Linux-Advocacy Digest #107, Volume #31 Thu, 28 Dec 00 23:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (Lincoln Peters)
Re: Thanks from a newbie ("Les Mikesell")
Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Microsoft tentacles squirm deeper into software hosting ("fmc")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away" (maximus)
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux, it is great. ("Adam Warner")
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Why Advocacy? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why Advocacy? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Windows Stability (JM)
Re: Advocacy: A Definition from Webster (JM)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (JM)
Re: Microsoft tentacles squirm deeper into software hosting ("2 + 2")
Re: Why Advocacy? (Craig Kelley)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away" (J Sloan)
Re: MS using Linux? (Cannon Fodder)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (J Sloan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lincoln Peters)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:11:00 GMT
Microsoft is as narrow-minded as any monopoly. Look at all of the
monopolies that were created during the industrial revolution and you
will see behavior patterns that are similar to those of Microsoft.
They just want to remain in the green, no matter how many consumers
they leave in the blue screen of death. Typical.
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:52:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>Followups.
>
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Michael
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:58:24 +1000
><4YEZ5.157781$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>"Jackal Jack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:916rve$28q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>> Paul Colquhoun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> wrote:
>>> > That report is 18 months old. Here is a more recent report
>>> > where Linux outperforms Windows by about 3 to 1
>>> >
>>> > http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-07-05-001-04-OP
>>> >
>>> > 18 months is a long time in the computer industry.
>>>
>>> The two machines have DIFFERENT hardware configurations. There is no base
>>> for comparision. This report does not show that Linux outperforms Windows
>>in
>>> any sense... :-|
>>
That doesn't surprise me. I can have a decent Linux server run in my
closet on a 486/50 with 16MB RAM and 200MB hard disk. The cost of a
Windows 2000 Server plus the cost of hardware that could run it would
put me on the street.
>>
>>Neither did the mindcraft tests considering the amount of tweaking and swap
>>given to the NT machine, none for the linux machine. You may also like to
>>note that they were testing a claim about the linux kernel (I can't remember
>>what, too long ago) and they used a kernel that predated the claim. The
>>test was shown to be biased.
>
Did they ever say what kinds of tweaks they used? Maybe if I knew, I
could get the Windows 2000 Server at work to work decently.
>The issue I remember about Mindcraft's benchmark was that the
>Linux kernel had a flaw in it; the flaw meant that only one network
>card could send packets at a time, IIRC. Microsoft doesn't have
>that flaw (it has a lot of other flaws, though!) and flat out-beat
>Linux (by a 2.7 to 1 ratio). Twice.
If they ran the test over a longer period of time (i.e. 6 months, the
uptime that one would expect from a high-end computer before a
reboot), the Windows NT system probably would have crashed soon
enough.
>
>Whether this is a realistic test or not (IIRC, the hardware setup was
>4 100Mb cards, when 1 1Gb card would work better) is not clear;
>there were also some setup issues (Linux was the second installed
>OS on the machines, which meant it got the slower part of the disk)
>on the first benchmark.
>
>And the Linux flaw has hopefully been fixed by now. I wouldn't put
>too much credence on the Mindcraft results.
>
Consider this: A while ago, a bug was found making it possible to
crash any UNIX (or Linux) server on a TCP/IP network with the 'ping'
tool. Most commercial versions of UNIX did not have fixes for the bug
for weeks. For Linux, the fix was available 4 hours after the bug was
discovered.
How will Microsoft ever release bug fixes and improvements that fast?
I don't think they ever will.
>The above URL is a quite different beast, and seems to be a more
>honest benchmark, except for the issue regarding the Perc2 versus
>the Adaptec 7899 SCSI controllers, and the AceNICs. I would like to
>see the test rerun with the Win2k server machine getting the Adaptec
>SCSI card. I'm also a bit confused on the AceNICs; Linux didn't
>get PCI cards, which may or may not have affected throughput
>(it didn't matter, Linux was still 3x faster!).
>
>Is someone going to fix these hardware issues and rerun the test?
>
Not if Microsoft has anything to say about it.
>
>>
>>Yet again Jackal you prove yourself to be either troll, or just plain
>>stupid, which is it?
>>
>>-m
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> up 83 days, 45 running Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thanks from a newbie
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:16:39 GMT
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92evd6$jug$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi lectron,
>
> > As a newbie these things about security are good to know but for the
> > moment but I am just trying to understand the system and the fine
> > details of the security are a bit ahead of me. The machine I am running
> > on is a very basic machine and is a learning machine. Basically it is a
> > disposable machine and if I get caught bye a cracker it will be just a
> > lesson. I have saved your response and when I get to set this up as a
> > final system I will review what you have sent very carefully.
>
> OK. But also realise that there are quite a few bugs in RH7.0 that the
> updates address. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was only talking
> about security updates.
>
Historically, RH gets a distribution right on the X.2 version - and then
immediately rolls out the next X.0 with vastly different code. I don't
mean that as a criticism because it has driven the development of
open source code faster than anything ever did before, but it is
something for a new user to consider. If you are testing and developing
something for use in a few months you want to work with the latest
release you can get now and follow the updates. If you need to
roll out production machines today, you are better off using an
older version where any problems are already well known.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: SV: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:23:16 GMT
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92fkbe$br0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "steve@x" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > so far these are the suggestions given to install one simple
> application
> > > on linux:
> >
> > You forgot the main suggestion:
> >
> > Upgrade your suse to something a bit more recent -
> >
> > say 7.0?
>
> Yet when the winvocates say "upgrade to the latest version" when
> someone bitches about some problem or another, they get slammed for
> it. Why?
With windows, the 'latest version' is never an upgrade - you buy a new
copy - and then all the apps separately.
> This is touted as one of the advantages of Linux - break free of the
> needless upgrade cycle, yet the instant someone has a problem, what are
> 90% of the solutions offered? Upgrade!
With free software, there is never a good reason to run less than the best.
The upgrade issue being discussed here was a problem caused
by trying to mix different versions of things. A complete upgrade
would have fixed it cleanly. It is the sort of problem you would
see if you tried to copy a few 'upgraded' dlls from your win2k box
over to a win95 system.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft tentacles squirm deeper into software hosting
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:32:33 GMT
Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [From The Register - www.theregister.co.uk]
>
> perhaps you've neglected to 'fund' the magic mobo
> chip; perhaps you're simply broke. Generally, a broke company
> can do limited business so long as the lights stay on,
How long do you think they'll survive without paying their employees?
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:38:06 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > >
> > > It's the SWEEEETEST victory possible for a hard core republican like myself.
> >
> > Most people don't know much about probability and statistics.
> > Not to mention psychophysics.
>
> Psychophysics? Where DO they offer that course of study?
>
> MIT?
Actually, the Lincoln Laboratory did some psychophysical research, as
well as speech synthesis and speech perception.
>
> Berkely?
I dunno. I went through a Hearing Science (not quite psychology,
psychophysics, or audiology, but a mix, with a dash of double-E
and electronics tech) program at Vanderbilt, and a lot of our
curriculum was the psychophysics of hearing.
>
> The Psychic Friends Network?
That would be cool!
Here's a good example of a psychophysics lab:
http://neuro.caltech.edu/
Here's the founder of psychophysics, Gustav Fechner:
http://cm.psychologie.uni-leipzig.de/~fechner_2001/
I used to have a Fechner T-shirt. I don't remember much about
psychophysics anymore. Too traumatic <grin>.
Chris
------------------------------
From: maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:29:51 GMT
In article <92c704$pr1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip all>
I entered this forum looking for help and offered some past history as
a concern for the future of Linux. I am not a Microsoft zealot nor a
Linux zealot (or any kind of zealot). I thank the few who took the time
to think before they hit the keyboard and offered some good advice. As
for the rest who responded by their hostility and negativity ad
nauseum, you have my deepest sympathy. You do great disservice to the
really good Linux people who are working hard by their actions AND
words to make Linux a success. I admire them. It's unfortunate that
they have to coexist with the hot headed, negative, anti-everything but
Linux people who *live and die* on this and other forums. Nothing has
changed on these forums regarding polite protocol since over a year ago
and it has gotten worse. My advice to anyone seeking help or even
asking a simple question is to use the Linux newsgroups with caution
and have a thick skin. Make sure that the person who is giving you
*advice* is one of the GOOD people. Completely ignore the know all
radicals that will verbally castrate you while giving bad advice. They
are the anti-christ of Linux.
Goodbye and good luck.
--
"Strength and Honor"
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:42:14 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:24O16.152$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9275fl$dq5$03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > Heyk, thats really cool. So if you have a shop with, say 200 Nt /
> 2k-boxes,
> > 200 people will call the adminsitrator yelling "I need your password".
> > Otherwise he has to go to 200 boxs himself (naturally distiributed
around
> > an area the size of New York)
>
> There are lots of options. You can use management software, like SMS or
> some of the other tools out there. Or you can create a specific "Install"
> account that has administration privs for installation, you can set it up
to
> not allow logins on the machine and still allow the user to install
software
> this way.
>
> Of course, that's assuming you want to allow your users to install
software
> at all. What do you do under Linux if you want a locked down system?
NFS mount everything from a physically secured system and don't
give the user the root password.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:42:14 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ZjA16.130$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> The *ONLY* software i've ever heard of that *REQUIRED* write access to the
> Windows directory is Office. Perhaps you know some specific others.
> Generic "racks" is not acceptable.
How much gets overwritten when you do an upgrade to IE?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:36:56 GMT
In article <dmH26.51633$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> It's *very* hard to make a profit with GPL when it's expected you give
away
> the fruits of your labor for free. That's the problem.
I used to work for one of the big proprietary hardware/software
companies. Every competetive bid award we won in the seven years I
worked there we virtually gave away our software. Support and
maintenance contracts recovered the costs.
My current employer may implement a Linux-based application this
calendar year. If we do, the contract will will have a software support
component. Not that we can't do it ourselves, but management wants the
cushion that external support offers. Contracted support gives managers
those "warm fuzzies" even if the service never gets used.
We have one Windows NT server running a GIS application. Our invoice
for the system lists the cost of NT as $0. Does this somehow mean that
Microsoft is unacceptable because we paid nothing for it?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, it is great.
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 15:50:43 +1200
Hi mlw,
> PostgreSQL, a full relational, enterprise ready SQL database.
> Star Office, a full featured office packages.
> Full TCP/IP networking support.
> Apache, a world class web server.
> PHP, a world class web scripting language.
> KDE2, a very good desktop environment.
> GCC, a world class C/C++ compiler.
> Countless languages and utilities.
> CD ROM creation utilities.
> MP3 generation.
>
> Too many programs to mention. All free. Sweet!
Well you could have added MySQL and Gnome ;-)
And OpenOffice (http://www.openoffice.org/) is the successor to StarOffice.
And I have to be picky about MP3 encoding being free. Actually there are
royalties to be paid (the format is patented). We will only be truly able
to encode high quality/highly compressed audio with complete freedom
when Ogg Vorbis is complete:
http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/index.html
See the FAQ to understand about the patent issues:
http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/faq.html
"Why Vorbis? We already have MP3 and don't want to change.
"I'll be blunt.
"If you didn't pay for that copy of mp3enc, you're [technically] a thief.
Strictly speaking, LAME users are supposed to pay royalties to FhG too. Of
course, MPEG members tend not to go after individuals; that would be nearly
impossible.
"Going after businesses is an entirely different thing. If you're running a
business, you either pay the arbitrary royalties (FhG decides this on a
case-by-case basis, and generally protects 'exclusives' it has arranged with
other companies) or you don't stream. There are no low cost, unrestricted,
legal streaming solutions for small business. The alternatives to MP3 aren't
cheap either."
So other than me being picky: My sentiments exactly :-)
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:50:59 GMT
"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92aaqs$f3s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > Multi user is when you share the servers/workstation resources
> > (CPU/Mem/hdd space) with multiple users. NT has never had multi-user
> > support until Citrix released Citrix Winframe, which allows a sort of
> > suedo multi-user system possible.
>
> This statement is blatantly false.
But true in a practical sense.
> To prove this, fire up rcmd under a different user, and connect to a
NT/2000
> machine.
And try to run all your applications.
> Check the 'owner' of the objects, and you will see that they are owned by
> the user that connected with rcmd. When something is executed on the NT
> machine, the process and everything else is owned by the rcmd user. You
can
> have different users at the same time, of course, each using their own
> resources.
But the applications - remember the reason you have the computer and
OS in the first place - virtually all insist on using only the console and
NT has no concept of sharing that access among multiple users at the
same time.
> Please brush up on your NT knowledge.
He understands the situation. As does Citrix and MS itself since there
are extra-cost add-ons to work around this omission.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:54:25 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:dmH26.51633$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> MSFT is a special case. None of the other companies have been witchhunted
> by the government.
Well perhaps none of the others broke the law so blatently as to deserve
it....
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:17:23 GMT
In article <xWD26.109219$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> > As of KDE 2, you can now drag and drop between KDE and Gnome apps.
>
> And MOTIF and all the others?
Mostly.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:21:18 GMT
In article <92g6gq$h1e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But you can't! There are a lot of things for GNOME (Linuxconf) and some
> > things for KDE. You can't get applications built for GNOME that are also
> > built for KDE. Why would a developer do that?
>
> There is allways an equivalent app... not allways up to the same
> standard but there is allways an app. BTW ýou seem to mix Gnome and
> GTK apps together.. i think linuxconf is based on GTK and not Gnome.
Not even. Linuxconf is multi-UI. If I open linuxconf through the
web interface in konqueror, does it make linuxconf a KDE app?
I even wrote a KDE linuxconf frontend once. Not functional, and now
totally obsolete and lost.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:31:37 +0200
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 19:37:51 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Walter Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Without X Linux will happily run AND instal with 16MB - with X its a tad
>> slow
>> but it runs and makes and excellent server....just how much memory did
>your
>> friend borrow ? You seem to be implying that Linux requires more memory
>> than Win2k. I just thougfht I'd put the matter straight. I've seen Linux
>run
>> on machines with 4MB of memory - how does Win2k do with 4MB ?
>> Hint: Win2k is not exactly frugal in its use of memory......
>Let me ask you a question: who cares if Linux runs in 4Mb of memory? I
>mean, seriously, who cares? I've got an old 486SX/33 box kicking around
>here, the slowest, oldest machine in the house, and it's got not 4, not 24,
>but 48Mb of memory on it. Memory is so cheap that worrying about dropping
>an extra couple megs into the box is silly - about on a par with backing up
Cheap? Would you justify spending £100+ on RAM just so Windows can
load its bloated GUI that you don't need?
>to floppies instead of to CD-Rs because floppies can be reused to save
>money.
>
>There was a time when worrying about memory consumption was an issue. Not
>too many years ago, an OS or application that required more than a meg or
>two to work was unreasonable, except for very high-end machines and the
>people who could afford them. With 128Mb availble for less that $80 - and
>that's Canadian dollars - the difference between 4Mb and 64Mb to run an OS
>is almost totally irrelevant.
No, it's not quite as simple as that. If you had a systen with 4MB of
memory, you could use Linux on it. To use it to run Windows, you'd
need to spend another $45, and for what gain?
>Hell, it was just Christmas; why didn't you ask Santa if he would be nice
>and give you 64Mb? That's only $45. Or are you on the naughty list? :)
Why spend $45 when you can do just fine with the memory you've already
got using Linux? Anyway, using less memory means there's more room for
programs etc.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy: A Definition from Webster
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:31:38 +0200
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 13:41:11 -0600, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("bbjb \(BillyBobJoeBuck\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>According to Webster - Advocacy: the act or process of advocating or
>supporting a cause or proposal.
>
>Based on my examination so far it would seem that the focus of this group is
>to promote the advantages of Linux. Unfortunately, much of this comes in
>the form of bashing the MS entry in the OS market.
So? Windows is the dominant OS and MS is abusing its position, so you
can expect people to get pissed off with them.
>As a novice Linux explorer, who has already formed his opinions related to
>MS, etc., I'd find it much more useful to follow discussions that focus on
>the merits of Linux as well as any short comings that must still exist in
>such a young OS.
You can only give the merits of something when comparing it to
something else. If someone said "Linux is really reliable", without
anything to compare it to, the statement is useless.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:31:39 +0200
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 19:54:40 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Todd wrote:
>
>> "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:EhF%5.16475$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Is Windows really easier to use than Linux?
>>
>> Yes. Very much so. So much very much so.
>So, what else would you expect a microsoft employee to say?
Maybe, but you've got to admit that Windows is easier to get to know
than Linux for beginners, as it does most things by itself.
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft tentacles squirm deeper into software hosting
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 22:30:37 -0500
There are serious and numerous problems for businesses who have consigned
important parts of their activities to outsiders, especially web development
and hosting companies.
Even the bankruptcy of the LESSOR (not the principal) if the server space is
leased can be a problem.
But of course, citing Microsoft as the "Beast" absolves the believer of the
need to think through problems in the real world of business.
2 + 2
fmc wrote in message <5JS26.33175$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [From The Register - www.theregister.co.uk]
>>
>> perhaps you've neglected to 'fund' the magic mobo
>> chip; perhaps you're simply broke. Generally, a broke company
>> can do limited business so long as the lights stay on,
>
>How long do you think they'll survive without paying their employees?
>
>
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: 28 Dec 2000 20:38:52 -0700
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> > And if you think having to edit rc.d scripts when Linux screws up is
> > fun, just wait until you have to edit the registry to fix services
> > under NT.
>
> You run regedit., that's hard is it? Is it any hard than ln -s <x> <y>?
Much harder.
At least text files have comments and man pages.
They're easier to backup.
They're easier to copy in case you screw up.
They don't have silly entries like S0122-34203023-3023209402
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:31:11 GMT
In article <EIP26.67661$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was orignially speaking that it should. Why can't Linuxconf have
> XFree86 extentions in it? Why CAN'T You configure XFree86, GNOME
> and KDE through Linuxconf?
There is no reason why it can't be done.
Oh, well, actually there are.
XFree86: XFree86 has to work on OSs other than linux. So, the nice
XFree guys write config tools for it. Once we have a nice,
functional config tool, why add it to linuxconf? So you
can have another thing that can fail?
KDE: The default GUI interface for Linuxconf is based on GTK+.
KDE doesn't require GTK+ at all. Yeah, let's require a whole
separate program and GUI library that is not required, so you
can config KDE!. Not to mention that writing KDE control
modules is a lot easier for a KDE programmer than writing
Linuxconf extensions! Oh, and KDE has to work on non-Linux
too, so you have to write the KDE config tools anyway.
GNOME: Pretty much the same as KDE, really.
In other words: it's technically possible. It's also monumentally
silly.
> Because IT WOULD MAKE SENSE. That's why.
No it wouldn't. It would suck. A lot.
If you really are so desperate to have fully integrated system config into a
single program, I could write a KDE control module integrating the web
interface to linuxconf. It would be a completely useless piece of software,
but it COULD be done.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:47:23 GMT
maximus wrote:
> I entered this forum looking for help and offered some past history as
> a concern for the future of Linux.
That was your first mistake - this place is haunted by extremists
of all sorts, including microsoft shills who post fabricated Linux
problems, and even microsoft employees posing as neutral
bystanders, telling of their wondrous experiences with microsoft
windows - Of course there are extremists on the other side
too, but this is not the newsgroup to go for help - the signal to
noise ratio is way too low.
I suggest you try one of the technical linux newsgroups or
mailing lists if you want help with technical issues.
> Goodbye and good luck.
Good luck as well to you sir!
jjs
------------------------------
From: Cannon Fodder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS using Linux?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:49:22 GMT
On 28 Dec 2000, Tim Smith wrote:
>And then, when they woke up the next morning, there was a hook hanging
>from the door of Bill Gates car.
>
>--Tim Smith
You mean the tech team got fired?
Ouch,
CF
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:49:35 GMT
JM wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 19:54:40 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> >So, what else would you expect a microsoft employee to say?
>
> Maybe, but you've got to admit that Windows is easier to get to know
> than Linux for beginners, as it does most things by itself.
Windows is easier for experienced windows users, for sure.
After they have become to conditioned to think that the
windows way is the way it ought to be, other OSes will
seem different, therefore wrong...
jjs
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
