Linux-Advocacy Digest #65, Volume #31 Tue, 26 Dec 00 16:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Conclusion ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 (nickr_21045)
Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time. ("David Wilson")
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (J Sloan)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (J Sloan)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (J Sloan)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Det2)
Re: Why Advocacy? (Pete Goodwin)
Windows 2000 ("Jeepster")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Huxton")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Installshield and IBM will end this argument (Pete Goodwin)
Re: "Is the end looming for the Microsoft monopoly?" (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Installshield and IBM will end this argument (David Steinberg)
Re: Installshield and IBM will end this argument ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 18:09:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kyle Jacobs
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 24 Dec 2000 21:54:28 GMT
<ogu16.52812$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
[moved down]
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kyle Jacobs
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Sun, 24 Dec 2000 04:22:44 GMT
>> <oSe16.55343$[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?
>Serve the Windows Explorer interface so users can get real, important work
>done.
Meaning precisely what? Although you are technically correct (I forgot
to mention Apache, Jakarta, or PHP) [*], I'd like to clarify this.
My understanding of the word "interface" includes two sub-parts:
one is Java-like, in which the user of the interface (the very word is
actually reserved in standard Java, unlike 'delegate' :-) ) is provided
what is essentially a contract (actually, an API, which stands for, IIRC,
"application procedure interface", a term I'm not fond of because of
the ambiguity of which "application" is being talked about, the provider
of the interface (which in itself is an app), or the consumer).
The second is far more general, and includes such subtypes as "graphical
user interface" and "command line interface", both of which are
interfaces to, as you put it, "get real work done".
Since IE is a full-fledged HTML-capable (+ DHTML, + XMHTML, + ActiveX,
+ Java, + JavaScript, etc.) browser, it would fall into the second
category; this indicates that you are apparently claiming that Linux
doesn't support a browser-driven user interface (a third subcategory,
which is often called a "web application").
However, you'd be wrong in that case; Linux supports Jakarta and PHP
just fine (Jakarta serves up Java 'servlets', which are similar to
ActiveX objects; they allow for dynamic generation of data and can
also retrieve data from other things on the server side for presentation
to the user, in a more or less controlled fashion); both hook into a
HTML-capable webserver (Apache) and can even hook up a database
(Postgres, msql, mysql, Oracle, DB2) to said webserver, allowing
all sorts of nifty things to happen such as "shopping carts".
There's even an option for security (OpenSSL, which is similar to ssh,
except it's an encryption library instead of a daemon + connector
client; I don't remember whether ssh can sit on top of OpenSSL or not).
To be fair, Microsoft supports all of these options as well, and
more (LDAP, for example -- although even here Linux probably has
a server/client pair; I just don't know what it's called offhand.
NT has ASP (via IIS), although I understand there's a Solaris-capable
webserver that can do VisualBasic, plus part of COM -- and JSP and ASP
compete for dynamic server page generation).
So, again, I'd like for you to clarify your comment. I hope the
above clarifies my question. :-)
[snip]
[*] One problem is making sure we compare apples to apples. Comparing
a bare-bones NT system to a fully-loaded-and-configured-with-
everything-on-it-including-the-kitchen-sink Linux system -- even if
everything on the Linux system is freeware -- would be patently unfair.
Ditto for comparing a fully-loaded NT system (including third-party
stuff) to a bare-bones Linux system that has nothing but core
utilities such as mv, rm, and shutdown -- without even ifconfig
or networking.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random clarification here
up 89 days, 17:37, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:18:35 -0600
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92afhd$23sm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> But of course the burden of proof is on you and your claim, because of the
> impossibility of proving a negative proposition (which is that there are
no
> sites with the problem you suggest). Since you claim to have much
> experience with complex web server setups, perhaps you could tell us about
> some so we could see if Netcraft's numbers are right.
You're proving my point. By the inability to prove that Netcraft is wrong,
you are proving that you don't know if they're right.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 18:14:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 25 Dec 2000 16:06:18 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On 25 Dec 2000 15:49:57 GMT, Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>> its' predecessor too. Hell, Charles Manson is more stable than NT.
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>This is one of those VERY TRUE statements found right here on COLA!
>
>If you want stability, you will use Linux.
Or *BSD, or Solaris, or HP-UX, or perhaps even HURD. There are
a number of options out there; Linux is but one of them, although
arguably the best-known of the freeware ones.
I don't know which one is the most stable, but all of them
can stay up for months, if not years, on good hardware. (So can
NT, actually -- although a number of issues might have to be
patched first; presumably, that's the point of the "service packs".)
Of course, requiring a video display card on a headless server is
a bit silly. Will M$ or someone come out with a "serial-only" driver?
Unix (and Linux) have been doing this since pretty much Day 1.
>
> If you want a very naughty, unstable OS, you will go the
> Microshaft WAY!
I believe Win2k improves on stability though -- athough I do wonder
whether they've fixed the "oopsie, I can't do the toolbars on the
bottom" but yet (my "favorite" of NT4).
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 89 days, 17:59, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: nickr_21045 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 18:34:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:58:48 +0800, Todd wrote:
>
> >> Is Linux or Unix vulnerable to this?
> >
> >First of all, most of the Linux hackers are the ones making viruses
for
> >Windows machines because they hate Microsoft and Windows so much. So
you
>
> That's funny, because you need to know something about Windows
programming to
> write a Windows virus. And you need to buy software from MS to do it.
Most
I don't know I got a e-mail worm which said kro$oft sucks and then I it
tried to make me believe that windows had actually crashed
> about Windows programming, doesn't that make them a "Windows
programmer" of
> sorts?
>
> >won't find many Linux viruses... hmmm... maybe I should start :)
>
> Go write ahead. You will not find them very effective, however. The
problem is
> that Linux hasn't developed a culture of running software from
untrusted
> sources.
>
> >Secondly, if you are logged in as root all of the time, you are again
taking
> >your chances.
>
> Again, the vast majority of Linux users don't do this. Largely because
there
> isn't a need to. Linux makes it very convenient to switch from super
user to
> ordinary user.
>
> >I wouldn't worry about viruses using Linux... most of us Windows
programmers
> >need to get real work done and we don't sit around trying to destroy
other
> >peoples' computer files.
>
> Apparently, some of you do.
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "David Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 13:40:11 -0800
> Is this the OS that is supposed to bring MS to its knees? what a joke.
>
No, this is the OS for which the concept of a GUI is still in it's infancy.
I tried it too, and it's too much hassle for what I want to do right now.
But I can't wait for the distro to come out which will be a viable
alternative for Windows. Some day... Maybe...
David
P.S. - Kyle, if you're reading this, many thanks for your suggestion. ME is
running much better so far then 98. No blue screens yet *crosses fingers*
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: 26 Dec 2000 19:37:43 GMT
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 18:34:36 GMT, nickr_21045 wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>> That's funny, because you need to know something about Windows
>programming to
>> write a Windows virus. And you need to buy software from MS to do it.
>Most
>
>I don't know I got a e-mail worm which said kro$oft sucks and then I it
>tried to make me believe that windows had actually crashed
Well if he wasn't a Windows user, he wouldn't have such a strong
opinion about Microsoft, would he ? Most of the anti-MS crowd use
Windows.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 19:39:20 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> As a server, I find all the distributions of Linux useless, as I can get a
> BSD for the same price, get a higher quality product and lose nothing in the
> process.
Those harsh words indicate a lack of understanding,
and are typical of a bsd bigot - I notice they tend to
hate Linux with am intractable, bright green jealously.
Perhaps you learned bsd and now don't want to learn
anything new? I have run bsd servers also, and while
solid, bsd is not the end all and be all of OSes. - bsd
is certainly no Linux killer, either on the server side or
on the workstation side.
All things considered, I prefer Linux.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 19:44:15 GMT
Todd wrote:
> "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > hmmm, no, use OpenSSH or SSH for remote telnet sessions are you will
> > find that it is even more secure than the Windows counter part.
>
> Ummm... no.
>
> You can use rcmd + IPSec under 2000 to get far more secure than anything
> Linux offers.
Please explain - it appears that windows may finally be
able to achieve something close to what Linux has
provided for years, how does that translate to "far more"?
> You can administer a 2000 machine using a Java client. Don't know how you
> can get more cross platform than that...
How trendy - say, can I adminster it from a vt100?
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: 26 Dec 2000 19:48:26 GMT
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 05:42:33 GMT, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>Just because you've had a picture perfect Linux experience doesn't mean all
>the people I test for also have perfect experiences.
>
>I don't use Linux in a professional environment. I hope to, one day. But
>now, Linux is just a crappy plaything. My personal problem is it's not
>getting better.
Really ? Not getting better over what time frame, 1 week ? How long have
you been using it ?
> On the desktop, it sucks. As a server? Only a few
>distro's are even worth my 10 minutes. And god help me if I call tech
You obviously haven't looked into it very hard as a server OS. It's
a first rate server OS.
>As for Bill choking off the competition, I'd love to see the competition
>come up with something as impressive as Windows 2000, let alone Windows 98.
>As far as getting things done went, the products are superior.
Depends on what you want to do with them. If you're trying to say that
they are superior as server operating systems, I'd say that's false (and
in the case of Win98, laughably so)
>GUI based compilers won't solve the problems plaguing Linux, or the software
>installation system.
Well duh ! That's sort of obvious. I don't think anyone besides you has
even proposed such a stupid idea.
> It'd be nice to have a uniform package format,
>something that all Linux's would have. From uniform packages would
>inherently come simpler software installation.
RPM is used for most distributions, so it's close to uniform. Certainly,
every major software release for Linux includes an RPM version.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: 26 Dec 2000 19:52:06 GMT
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 09:24:49 -0500, MH wrote:
>God, where have we heard this before?
>
>As for your rant, does the word "Mindcraft" have any meaning to you?
>Reputable benchmarking, look into it.
Reputable ? Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 19:52:44 GMT
MH wrote:
> >
> > But the desktop is all you're concerned about, right?
> >
> > Well, have patience - things are developing, but these
> > things take time. Give it say 5 years, and then we'll see.
>
> God, where have we heard this before?
I have no idea what you might have heard -
But if you see no progress on the Linux desktop it is
because you determined not to see any.
> As for your rant, does the word "Mindcraft" have any meaning to you?
"rant" is probably not the term, but whatever turns you on...
Ah yes, the discredited mindcraft, an organization funded by
microsoft, whose sole job is to report on benchmarks performed
in microsoft labs, showing that windows nt is faster than any
other OS - Linux, Solaris, netware...
Get real - do you think those microsoft guys busted their
but to get good results from Linux?
No, mindcraft is just a one-sided propoganda firm, why don't
we condsider a legitimate benchmark controlled by a third
party - and there is just such an organization, you might
have heard of them - spec.org.
Go to www.spec.org and take a look at the specweb 99
benchmarks. Take all submitted benchmarks to date and
sort on performance, with highest first.
Now THAT's reputable benchmarking.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: 26 Dec 2000 19:55:15 GMT
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 18:34:38 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>As a server, I find all the distributions of Linux useless, as I can get a
>BSD for the same price, get a higher quality product and lose nothing in the
>process.
The BSDs are nice, but Linux does have certain advantages. It's easier to
use, it has better hardware support (including support for SMP, for example).
OpenBSD is nice, but its ports collection is very limited and it has no
SMP support. And your warranty on superior security is null and void the
moment you install any services outside the core.
I suppose it really depends on what you intend to do with your server.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Det2)
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 20:08:09 GMT
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000 01:36:42 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> NO it simple means we don't believe you OR your claims of
>> missions in the Gulf or decorations granted.
>
>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.
>
>>
Its not my theory sport.
It seems to be your delusion though that we care about it.
No be a nice little boy and go back to palying with yourself....
SSG Paul D. Carrier
Readiness NCO (63H & 45K)
Det 2 Co. B 145 SPT BN
Camp Withycombe, Clackamas OR
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 20:36:26 +0000
mlw wrote:
> (2) Promote better understanding of Linux.
> For those that do not know, or have not used, Linux, to inform them of
> the advantages (yes, and disadvantages to limit false expectations.)
Please list the advantages and disadvantages.
> (3) Counter FUD
> There are a lot of people saying things about Linux that are simply not
> true. We should address these and counter them with facts.
You've just told a FUD about Windows in your post - see below.
> (4) Dispel myths about Windows.
> Linux is a good operating system. It is not the best, but it is very
> good. IMHO, as a whole, it is far better than any of the offerings from
> Microsoft. Unfortunately, Microsoft's marketing and technology
> "evangelism" has created the impression that the various Windows
> environments are much better than they really are.
And people who use Windows and use Linux are quite capable of spotting what
is "evangelism" and what isn't. Linux appears to be a very good system if
all you want is a CLI or multiple CLI's. It starts to show its cracks when
you try to go for a good GUI. Windows is far from perfect, but Linux + KDE
for example is not any better.
> Why on earth would someone advocate Windows?
Because some things are better on Windows?
Because more hardware on Intel machines is supported on Windows than on
Linux?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Jeepster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 20:35:33 -0000
Out of curiosity, what do Linux users feel about this OS?
Do they hate it or admire it?
Hate because its MS
or
Admire cos it is an OS that is comparable with Linux?
--
8:34pm up 1 day, 11:19
------------------------------
From: "Tom Huxton" <[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 03:49:03 -0500
Hmmmm. Lemme see. He goes around and around, never goes anywhere, thinks
the world revolves around HIM, never sees a second point of view, and can't
admit the "flip-side" exists. A gold plated out of date, obsolete, non
functioning piece of scrap that could be replaced with a rock while
retaining current functionality. Possibly of Soviet origin.
Yep, good metaphor
Thomas
<<<At least half the world is spared the sight.>>>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Why *does* it seem funny to think of Aaron R. Kulkis as a geosynchronous
> satellite? What is it about the metaphor and imagery?
>
> LOL.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[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: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 13:31:31 -0700
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" wrote:
> >
> > IMO:
> >
> > A great many of the claims made by Democrats (widely viewed as
> > "liberals") in the post-election debacle were deceitful, a
> > misrepresentation of
> > the facts, and in some cases, out right lies.
>
> Still, because one person of a certain category says something weird,
> that doesn't glue the weirdness to all people in that category.
> It's like saying all whites are racists.
These statements weren't made by just one person.
As you might expect, once uttered by a party leader, a great many other
people picked up and repeated the refrain. Now, I chalk some of that up
to simple "sound bite propaganda" that both sides were playing, but
there were definitely statements that went *WAY* over the line,
including charges of racism, fascism, etc.
> > Just today, Molly Ivins (an old-style liberal) states in her news paper
> > column that actually upholding and following the Constitution is "the
> > most frightening thing I've ever seen".
> >
> > This, from a party that repeatedly claimed to support the rule of law?
> >
> > What's so terrifying about upholding and following the Constitution?
> >
> > Why would *ANY* American consider it frightening to do so?
>
> I'd have to read her article myself.
The thought of having the Florida State Legislature actually do what it
is both Constitutionally empowered, and *required* to do: select the
electoral college representatives when the voters are otherwise unable
to do so, is what scares her so badly.
After all, in an election that close, considering the resolution limits
of the system then in place: that race was a dead tie. Neither Gore nor
George won Florida, so the State Legislature *SHOULD* have picked the
Electoral College Representatives.
> > Where's Harry Browne when you really need him?
>
> I pretty much agree with what you say here. I do feel that Gore
> was swept along by events for awhile.
Hey, all I really care about is that the Constitution doesn't get
trampled in the rush to victory.
I honestly care less about George Vs. Al than I do about the tactics
used by the Democrats.
> And, hey, with a little
> luck, George Dubya might make a fine president.
Hey, I voted for the man, but lets be blunt: a President is just a
President. He has a fair amount of power, but in the end, the entire
government, including Congress and the Judiciary, are responsible for
what happens, and frankly, no single man can do that much good, or that
much damage.
Which is why I wouldn't have been all that upset had Gore outright won.
> Hopefully, the
> stress won't get to him, and history won't have to talk about his
> "Liquor Cabinet".
:-)
Yeah!
But remember, a convert is twice as fanatical as a born-follower . . .
I'd bet that George is even more leery of alchohol than most.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Installshield and IBM will end this argument
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 20:38:55 +0000
CJ wrote:
> This company did.
>
> http://www.installshield.com/
>
> I just went to there page. Why don't you go there and look down at the
> bottom of the page.
>
> Under the title "Featured News". It looks like your argument will be
> moot soon.
Waahaay! InstallShield for Linux! I'll have to see that one.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Is the end looming for the Microsoft monopoly?"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 20:43:42 +0000
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) wrote:
> When Linux required a hard-core geek to install, and required intimate
> knowledge of bash shell scripting, only someone who really cared about
> performance and reliability used Linux. Lately things have been
> changing. The TiVO box a a Linux box that runs a very specific set
> of applications. It's simple, easy to use, and lets people pick
> the 4-8 hours of television they would most like to watch out of the
> entire day and 200 cable channels. They get to pick their favorite
> 4-8 hours out of 4800 hours of programming available each day.
>
> Even more interesting, it lets people skip commercials they
> don't want to watch but lets them sit through the ones they
> are interested in. As a result, marrying advertizing to
> content will be more critical. Even more interesting,
> TiVo can tell advertizers which ads were viewed and on
> which programs. Needless to say, TiVo is getting VERY
> popular with BOTH viewers AND advertizers (since they can
> see who is INTERESTED in their ads and better target content).
TiVo is perhaps not a good example. Both my friend and I returned our TiVo
boxes within a short while with different problems - in my case flashing
colours and distorted sound - in my friend's case, MPEG drop outs.
TiVo is a great idea, and I hope they sort out all these glitches (and
start supporting my Cable Digital next year).
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Installshield and IBM will end this argument
Date: 26 Dec 2000 20:50:17 GMT
Pete Goodwin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: CJ wrote:
: > This company did.
: > http://www.installshield.com/
: Waahaay! InstallShield for Linux! I'll have to see that one.
How does InstallShield handle dependencies and conflicting packages?
Why do InstallShield uninstalls on Windows often say that it failed to
remove the application completely?
As far as I can tell, InstallShield would just be yet another packaging
system, when we already have two that are far more sophisticated and
useful.
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Installshield and IBM will end this argument
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:07:51 -0600
"David Steinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92b0a9$903$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Why do InstallShield uninstalls on Windows often say that it failed to
> remove the application completely?
Because there are some files left over in the applications directory which
it did not install. These are typically data files, which users would be
quite upset if InstallShield deleted (they might be uninstalling the
previous version before installing the next version and want to keep their
data files). This is poor application behavior anyways, as the files should
be stored in My Documents (which is basically the home directory for the
user).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
