and not have the machine slow to a crawl.)
> of these types of issues on different hardware and OS platforms is so
> limited that you don't know what you're talking about.
>
> >Are you saying Microsoft
> > doesn't actually test their own service packs?
>
> Goes back to the issue of the almost limitless numbers of possible
> combinations of hardware, OS and applications. Microsoft can never ><possibly
> test everything. They are a lot better than they used to be. But if your
> system is running fine and you don't have any issues, then don't load the
> service pack until you've had time to test on your particular combination of
> applications and hardware. It's the old "if it ain't broke don't fix it"
> maxim. Again this is common sense.
>
>
It goes back to the sheer number of drivers that can fuck the kernel.
When drivers go down, they should not take the whole OS with it. Sorry to
hear that Win2k has that problem. Maybe you should re-evaluate your OS
choice.
I suggest looking at the BSD's available.
> >Gee, I thought
> > they made a stable OS. How can it be stable if "service packs"
> > can cause a system instability?
>
> Service packs replace parts of the OS, of course they can cause instability,
> only a fool would think otherwise.
>
>
Guess I was a fool for upgrading from Irix 5.3, 6.2 (depends on the
machine) to 6.5 on all our machines and expecting it to work, just like it
did. I guess I'm a fool for applying every patch the Linux kernel that
comes out and expecting it to work, just like it does.
> >Are you saying you need
> > to buy your own computer for testing? Isn't that was driver
> > certification is for? Never seen that on Unix.
> >
>
> Again, this just indicates that you have very limited experience. Most
> companies don't deploy new applications, OS revs etc without first putting
> them on a system in a test environment.
> >
Testing Apps is a far cry from testing for stabilty reasons. It is
reasonable to test any and all apps to make sure they do exactly what you
expect them to do. It is not reasonable to test each app to make sure it
doesn't take down the OS, the app shouldn't be able to take down the OS.
End of Story.
> > Amazing the bullshit you put up with and the extra costs you absorb for
> > stability.
>
> I answered what I assumed was a serious query with information gained over
> 20 years of administrating VMS, UNIX and NT and as Server Product Manager
> for large Intel equipment manufacturer. These are all things I would do on
> any of those platforms if I wanted to ensure stability of the platform.
> Perhaps before I respond further to your drivel you'd like tell us all what
> your credentials are so that we can judge whether you have any idea about
> what you are talking about.
>
Go ask Red Hat and SGI what my credentals are.
------------------------------
From: David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!)
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 06:12:52 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have Mandrake 7.2 already set up and running, as best as it can for
> Linux that is.
Well thats the distro I use for my workstation.
> First off, this version of Linux is anything but stable and that is a
> fact. Here are a few bugs:
There are a few flaky bits, Mandrake tries to stay ahead of the game. If
you want an ultra stable distro try debian 2.2
> Open a terminal window under kde and that's the end of it. You can
> never open another one because it is hung. You can open other programs
> and run them but when you try to logout of kde it is hung and it's
> kill the xserver time.
Never had any problems, but then I don't use KDE. Which version were you
using? Drak72 was rushed out with a beta version of KDE2 (1.9x), if thats
the one you have you should get the update.
> Wheel mouse worked fine until I tried Gnome instead of kde and it (the
> wheel) never worked again after that. Re-installing via DrakConf
> didn't help.
Logitech wheel mouse (always a pain) was autodetected and has worked
perfectly from day one (and still works)
> Use the Fontmanager to find my Windows TT Fonts, which it does, but
> they never show up in any of the menues to be selected. SO where are
> they and how do I use them?
Once you found them did you install them? I only want to use them in GIMP
and they show up there (I haven't looked for them elsewhere so I can't
comment)
> Setting up an account in Gnome Dialer doesn't work. When you hit OK
> button after inputting all the data it just goes back to a blank, like
> when you started. Real nice applet that one is.
I use a network connection for Internet access so I don't have any
experience with that.
> Selecting "Help" in just about any program brings up that totally
> useless generic KDE help (How to move a mouse etc), or a message that
> help hasn't been written yet. Doesn't surprise me seeing as half of
> kde hasn't been written yet. It looks and acts like a toy and is very
> unstable.
So use gnome? Or icewm? Or Enlightenment? OR OR OR OR
> Menues between the various window managers don't have the same
> selections in them. For example:DrakConf is missing from
> Enlightenment. So where did they go?
I run gnome on enlightentment. Middle clicking to bring up the
enlightenment menu puts DrakConf in EXACTLY the same place as in Gnome.
> Speaking of Enlightenment (pretty nice BTW), once you run it all of
> your menues in kde and Gnome get screwed up. Totally out to lunch
> unless you wish to rebuild all of your menus.
Really? Well I run it on underneath Gnome with no problems.
> Printing doesn't work with StarOffice and CUPS.
I think StarOffice may use its own funny print format and require its own
drivers - nothing to do with CUPS. Not sure about that though - I don't
use it.
> Trying to change the fonts under Gnome Terminal is an exercise in
> confusion. Couldn't they just have a selection "big, larger,huge like
> kde does instead of telling me every fsking detail about the font
> except what type it is (tty etc).
Seems alright to me. If you don't want the amount of customisation
available in gnome terminal use xterm or rxvt
> XFree 4.x kills the WheelMouse. Never works even with imwheel.
I still use the 3 series so I can't comment.
> Not to mention none of my USB devices work.
USB is still very new in Linux. As a result few developers have USE devices
so there is little incentive to write drivers for them.
> Add to this that Netscape looks like crap no matter what font is
> chosen.
So use something else. Mozilla is nice, although you have to download it
seperatly. Or there is konqurer.
> StarOffice takes an eternity to load and doesn't import
StarOffice is a big program. If you want speed go for something a little
lighter.
> correctly from Word for Mac, which even Wordperfect for WIndows does
> fine.
So use Wordperfect for Linux
> MusicMatch Jukebox is a half assed, bloated (13meg) pig that runs like
> molasses under Wino.
Yes it is. Its also beta IIRC. I wouldn't use it if I were paid. I'm quite
happy with grip. The reason its so big is it has to include the translation
layer known as wine.
> Typical of Linux programs, it is a generation behind the Windows
> version.
Its not a Linux program, its a window program running though a custom
version of wine as you said.
> I did like knode though and that application has promise.
I use it myself, very nice. I can't wait for it to support a killfill.
> And on and on and on....
>
> Free or not, one has to wonder if anyone test's these things before
> they ship this garbage.
>
> So tell me again, why should I switch from Windows 2000 to Linux? Why
> should anyone switch? Is there a compelling reason? Surely just
> looking at the painful boxy fonts of Linux is enough to make one run
> back to Windows. The way I see it I would be taking a huge step
> backwards all for the joy of running Linux.
Its cheeper. It is easier to maintain. It doesn't crash very often (unlike
windows which crashes within a day of being installed on this boxen). What
on earth have the fonts the linux uses got to do with it?
> Nothing much has changed in 2 years from a UI point of view.
We are talking about Windows now aren't we?
------------------------------
From: David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is free.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 06:17:25 +0000
> Investing 12 hours a day to get an operating system running when I can
> run setup.exe with Win2k, is asking a bit too much.
Same hardware. Many many more services on the Linux install.
Windows: 3 hours
Linux: 1 hour
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
