Linux-Advocacy Digest #50, Volume #31 Mon, 25 Dec 00 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (Gary Hallock)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (David Steinberg)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Yatima)
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Jim Richardson)
Re: swithching to linux (Jim Richardson)
Re: swithching to linux (Jim Richardson)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Jim Richardson)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: swithching to linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 21:01:20 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
"steve@x" wrote:
> Ok, I wanted to try this program that is supposed to be good.
>
> When I tried to install AbiWord using rpm, I get the error
>
> "only packages with major numbers <= 3 are supported by this version of RPM"
>
> Ok, after searching the net, I found rpm version 4 out there
> (I was using rpm 3.0.3). So, I download rpm for rpm 4.0, but
> when I try to install rpm 4.0 using my current rpm, I also get
> the same error.
>
> So, I search the net again, and I find someone saying that rpm 3.0.5
> will not give the above error. So, I search for rpm 3.0.5 and downdownload
> the rpm file for it.
>
> I rpm -Uhv it, but I get dependcy error, it wanted these
>
> error: failed dependencies:
> textutils is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> sh-utils is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> bzip2 >= 0.9.0c-2 is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> libbz2.so.0 is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
You don't say what distribution you are using, but if this is Redhat 6.2,
texutils, sh-utils, and bzip2 are on the main CD. libbz2.so.0 is part of
bzip2. If it's not Redhat, they may be still be on the main CD. Always
check there before going to the web.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: 25 Dec 2000 02:15:39 GMT
steve@x ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: 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.
Yeah, whatever. You are inventing problems where none exist.
Unfortunately for you, your claims are transparent.
: That is an OLD package. I wanted 0.7.12, not 0.7.11.
Oh. My bad. You're happy with a three-version-old distribution, but the
AbiWord from September just isn't good enough for you. I didn't realize
that your needs were so...inconvenient.
Fortunately, if took a look at abisource.com. You'll notice that they
were nice enough to package two versions of 0.7.12; one for RPM 4 and one
for RPM 3.
Take a look at http://www.abisource.com/dl_linux_intel.phtml. Select
abisuite-gnome-0.7.12.i386.rpm if you have GNOME installed,
abisuite-0.7.12.i386.rpm if not.
Clearly, this was an easy problem to solve. I found the solution in all
of 17 seconds. You could have solved it yourself, if you had wanted to.
Instead, it seems, you'd rather spend your time spare time spreading
anti-Linux propaganda. Fine. Suit yourself. We all need hobbies (or
jobs, whichever the case may be).
: No, it does not help.
It's obvious that you don't want 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.
Tell me what's broken about the application installation system on
linux. Both RPM and DEB provide a system of package management that is
far superior to that on Windows.
RPM has different versions, and packages created for the new version don't
work on old versions because they use new features of that new version.
How is that different from any other evolving piece of software?
Or to put it another way, "I downloaded a Word 2000 document, and I can't
open it in Word 6.0. Clearly, the whole system of word processing on
Windows is broken." Ridiculous, isn't it?
The fact that you choose to obtain the incorrect version of a package for
your system does not indicate a problem with the system.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yatima)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 02:55:02 GMT
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 21:42:29 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tell me, do you actually go around reading the headers to EVERY post you
>read?
Tell me, do you every address any of the points raised by the poster in
your followups?
BTW, I didn't need to read the headers. Steve's posting style (as well
as the content) is very consistent.
--
yatima
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:31:05 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:58:40 GMT,
Chad C. Mulligan, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
<snip>
>> Microsoft (et al) charge you before you open the packaging, so it feels
>like
>> you're getting fixes for free. They're not free, you just paid for them in
>> advance.
>>
>
>And I get them when needed. Not so with Freeware. Additionally, the little
>extra I pay for quality software wouldn't be a months pay for a staff
>programmer. And my stuff gets fixed if it should be broken.
>
*IF* enough people complain and *IF* M$ (or whomever) doesn't simply say
upgrade to the new version, for $$$, it's fixed there. Remember, according to
Bill Gates, bugfixes aren't worth doing, it's better to sell a new version
instead.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: swithching to linux
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:35:24 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:32:01 GMT,
Charlie Ebert, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 05:45:46 -0600,
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Of course that depends on what you mean by "good performance", but the act
>>of compiling the kernel alone will use up way more memory than you have free
>>causing swapping to beat all hell, and on a 486 laptop (laptop drives are
>>much slower than workstation drives due to low power consumption) this would
>>be painful to do anything in any other console due to the fact that swapping
>>will be a nightmare.
>>
>
>Um humm.
Erik is in error here anyway, many laptop drives are in fact faster than the
equivelent workstation drive, they are lighter, have less hysteresis in the
hardware, and smaller platters (equivelent to higher RPM speed). They tend to
be less robust in some ways, for wear and tear, although more robust re:
impacts and such. As allways, a tradeoff is there.
>
>
>>Hell, I have a P100 with 72 meg of memory that I used to compile the world
>>on FreeBSD and THAT was painful to use while it was doing that.
>>
So comparing FreeBSD compile times of everything (not just the kernel, but
100's of megs more stuff) to linux compiling the kernel is supposed to be some
sort of point ?
>Um humm.
exactly...
>>You won't help your cause by lying.
>>
>
>Um humm.
>
>
>>BTW, what 214 packages might those be? I'd suspect that 214 packages would
>>use up a lot more free disk space than you have, especially with the kernel
>>compiling and creating all those intermediate files. More exageration?
>>
>
>My compile finished, my telnet session never stopped, my apt-get of
>215 packages is finished.
>
>And yes, it had outstanding performance for a 486 with 5megs of ram.
>You bet. There isn't another operating system out there which can
>do what Linux can. Not FreeBSD, not Windows, not Mac OSX.
>
>None of them can compare to the raw linux performance under the widest
>possible conditions linux can operate under.
>
>Linux! The operating system people will actually ACCUSE YOU OF LYING
>ABOUT!
>
>Charlie
>
>
hehe, despite the fact that most of the lying seems to be aimed against linux,
rather than in support of it :)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: swithching to linux
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:37:42 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:36:20 +0100,
Peter T. Breuer, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> I'm running Debian 2.2 {Potato} on a 486 Toshiba with 5 meg of ram
>>> and a 500 MB hard drive. I'm currently installing it and went
>>> I'm getting very good performance on this system even though it
>>> has almost no resources to use. Linux makes things work!
>
>> Quite frankly, I don't believe you.
>
>Hey, I compiled linux for years on a 4MB 486sx50. I used to do it
>overnight.
I used to compile the kernel (2.2 series) on a 486/33 w/16 MB ram, whilst X was
running and a small interdepartment webserver was up and serving. (granted, the
webserver hits were measured in hits/hour but still...)
>
>It's been upgraded to 8MB ram, and I still use it. Runs X.
>
>> Hell, I have a P100 with 72 meg of memory that I used to compile the world
>> on FreeBSD and THAT was painful to use while it was doing that.
>
>It takes longer than a kernel compile, as far as I recall.
It should, as far as I know, make world does everything in your ports tree. Not
just the kernel. In which case it is a stupid (or mendacious) comparison.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:45:17 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:44:59 -0500,
T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:58:55
>>"PLZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:n3hV5.396$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>>> > And so monopolization is OK in Finland? Somehow I doubt that, as every
>>> > member of the EU, and *every* other "first world" country, has
>>> > anti-trust laws.
>>>
>>> Monopolization is in fact OK in Finland. We have government-owned alcohol
>>> monopol. Monopols are OK is US as well, if you did not know this. Illegal use
>>> of mopolistic power is not.
>>
>>Phone company, monopol.
>
>Phone company; competitive market in the US. Government service in
>Finland.
Formerly a monopoly in the US, created by govt fiat in face of competition.
Now long distance is open competition, but local access is usually a monopoly.
>
>>Cable company, monopol.
>
>Cable company; competitive market in the US (regulated, as most
>consumers have access to only one provider). Government service in
>Finland, I'd bet.
most areas have a local monopoly in cable. Very few people have choices.
>>High bandwitdh connection, monopol.
>
>I don't know what you're talking about. Satellite? DSL counts as
>either phone or cable, generally.
>
>>Electirc supply, monopol.
>
>Public utility. Or unregulated business, resulting in prices growing
>astronomically without increasing production.
(which sort of suggests that prices were subsidised somehow before hand.)
>>Water supply, monopol.
>
>Public utility, again. And they haven't fucked this one up, yet.
Maybe not where you live. EPA regulary fucks this up.
>>Just five examples on the top of my head that are monopols here, in a first
>>world country.
>>Monopols are fine, abusing monopol power isn't.
>
>Is it just a typo, or are you inventing some new concept, 'monopol', to
>cover both commercial monopolies and public utilities (and free markets
>with extremely high natural barriers to entry)? All commercial
>monopolies are illegal, in any modern country.
no, in many cases they are encouraged or protected by the govt. In the US, the
post office still maintains a first class letter monopoly. (one that technology
is rapidly eroding) in many states, there is a state monopoly on liquor sales.
You can't grow peanuts or tobacco (and many other crops) commercially in the US
without govt approval. Just a few examples. Monopolies natural or enforced, are
not malem per-se, but malem prohibidon (sp) and only in some cases in some
places. (wish I was better with my latin. Oh well...)
>--
>T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
>Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
>http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
>
>
>-----= 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! =-----
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 04:02:47 GMT
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> >
> > > The left doesn't like set-in-stone rules they
> > > can't dance or litigate around. The "Constitution is un-American"
> rhetoric
> > > is to be expected.
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> Prove what?
Aw, nothing, just bein' crabby!
Have a good Christmas, and may you receive some very
heavy iron from Santa [not Santa Warlord, but Santa Dell,
say]
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 04:06:42 GMT
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Tom Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, but at least there are some variations in those files.
> > > > His sig almost never changes!
> > >
> > > What variations?
> > > A pair of tits and 3 chords in all of 'em!
> >
> > You don't get around much, do you!
>
> Honestly, no.
Me neither.
> Too much code to write.
Me too. Sometimes I get bloody sick of code!
> I am getting out for XMAS though :)
I'm off the rest of the year. Still coding for someone else
though, sigh.
> Has female anatomy changed to any extent in my absence?
Not sure. I think I've detected a vestigial second pair
of nipples on some females.
> Any decent guitarists lurking on the mp3's?
Not sure. My current favorites are light... Ottmar
Liebert and Craig Chaquico (sp?). Also the electric
guitars on Tangerine Dream.
> And don't say "Wes Borland..." He couldn't play his way out of a paper bag.
Don't open those presents yet!
------------------------------
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 04:24:54 GMT
mud wrote:
>
> Welcome to the idiot box.
> plonk
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <blahblahblah>
I may be an idiot, but at least I'm creative. (That's not
my blahblahblah you quoted there.)
Anyway, have a good Christmas. May you get a nice upgrade
for your operating system.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 04:30:42 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > The only thing my panties are in a wad about is Visual Studio. (Compiler
> > Error 1001)
> >
> > I have to compile four times for the damned thing to go away and allow
me to
> > link.
>
> Visual C++ is weird... the IDE and debugging system is pretty nice.
> The GUI generation is just adequate. MFC is a mess, a C++ framework
> written by C programmers. The core compiler is a non-standard
non-conforming
> mess that they broke in version 6. Makes ya wish for Borland...
They were on the right track with the IDE and the class browser. I have a
problem with the internals though. It also seems to puke more often when you
dig deeply into ATL and COM. As for MFC, we don't touch it here. This
software house has totally encapsulated what it needs of the API on its'
own, thank heavens. Its' one of the only reasons I decided to join up - That
and a good deal of Linux/Unix stuff is on the agenda.
As for Borland, the last decent compiler they did, IMHO, was C++ 2.0 for
Windows 3.1. I haven't seen any of their stuff recently though, aside from
Delphi.
>
> ...the old Borland, that is. The core Borland C++ compiler is still
> good, but the GUI there (VCL) is Pascal polluted, and the IDE is
> buggy as hell. I wonder if the Kylix version will be better.
>
> I wish I could just master gcc and forget about buying compilers ever
> again. (I'm well on my way for the first objective, but need for
> M$ to die on the vine before our company and clients will go open source).
Don't hold your breath. It'll be a while yet. <g>
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:47:24 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Memory: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
> First accounted by himem.sys (a DOS driver, try removing it!)
However, Schulman proves through the version numbers returned by the memory
managers that Windows replaces himem.sys.
> > Filesystem: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
> Not entirely true, the DOS driver links DOS and Windows ifshlp.sys. (Try
> removing it!)
> It is the installable file system helper.
This allows DOS programs to use Windows filesystems, such as network shares
or 32 bit cdrom drivers.
> So, but this definition, DesqView/QEMM and Java are operating operating
> systems.
Interesting that you say this, since your own definitions are contrary. You
claim that DOS is the OS, yet you claim that anything that is not running
"natively" cannot be the OS (such as MacOS X, the Win32 subsystem in NT, or
mkLinux). Your very own definitions put DOS as a non-native OS run by the
Windows 386 executive in a VM.
In other words, by your own words, if DOS is an OS, so is Windows, since by
your own definition, they both run exactly the same way.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:52:03 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In Windows NT, one can assign themselves any privileges they wish.
Often
> > > times, as I have said before, and is made evident from some of
> > > Microsoft's own knowledge base articles, one must assign themselves
many
> > > privileges which are dangerous, just to install and use software.
> >
> > Install, yes. Use, no. There are some knowledge base articles about
older
> > versions of office, which, in their default configuraitons required
write
> > access to the windows directory, however you could change the locations
of
> > these files and invalidate that need. This isn't the case with Office
97+.
>
> You are speaking only of office. I am talking about racks of Windows
> software at the store.
The *ONLY* software i've ever heard of that *REQUIRED* write access to the
Windows directory is Office. Perhaps you know some specific others.
Generic "racks" is not acceptable.
> > Further, Windows 2000 allows you to install software with admin privs
> > without giving them to yourself. Simply run a setup program and Win2k
asks
> > you how you want to install it, and if you want to install with
> > administrator privs (requiring that administrator password).
>
> Provided that the software has the newest installer, perhaps.
Has nothing to do with the installer used.
> > > Most Windows software, under NT, must be installed as the user which
> > > will be using it. Other wise, the registry settings and start menu
> > > entries won't be available. Thus, to install the software they must
> > > assign themselves privileges which a normal user should not have.
> >
> > Most? Some. Not most. I install software all the time and access it
from
> > multiple accounts.
>
> Most of the software I see.
Such as?
> > > The difference being that UNIX software is made assuming that a user
> > > account does not have the rights to install, but must be able to use
the
> > > software once it is installed by the system administrator.
> > >
> > > NT will never be truly secure as long as this problem persists.
> >
> > It hasn't been a problem for almost a year, and even before that it was
an
> > easily solveable one.
>
> Not everyone is running to Windows 2K.
Don't change your story.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:54:21 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Philip Neves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:Xu_06.862967
> > > As of right now There are no viruses that I know of for linux.
> >
> > Guess you've never heard of Bliss:
> >
> > http://math-www.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/bliss/
> >
> > It's been around for a while. Not to mention that there have been
> > virus-like things, such as the morris internet worm.
> >
> > > I've been using linux for five years and I have never heard of one.
> >
> > I guess ignorance, is Bliss.
>
> The thing you are missing is that most NT users must operate with OS
> privileges which would allow a virus to spread
That's not true. NT is perfectly capapble of being used in locked down way.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:56:16 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "Philip Neves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:Xu_06.862967
> > > As of right now There are no viruses that I know of for linux.
> >
> > Guess you've never heard of Bliss:
> >
> > http://math-www.uni-paderborn.de/~axel/bliss/
>
> ahem... While bliss is an obscure reference on a website
> that most users have ever heard of, those saddled with windows
> have been ravaged by one virus after another, losing files,
> filesystems and security. Does anyone see a difference here?
Whether or not that's true is irrelevant to Philips statement that Virus's
do not exist on Linux.
And yes, he said "that I know of", but based his entire argument on the fact
that he didn't know of any.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: swithching to linux
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 23:01:26 -0600
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:32:01 GMT,
> Charlie Ebert, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 05:45:46 -0600,
> >Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Of course that depends on what you mean by "good performance", but the
act
> >>of compiling the kernel alone will use up way more memory than you have
free
> >>causing swapping to beat all hell, and on a 486 laptop (laptop drives
are
> >>much slower than workstation drives due to low power consumption) this
would
> >>be painful to do anything in any other console due to the fact that
swapping
> >>will be a nightmare.
> >>
> >
> >Um humm.
>
>
> Erik is in error here anyway, many laptop drives are in fact faster than
the
> equivelent workstation drive, they are lighter, have less hysteresis in
the
> hardware, and smaller platters (equivelent to higher RPM speed). They tend
to
> be less robust in some ways, for wear and tear, although more robust re:
> impacts and such. As allways, a tradeoff is there.
That may be true of drives today, but not drives of the 486 laptop era.
> >>Hell, I have a P100 with 72 meg of memory that I used to compile the
world
> >>on FreeBSD and THAT was painful to use while it was doing that.
> >>
>
> So comparing FreeBSD compile times of everything (not just the kernel, but
> 100's of megs more stuff) to linux compiling the kernel is supposed to be
some
> sort of point ?
I'm not comparing times, I'm comparing how responsive the OS is when
compiling.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
