Linux-Advocacy Digest #58, Volume #31 Mon, 25 Dec 00 23:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Windows Stability ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows Stability (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (pip)
Re: ATA RIPOFF! ALERT! (Ken Klavonic)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (Tim Smith)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linuxgruven.com (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: ATA RIPOFF! ALERT! ("Adam Warner")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 01:15:57 GMT
I think your missing the point in this post.
More often then not, users have THE EXACT SAME problem with their Linux
experiences. Their hardware is just not supported 100%, features and
functionality are MISSING or not implemented yet.
It's a typical example of Linux playing "catch-up" with Windows (on the
desktop). Most people don't buy HARDWARE to accommodate their SOFTWARE .
It's the other way around, and Linux may claim "support" but more often then
not, true functionality is either not yet available under Linux, or is
available in "beta form" in either test-kernel modules, Beta releases of
XFree86 or some other questionable piece of software not included "out of
the box".
Most people evaluating Linux aren't in the mood to either learn the minutia
of information needed just to UPGRADE the components (let alone compile
them). But instead of creating a GUI based compiler which also tracks
dependencies to compiled projects, Linux programmers just chalk the whole
thing up to "learning curve", and do nothing about it.
Clearly you can claim the "functionality exists, you just don't know how to
do it." Fine, claim it. Do they (The community) do anything to resolve it
(see aforementioned recommendation)? No. How long will it be until Linux &
XFree86 supports the same device interworkings that Apple's Quartz
multimedia layer has? Months? Years? Never?
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> >
> > Except that for many devices (sound cards, network cards, video cards,
etc,
> > etc, etc) it is usually the at least semi-clueful who are installing the
> > devices. Anyone can plug in a printer, but it takes a little more skill
to
> > get an internal card mounted properly. (Not much more, perhaps, but the
> > real novices don't generally even contemplate opening their boxes.)
Such a
> > person can, I think, be expected to have at least some idea of
installing
> > drivers and the like. It's a hell of a lot easier first to find
drivers,
> > then to install them, under Windows than under Linux, as a rule.
>
> I think you have that backwards.
>
> > 1) ATA-100 drives. Not even _detected_ by Mandrake's install.
>
> You can use hdparm to get them detected. Windows and Linux install
> the most conservative configuration for hard-drive parameters.
> You can tweak them using hdparm, then make them permanent by editing
> /etc/sysconfig/harddrives (under RedHat, at least).
>
> > 2) SB Platinum Live! 5.1 - sort-of supported, but with limited
> > functionality.
>
> Do they have a full-support driver for this card for Win 2000 yet?
>
> > 3) Matrox G400 dualhead. Semi-supported.
>
> I have no info about this one!
>
> > 4) DVD: supported as a data drive only. Forget video, apparently.
>
> Yeah, 2600 got an injunction slapped on them to prevent the distribution
> of the DeCSS video decoder code for the DVDs.
>
> > 5) SB Platinum remote center unsupported.
>
> Redundant complaint? (See 2 above).
>
> > 6) MS optical USB wheel mouse... semi-supported. Drops out regularly.
> > 7) USB webcam unsupported.
> > 8) IBM extended functionality keyboard... semi-supported.
>
> Oh, these are biggies. The web-cam sounds bad, though.
>
> > 9) Intel EtherPro 10/100 - supported, but networking non-functional
without
> > significant customization.
>
> This makes no sense at all.
>
> > Now, compare that to, say, WinME, which detected and supported all those
> > devices. In some cases it required extra drivers/apps in order to get
full
> > functionality, but they were provided with the hardware, and at the very
> > least I could actually install the OS because, unlike Linux, it actually
> > admitted my hard drives existed.
>
> Well, just run WinME then. Bill Gates loves you!
>
> > As it stands now, my hardware, under Linux, is at best semi-functional.
> > With XFree86, I have the option of using an older version which supports
3D
> > acceleration, or a newer version which doesn't, but does support other
> > features of my video card.
>
> I think you need to do a little more research, lazybones.
>
> > Is Linux more stable? Probably. Does it consume fewer resources?
> > Probably. Does it allow heavier customization? Probably. As a user,
do I
> > care? No; I want to _use_ my machine. I have the machine to let me run
> > applications to perform tasks; I do not have the machine for the prime
> > purpose of catering to it's particular whims. Two of us spent about 15
> > hours setting up Linux, and it still only half worked; one of us spent
less
> > than an hour setting up Windows, and it worked just fine. Those 14
extra
> > hours under Linux bought nothing, and are 14 hours I _could_ have spent
> > doing real work, playing games, reading news, or whatever suits my
fancy;
> > those hours were a net reduction in my use of the machine.
>
> And you learned nothing in those 14 hours, apparently. And quit co-opting
> the phrase "real work" to denote whatever crap /you/ think is important.
>
> > If your goal in life is to cater to the machine, Linux seems great.
>
> My Linux box caters to me. Works very well. My particular box doesn't
> do everything I'd like it to do, but I could easily buy the couple
remaining
> pieces of hardware for less than the price of Win 2000 Pro (and no, I
would
> never, ever buy ME, that piece of crap. The DOS-dependent versions of
Windozzzz
> are a definite dead end.)
>
> > If your
> > goal in life is to make the machine as invisible as possible, so that
you
> > can simply do what you want to do, Linux does not seem to be the ideal
way
> > to go. In much the same way I don't want to rebuild an engine just to
drive
> > to the store, I don't want to rebuild a kernel just to run my word
> > processor; the very notion is ridiculous. Maybe that's what the Linux
> > community considers the "adult" approach to software, but some of us
have
> > better things to do with our lives.
>
> You're full of prunes. Your experience is valid, but you are stupid and
> foolish to generalize from your experience to then say "what Linux Is".
> But hey, it's your right to enjoy Windows. Just don't try to fob your
> prejudices off as the final story on Linux.
>
> Chris
>
>
> --
> Are you sure you want to read this message?
> Click Okay to continue, and Cancel to okay
> this dialog.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 03:21:22 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Today, most companies build a mid-range server. And as most Windows
> boxes go, a mid-range anything isn't destine to last more than a year or
> two.
>
> The idea behind Linux, and it's proven using google and others, is to
> build a mid-range or high end server using Linux as the platform and
> have the system be of use say 4-5 years down the road before retirement.
>
> There's never been a Windows box made which I've seen go beyond 2.5 years
> useful business life as the upgrades ususally end up killing the machine.
> The performance aspect falls off so suddenly the machine is useless.
>
> This is not the case for Linux.
>
> So when you examine upgrade price for software, longevity, performance,
> Linux win's in every aspect and Windows has no chance.
>
> Windows is not a good server. And it's quickly becomming a NOT SO GOOD
> desktop also.
Wrong.
I can run today's windows on a 4 years old mid-range computer quite
comfortablely, be that a server or a desktop.
I don't do it for reasons that has nothing to do with Windows the OS, I
can't play any of the new games on a 4 year old computer, many applications
would work horribly or not work at all on a four years old computer.
OTOH, I've nearby a win2k (P233,32MB) which run Bryce half the time.
On general, I've noticed, Windows can run on a 5 years old mid-to-high range
computers.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 02:29:45 +0100
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> Wrong.
> I can run today's windows on a 4 years old mid-range computer quite
> comfortablely, be that a server or a desktop.
> I don't do it for reasons that has nothing to do with Windows the OS, I
> can't play any of the new games on a 4 year old computer, many
> applications would work horribly or not work at all on a four years old
> computer. OTOH, I've nearby a win2k (P233,32MB) which run Bryce half the
> time.
>
> On general, I've noticed, Windows can run on a 5 years old mid-to-high
> range computers.
>
You know, don't you, that 2K will NOT even install an an machine with 32MB
So why do you tell lies like this. Even NT4 would be a pain in the ass on a
machine like that. I know, I had the bad luck and had to install NT4 on
stuff like that. You can't even run decent Minsweeper on such a machine
On the other hand, Linux would chomp away quite happyly on that thing
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 01:48:38 +0000
"steve@x" wrote:
>
> I found it in 10 seconds. not 17. long before I posted my first post.
Well, I found it in 8.54 seconds. not 10. In fact it was nearer 8.53
come to think about it. It would have been faster, but I am sure that my
firewall has degraded performance by at least 0.087%. I am writing some
assembly code to fix this because I am a hairy man and will report
results back.
Do you think in this new century advocacy threads will contain higher
levels of argument and reasoning?
Happy Xmas people!
Drunk and happy...
------------------------------
From: Ken Klavonic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ATA RIPOFF! ALERT!
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 20:56:17 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> Read this latest crap from the copyrighted ones.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15682.html
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15655.html
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15620.html
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15684.html
>
> This is how Microsoft and appearently IBM plan
> on competing in the future.
>
> This is how we DECIDE who has the best operating
> system. And appearently so long as this operating
> system is Microsoft, you will do well.
>
> Anybody else can just get fucked appearently.
>
> Charlie
Make no mistake - copy prevention (don't use 'copy protection' - it may
be mere semantics, but 'copy protection' sounds too positive: as in
'We're protecting you...') at the hardware layer is a serious threat to
free (freedom) software, and to the freedom of the users of software.
But you missed one of the articles (the Register has been publishing
these like mad over the past few days):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15620.html - apparently Microsoft
is a vocal opponent of the copy prevention scheme that is being
proposed. Strange days indeed.
Write to your legislators, your senators, your MPs. Write to the
harddrive manufacturers, educate your users, your neighbours, your mom.
This will not go away just becuse 'it sucks'. Let's let them (Intel,
IBM, Toshiba and Matsushita are the ones apparently behind this) know
that if they try to foist this upon us, it is they who are fucked, since
we'll simply boycott their products and encourage everyone we know to do
the same.
Let's tell them that 'Hey, what you're doing takes away my freedom and
prevents me carrying out uses of my computer that causes no harm to
anyone. It's not even illegal. You're invading my privacy by insisting
that a third-party be involved in key-management for MY data. And,
you're endangering the investment your stockholders have made in you by
developing a doomed technology - turning a general-use PC into "trusted
clients". Please cease and desist this wreckless and destructive
behaviour!'
The question of having a trusted client has been around for a long time.
A trusted client is simply one that runs a bit of 'trusted' software to
prevent certain uses of data on a given system, be that printing,
copying, viewing, whatever. The big dirty secret is that it's crap. It
doesn't work. On any given system, if someone wants to make use of the
data in some other way, they will. Bruce Schneier (the author of
"Applied Cryptography") has spoken of the fallacy of trusted clients on
many occasions, including the 15 May 2000 Crypto-Gram
(http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0005.html). In it, he says (in
part) that:
"Other companies claim to sell rights-management software: audio and
video files that can't be copied or redistributed, data that can be read
but cannot be printed, software that can't be copied. The common thread
in all of these 'solutions' is that they postulate a situation where the
owner of a file can control what happens to that file after it is sent
to someone else.
"It's complete nonsense.
"Controlling what the client can do with a piece of data assumes a
trusted (from the point of view of the initial owner of the file) piece
of software running on the client. Such a thing does not exist, so these
solutions don't work."
Even if a bit of software is on your system that is meant to control
what you do, someone will break that prevention mechanism. Utltimately,
it reduces the value of the prevention scheme to zero whilst forcing
those who wish to break it to become more and more sophisticated in
breaking these kinds of schemes. Meanwhile, the users of these systems
must suffer through the inconvenience of the copy prevention schemes
because they are assumed to be a bunch of dirty thieves.
Even though the concept of trusted clients (which is what this copy
prevention scheme is about) is inherently flawed, and the implementation
likely doomed, we cannot assume that it's going away on its own. We've
got to get off our collective asses and do something about it. Sitting
around whinging about it on usenet doesn't do enough about this.
The issues here are NOT being able to 'stick it to the man' and continue
to use Napster. The issues here are allowing a third-party to define
what kinds of information can and cannot be shared. The issues here are
freedom - the freedom to share information, ideas, expressions. The
freedom to choose what operating systems and applications one wishes to
use without being implicitly accused of wrongdoing simply because it's
possible to share data that may or may not be infringing on someone's
'rights'.
Let's get busy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: 25 Dec 2000 18:40:00 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 06:13:45 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Was it too difficult to see that big picture in the middle of the screen
>labeled 'Custom' install. If you didn't want any choices, why are
>you complaining that it did what you told it to do?
Where on the Mandrake box or documentation does it say you have to do a
custom install to get support?
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: 26 Dec 2000 03:03:43 GMT
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 01:15:57 GMT, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>It's a typical example of Linux playing "catch-up" with Windows (on the
>desktop). Most people don't buy HARDWARE to accommodate their SOFTWARE .
You are dead wrong here. How many Windows users buy SPARCs ? Why do gamers
buy fancy gaming hardware and spend money on powerful video cards ? The
hardware performs the same function as the operating system --
* It is a platform on which to run applications *
Buying a Windows machine so that you can run Linux is almost as stupid as
buying a SPARC based machine so that you can run Windows.
>It's the other way around, and Linux may claim "support" but more often then
>not, true functionality is either not yet available under Linux, or is
You are claiming that "Linux" is somehow lying here, but in practice, the
level of support is usually made fairly clear.
>Most people evaluating Linux aren't in the mood to either learn the minutia
>of information needed just to UPGRADE the components (let alone compile
>them). But instead of creating a GUI based compiler which also tracks
>dependencies to compiled projects, Linux programmers just chalk the whole
>thing up to "learning curve", and do nothing about it.
(1) Compilers are for developers, not for end-lusers. Windows end-lusers
would whine if they were expected to buy and use visual studio to
compile their software. For developers, well it's not like the idea
of using make, and having required headers installed should be overly
confusing.
(2) GUI tools for software installation are and have been available for at
least 4 years.
(3) For developers who want tools designed to make compiling easier, there
are GUI tools such as Kdevelop.
>Clearly you can claim the "functionality exists, you just don't know how to
>do it." Fine, claim it. Do they (The community) do anything to resolve it
>(see aforementioned recommendation)? No.
Bullshit. Typically, new functionality requires work if it's not enabled
in a distribution, because the user has to worry about doing a job that
the distributor would normally handle. The distributors try to resolve
these issues as quickly as possible.
> How long will it be until Linux &
>XFree86 supports the same device interworkings that Apple's Quartz
>multimedia layer has? Months? Years? Never?
Not sure precisely what functionality you are referring to, but the
comment does beg the question, if Apple's quartz is so good, why not
just use that ?
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linuxgruven.com
Date: 26 Dec 2000 03:10:10 GMT
On 25 Dec 2000 11:34:45 GMT, Andres Soolo wrote:
>mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Jason Portell wrote:
>>> should be VERY aware of. The name is linuxgruven.com . The company is
>[...]
>> This sort of post is the worst sort there is. A proclamation that some
>> person or company is bad, with no facts or report.
>Isn't he the one who described his bad experience while trying to get
>a job there? If so, he has posted the (supposed) facts publically.
IIRC, they wanted money upfront for "training". Certainly looked like a
scam (or a company that wasn't able to foot the bill for their own training
costs at the very least).
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ATA RIPOFF! ALERT!
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:21:16 +1200
Hi Ken,
> But you missed one of the articles (the Register has been publishing
> these like mad over the past few days):
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15620.html - apparently Microsoft
> is a vocal opponent of the copy prevention scheme that is being
> proposed. Strange days indeed.
Thanks for clearing up that point quickly. It's good to be on side with
Microsoft for once.
This is the most bizarre proposal I have ever come across. It defies belief
and common sense. If such an austere publication as The Register hadn't
reported it I wouldn't have believed it ;-)
I still haven't got my head around why or how I won't be able to image/copy
my own hard disk partitions without external permission. Again it defies
belief. This is becoming a very strange world.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
