Linux-Advocacy Digest #72, Volume #31 Wed, 27 Dec 00 01:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: So how do we get from here to there? ("Todd")
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? ("Todd")
Re: Why Advocacy? ("Todd")
Re: open source is getting worst with time. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Could only... (jtnews)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Why Advocacy? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: open source is getting worst with time. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time. (Tim Smith)
Re: Windows 2000 (Arthur Frain)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. ("Todd")
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (Tim Smith)
Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Could only... (Cannon Fodder)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Could only... (Cannon Fodder)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So how do we get from here to there?
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 11:24:29 +0800
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:0aZ16.176$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I've got a better one for you! I have an old 486-75 laptop made
> > by Toshiba. It has 5 megs of ram on board and a 500 meg hard drive.
>
> There's no such thing as a 486-75. The fastest 486 is a DX2/66. Unless
> your talking about some 486 clone, in which case, it's not a 486. That's
> lie 1.
Just wondering... was there a 486DX3/75? Ie... one that ran at 25MHZ but
had a x3 multiplier?
-Todd
>
> > My friend took it out of my closet, I'd forgotten about it and attempted
> > to install W98 on it. Wouldn't do it. Then he tried W95. Again,
wouldn't
> > do it. Not enough memory.
>
> Sorry to burst your bubble, but Win95 will install with only 4 megs. I
> don't claim it's useable, but it will indeed install. Yet another lie.
>
> > Took the computer with me to my Dad's house for Christmas and
> > he was so impressed he's running 2.2R2 now with X windows.
> > He has an old Pentium 133 with 32 megs of ram and the thing
> > just SCREEMS now. They had W98 on it before and it would
> > just BARELY MOVE. You could double click on a window to open
> > it and it might be as long as 10 seconds before you saw the
> > window open.
>
> And what applications does Daddy use?
>
> > That speaks very highly of Linux.
> >
> > And we have another Linux user in my hood now.
>
> What does daddy do when he wants to install new programs? In one day
you've
> taught him all the wonders of Unix?
>
> > Anybody who tells me Windows is on an even keel with Linux
> > in the performance department is a total liar. There's
> > no way it can even come close.
>
> Well, given that you lie without thought, I won't put much credence in
your
> statements.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 11:29:04 +0800
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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!
Yup!
> Personally I find windows a bit frustrating to use,
> after having become accustomed to all the things
> I can do on a Unix system....
All of the small, strange little commands that have to be memorized... is
easier than Windows?
> 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.
Well, I own a Mac, I own a NeXT turbocolor station, and I run RedHat Linux
7.0 as well - in addition to my Windows 2000 machines... all at home. Work
is another story :)
> 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.
Yes, but to get actual work done out there in the industry, you need to be
able to use Office 2000, build quick applications using
ASP/ADO/XML/HTML/ETC, and *communicate* with the rest of the world. Also,
IE is a must now for the web.
Most of which doesn't even run on Linux at all.
> 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...
For example?
> 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?
Because I use RedHat, and I do not like how Linux Lunatics are so religious
about Linux... which is not even close to refinement as Windows 2000 is, nor
as powerful (as shown be *audited* 3rd party benchmarks, over and over).
-Todd
>
> jjs
>
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 11:33:57 +0800
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What is the point of Advocacy?
>
> When I advocate Linux, it is for a number of reasons:
>
> (1) Promote wider usage of the OS.
> This has a number of benefits, more users means that it is likely that
> more OEMs will support Linux directly and that "OS choice" will be
> accepted.
>
> Wider usage, means more minds working on the same problems. More
> feedback means more new ideas. More ideas mean more products.
>
> (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.)
>
> (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.
The reverse is true also. Many people here haven't even *seen* Windows
2000, yet they FUD it constantly. I've seen many examples.
> (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.
No way. Windows 2000 is far more capable, stable, and refined. Anybody who
will tell the truth about Linux will admit so. I am an avid user of RedHat
Linux (7.0), and have been using it since its release.
Although better than 6.2, 7.0 is still very far off from even hoping to get
close to Windows 2000.
That's the truth.
> Unfortunately, Microsoft's marketing and technology
> "evangelism" has created the impression that the various Windows
> environments are much better than they really are.
No, word of mouth is very powerful... that's why there are people like me
advocating it. You can't tell people who have actually *used* Windows 2000
that Linux is better. They will simply know that you haven't actually
*used* Windows 2000.
If you had, you wouldn't be FUDding it.
> The above reasons are my reasons for posting here.
>
> Why on earth would someone advocate Windows?
Because Windows 2000 is better than Linux. Period.
-Todd
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 27 Dec 2000 07:07:19 +1100
"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>You can administer a 2000 machine using a Java client. Don't know how you
>can get more cross platform than that...
By providing a decent text based interface? The kind you can use with
a Wyse60 and an acoustic coupler, stuck in the middle of some small
Sibirian town with a single phone booth?
Bernie
--
A thick skin is a gift from God
Konrad Adenauer
First Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany
New York Times, 30 December 1959
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 23:12:27 -0500
From: jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Could only...
This just goes to show you how gun control can make us all
less secure, had everyone in the office been carrying a firearm,
the guy would have been terminated before he had a chance to do
much damage.
worldviewer wrote:
>
> Could only happen in America:
>
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-4277328.html?tag=st.ne.1002.bgif.ni
>
> http://www.zfree.co.nz
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 04:14:00 GMT
"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92bne3$nja$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Well, apparently it is for the likes of todd!
>
> Yup!
>
> > Personally I find windows a bit frustrating to use,
> > after having become accustomed to all the things
> > I can do on a Unix system....
>
> All of the small, strange little commands that have to be memorized... is
> easier than Windows?
What is strange about command that work the same way for 25 years?
Do you really prefer strange big commands that don't work well and
get replaced every few years?
> Yes, but to get actual work done out there in the industry, you need to be
> able to use Office 2000, build quick applications using
> ASP/ADO/XML/HTML/ETC, and *communicate* with the rest of the world. Also,
> IE is a must now for the web.
Do you mean that Microsoft's standards compliance is so bad that
it doesn't work with anything else? That seems like a good reason
to avoid it.
> Most of which doesn't even run on Linux at all.
Correct, most Linux software follows interoperable standards.
> > 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...
>
> For example?
You want to read the output of some other program, possibly
on some other machine directly into your editor buffer. Or
you want to process a region with some other program.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 04:30:39 GMT
"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92bnn9$i0m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > (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.
>
> The reverse is true also. Many people here haven't even *seen* Windows
> 2000, yet they FUD it constantly. I've seen many examples.
I've seen it - and wish I hadn't, just like most of the other Microsoft
products.
> > (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.
>
> No way. Windows 2000 is far more capable, stable, and refined. Anybody
who
> will tell the truth about Linux will admit so. I am an avid user of
RedHat
> Linux (7.0), and have been using it since its release.
I have several Linux boxes running as web servers - they are completely
reliable and predictable - one that hasn't been moved since installation
has been up and in service 405 days today.
> Although better than 6.2, 7.0 is still very far off from even hoping to
get
> close to Windows 2000.
>
> That's the truth.
I have had a win2k box serving static web images for a while and
thought it was suitable for that. Now for political reasons I am trying
to bring up a win2k web server doing approximately the same as the
linux boxes. My development server just stops with this kind of
event log message:
'The World Wide Web Publishing Service service terminated
unexpectedly. It has done this 46 time(s). The following corrective
action will be taken in 0 milliseconds: No action'
Great...
> > Unfortunately, Microsoft's marketing and technology
> > "evangelism" has created the impression that the various Windows
> > environments are much better than they really are.
>
> No, word of mouth is very powerful... that's why there are people like me
> advocating it. You can't tell people who have actually *used* Windows
2000
> that Linux is better. They will simply know that you haven't actually
> *used* Windows 2000.
>
> If you had, you wouldn't be FUDding it.
You don't need FUD with real results like that.
> > The above reasons are my reasons for posting here.
> >
> > Why on earth would someone advocate Windows?
>
> Because Windows 2000 is better than Linux. Period.
What kind of production environment are you comparing?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 04:51:31 GMT
"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:927tf2$pdd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > You don't install many games, do you? DirectX seems to be legendary for
> > always being one version behind what your software actually wants...
>
> FUD.
>
> I use my Windows 2000 Advanced Server box for all of my work *plus* games.
> I installed DirectX 8.0 from the 'windows update' menu item.
>
> Installed without a hitch, didn't have to do anything.
How nice for you. Notice that version number. Is that your first
experience? If so, listen to the people who suffered through
all of them installed in no particular order, each, at least through
7.0 tending to destroy some other previously working program
that needed its own version.
> All of my games run fun. BTW, I play AOE II - the conquerors, Tribes,
Earth
> 2150, Ground Control, Alpha Centauri (and the expansion), StarCraft, and a
> couple others now and then.
>
> All work flawlessly under Windows 2000.
>
> DirectX is so simple to upgrade, it is almost invisible.
Yeah, right... If you start with version 8.
> Now let's get back to how difficult it is to install stuff on Linux...
Boot the Mandrake 7.2 CD, click the choice you want, and go
away for a while.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: 26 Dec 2000 20:35:46 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 25 Dec 2000 19:37:15 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You forgot the main suggestion:
>
>Upgrade your suse to something a bit more recent -
>
>say 7.0?
One of the points of a package management system is to make it so that
you don't have to update your whole system just because you want to
update one or two applications.
Normally, RPM handles this fairly well, but he is running into the
problem that the RPM version has changed, and so he needs to update RPM.
It looks like he's having trouble because some of the things RPM depends
on need to be updated, and the places he gets RPM files from have those
things as RPM 4 files. Oops!
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 21:03:15 -0800
Jeepster wrote:
> 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?
As far as I'm concerned, W2K is kind of like
the German language: I know very little about
it, but when confronted with it, I can make
some sense of it. I don't speak it fluently,
I don't have any desire or need to speak it
(English and Linux both meet my needs). Once
in a while I run into it in a business setting,
but it isn't very relevant to anything I do.
I don't see any reason to speak German (or
use W2K), but I think it's nice that people
who need German (or W2K) have it. I don't
see any reason to criticize people who speak
German (or use W2K) unless they get in my
face about my choice of language (or OS),
or make uninformed statements about my choice
of language or OS.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 13:08:08 +0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92atpn$1pq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >You can administer a 2000 machine using a Java client. Don't know how
you
> >can get more cross platform than that...
>
> By providing a decent text based interface? The kind you can use with
> a Wyse60 and an acoustic coupler, stuck in the middle of some small
> Sibirian town with a single phone booth?
The more common scenario is that you are stuck in that town with your
laptop...
Even trying to *find* a Wyse60 these days is going to be tough.
Let's try to keep on topic and stick to what 99% of the cases of
administrating remotely will be...
-Todd
>
> Bernie
> --
> A thick skin is a gift from God
> Konrad Adenauer
> First Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany
> New York Times, 30 December 1959
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: 26 Dec 2000 20:53:35 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sun, 24 Dec 2000 04:14:23 -0800, matt newell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I relize that linux is not perfect, but I have rock solid opengl drivers,
>anti-aliased text in all my applications(looks great), a browser that is
>faster and more complient than IE(konqueror), a kernel that NEVER crashes, and
Huh? Konqueror is great, but it is still way behind IE. It falls apart
too easily on pages that use Javascript. Still, Konqueror proves that
an open source browser does not *have* to totally suck like Mozilla, and
I have no doubt that Konqueror will be a great browser in a few weeks or
months, but right now, IE remains the best.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:33:33 GMT
And the green grass grows all around,. and around, and the green grass grows
all around...
"Tim Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 25 Dec 2000 19:37:15 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >You forgot the main suggestion:
> >
> >Upgrade your suse to something a bit more recent -
> >
> >say 7.0?
>
> One of the points of a package management system is to make it so that
> you don't have to update your whole system just because you want to
> update one or two applications.
>
> Normally, RPM handles this fairly well, but he is running into the
> problem that the RPM version has changed, and so he needs to update RPM.
> It looks like he's having trouble because some of the things RPM depends
> on need to be updated, and the places he gets RPM files from have those
> things as RPM 4 files. Oops!
>
> --Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:40:13 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> And they ALL are still missing the point.
>
> None of these programs offer INTERFUNCTIONALITY.
>
> When I thought the platform was changing, (mistakenly apparently) I got hold
> of Afterstep. I thought it was great, it was customizable, it was
> intuitive. But it lacked functionality. Sure, I had a thousand different
> file managers. And I had Linuxconf, but were they working together? NO.
>
> Could Linuxconf configure my Afterstep WM? NO! Could it configure XFree86
> at ALL? NO!!!
At the risk of being called a troll... you're stupid.
> Could I use either one to configure my Afterstep applications? NO! I did
> use the embedded configuration tool, but I hit the bugs and the general lack
> of true configurability it had, and got fed up with it.
You're impatient.
> I then tried Gnome & "e". The results LOOKED decent, almost intuitive, and
> the integrated file manager (GMC) was great. But it lacked stability. My
> GNOME programs (and user session) would crap out repeatedly. I got fed up
> with this as well.
What kind of crap are you running? You seem incapable of installing a
system. How can anyone have such a litany of problems? You must
be obstinately stupid.
> KDE came out, and I thought I was finally ready to embrace Linux. Nope.
> The interface was an improvement, but true functionality was missing. Sure,
> it integrated the user interface into a single, comprehensive program (doing
> away with numerous small programs all doing numerous, small tasks). But the
> file manager was awful, the central admin tools were pathetic, and it just
> wasn't complete.
I don't care much for KDE, but it is surely better than your description.
You must be troll, pure and simple.
> I read the "documentation" finding more missing pages then
> a pre-burnt novel.
Now that is true. However, intuition works quite well in Gnome, and, I
assume, KDE.
> XFree86 Hasn't come very far in a while. Sure, new hardware has been added,
> and version 4 positions XFree86 in a more easily configurable package (like
> doing away with abundant configuration tools, and replacing it with full
> autoprobing) but functionality is still absent.
Such as????
> I've seen the antialiasing, How long has MacOS had this? And Windows?
> Windows 95 & Plus had screen font antialiasing for five (going on six) years
> now. Linux is just getting these features out NOW??!
Oh, that obviously means Linux is bad, for sure. Get hammered, asshole.
> YaST is a powerful, but underfeatured administration system. Featuring
> nothing but token configuration options for the top 10 most configured items
> in Linux. Great, Linuxconf does this. And YaST has the same problem.
> Update a single YaST configurable component manually, and loose the ability
> to configure under YaST.
>
> But they aren't substantial. The underlying problem still persists, ease.
> It's not easy. And desktop computing MUST be easy, that is why it's the
> DESKTOP. WORK has to be done on it, and spending hours configuring and
> reconfiguring software is unnecessary, and tedious.
Man, you are in a different world than many Linux users. Are you a
troll?
> When all those true innovations begin working with EACH OTHER to configure
> everything WITH EASE and all function as ONE COMPONENT, then we can call
> Linux "a good desktop OS."
Now you've got it entirely backwards. Monolithic components are the
most breakable of all.
> Till then, MS and Apple got you beat.
Sure they do.
> TIP: Begin ripping off innovations from Apple's OSX.
TIP: Ignore Kyle. He likes to jerk the chains of linux users.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:43:17 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> Five years.
>
> And I still see the horrible RedHat Linux "Control Panel" is still
> lingering.
>
> Although there are some advantages to the Control Panel, Linuxconf has
> pretty much overridden it in functionality and features, making the Control
> Panel items useless.
I use them a lot. Linuxconf doesn't let you control the
background
panel
screensaver
theme selector
window manager
MIME types
URL handlers
Window manager behavior (and its 11 items)
User interface.
Do you really /use/ Linux?
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:50:35 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92ahed$g9g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ddW16.67214$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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. 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
> > support.
>
> 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.
Have you tried the VALinux-modified RH distributions? You can get them
preinstalled on VA hardware or from under
ftp://ftp.valinux.com/pub/software/VALinux/. There are more ways to
go wrong with Linux, but a correctly configured Linux is more than a
match for the *bsds.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Cannon Fodder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:51:08 GMT
On Wed, 27 Dec 2000, Andy Newman wrote:
>But it doesn't say what OS he used. Dammit post on-topic! Is there
>proof he did it because of a forced change over to Windows (or Linux,
>pick side appropriately)? Was the adoption of Microsoft Exchange and
>Outlook the last straw? Or was it KDE vs. Gnome? We demand answers.
>
OMG! LOL!
He probably devoted too much time to playing shoot-em-up
games like Quake3. He forgot what was real...and Q3 plays on
both platforms...time to cross-forward this topic to the 3D video
card advocacy groups! ;)
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:51:58 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> What advantages?
>
> Well, to the Linux geek (who is only using Linux to be different, and could
> care less about functionality) nothing.
Can you determine who is such a user?
> To the professional, looking for a unified, UNIX solution for their
> business...
How does Linux differ from the UNIX solution?
> FreeBSD offers a lot of advantages on all fronts, but most noticeably as a
> server platform.
Such as????
> FreeBSD may be for Intel platforms, but this advantage is not lost on
> features as:
>
> 1.The BSD file system is journaling, providing quality throughput on
> operations
Never heard of reiserfs, ext3, and about four other journalling file
systems?
> 2.The FreeBSD Virtual memory "slice" is far more efficient and advanced then
> the Linux Swap partition. Speed and efficiency when psychical RAM is
> limited is noticeable.
I truly would like to learn why the FreeBSD timeslice is more advanced.
I won't say "more advanced that the Linux Swap partition", because that is
different than, though related to, time-slicing.
> 3.The unified administration system provides a foundation for more advanced
> admin tools to function off of (beginning with UNIFORM FILE PATHS)
Which UNIX supports this, and what is it. I want to learn.
> 4.The methods used to perform processes like Kernel upgrades are SIMPLE not
> complicated. You visit the ports collection, and get your newer, stable
> kernel.
Explain, please.
> 5.Standards: FreeBSD has more standards for it's operation than Linux ever
> had. Uniformity makes your system more supportable.
As opposed to OpenBSD and NetBSD?
> 6.The "Ports" collection. Visit the name of your desired program, type
> "make" and "make install", and ALL the program's DEPENDENCIES and LIBRARY
> files are COMPILED, INSTALLED and CONFIGURED automatically. Try this in
> Linux, it's a PROJECT not a task. This makes component upgrades easier.
Actually, RPM's seem to handle this quite well. But they don't compile.
Sounds like a concept worth learning.
>
> 7.Security: Flaws in FreeBSD's Kernel and default services collection are
> addressed quickly by the FreeBSD team. Linux security flaws are addressed
> rapidly, but implementation is hindered by complication inherent in the
> platform. FreeBSD has no such complication factors (except for it's UNIX
> standing, but a trained admin can work with it.)
I thought OpenBSD was better for security.
> 8.No claim to "workstation" fame. FreeBSD is a service platform, and makes
> NO shame of it. FreeBSD has the ability to serve AS a workstation, but the
> administrator / installer has the option of selecting and tuning
> appropriately to the task. If a server is required, install your desired
> services through the installer, and get about your business configuring it.
Sounds cool.
> Don't hem and haw over revision compatibility, worry about downtime, and
> work endlessly on "incompatible upgrade" problems with your pre-compiled
> binary collection (rpm's and to a lesser extent, deb's.)
Sounds like a straw man.
> FreeBSD is uniform, and therefore supportable by 3rd parties. Linux is NOT.
> Linux is seriously 'forked'. Something that Linux advocates swore would
> never happen.
I think I see what you mean. I'll have to branch out from Red Hat and see
what happens. But it sounds like you're comparing the effects of a single
BSD distribution with the effects of a multifarous Linux distribution set.
> This is why FreeBSD is superior.
I promise to get into the BSDs one day. I really appreciate the solid
leads you've given here, Kyle.
Forget anything I said about you being stupid.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Cannon Fodder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 05:54:45 GMT
On Tue, 26 Dec 2000, mlw wrote:
>Shit happens, both sad and true. Should we line our streets with tanks
>and soldiers?
YES! First post, down-town LA and then South Florida. hehehe.
They should epedite Suddam Hussein to downtown LA. He wouldn't
last five seconds. Ah the irony...the city streets of America
are far deadlier than any foreign militancies.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
