Linux-Advocacy Digest #60, Volume #31 Tue, 26 Dec 00 03:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: So how do we get from here to there? (Arthur Frain)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (israel raj thomas)
Which OS for 2005 ? (israel raj thomas)
long nfs filenames? ("ID")
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: ATA RIPOFF! ALERT! (Ken Klavonic)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: 26 Dec 2000 06:07:47 GMT
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 05:35:56 GMT, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>Only gaming enthusiasts buy hardware to accommodate their ridiculously
>demanding software.
Like I said, hardware, like an operating system, is a platform for running
applications.
Users choose their applications, then they choose an operating system, then
they choose hardware. Therefore the hardware is chosen for the operating
system. This is why Windows users do not buy SPARCs, and would not buy one
even if they were convinced that the SPARC was better hardware.
> Linux doesn't claim to be a specialty platform, it
>claims to be a comprehensive platform.
Linux doesn't "claim" anything. It's an operating system.
>Linux claims "support", period.
No, it doesn't.
> Distro makers (the largest source for Linux
>on earth) claim to support products.
Which they do. But the alleged "support" does has certain boundaries
and limitations, like any support.
> To the consumer, this means that
>"it'll work".
No, it means that "it'll work". It means that "it'll work" subject to
certain boundaries and limitations. (This is why Windows users do not
expect Windows to work on SPARCs or on a Macintosh -- it is outside the
bounds of support)
> This may be a somewhat naive assumption,
No, it's a false assumption.
> but distro makers
>are somewhat (gasp) responsible for making good on their overly generic
>claims.
Can you give us an example ?
>My second point, compilers are REQUIRED in the Linux computing world because
>precompiled binary distro files (rpm, deb) are not as popular as source code
>files are for independent programmers, making the end users need to deal
>with compiling the software.
See www.rpmfind.net. I've never had trouble finding binaries.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So how do we get from here to there?
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 22:07:39 -0800
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.
Specifically, which things are those?
> Linux is simply too
> frustrating to use to be useful at this point.
There's no accounting for tastes.
>> The questions are: what is
>> missing? and, What do we need to do?
> 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.
Just list the top 3 or 4 then.
> 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>
> That is why Linux will *never* replace windows... it is not because it
> doesn't have potential, it's because of the users.
> I'm sure you don't even understand what I am talking about.
I certainly don't.
All I see is a lot of vague handwaving - why not
provide some specifics? I have some specific
reasons for using Linux; I'll be happy to provide
them if you're interested.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: israel raj thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.inferno,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 06:13:00 GMT
> NT, 2000Pro, 2000Server, 2000Advanced
>> Server, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux
>> OS's on the market. OS/2 has a better GUI than any of the above by
>> far. OS/2 can multitask and multithread better than any OS on the
>> list. OS/2 is faster and manages resources better than any OS on the
>> list. OS/2 is more secure than any OS on the list except maybe Open
>> BSD. All of the BSD's and Linux are excellent OS's but OS/2 is
>> better.
OS/2 with its famous "lock-up intermittently" GUI is better than the
unices that come with KDE , Gnome, Enlightenment ?
What are you smoking ?
------------------------------
From: israel raj thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.inferno,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Which OS for 2005 ?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 06:21:00 GMT
>> 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.
>
>> 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>
When Windows 2000 has gone the way of OS/2 ( Dead and decaying, no
longer sold retail , IBM says no new versions only bug fixes will be
released ) , the unices will still be going strong.
AND they will have metamorphosed, taken on the latest results of
operating system research and will therefore be state of the art.
Of course, by then Windows 2000's successor will need a terabyte to
boot and will still come with the paperclip !
------------------------------
From: "ID" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: long nfs filenames?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:06:40 +0800
hello all,
i have recently managed nfs up and running under rh7-linux
but since the same-shared-folder also served to win98 workstations..
it does not allow me to create long(8+ chars.) filenames from win98
workstations.
anyone know why that could be?
regards
ismet
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 02:40:40 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:54:21 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
>
> This is precisely correct. You can lock down NT to the point of being
> almost unusable if you so wish.
>
> It can sometimes be a rather annoying when people who apparently have
> no understanding of NT make these silly generalizations.
>
> There appears to be a perception amongst people within this group that
> NT (and Microsoft products in general) should be completely secure
> "out of the box". On the other hand Unix systems in general require
> attention from an experienced administrator to secure them. Apply the
Yes....choosing the "secure" option during installation takes YEARS
of experience...
> same time and effort to an NT system and you will easily achieve the
> same level of security.
>
> Most Unix systems still run ftp, telnet and nfs daemons. These
> systems lack any sort of security. Anyone who knows how to program an
> Ethernet card may break a networked Unix system running any of these
> daemons.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Ken Klavonic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ATA RIPOFF! ALERT!
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 01:34:42 -0500
Adam Warner wrote:
>
> 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
It is very odd indeed. Frankly, I think that it's doomed to failure, but
that's not going to prevent me expressing my outrage with the various
entities (both legal and corporate) if I can confirm this story with
another source (or two).
Problem is, I've heard from other folks that the Register isn't exactly
'austere'. More like the National Enquirer of tech rags. They do seem to
have a goodly amount of detail, but I wonder that other news sources
haven't picked up this one... And Slashdot doesn't count - they're
reporting what the Register has to say.
Has anyone else seen additional, independent reporting of the stuff that
the Register is reporting???
Best,
ken
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 02:41:53 -0500
billh wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>
> > > > My uniform layout is as follows
> > > >
> > > > [ACM][AAM]
> > > > [RCGCM][ASR][NDSM]
> > > > [PUC][JMUC] [SWASM][OTR][IOSR]
> > > >
> > >
> > > Again, you lie, KuKu. You are truly pathetic. Firstly, unit awards are
> > > only worn above the right pocket. Secondly, you haven't been awarded
> the
> > > PUC. Now, go somewhere else and try to inpress some teenagers bercause
> you
> > > sure haven't impressed any soldiers.
> > >
> > > BTW there is no medal known by the acronym "ACM". It's "ARCOM",
> wannabe.
> >
> > Tell us again about your theory that German, Japanese, North Korean,
> > Chinese, VietCong, and North Vietnamese troops ALL obeyed the
> > Geneva Convention and NEVER fired at American medics.
>
> Having trouble staying on topic again, eh, "reading comprehension boy"?
Having trouble remembering your lies again, eh captain disgraced?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 02:42:23 -0500
billh wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>
> > > > >Kulkis has claimed to do things he hasn't. One is that he has
> claimed to
> > > > >have been on classified ops that he can't talk about, yet he talks
> about
> > > > >them. [...]
> > > >
> > > > He's yanking your chain, dude.
> > >
> > > No, actually he just pathetically and desperately tries to impress
> others by
> > > lying and can't handle it when he gets caught in those lies.
> >
> > Bill even misses subtle clues like 'yank, yank, yank'
>
> No I won't let you change the truth of the matteer. You lied, and continue
> to do so, and now want to pull it of as trolling. You have no integrity and
> no honor. You are simply a pathetic war-hero-wannabe. Everyone knows that.
Tell us again about your theory that German, Japanese, North Korean,
Chinese, VietCong, and North Vietnamese troops ALL obeyed the
Geneva Convention and NEVER fired at American medics.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 07:54:12 GMT
"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).
Sorry, I'm playing typical end-user here. What menu option is hdparm
selected by?
> > 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?
Well, I have full surround and the remote center works, so look like.
>
> > 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.
Works under Windows.
> > 5) SB Platinum remote center unsupported.
>
> Redundant complaint? (See 2 above).
Nope; this is the remote center; the SB! Live Platinum was short a few
options, the remote center was completely non-functional.
> > 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.
The mouse sure is, if you're a GUI type person.
> > 9) Intel EtherPro 10/100 - supported, but networking non-functional
without
> > significant customization.
>
> This makes no sense at all.
No? Let's see. Windows, install with the card in, voila, that's it.
Linux, install with the card in, oops, nothing. Fart around with DHCP
settings. Nope, no network support. Four hours later, discover that
disabling the ATA-100 bus re-enables networking support.
>
> > 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!
I rather doubt he knows me from a hole in the ground, actually.
>
> > 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.
Why? Windows is smart enough to get it right; Linux, the super-hyper-ultra
system, isn't. Research time: about 15 hours, to determine that no, Linux
is simply not functional in this configuration. Resolutions: don't use
Linux, or use the machine in a semi-functional state until sometime, maybe,
someone comes up with working drivers. I chose to go for a functional
sstem.
> > 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
> And you learned nothing in those 14 hours, apparently.
Not true at all; I learned that Linux was more work for less result.
> And quit co-opting
> the phrase "real work" to denote whatever crap /you/ think is important.
I see; my work, the stuff that's actually important to me, is "crap". So,
anything other than catering to the vagaries of Linux is crap, eh? Sorry,
some of us use the machines for fun, work and other things... and that's
real work, doing real tasks, rather than catering to a half-functional OS.
> > If your goal in life is to cater to the machine, Linux seems great.
> My Linux box caters to me.
Good. Mine doesn't. So I turfed it.
> > 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".
I can only go by my experience; I can't go by yours, or the guy next door's.
My experience says that Linux is a waste. When I try it again in another 2
years, that might be different; obviously strides are being taken along
those lines, but it ain't there yet. Give it time.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
