Linux-Advocacy Digest #49, Volume #31 Sun, 24 Dec 00 20:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: My pet peeve: Developers who don't furnish a complete application package.
("Tom Wilson")
Re: Conclusion ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Redhat needs an update tool. Was: My pet peeve (Perry Pip)
Re: Linuxgruven is Deceptive in their Ad ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (steve@x)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windows Stability (Gary Hallock)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("mud")
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (J Sloan)
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? (Tim Smith)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My pet peeve: Developers who don't furnish a complete application
package.
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:48:13 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tom Wilson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:59:46 GMT
> <Syl16.230$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> mlw wrote:
> >> >
> >> > This is one of those good/bad trade-off things about open source. We
do
> >> > not live in an ideal world.
> >> >
> >> > I am a software developer, and sometimes I don't do the
documentation.
> >> > The issue is that I am not as productive doing docs as I am doing
> >> > software.
> >>
> >> The key is: Document AS you code, not afterwards.
> >
> >I have an unusual approach. I write the docs before I even start on the
> >code. It tends to keep me focused and on track. If I didn't do this, I'd
> >wind up writting business applications with silly shit like Hardware
> >accelerated pie-charts and surround sound. I have the same problem with
my
> >code that some women do with their thighs. <g>
>
> I've never seen anyone try to remove cellulite from their code... :-)
It isn't pretty.
>
> [.sigsnip]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- or do women have bugs in their thighs? Ugh! :-)
> up 88 days, 9:34, running Linux.
Ugggh is putting it mildly...
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
Where White Slavery is Alive and Well
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:51:58 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tom Wilson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sun, 24 Dec 2000 13:58:32 GMT
> <cin16.175$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:SG816.23891$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:922u16$hpp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> >>
> >> Repeating the big lie, Joe Goebbells would be proud of you.
> >
> >Looking for the 'H' word, I take it? ;)
>
> Hell?
>
> Harpies?
>
> Hatred?
>
> Hat rack?
>
> Hoopla?
>
> Hacked-up numbers?
>
> Hacked systems?
>
> Hurts?
>
> Hertz?
>
> Hambone?
>
> (um...can you give us a hint, here? :-) )
>
> [.sigsnip]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random word beginning with 'H' here
> up 88 days, 9:23, running Linux.
Last hint: Heil!
PS: I don't believe invocation works without someone calling sombody else a
Nazi first. You may call me one if you wish as i'm fairly thick-skinned and
not likely to be offended.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 23:00:39 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:59:39 GMT, Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> >The election results were determined by a system that foresaw close
> >elections and litigated outcomes and worked despite the best efforts of
the
> >Democrats to monkey-wrench it.
>
> The election results would probably not have been closer had everyone
voted
> randomly. To chalk this up as a decisive win for Bush is naive or
dishonest.
> It was a win,sure. But it was hardly a landslide, something Stevens
completely
> ignores.
Who's calling it decisive?
Personally, I thought it to be a draw.
>
> >> >AL GORE LOST THE NATIONAL VOTE.
> >>
> >> On technicalities.
> >
> >...No, by constitutional law.
>
> Whatever. However you try to slice it, the election boiled down to the
finer
> points of the law, the electoral system, errors etc.
As with any election...
>
> >Denying alternate parties a political voice would be reprehensible. They
> >have as much right to campaign and lobby as the major parties do.
>
> If you really cared about the right of smaller parties to campaign, you
would
> advocate an instant runoff system, instead of defending the existing
system,
> which is essentially a two-party duopoly.
Had Ross Perot not been quite so radical, he'd have won without such a
thing. The only reason third parties have yet to make a MAJOR impact is the
fact that none of them has produced anyone truely viable.
PS: They only have to win once to make this a moot point, BTW.
> The current system is the worst of
> both worlds -- the support for third parties is artificially reduced by
"wasted
> vote" issues.
Issues brought forth and hammered down our throats by the two main parties.
>
> >> But while I think electoral reform is due, it needs to be performed in
an
> >> even handed manner, and not in an ad-hoc manner during counts
> >
> >Any system will break when you abuse it via the judiciary. That's one of
the
> >reasons a state's Legislature has the final say in appointing electoral
> >representatives. The courts have NOTHING to do with it nor should they.
>
> I'm talking about instant runoffs. I still don't believe that third
parties
> should sabotage elections. And I don't believe in a two-party duopoly.
Who said they sabotaged anything??
I don't believe in duopolies either, hence my standing up for the
alternative parties. The system doesn't need changed so much as do
perceptions.
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
Merry Christmas Y'All!
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 23:44:59 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> Serve the Windows Explorer interface so users can get real, important work
> done.
Yeah, like editing e-mails and interoffice memos.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Redhat needs an update tool. Was: My pet peeve
Date: 24 Dec 2000 23:48:24 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 24 Dec 2000 13:02:15 -0700,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) writes:
>
>> On 22 Dec 2000 14:38:47 -0700,
>> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) writes:
>> >
>> >> On 22 Dec 2000 08:56:14 -0700,
>> >> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Actually, I like the way FreeBSD does it. If it needs something to compile,
>> >> >> it goes out and gets it.
>> >> >
>> >> >Just like rpmfind and apt-get under Linux.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Can you do updates in rpmfind?? As in like:
>> >>
>> >> apt-get update && apt-get upgrade
>> >
>> >rpmfind --upgrade `rpm -qa`
>> >
>>
>> Do you really do your updates that way?? I just tried it and it
>> doesn't seem to work. I downloaded it for a RH62 machine from:
>
>Sorry, I'd actually use this:
>
> rpmfind --latest --upgrade `rpm -qa --queryformat "%{NAME}\\n"`
But it still won't work becuase rpmfind insists on using standard
(i.e. non-update) packages from the RH70 dist, instead of the updates
for my RH62 dist.
>But, no, I upgrade by hand usually (call me paranoid),
Translation: Current methods for upgrading redhat are not easy or as
reliable as apt-get and you have to do it by hand. I don't have to be
paranoid with apt-get, it has worked seamlessly for years. And before
apt-get, I could do reliable upgrades with dselect.
>or use rpmfind
>with a '-s my_local_machine' that has the RPMS I want to use. I do
>this with about 20 machines regularly.
My current method is to use wget to ftp mirror the RH62 updates
directory, temporarily move the RPMS I don't want and do 'rpm -Fvh
*.rpm'. That's inefficient and messy.
>> So now you can see it wants to install RH 7.0 packages, which, if you
>> check Redhats errata page, isn't event the right sucurity update for
>> RH 7.0. RH 7.0 isn't even mention in the /etc/rpmfind.conf file. But
>> as it turns out, the tool created a new file, ~/.rpmfind and put RH
>> 7.0 in it. So I fix up the ~/.rpmfind, take the RH7.0 out of it,
>> verify RH62 is at the top, and now everytime I run it it overwrites
>> the ~/.rpmfind file with it's own configuration!!! What a peice of
>> shit!!
>
>If you just want RedHat 6.2 official security updates:
>
>#!/usr/bin/perl
>$RDIR =
>'ftp://ftp.sourceforge.net/mounts/u2/mirrors/redhat/redhat/updates/6.2/\i386/';
>@files = `ncftpls $RDIR`;
>foreach $file (@files) {
> print `rpm --Fvh $RDIR/$file`;
>}
That would unfortanely upgrade my kernel if it worked all, Craig. But
it won't work becuase when you call RPM on the updates one by
one RPM will fail with broken dependancies. You need a line like:
print `rpm --Fvh $RDIR/*.rpm`
But the wildcard won't work using RPM over FTP.
>All the tools are there.
And for Redhat they work like shit. That's why you have to do it
manually, or come up with a hack, right??
>If you don't want to use up2date, gnorpm, or
>rpmfind -- you have many options. This all fits into the UNIX KISS
>philosophy quite well (IMHO).
But all of these methods aren't what *I* want: an integrated method
provided by the distributor. As long as you rely on third party hacks
you are at much more risk of breaking your system with an
upgrade. Isn't that why you do it manually?? Couldn't you do something
better with your time?? apt-get can be run reliably from a cron job.
>> Tell me how you get this POS to work on your system, Craig. This is a
>> major weakness of Redhat, IMHO. Debian, the BSD's and even Win2k all
>> have decently reliable update tools. With Redhat, you have up2date,
>> which limits you to X-windows and wants you to pay for 'priority
>> access', or a third party tool. The problem with third party tools is
>> every time RH changes their dist it's gonna potentially break the
>> third party tool.
>
>1) It's different, not worse
Bullshit!! It's clearly worse. None of the solutions you have given
me will work. And as you admit, you do it manually.
>2) Windows hotfixes are not automated at all
Running Windows update from w2k has seemed work for me almost as
easily as apt-get from he command line. Though it would be difficult
to fully automate it, it's much easier than redhat.
>3) Debian is indeed cool, but it's not *that* much different
Sure it is. It fucking works!! It's an integrated part of the
distribution. It's has worked seamlessly for years. And it is easily
run from a cron job. Instead of being paranoid like you are with
Redhat, Debian apt-get gives me a warm cozy feeling.
>4) You don't need to pay for 'priority access' at all
No, but Redhat's native tool, up2date, is X-window bound, slow as shit,
and impossible to automate. Do you use Debian at all, Craig??
Merry xmas,
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linuxgruven is Deceptive in their Ad
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 23:40:36 GMT
In article <0VOY5.10992$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > 45k per year?
> >
> > Do you like starving?
>
> It's more than your mother is giving you for an allowance.
>
> Bracy
>
I don't know what you are talking about. 45k a year is good money. If you
do not like it then go somewhere else and bitch. Any company you work for is
a risk. Wether they are new or well established. I see Linuxgruven going
far, I am sorry you are so pestimistic
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 23:58:13 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kyle Jacobs
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sun, 24 Dec 2000 04:22:44 GMT
> <oSe16.55343$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Windows NT TERMINAL SERVICES EDITION does exactly that genius. And Windows
> >2000 now serve's a remote console session (remote DOS prompt)
> >
> >Gee, sucks when Windows is moving along, and Linux is standing still.
>
> Dumb question, but what can Windows NT Terminal Services do that
> Linux + X + xterm + ssh (ssh has an X server proxy that encrypts traffic)
> can't?
It can cost one hell of a lot more for the server!
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 00:01:33 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> Well, I guess your right, this is one place where Linux clearly excels.
>
> Implementing 1960's technology TODAY!
And well-debugged, stable, reliable, robust, and dependable technology
at that! (And, actually, it's 70's technology.)
Ooops, gotta go! My NT workstation is demanding another service pack!
------------------------------
From: steve@x <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: 24 Dec 2000 15:21:51 -0800
In article <925q8q$4or$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
>I can see from the tone of this posting and subsequent postings in the
>thread that you're more interested in bashing Linux than finding a
>solution to your problem,
typical response. when someone whows how bad something in linux is,
it is called bashing.
>I head over to their website (http://www.helixcode.com), and find the
>following AbiWord package for SuSE 6.3:
>http://spidermonkey.helixcode.com/distributions/SuSE/abisuite-0.7.11-0_helix_4.i386.rpm
That is an OLD package. I wanted 0.7.12, not 0.7.11.
If you go to http://www.gnome.org you will see that 0.7.11 is old and
newer one exist. But the new one I can't install becuase it needs a new
rpm version that my current rpm will not install becuase I can't install
a package that the new rpm needs, becuase the package needs the
new rpm to install it which my old rpm can;t install.
>Hope this helps.
No, it does not help.
You are missing the forest by looking at the trees. The problem
is more fundemental that just this one application. The whole design
of application installation system is broke on linux.
do you expect my grandmother to download and compile from source the
200,000 lines of code?
someone said to try apt-get, so I need to install a new flavour of
Linux for this. Aother said rpm is the wrong tool, andother said to
try debian, and you point to old package to install, and someone says
to download the tar files and install from source.
all this just to install an application.
no wonder linux will never make it to the desktop. Given that the
most basic task of an easy to use installation system does not
exist, how can linux ever hope that john does, who knows nothing about
computers, deal with all this crap?
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 00:23:21 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> Windows NT TERMINAL SERVICES EDITION does exactly that genius. And Windows
> 2000 now serve's a remote console session (remote DOS prompt)
>
> Gee, sucks when Windows is moving along, and Linux is standing still.
You idiot, Windozzzzzzzzzz there is moving to the very same paradigm
that UNIX has supported for a lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng time.
Not only that, it's the very same paradigm Microsoft denigrated
all these years. Now they finally see the light! And they still
fuck it up!
Oooooh, remote console sessions. Novel new concept for Windozzzzzzzz!
I guess they decided telnet wasn't bad enough!
Yeeesh, you are out of touch, kid!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 23:08:20 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:xkv%5.68277> Which Windows?
> >
> > Windows 9x is inherently unstable as is provides no memoryprotection
> > between applications. Windows NT/2000 ought to be the stable version of
> > Windows.
>
> Windows 9x does provide memory protection between apps, it's just that
> certain portions of the OS are mapped into all address spaces, so Win9x can
> corrupt the OS itself, though not other apps.
That's like putting a key under the mat with a big sign on the door saying
where the key is. There is no protection if any app can zap the OS.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "mud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 00:40:05 GMT
Welcome to the idiot box.
plonk
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<blahblahblah>
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 00:44:16 GMT
"steve@x" wrote:
> typical response. when someone whows how bad something in linux is,
> it is called bashing.
You have to admit, your example is kind of lame....
> That is an OLD package. I wanted 0.7.12, not 0.7.11.
Welp, you'll have to make do with 0.7.11 for now, unless
you want to upgrade your distro to something a bit more
up to date. Suse 6.3, was it? I think that's pretty stale.
> You are missing the forest by looking at the trees. The problem
> is more fundemental that just this one application. The whole design
> of application installation system is broke on linux.
Hmm, that's an add statement - I would hardly describe it
as "broken", since #1) you are describing a specific
version of a specific distro, and #2 it's been working
quite nicely for me....
>
>
> do you expect my grandmother to download and compile from source the
> 200,000 lines of code?
I'd expect her to use what's there, and not know or care
about every minor revision that comes along.
>
> no wonder linux will never make it to the desktop.
Hate to tell you this, but it's already there - you may
be a windows fan, but there is a growing number of
Linux workstation users, and for good reasons that
you will probably never understand...
> Given that the
> most basic task of an easy to use installation system does not
> exist, how can linux ever hope that john does, who knows nothing about
> computers, deal with all this crap?
They use what's in the distro, or go with official
upgrades - just like 99% of the world does.
A great hacker like yourself can build your own rpm,
or just pull down the tarball and install it.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: 24 Dec 2000 16:47:40 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 15:45:33 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>middleware. Your impulsive assignment of everything to "Windows"
>because that's the name on the box and in the Microsoft markitecture
>diagrams is quite illustrative of the problem.
No, I assign those to Windows because (1) I've read the results of
people who have disassembled all those components and reported on how
they work, and (2) as part of developing Windows block device drivers,
I've had occasion myself to trace through most of those parts of Windows
in SoftICE.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
