Linux-Advocacy Digest #74, Volume #31 Wed, 27 Dec 00 05:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (J Sloan)
Re: Windows 2000 (J Sloan)
if linux is good, why is it so easy to freez it with netscape? (mike@nowhere)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (mm@nowhere)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (mm@nowhere)
Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away" (maximus)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (israel raj thomas)
Operating systems for the new millenium (israel raj thomas)
Re: Could only... ("Greg S. Trouw")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Nick Condon)
Re: Why Advocacy? (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Why Advocacy? (Form@C)
Re: Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away" (Form@C)
Re: if linux is good, why is it so easy to freez it with netscape? (SwifT -)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:10:44 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> This is what I constantly tell people on this NG, I'd take FreeBSD over
> Linux ANY DAY.
>
> But, I am not personally in need of a data server. But my clients are.
>
> So, I suggest a nice IS/IT contracting firm to send out an administrator,
> with a commercial UNIX server, and voile! Reputable service, respectable
> efficiency and scalability. Two of the three things mentioned are not
> possible under Linux.
"Reputable Service":
Let me get this straight, IBM Global Services supports
Linux, and that's nowhere near as reputable as the support
you can get for bsd, right? Just who is this incredible bsd
support organization, we're quite curious!
"Respectable efficiency":
Linux is about as efficient as it gets, no point in belaboring that.
"Respectable Scalability":
Let's see, google.com is 4000 CPUS, not scalable enough for you?
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:17:28 GMT
Jeepster wrote:
> Out of curiosity, what do Linux users feel about this OS?
shrug... don't really thingk about it.
> Do they hate it or admire it?
basically neutral, with a possible mild annoyance over
the constant annoying hype.
> Hate because its MS
Let's say skeptical givenms' ttack record.
> Admire cos it is an OS that is comparable with Linux?
I'm not sure what you mean by compatibility - you mean
the fact that windows has tcp/ip, and can therefore talk
to Unix servers?
jjs
------------------------------
From: mike@nowhere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: if linux is good, why is it so easy to freez it with netscape?
Date: 26 Dec 2000 22:47:46 -0800
Why is it that Linux seems to be the only OS (at least from the
ones I tried) that the Netscape browser can bring it to its knees?
so easy to do. I remove my ethernet cable from the interface,
then bring up Netscape. It hangs. X hangs. the mouse does
not respond, can't access an xterm to type anything becuase I
can't move the mouse. Only way is to kill X.
Happens everytime.
Never happens on Solaris or Windows.
(Netscape must be the most powerfull software in the world to be
able to hang the computer becuase it can't access the network).
And, after all these years, no one is able to fix this problem
with netscape? the source is out there right? and I hear that
hundereds of hackers are working on it, and yet, no one knows
how to prevent Netscape from locking up the computer if it is
able to connect to network?
On Linux, this means, if I want to read an HTML file on my local
disk, I must be connected to the network to do that, becuase if
I try to launch netscape while not connected, too bad. Here goes
my whole desktop session down.
we send a man to the moon, but we can't figure how to stop a browser
from locking X down. amazing.
Mike
------------------------------
From: mm@nowhere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: 26 Dec 2000 22:55:30 -0800
In article <92bmfi$dbt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Todd" says...
>
>#2: Using IPSec, all packets - before even being sent out onto the
>network - are encrypted using 128-bit encryption.
>
IPSEC have nothing to do anything. IPSEC exist on linux and Unix'es
also. (and why you think 128 bit encryption is used? it depends on
the algorithm choosen. DES or 3DES or BLOWFISH, etc... have different
number of bits for keys.
------------------------------
From: mm@nowhere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: 26 Dec 2000 23:02:26 -0800
In article <mDf26.52319$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Les says...
>
>Wouldn't this have been avoided by building the source distributio00 0ourself
>too?
of course, building things from source is the ultimate solution to
anything.
But it negates the whole concept of package managements and application
management.
The whole idea of using rpm or debian, is that one can uses them
to track and manage what is installed on the system. If I build everything
from source all the time, I'll lose track of what I have installed
on the system, and it is harder to manage (unless you write on
a piece of paper what you installed, and where, and when, etc...)
building from source, is a solution to a broken package management
system. The better solution is to fix the package management system
itself.
do not run around the problem, fix the problem.
------------------------------
From: maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 07:50:28 GMT
Greetings all. I posted a question on this forum and alt.os.linux
looking for the best distro for a linux newbie. The posting was
titled "Which retail Linux distribution is best?" The responses I
received were very courteous, professional. Due to the ambuguity of my
question (my fault), the responses were quite varied but all were well
intentioned. I am a consultant, have my own consulting business and
have been in this biz since 1967 (mainframes, mini's, Pc's, dos,
windows, et. all. Began as a programmer and finished up as Director of
MIS before I started my own consulting business. Have never really done
much in Unix but witnessed the potential of it as a dominant OS,
particularly on the client side, clearly lose it's momentum because of
warring factions which caused such fragmentation corporations were
afraid to commit to it. Though it's capabilities exceeded anything in
the marketplace, it didn't achieve the overall success it should have.
Developers also fell in the same quandry and subsequently a lot (most)
of the commercial market went elsewhere. Unix was almost a forgotten
word (still had a good niche) until it was "resurrected" through the
net. I bring this history (forgive me) back to the future because I'm
afraid I see the same thing happening with Linux. I began looking into
Linux over a year ago (still have references to it on my website)but
for a number of reasons which I won't go into great detail here, put it
on hold. During that brief foray, I used Deja forums as a source of
questions and knowledge. People helped me (and flamed me-in a kind way-
when I asked a Windows related question) but I could sense the gentle,
wise, common goal approach that seemed to be so pervasive that it
overcame the sometimes seemingly over zealous give and take that I
found myself in and observed. My background-on the pc side-is now
decidedly microsoft. I have tried and seen all the previous contenders
fall. From Dr. Dos to OS/2. From dbase, 123, wordperfect and on. I used
all these and they were the best in their "niches" but microsoft won
out. Like it or not, that's the real world. It is frustrating that so
many good innovative companies (and their products) have fallen by the
wayside and it is our loss! Windows (for all it's problems and
agravation)has become the choice and "name" brand. The single key issue
of this result is that developers have recognized this and written
their applications for this platform. That is what it is all about.
That is the bottom line! Consumers and businesses (not all) have little
recourse when it comes to the OS because of the overwhelming depth of
software (shrinkwrap and custom)that is available for the microsoft
platform. Then came Linus and Linux and there was hope. I had hoped
(still do but abated)that I, as many others, could join in on the
ground floor of a viable fresh competitor, offering a solid stable
growing OS for the server AND desktop with "many choices" for consumer
and business applications. Hope for a "choice" for my business so I
could offer a "choice" to my clients and differentiate my business! I
fear, however, after spending many hours looking through and reading
the various forums that it may be a waste of time learning the Linux
platform. I see bickering, distrust, name calling but worst of all I
see what appears to be fragmentation towards that common goal. Frankly,
I now have NO idea which is a "good" distribution for me to select
from. Not on the desktop NOR the server. I was looking for one
distro/vendor which would satisfy both needs for a Linux newbie who was
willing to invest the time and effort AND had a business goal in mind.
I'm sure that given the time I would actually somewhat enjoy trying out
all the distro's and knowing the nuances of each. That, realistically
speaking, is time that is ill afforded. And where are the applications?
Star Office is fine but what about the range of other consumer and
business applications? If, as seemingly indicated by the dialogue on
the forums, the main focus is on problems with the different distro's
and still (unbelievably) resolving basic hardware compatibility
problems (like it or not, there are tons of winmodems and winprinters
out there), then I suspect there can be little time or impetus for
application development. Linux has come so far only to seem so far away
to me. I'm not here to sermonize (sorry), but I am confused as to how
to continue. Linux is one word, isn't it? Thanks and best regards.
--
"Strength and Honor"
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: israel raj thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.inferno
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:03:22 GMT
>> >Uh huh. And just how are you going to back this up? Never used OS/2,
>> >so I wouldn't know.
>
>Figures, Israel. Stop looking like a fool and attacking the Amiga and
>OS/2. They are both excellent OS's, as are the BSD's and Linux. Stop
>hyping Win2K. It makes you look ignorant. Perhaps you should give
>OS/2 a whirl before you trash it?
That attribution is incorrect.
ie: I did not write that.
For what it is worth , I used OS/2 as my sole desktop os for over 3
years. When Linux and NT 4 came out, I switched since the quality of
apps for os/2 was very , very average.
------------------------------
From: israel raj thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.inferno
Subject: Operating systems for the new millenium
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:05:41 GMT
Rob Pike has a sad, bad article on how little progress there has been
in desktop operating systems.
(I'll try to find the URL again. Definitely worth a read )
For what it is worth , I used OS/2 as my sole desktop os for over 3
years. When Linux and NT 4 came out, I switched since the quality of
apps for os/2 was very , very average.
Along the way , I used Plan 9 and Inferno, which are very elegant os's
that were killed by Lucents mismarketing. ( The bizarre name Plan 9
and the constant Dante related puns: Styx, Limbo, Dis etc did not help
to get it taken seriously ).
I would compare them to Dylan or Smalltalk , innovative products
killed by poor positioning and mismarketing.
You can get the Inferno binary free from Vita Nuova
( the hosted version that runs on top of Plan 9 / NT / Linux. Not the
native version. You pay for that ) . It is well worth a try. It was
Rob Pike's baby. Has innovative ideas of namespaces, EVERYTHING in
Inferno is a file, interesting interprocess communication techniques,
fascinating virtual network etc etc.
Easily the most innovative os that I have used.
I am in the process of getting FreeBSD up on a spare machine.
The hardware is a bit f***ed ( It is a free machine that someone gave
me ) and I am having to swap out the dead i/o cards etc.
Maybe I should just buy another box. ( to add to the 6 already at home
:-) . Good thing the wife doesn't control the finances :-) )
------------------------------
From: "Greg S. Trouw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Could only...
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 01:54:36 -0700
>>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.
This might be what the press might tell some in certain areas, and
then there's always what *isn't* said by the respective governments.
But the difference between rumor and reality can sometimes be great.
Remember also, not only are American streets in the main not like some
of the impressions some get from Detroit for instance, but what is done
by governments such as these is more often kept secret. What gets out
is most likely only the tip of the iceburg.
------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 09:02:10 +0000
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> >
> > > > > Such software usually has the feature set frozen but the final
> debugging
> > > > > (hint) is not yet complete.
> > > >
> > > > You're describing Linux 2.4.0-testXX, you know that?
> > > >
> > > Right, not a released product.
> >
> > Correct, Linux is not a product. The economics of closed software assumes
> > software-as-a-product, however the economics of open source development
> assumes
> > software-as-a-service.
> >
>
> If I pay for it it is a product.
Economics is not your strong point, is it?
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 10:13:12 +0100
pip wrote:
>
>
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> > [snippage]
> > What ??
> > USB is really good for (what) ??
>
> Read the spec
>
> > I my opinion, USB is just a piece of shit,
>
> I see you like a reasoned argument...
>
> > thought of by Miccysoft, just to
> > detract people from the very real problems winblows has with any REAL
> > computing problem.
>
> Shows you have not read the spec
>
> > Up to this date i have not seen ANY good USB device, which you could
> > not buy also for SCSI. USB just stinks.
>
> You have not read the spec.
> SCSI is not hot plug. Read the spec. Why do you think so many people in
> the Linux community are working hard to get USB support? Don't detract
> from their efforts.
> You are not helping any cause :-(
Well, I do not need hot-plugging at all nor do i expect to need in in
any foreseeable future.
In addition, my experience with USB so far on Win98 are, to say the least,
mixed, thats to say from working to well-sort of works to works not at all.
I do NOT have any need for stuff like that on Linux.
I would PERHAPS accept USB when (and only when) it is really hot plug,
it'S 10 times as fast at least, and when those devices are no longer cheap
clones of better built SCSI-devices.
who needs a USB-Keyboard or a USB-mouse anyway?
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 09:21:54 GMT
pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Is this still on topic? I dunno, but the comments need to be aired...
<snip>
>> Obviously, because of the age of the original Windows GUI, it has
>> built up a wide following - especially in business where there are a
>> lot of advantages (this *is* what it was designed for after all!).
>> Employees can use quickly installed systems which need minimum
>> maintenance.
>
>sp1, sp2, sp3, sp4, sp5, sp6. ie upgrades, security fixes.... think
>again!
>
Ah, but there is a major difference. M$ "service packs" don't usually fix
windows so that it will run (or even load!) new software. The upgrades
needed by Linux are far more fundamental. Ok, you can walk through windows'
security but that isn't what ordinary windows is for! NT/2000 is what needs
the security fixes - windows rarely "needs" them.
>> Linux
>>... it. Still cheap (becuase of GNU) but not quite so "cut-down" as it
>>used to
>> be.
>
>..free speech not beer...
>
Agreed! The big attraction for a computer assembling company (few "build"
computers now!) or office is low cash price though. They are "turned off"
by the idea of free speech (it has something to do with the phone hasn't
it?)
>> It *has* to be
>> constantly updated in order to run new software packages.
>
>as does win32
>
Nope. Most new software now will still run on a first revision W95 install.
No SPs, security fixes or anything. Some new hardware (e.g. USB) needs
extra drivers but that's about it. AFAIK *all* new windows software will
actually load on this system, but a few packages will fall over when run in
specific circumstances. A lot of old 16-bit packages lost some
compatibility when windows moved to 32-bit but that was a major change in
the OS. Up until W95 they almost all still ran (but sometimes only repeated
functions in the new OS).
>>There is no
>> alternative, the software writers want to use the latest libraries
>> which the library writers want to improve!
>
a does win32. This really is a problem of how we organise shared
libraries, but we all seem to agree that they are a good idea.
>
A common problem. In windows we tend to find that a new library will run
old software - it just adds more functions. Occasionally a badly written
application will fall over with a new library because the writer has not
understood how to use the library functions correctly. Generally things
seem to work out though.
>>The various methods of updating have,
>> unfortunately, become almost proprietory because no one distributor is
>> big enough to force everyone onto their system (it has been tried
>> though!) Even the RPM system is failing because it is being "improved"
>> to version 4. Why? Did V3 have enough bugs to make it unusable? If so,
>> how did it last so long and become so widely accepted?
>
>nobody forces anybody to do things "one way", this is a strength. RPM is
>not great, but it is good.
>
This is my point. It is *very* good. So good, in fact, that someone
couldn't resist "improving" it to make it incompatible with the earlier
version! There is *no* excuse for this. The latest version should recognise
what the file it is installing requires and handle it properly - not
complain that it can't find the right bits!
>> Linux was never intended as a business or home pc os. It was a
>> learning tool. It has now grown too big for its original purpose but
>> not big enough for what people want to do with it. Consequently
>> hardware manufacturers arn't really interested in writing drivers for
>> it. Why should they?
>
>didn't you just say that the market was growing?
>
It is. Unfortunately it appears to be the home market which is growing at
the expense of the business market. Linux (as a whole) is now trying to re-
align a business OS for the home market - hence KDE2 which is *still* only
a graphic interface over a command line system (OK, so is windows! Not sure
just what W2K/NT is though...). Drivers are generally not required by the
business market as they tend to run the same hardware for a relatively long
period of time then change the lot (they will pay for the initial drivers
required though - they seem to understand that this is necessary). The home
market has an insatiable appetite for updated drivers but isn't willing to
pay much money for tham as the churn rate for hardware is so high. This
gives hardware producers a headache. They need drivers to sell the product
but often can't afford to put the cost of writing them onto the hardware
price. Somehow they struggle along with windows systems, but don't want the
additional problem of having to produce them for a second OS as well!
>Take any poll of Linux users and I am sure that they are not adverse to
>spending on hardware. Besides, it does not need manufacturers to
>"support" linux, only make specifications and other technical
>information available to let the community provide the support. Why
>would they not want free drivers? (well quite a few don't but with
>little technical or ip reasons IMHO)
>
I think they hold on to the hardware spec just so that they *can* provide
drivers. If they allow the community to write them there are two problems.
Firstly, they lose the advantage of being first on the market with new
equipment (or they lose face when someone else writes a better driver!).
Secondly, they lose any possibility of making money out of the driver-
witing business. I suspect that there is more money to be made out of
writing drivers than producing the hardware nowadays...
>>This is why many drivers are rare/flakey - the guy that writes them
>> doesn't get paid! Without its hardware support where can it go?
>
>I didn't think that the driver for my network card was flaky. In fact it
>was written by a nice guy from NASA. Linux attracts smart people.
>
If it didn't it would have disappeared long ago!
<snip>
>>At least we don't
>> need to worry about the mounting and umounting of disks, so beloved of
>> unix and Linux users until recently, now. That went out at about the
>> same time as DOS replaced CP/M!
>
>yes it is nice that a virus can get at all your windows media in one go!
>
<grin>. Perhaps Apple had the right idea here. Don't let the user have
mechanical access to the disks until the OS says its ok. Not an easy system
to work with sometimes, but far better than the software approach of
mount/umount.
<snip>
>If they find a bug in Windows how much power do they have to get it
>fixed? Zero! How about in Linux? Now talk about support costs when an
>Email virus can cause millions of currency x's worth of damage because
>of daft software and a bad os design.
>
Could they even afford to employ the people capable of getting the bug
fixed on a Linux system? I don't think so in most cases. Windows systems
tend to have "work-arounds" that people get used to (ok, no excuse!).
The email "virus" was really a script written to take advantage of a weak
spot. The problem is basically that scripts can be embedded into document
files & run automatically by the document reader. This is potentially a
"bad thing" when the script language is too powerful as people have found
out! However, if such a document reader were available for Linux (and it
may have already appeared...) then it leaves Linux open to the same form of
attack if people use such a facility.
>>For the home user, I'm not sure that either Linux or Windows is the
>> right system. Windows is now too expensive (compared to the hardware
>> cost)
>
>Windows comes pre-installed and cost factored!
>
Good argument.I don't know what OEMs pay for windows, but it is certainly
nowhere even approaching shelf price. As a percentage of the total selling
price it is relatively small but getting bigger with each "new" version. At
some point it may become uneconomical to pre-install windows. But is Linux
a satisfactory replacement? I think not. Not yet anyway. It will be
necessary to hide almost all of Linux's functionality to the point of it
having the "look and feel" of W2K before it can even start to be considered
acceptable by home users. Anyone fancy writing a true home-user's OS?
>> and Linux still needs a huge dose of "user friendliness" before we can
>> plug in this year's cards and run last-year's games. It is far too
>> unforgiving as it stands.
>
>True. It is like BR "we're getting there" (sorry uk thing).
>
I know that one! (I'm near Preston, Lancs. I have noticed the "getting
there" bit as I stand on the station every morning!)
--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 09:48:32 GMT
maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <92c704$pr1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
<all snipped>
I have noticed the same myself. A the end of the day, I don't think you are
looking at Linux in it's real light. The GUI interface system is *very* new
in comparison to windows and is not really ready for mass market
applications. It is in a constant state of change. It is an OS for OS fans,
not for users!
Linux is great for server applications because, in such applications, only
a few components tend to be running simultaneously. This means that the OS
is smaller and consequently more stable. Unfortunately, as with DOS,
putting a GUI on top of it tends to reduce its stability...
Windows is for users. That is why almost all software is written for it. It
has problems, but by and large these do not prevent it from working.
Windows 2K is more like Linux than windows - in spite of its appearance.
Some people have said that it has stability problems but I am not sure
about this. So far I havn't managed to crash it fatally!
The arguments in this NG are the birthing pains of what *may* become a
truly great OS, but there is a long, long way to go...
--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
------------------------------
From: SwifT - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: if linux is good, why is it so easy to freez it with netscape?
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 10:51:00 +0100
On 26 Dec 2000 mike@nowhere wrote:
Oh geez, he we go again...
> And, after all these years, no one is able to fix this problem
> with netscape? the source is out there right? and I hear that
> hundereds of hackers are working on it, and yet, no one knows
> how to prevent Netscape from locking up the computer if it is
> able to connect to network?
Netscape source is not open. Some Linux-users don't use Netscape. It's
crap. End of story.
Why don't we talk about iexplore.exe? If it crashes, the whole system goes
to the moon.
--
SwifT
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
