Linux-Advocacy Digest #55, Volume #31 Mon, 25 Dec 00 16:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time. (steve@x)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (J Sloan)
Re: So how do we get from here to there? (J Sloan)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (J Sloan)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (J Sloan)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (israel raj thomas)
Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time. (J Sloan)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Brad Wardell")
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (Tesla Coil)
Re: Conclusion ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: steve@x <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: 25 Dec 2000 10:14:35 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Lord says...
>
>You must be an idiot..
>If you can't figure this out, I suggest you install Helix gnome or
>something.
>That one installs everything automaticly for you.
>
listen moron,
I installed helix. It had the old application. That is the whole
point. I wanted to upgrade to the new version.
so far these are the suggestions given to install one simple application
on linux:
1. uninstall Suse, and install debian OS, and use apt-get (can't do, old kernel)
2. use rpmfind to look for dependencies. (I did, does not solve the problem)
3. install helix (I did, did not solve the problem, it comes with old abiword)
4. use --force --nodeps on RPM v3 to force installaing (I did, does not work)
5. download abiword package build with rpm V3. (I did, but it needs a package
that requires rpm V4)
6. Build from sources (so, what is the point of package management on linux?).
7. install RPM V4 (can't do, becuase it needs a package that needs RPM V4
to install).
8. switch to windows (I am allready on windows).
Is this the OS that is supposed to bring MS to its knees? what a joke.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 19:01:22 GMT
Todd wrote:
> "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:EhF%5.16475$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Is Windows really easier to use than Linux?
>
> Yes. Very much so. So much very much so.
>
Well, apparently it is for the likes of todd!
Personally I find windows a bit frustrating to use,
after having become accustomed to all the things
I can do on a Unix system....
On the desktop I've used MacOS, dos, windows 3.x,
win9x, winnt, Solaris (x86 and sparc), SGI Irix, NeXT,
NetBSD, and FreeBSD, so I do have some idea what
I'm talking about.
On a modern Unix desktop running gnome, kde2,
etc, I am fully equipped and have all necessary
tools at my fingertips, with transparent access to
network resources, true multitasking and multiple
desktop sessions (I can even fire up a windows
app in it's own protected box if I'm in the mood),
and never have to worry about virii, bluescreens,
or other microsoft features.
OTOH, sitting down in front of a windows pc and
trying to do some work feels like being forced to go
back to kindergarten and squeeze into the tiny,
cramped chair...
YMMV, of course, and if Todd prefers windows, more
power to him - but why on earth does he spend his
time hanging out in Linux newsgroups?
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So how do we get from here to there?
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 19:11:45 GMT
Todd wrote:
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Microsoft Windows got where it is by the crime and villainy of Bill
> > Gates.
>
> First of all, that statement is false. I *chose* to use Windows 2000
> because it lets me do more than Linux by a long shot. Linux is simply too
> frustrating to use to be useful at this point.
That's odd, I find Linux gives me far less grief than windoze.
But if windows it what turns you on, knock yourself out!
I'm sure microsoft is quite pleased to have such a tireless
advocate as you, spending your christmas cruising the
Linux newsgroups!
> There is sooooooooo much that needs to be done with Linux to convince users
> of OSes like Windows 2000... there is so much to list that I doubt my SMTP
> server could handle the email.
Please enumerate some of them, it would be interesting.
I'll bet that it boils down to one thing, which in your mind
is of paramount importance: How well the platform can run
microsoft programs written for the windows pc platform.
Since microsoft's one useful monopoly is in file formats,
you have a point - however, be amazed, as there are
other programs, not sold by microsoft, which do pretty
much the same sorts of things, and run quite nicely on
microsoft and non-microsoft OSes alike.
> Furthermore, I doubt most Linux users would even know the user requirements
> of an OS these days. They are still in the 'old school' way of thinking
> where a kernel should be 1MB even when there are 1 terabyte ram chips in
> development. <sigh>
Hey, I'll take all the RAM I can get for my Linux servers!
But what you call "old school" does make for efficiency.
That's why Linux not only scales up to places windows
can never go, but also scales down to places windows
can never go - could you imagine a wristwatch running
windows nt ? LOL! Of course not! That's about as likely
as windows running on a manframe computer...
> That is why Linux will *never* replace windows... it is not because it
> doesn't have potential, it's because of the users.
"never" is a long time my friend...
BTW Linux is already replacing windows, mainly in
places where microsoft file formats have not yet
hopelessly locked the users in.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 19:18:38 GMT
Todd wrote:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> There are more powerful tools to remotely update more than one machine
> automatically if you are administering many computers (say an IT job), but
> that would be way off topic...
Hehe, "powerful" is perhaps too strong a word to describe
the baby steps windows has taken to be a wee bit more like
Unix in some aspects...
> what is on topic is that with Linux, it is
> hard to install stuff period.
hmm, you are confused by his special case of trying to
install packages not meant for his older distro, and
jump to the conclusion that "stuff is hard to install on
Linux" - Can you install windows 2000 software on
windows for workgroups? no? hmm, double standard?
> Forget remote capabilities... it is hard
> enough to use when you are directly on the console!
It's easy as pie, and BTW remote or local makes no
difference in Linux, it's the same environment.
I keep all my servers up to date with the latest kernels,
libs, packages and GUI stuff (helix gnome, kde2, etc)
and I can't remember the last time I've physically seen
most of the systems!
Cheers,
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 19:29:42 GMT
"steve@x" wrote:
> they want me to unsinstall my OS, and install Debian, so I can install
> using apt-get. (Also debian I can;t use, since I needed some feature
> of the last Linux kernel, and debian uses the old kernel).
So, maybe someone will also tell you to jump in a lake,
doesn't mean you have to take every suggestion seriously.
> I feel your pain. But this is the open source/linux way. that is why
> linux for the desktop will never ever make it. Imagine Aunt mary doing
> all that so she can install a program to see her kids pictures on the
> computer.
If Aunt Mary was using windows, she wouldn't dream
of installing software - she simply uses what's there.
Same with Linux - Aunt Mary simply uses what's there.
If Aunt Mary's distro gets outdated, she invites her
college student nephew over to install Mandrake 7.2
in exchange for dinner.
> Unix has been around for 30 years or more. and it has less than 5%
> of the desktop market.
Unix never pursued the desktop, it was made for
more heavy duty purposes - but it has certainly
taken over the data center and the infrastructure
of the internet, hasn't it?
Only recently has there been the beginnings of
an effort to make Unix on the desktop practical.
gnome and kde are the first shots in the battle,
and Unix is catching up rather quickly...
jjs
------------------------------
From: israel raj thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.freebsd,comp.os.openbsd,comp.os.netbsd,comp.os.inferno
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 19:33:26 GMT
>You seem to have picked one point out of the post out of many good ones and overdone
>it.
> As a NEW OS2 (Joe Blow no less) user and happy with it,I'm using v3, lets see
>positive feed back.
>You seem to be a Linux fan, fine, but please don't rock the OS2 boat.
Learn to read carefully.
I suggested " NetBSD, OpenBSD ,FreeBSD, Inferno or even Linux."
I began using Linux around 1992. It is too easy to use and is now
pretty boring. I now prefer some of the others on the list.
The reality is that nowdays, there is a range of operating systems now
( NT, 2000Pro , 2000Server , 2000 Advanced Server, NetBSD, OpenBSD,
Inferno or even Linux that routinely whip OS/2's ass.Face it,
operating system theory and practice have come a long way since OS/2.
I find that current OS/2 users are a bit like Amiga users, graying at
the edges and using OS/2 either due to nostalgia , fear of / inability
to learn a new os or too poor to afford the hardware for anything
decent.
I urge you to check out the other options.
NetBSD is optimised for networking and is nice for wannabe geeks and
has ports to almost every platform.
FreeBSD is generally faster than Linux and it filesystem is more
robust. Yahoo and cdrom.com run on it.
OpenBSD is security oriented.
Inferno is a virtual operating system with a virtual filesystem and a
virtual machine.
Linux is yawn....
Sorry, Linux is good at SMP and is very fast on minimal hardware.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 19:37:15 GMT
"steve@x" wrote:
>
> so far these are the suggestions given to install one simple application
> on linux:
You forgot the main suggestion:
Upgrade your suse to something a bit more recent -
say 7.0?
> 1. uninstall Suse, and install debian OS, and use apt-get (can't do, old kernel)
> 2. use rpmfind to look for dependencies. (I did, does not solve the problem)
> 3. install helix (I did, did not solve the problem, it comes with old abiword)
> 4. use --force --nodeps on RPM v3 to force installaing (I did, does not work)
> 5. download abiword package build with rpm V3. (I did, but it needs a package
> that requires rpm V4)
> 6. Build from sources (so, what is the point of package management on linux?).
> 7. install RPM V4 (can't do, becuase it needs a package that needs RPM V4
> to install).
> 8. switch to windows (I am allready on windows).
>
> Is this the OS that is supposed to bring MS to its knees? what a joke.
I'm sorry to hear of your woes, and don't deny that you are well
and truly flummoxed and floundering - however, the possibility
occurs to me that you have manufactured the whole incident
with the goal of finding something to complain about, and have
no interest in actually finding a solution.
If you are in earnest, start with a more recent distro!
Cheers,
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Brad Wardell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 20:16:29 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:ZpzG4UNLyRNq-pn2-
> > HPFS386, for instance, is owned by Microsoft. IBM has to pay Microsoft
a
> > lot of money to license it. HPFS is, by today's standards, rather slow.
> >
>
> True, HPFS386 does require payment of royalties to Microsoft. As far
> as I recall, HPFS386 is still one of the fastest PC based network file
> systems. I have always wondered why Microsoft would not distribute
> HPFS386 with the "Windows Servers" as it outperformed the NTFS based
> file servers in any of the published benchmarks that I have seen
> (something on the order of two to one).
>
HPFS386 is an awesome file system in many respects. But from a feature
point of view, it's not spectacular.
> > Additionally, none of what you mention has any relevance from a
technology
> > perspective. So I can't use NTFS 5 on Linux. So what? I can't use
HPFS386
> > on Linux either.
> >
>
> From a technology perspective, NTFS5 is a patched up NTFS
In what way is it "patched"?
NTFS 5 allows for compression on a per file basis as well as encrption on a
per file basis. This is quite nice to have at the file system level.
>
> >
> > > ..
> > >
> > > JFS at least has the potential of being a "cross platform" file system
> > > as it is supported on AIX, OS/2 and is an open source product for
> > > Linux. JFS would appear to be a good choice for a file system on that
> > > basis. Who knows - maybe some enterprising fellow could port it to
> > > Windows and you could have a decent file system there as well... :-)
> >
> > You are dodging the issue. From a technological point of view, how is
JFS
> > particularly good? I take it you haven't done a benchmark on it (that's
> > obvious). JFS is good because it is very reliable. If you run a
server,
> > JFS is a pretty good file system. But as a user, what is JFS giving
you?
> >
> > Brad
> >
>
> Well, as a user, JFS being reliable is a GOOD THING. How can it be
> that reliability in a file system on a workstation is less important
> than a reliable file system on a server? One would prefer to use the
> most reliable file system for storing their data.
JFS is not any more reliable than NTFS though. All the file systems are
quite a ways away from FAT afterall.
>
> I do not know how you can read my remarks to mean that I have
> "obviously" not done a benchmark. As far as benchmarks go, HPFS386 is
> the fastest on the OS/2 platform, followed by JFS, then HPFS and then
> FAT16.
That is the first time I've heard this. HPFS386 is the fastest, but JFS is
the slowest in actual useage. HPFS and "SuperFat" are actually pretty close
depending on the setup and useage.
>
> Back in the days when benchmarks were published for Warp Server
> Advanced, Novell Netware and Windows NT Server, Both Warp Server
> Advanced (using HPFS386) and Novell Netware were twice as fast as
> Windows NT server. The benchmarks I refer to were published by PC
> Magazine several years ago.
Yes, but as I said, I have never seen a benchmark that puts JFS as a "Fast"
file system. JFS is designed for the ultimate in reliabilty at the expense
of high performance. I would suspect that many Unix users, btw, would
consider the file systems available for it to be faster than JFS while just
as fault tolerant.
Brad
>
> --
> Lorne Sunley
------------------------------
From: Tesla Coil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 15:20:33 -0600
On 24 December 2000 or so, steve@x and David Steinberg
were going back and forth about installing AbiWord:
>>>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.
tsk, tsk.
>> 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.
>
> The problem is that the abi rpm above, will not install on my
> Suse system, becuase the above rpm needs another rpm file
> (gtk+ 1.2.8) which in turns will not install, becuase it needs
> rpm V4, which I can't install becuase that in turn needs a
> package to exist first, which I can;t install becuase that
> package in turns needs rpm V4 to install.
And gtk+ 1.2.8 is included with SuSE 7.0. Any of its
dependencies will be satisfied by other packages on
SuSE's ftp site, and they don't require rpm V4.
> I am tired chasing rpm files over the net. each needing
> another needing another. my time important. I guess I am
> a normal user who expected to just type one command or
> click on one button and be done with it, But on Linux, things
> work differently. One must waste hours and have a PhD in
> hacking, just to install one program
I got SuSE 7.0 disks and ran update. I downloaded AbiWord
0.7.12 and installed it. It works. Some doctoral thesis...
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 14:24:33 -0600
That's exactly the point. Without inside knowledge of the site, you don't
know if the statistics are correct or not. My point is that if a firewall
can interfere with providing uptimes, then it could also give inaccurate
ones. Or are you suggesting that this is impossible?
I can't give an example, because I don't have inside information on all the
sites that netcraft is reporting, only my own.
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:927t9a$8eo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You're making the same mistake you've been making all along. It's getting
> NO uptime from you so you can't use yourself as an example. If what
happens
> in your situation happens "in many cases", then we'd see a lot of sites
with
> no uptime reported. What site does
> it pull the OS from the webserver and the uptime from the firewall? You
> claim this happens but you haven't given an example. In your case
Netcraft
> knows that the firewall isn't providing the data correctly or isn't
> providing the data at all (we're not privy to what they're getting, only
> their interpretation).
>
> Show a concrete example where this happens, not the theoretical
possibility.
>
> Adam Ruth
>
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:DFE16.142$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > If the OS is detected correctly, and the uptime returned for that
system
> > is
> > > accurate. Then what diff does it make whether it is listed as a
> webserver
> > or
> > > firewall if what you are after is uptime ?
> >
> > You're making the same mistake you've been making all along. You're
> > assuming that Netcraft will identify a web server with a firewall as the
> > firewall, but that's not what happens in many cases (including my own).
> >
> > Netcraft reports the server and OS as Linux, but it's getting it's
uptime
> > data from my firewall, which is neither Linux or Unix based (actually
it's
> > getting no uptime at all because my firewall doesn't give out that
data).
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 14:30:54 -0600
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9275fl$dq5$03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Heyk, thats really cool. So if you have a shop with, say 200 Nt /
2k-boxes,
> 200 people will call the adminsitrator yelling "I need your password".
> Otherwise he has to go to 200 boxs himself (naturally distiributed around
> an area the size of New York)
There are lots of options. You can use management software, like SMS or
some of the other tools out there. Or you can create a specific "Install"
account that has administration privs for installation, you can set it up to
not allow logins on the machine and still allow the user to install software
this way.
Of course, that's assuming you want to allow your users to install software
at all. What do you do under Linux if you want a locked down system?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
