Linux-Advocacy Digest #92, Volume #31 Thu, 28 Dec 00 08:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Tim Smith)
Re: Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away" (Form@C)
Re: Please, give up fighting with Windows users. ("Todd")
Re: Please don't laugh. (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away" (Form@C)
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Nick Condon)
Re: if linux is good, why is it so easy to freez it with netscape? (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Nick Condon)
Re: Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away" (Form@C)
Re: Please don't laugh. (Nick Ruisi)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (Stuart Fox)
Re: Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away" (Nick Condon)
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away" (Nick Condon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 28 Dec 2000 02:06:08 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> non-ignorance. The big problem I have with him is that in the 50 or so
>> times I've listened to his radio show, he has never managed to go more
>> than 30 minutes without making a *factual* error that seriously
>> undermines whatever argument he's making at the time.
>
>I trust, therefore, that you have even less regard for the Rev. Jackson,
>who cannot go for more than sixty *SECONDS* without making a factual
>error?
I can't imagine bothering listening to Jackson for sixty seconds.
At least Rush was interesting during the time it took to realize he was
show, not substance.
>> Rush is one of those people that sounds good until you go in depth into
>> some area he touches on, and then you find there is no substance behind
>> what he says.
>
>Ok, turn that around . . . name one commentator you *DO* listen to, but
>consider to have substance.
My listening to radio commentators has fallen way off over the last
year, but ones who seemed reasonable to me were:
1. Ken Hamblin (sp?). I don't necessarily agree with him very often,
but it's a "OK, reasonable people can disagree over this" kind of thing,
rather than a "I don't agree with this guy because he is an idiot" like
it is with Rush.
2. Mike Reagan *was* pretty good a few years ago, around the time Rush
was really making it big, but then he seemed to turn into a Rush clone.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:53:37 GMT
matt newell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
<snip>
>
>My point was that people consider W2K to be stable only because they
>have used Win 9x in the past. If you were to switch from Linux or any
>other Unix, W2K would seem very unstable.
>
ah! enlightenment! I see what you mean now, and I agree completely.
<snip>
>Again my point is that there really aren't any really good OSs out
>there, but Linux is getting there much more quickly than anything else.
>
Yep, I'll agree with that too (good day for agreeing...)
:-)
--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Please, give up fighting with Windows users.
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 18:58:05 +0800
Ummm... isn't this an advocacy group?
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:92ef4m$hh9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Really, people, its pointless. Windows users pick up Red Hat and can't get
it
> to work, so they figure, "oh ,well, I'll go be a dumbass and post in linux
> advocacy about how Linux sux, cuz I'm too stupid too follow instructions"
> instead of coming to us and asking questions and getting help from us.
But,
> here's the catch: we are fighting back! I admit, I fell for it too, but
come
> on, its pointless. We can exchange quips all day and never convince them
> other wise. So why bother?! When I first started to use Linux, right
before
> the Windows people caught wind of it, I was amazed at the support one
could
> receive in these forums when I had a problem. Immediate response, 15
replies
> within an hour on my questions. Now, look at us. Screaming our mantras of
> GPL/Open Source philosophy, only to have it fall upon closed ears. So what
if
> they think Windoze is better? What should we care? As I just said, Open
> Source *PHILOSOPHY*<-[key word here]. Not everyone is going to accept it.
> Really, it is a completely radical new way of thinking compared to the
> standard license agreements. Not every one accepted Martin Luther Kings
> philosophies, or Jesus, or Joan of Arc, etc. What is the point in trying
to
> force our beliefs on them? I say, let them come and post their stupid
shit.
> Don't reply. They do it to piss us off. Just let it go. And lets start
> talking about meaningful things and community news again. Lets use the
forums
> to start more LUGs. Maybe I'm wrong. I could be. But this, the wasting our
> time fighting a lost cause, doesn't seem right either. What do you all
think?
> C Pungent
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Please don't laugh.
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:04:10 +0100
Bonnie wrote:
>
> I'd like to look at Linux butthe only pc I can play with it on is a 25
> Mhz 486 with 4 meg of RAM and a 170 meg hard drive. Is there a free
> version of Linux that'll work on this and where can I find it?
:) I did install a old SUSE on a 386sx(10MHz) with only 2MB RAM ... it
works!
But takes ages ... never compile a kernel on such beast (0.2 bogos
*grin*)
I would suggest Slackware for it ..
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:10:27 GMT
pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Just out of my curiosity - how is this? Was the cp/m guy an ex Unix guy
>or something of that sort?
sorry, don't know for certain... I should do. I have the info somewhere...
>
>
>>For goodness sake, don't feel insulted if Linux
>> is even slightly compared to "old fogey" OSs! I fully acknowledge the
>> superiority of Linux over DOS. I also realise that Linux is only
>> possible with the memory management systems built into microprocesors
>> from the 386 onward. Before then the restricted address space made it
>> completely impossible (ok, somebody bring up bank switching now...).
>> Only mainframes, where unix was born, had big enough memories to
>> *load* multiple processes, never mind *run* them.
>
>Yes true. In fact Linux (I think) does not use all the all the options
>available on modern processors (ix86 I think has 4-5 rings of processor
>protection and I am sure Alpha and powerpc are similar).
I believe you. Modern processors have a hell of a lot of stuff in them.
Makes me yearn for the simplicity of Z80s again... <grin>
>
>>Once the miroprocessor appeared CP/M came into being
>> (Control Program for Microprocessors).
>
>I used cp/m on my Amstrad cpc6128 - now that was a while ago!
>
did you know that there was also MCP/M for multiple users?
>
>Process can communicate with each other via various means such as
>signals
>and pipes or sockets (as in Gnome which uses CORBA). I feel that it is
>_very_ unlikely that x would run in kernel space as it is a user-space
>program. I think that the only kernel space operations are through the
>video drivers (which can cause the whole system to crash). I would
>not bet a fortune on this, but I believe it to be correct. Otherwise,
>as I stated before, if x were to crash, you would not be able to end
>the process as it would be in kernel space - i.e. your system would
>be cream cheese and you couldn't find the knife.
that makes sense.
--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:13:08 +0000
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > "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?
> >
>
> Are you saying that software isn't a product, produced by developers?
That is exactly what I'm saying. The closed source model makes this
software-as-a-product assumption. The idea is to treat software as a
manufactured good, the developers as line workers and you cover the costs of
employing them with the sale value of the software. It has several major
flaws.
The major flaw is most (90-95% [*]) software is never offered for sale. This
includes all kinds of in-house MIS, financial, database stuff that every
company has; it includes device drivers (nobody makes money selling drivers);
to embedded code in things like microwave ovens. On top of that, the majority
(more than 75%) of a developers time is spent keeping existing code in line
with ever-changing real-world conditions. This called maintenance and anyone
in the business will tell you this is mostly what developers get paid to do.
Secondly, the behaviour of consumers doesn't support the manufacturing
assumption. Most goods retain, or even increase, their value after the vendor
goes out of business. The price consumers are willing to pay for software, by
contrast, rapidly goes to zero when the vendor folds or discontinues it. This
is because the price people pay for software is a kind of implied support
arrangement, and they are expecting support, bug-fixes, upgrades, what have
you.
In other words: "Software is largely a service industry operating under the
persistent but unfounded delusion that it is a manufacturing industry."
--Eric Raymond.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: if linux is good, why is it so easy to freez it with netscape?
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:12:25 +0100
Jacques Guy wrote:
> "mike@nowhere" wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Funny, when I fire up Mandrake Linux, Netscape comes up, and
> displays a "welcome" file on my disk. Whether or not my modem
> is switched on. You are making this all up, aren't you?
Well, I think the real problem is Netscape is searching for an IP-address
and does not find it in /etc/hosts or via a DNS-server. So its waiting
until time-out, which can be quite a while.
I experienced a simalar problem with netscape 4.5(??) on SuSe 6.2.
could easily be resolved by giving it the IP -> Name relation it wanted in
/etc/hosts. Later I used my own setup with bind8 (DNS) and the problems
also werent there.
On SuSe 7 i did not have this problem, but there i do not use Netscape very
often. I use Konqueror much more now.
------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:23:31 +0000
Gary Hallock wrote:
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > True, there is actually some good shareware.
> >
>
> Is that all you can say? I think your loosing your edge, Chad.
I think so, too. All he's good for these days is practising the usual
strawman-demolishing arguments. There are very few original or
thoughtful responses coming from him.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:48:14 GMT
matt newell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Form@C wrote:
<snip>
>> processes in turn or via cron. Not simultaneously. They may also be
>> running in virtual machines on the processor, using their own memory
>> areas. This allows them to crash independently!
>
>This is completely false, in a real multitasking OS that has protected
>memory and seperate address spaces for each process, Any number of buggy
>processes does not effect system stability. If program A crashes, it
>does not effect any other program, nor the kernel. A buggy program only
>affects itself. Many people believe that an application can make a
>system less stable because of their experience with windows. Windows
>leaves certain parts of the OS mapped into the applications address
>space and this is why buggy programs crash windows, this is not the case
>for linux. I can crash programs all day long on my linux box and it
>will never affect the stability of my system.
>
erm,.. Isn't that what I said?
>>
>>>2. A GUI does not reduce system stability in a well designed OS
>>>(I have never been able to regain control of a crashed windows GUI,
>>>yet in Linux I can telnet in and restart it AND my other processes are
>>>NOT effected!)
>>>
>>>Your arguments here are just factually incorrect and could be called
>>>FUD
>>>:-(
>>>
I am happy to agree with point 2 - providing that the "well designed OS"
*is*, in fact, running on a virtual machine if using a i386 series
processor. No part of the GUI can be allowed to run in app space as this
*will* compromise stability.
Sorry, but I can't accept you claim that I am producing FUD!
>> following on from my comments above, any GUI *must* reduce stability
>> of the system because it adds more simultaneous processes. This is
>> *not* factually incorrect - it is a matter of mathematics. I think you
>> will also find, although I may be mistaken on this point, that the
>> majority of GUIs do not run on virtual machines themselves - although
>> they give access to processes that do. If I am wrong on this then I
>> apologise in advance!
>
>*ALL* processes in linux run in their own protected address space, none
>of them have direct access to kernel memory or the memory of another
>process(unless that process has permission to mmap the memory). In
>windows, the gui is part of the kernel and this is part of what causes
>so many stability problems. This is not the case with linux.
Fair enough! I am enlightened!
>
>>
>>>Linux is _NOT_ DOS. DOS is just not comparable in *any* aspect!
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, it *is* comparable - just not favourably, that's all! I
>> completely agree, Linux is *not* DOS. I would never attempt to
>> substitute one for the other, they are too dissimilar. I couldn't run
>> Linux on a 2M RAM 286 for a start and DOS doesn't have any file
>> serving built in! :-)
>
>DOS is not even a true operating system in todays sense. It did not
>have protected memory, it did not have multitasking, it is just a bunch
>of routines that are set up as interrupts for programs to use, and of
>course a shell. Linux and W2K on the other hand are real OS and they
>cannot be compared to DOS.
Granted, "in todays sense". When it was written there was no such thing as
"protected memory". This meant that any attempt to multi-task had to depend
on task-switching. This can be rather unstable and causes a lot of
problems! It didn't stop people from trying though. MCP/M and Multi-user
DOS tried, but the hardware just wasn't there to create a stable system. Of
course, multi-tasking is *not* multi-user but elements of the two systems
are common.
<snip>
>Linux a great server OS, a great desktop OS and a great gaming OS. I
>will admit however, that configuring a system for hardware accelerated
>gaming is still not easy to do and that there is a few things that are
>lacking from a desktop users point of view, but these things are getting
>fixed very quickly.
Let's be honest Matt, configuring many Linux distros to do *anything* that
isn't automatically installed "out of the box" is a real problem for all
beginners and some regular users! Yes, there are some really good config
tools out there but there are also some poor ones which really need pruning
out or replacing. A modern OS should not need expert knowledge of a 30-year
old OS and its history to date to set it up. Linux is excellent when pre-
configured to carry out one or more particular tasks. Changing its use
later, especially if the system hasn't been regularly updated, can be hell!
I'm glad that Linux configuration is getting fixed. At the moment I am not
a Linux fan, but that does not make me anti-Linux. I hope that Linux does
well because, to be quite honest, I can't see any real future for the M$
products and there isn't any other viable alternative at present. Linux has
progressed blindingly fast compared to M$ stuff and, at that rate, we
should start to see really "user friendly" bits appearing pretty soon. KDE2
and the latest X and kernel packages are a very good indication of the way
things are going.
--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
------------------------------
From: Nick Ruisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Please don't laugh.
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 06:56:43 -0500
Maybe if she was able to obtain an ancient distro of Redhat/Slackware or
something....
Cannon Fodder wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, but unless you know enough to build a stripped-down
> kernel from scratch, it's nearly impossible on a small platform
> like that. My hunch is, a platform like that might not even be
> using the PCI bus yet. You'd have to remove/disable all PCI
> features from the Kernel, and etc, or it would hang. You'd get
> error messages like 'BIOS_32 not detected' or 'PCI_BIOS not
> found'.
>
> My suggestion is, buy/obtain a newer kind of computer. A pentium
> 75mhz with 16mb of RAM would be the lowest I'd go.
>
> Good Luck,
> CF
>
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Bonnie wrote:
>
> >I'd like to look at Linux butthe only pc I can play with it on is a 25
> >Mhz 486 with 4 meg of RAM and a 170 meg hard drive. Is there a free
> >version of Linux that'll work on this and where can I find it?
> >
> >TIA
> >
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:03:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Very easy.
>
> You can't install 99% of the Windows programs using a command line
> because they require GDI interaction.
>
You can install just about all of the Microsoft apps/server apps from
the command line with an answer or ini file. If other vendors choose
not to make the command line option available, that's their problem.
The mechanisms are there, just that many don't use them...
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 12:12:47 +0000
"Form@C" wrote:
> Linux is great for server applications because, in such applications, only
> a few components tend to be running simultaneously.
Wrong. Servers tend to run more processes than clients. Even if you're only
running one application it will normally be running at least one process for
*each* of its clients. That's on top of the 30 or so background processes that
even a quiet system will be running.
> This means that the OS
> is smaller and consequently more stable.
Wrong and wrong. The number of running processes does not affect the size of
the OS, and running fewer processes does not improve the stability of your
system.
> Unfortunately, as with DOS, putting a GUI on top of it tends to reduce its
> stability...
Don't compare DOS with Linux, they have virtually nothing in common and any
comparisons are likely to be very, very misleading. You might as well compare a
15th century movable-type printing press with a modern laser printer. There are
no useful comparisons.
> Windows is for users.
Correct.
> That is why almost all software is written for it.
Incorrect. Most software was written in-house in large corporations, and that
means Unix and mainframes. Even if you're talking about stuff offered to the
public, glancing at Freshmeat (http://freshmeat.net) I count a total of 43
releases for yesterday. That's just for yesterday, and that is nothing unusual.
> 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...
You mean W2K? You can't mean Linux because that is already a truly great OS.
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:05:00 +0100
Tim Smith wrote:
> Device access: Handled by VXDs, which are Windows drivers, not DOS
> drivers.
it IS possible to access hardware with the old-dos drivers ... how if no
dos
is running under windos?
> Memory: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
How could a dos-application crash win95 than?
> Filesystem: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
Huh? How could you access files with dos than?
(this IS possible)
------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 13:02:20 +0000
maximus wrote:
> > I couldn't really find your point?
>
> Not only have I been in the business since 1967, I have a Business
> degree which included many hours of studying Management and
> Communications.
Communications, eh? Did you take the day off when they did paragraphs?
> I am looking for help, want to contribute and am distressed at what I
> observe happening. You chose to ignore that and begin the Linux ranting
> and raving while completely oblivious that someone is concerned
> (objectively) and is
> asking for advice.
Ah, you've posted to the wrong newsgroup. This is the Linux-vs-Windows
ranting-and-raving crowd.
> >
> > Linux is not fragmenting, any linux developer knows that.
>
> Objectively, I disagree. My wish is that I am to be proved wrong.
You have your wish - you *are* wrong and Linux is *not* fragmenting. While
there are many distributions, there is only one Linux. No that isn't Zen.
The only difference between the distributions is the bundled applications.
They all use the same kernel.
> > Linux has many good applications, sure it is a bit behind with word
> > proccessing, but in other areas it is even or ahead of windows.
>
> Again, I am not trying to make this a windows vs. Linux issue. My
> concern is that application development (not OS distro's) could be
> much further along than it seems to be.
Contrary to what you said at the top of your post, you aren't expressing
yourself very clearly. What do you mean by this? Further along what?
Anyway, my advice to you is this: You are thinking about it too hard, you
see shadows of the fragmenting proprietory Unix market of 10-15 years ago,
but Linux really isn't like that. Linux doesn't suffer from vendor lock-in,
if there is a Linux application that you want it doesn't matter what
distribution that you have. Likewise, if you decide to switch distributions
for some reason, you can take all your favourite apps with you.
So just pick a distribution and try it out. If you don't like it try another
one. They are all available for free download anyway (though I would
recommend you buy a manual, either for a distribution or a generic one from
O'Reilly). You don't have to try them all, though if you're calling yourself
a consultant maybe you should.
Where are the applications? Try http://freshmeat.net/, I count 43 releases
for yesterday and that is nothing unusual.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
