Linux-Advocacy Digest #156, Volume #31 Sun, 31 Dec 00 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
Linux *has* the EDGE! (Terry Porter)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Nick Saxon")
Re: Conclusion ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge ("JSPL")
Re: An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!) (Terry Porter)
Microsoft deemed security threat to U.S. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why Hatred? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Conclusion ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Rich Walsh)
Re: Uptimes (J Sloan)
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? (J Sloan)
Re: An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!) ("mud")
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge ("mud")
Re: Linux, Great to grow with. ("Martigan")
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Microsoft deemed security threat to U.S. (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: 31 Dec 2000 16:21:08 GMT
Hi All, and Seasons greetings :)
I've finally finished upgrading my Linux box to Mandrake7.2!
Yes after running Redhat 4.2 since August1997,
I decided it was time to try something new. With reliability comes a certain
amount of boredom I suppose, besides I was itching to try the Journalled
Reisfer file system, I wanted to see if I could just turn of the power
to my Linux box, and have it reboot in next to no time.
Having all the programs compiled for a Pentium class CPU wouldnt hurt either I
figured, gotta be some speed increase in that ?
So I duly wandered down to the local newsagent and picked up a copy of the "A
PC Pocketbook". Its a Australian thing, a 15*21 cm booklet 1cm thick. In the
package ($19.95) is a copy of Redhat7.0 and Mandrake 7.2 over 4 CD's.
I've only got 1.2 gigs of hard drive so I had to be selective, but now this
system has all the C compiling apps I need, all my internet facilities,
engineering and document processing, and of course the Reisfer FS.
Now I always kept my old system fairly up to date, but the new Mandrake is
amazingly easy to install, and I must admit things have improved a lot since
Redhat 4.2!
I think you could probably, pop the cd in your pc and boot from it, select
"standard install" and simply go away after youve anwered the relevant
questions about internet connection, printer type etc. During the install,
the CD opens automaticaly and the installer asks you for the second CD. Neat.
Xfree86 was a total breeze, my ISA NIC card autoprobed perfectly, so did my
ISA soundcard. PCI video card was picked up straight away.
Enter the root password, one user account, the pc reboots, opening the CD
drive for removal of the boot cd and the install is done!
Now the big test .......
Turn of the power switch, machine dies, the disk is now 'dirty'.
Turn on power switch,..... dam this thing boots up fast now, and the Reisfer
FS notes the journal has to be fixed, it takes about 15 seconds to do this,
and the pc is up!
No FSCk'ing, no scandisk (So "Steve/Heather/Keys88" knows what I mean) just
a running pc, I didn't time it, but it's very quick to boot up.
Oh its also WAY faster.
Good one Mandrake, worth every penny, and once again showing Linux *has* the
EDGE!
------------------------------
From: "Nick Saxon" <n-dot-saxon-at-mindspring-dot-com>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 11:27:07 -0500 (EST)
Reply-To: "Nick Saxon" <n-dot-saxon-at-mindspring-dot-com>
On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 01:09:18 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Nick Saxon wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 18:22:35 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>
>> >Gary Hallock wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > IBM makes GREAT hardware.
>> >> >
>> >> > There standards for software (usability and efficiency), on
>> >> > the other hand, tend to be quite low.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ever use VM/CMS?
>> >> > XEDIT
>> >> >
>> >> > Bleaaaaaaaah!
>> >>
>> >> For an editor that runs on a non-graphical 3270, xedit is quite powerful,
>> >> especially with its rexx macro support. I've used it for many years,
>> >> long before it became part of the product. There are even a number of
>> >> Unix based look-alikes.
>> >
>> >Any editor which, when editing an existing file, REQUIRES you to
>> >"delete" non-existing characters from the end of a line before you
>> >can append text to that line is a piece of dain-bread deficient trash.
>> >
>>
>> I hate to say this, but... RTFM!
>>
>
>I need to Read the manual to learn how to turn off this behavior?
You need to read the manual to learn that there is a hundred of options.
Can you imagine a magic default profile that suits all?
>
>Clue for the fucking clueless: the non-existance of characters
>past the last existant character on a line SHOULD BE THE DEFAULT.
It may be your default profile, not xedit default, what turns it off.
>
>If I have to run xedit with a special flag to indicate that it should
>behave as one would expect, then, it merely confirms what I said...
>IBM's software standards are utterly deficient.
OK, you HATE xedit. This has little to do with IBM's software standards.
If you ever tried to program 3270, you must know it.
>
>Every IBM system I have ever used has been a huge freaking pain
>in the neck to deal with....and my first programming class was
>on an IBM mainframe (System 370 using VM/CMS)...so don't even dare
>try to give me the "you just don't like it because you're used to
>other stuff" routine...because at the beginning, IT WAS THE ONLY
>THING I KNEW....
>
>Conversely, Even Apple ][ had a better editor....
We may discuss personal preferences here, we won't argue about them.
Nick
>
>> Nick Saxon
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Gary
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Aaron R. Kulkis
>> >Unix Systems Engineer
>> >DNRC Minister of all I survey
>> >ICQ # 3056642
>> >
>> >
>> >H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
>> > premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
>> > you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
>> > you are lazy, stupid people"
>> >
>> >I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
>> > challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
>> > between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
>> > Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>> >
>> >J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
>> > The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
>> > also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>> >
>> >A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>> >
>> >B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
>> > method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
>> > direction that she doesn't like.
>> >
>> >C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>> >
>> >D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
>> > ...despite (C) above.
>> >
>> >E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
>> > her behavior improves.
>> >
>> >F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
>> > adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>> >
>> >G: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
>
>--
>Aaron R. Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>DNRC Minister of all I survey
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>
>H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
>I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
>J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
>C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
>D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
>E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
>F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
>G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 09:27:05 -0700
> All of this arguing, on both sides, is speculative. None of us knows,
> beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the numbers are accurate or inaccurate.
>
> Without a audit by a professional auditing firm, we would really never
> know how accurate their algorithm for determining uptime is.
>
> Given that they can't really determine the OS of the webserver or even
> the web server platform itself with any great reliability, it stands
> to reason that their uptime methods are questionable as well.
Of course it's is speculative, and of course they could be wrong, and of
course... blah blah blah. But if we had to go around auditing every piece
of data that came floating our way, we'd never get anything done. The point
is that we can know, reasonably well, that their numbers are relatively
accurate.
How? By looking at a sample. There are so many people that read these
newsgroups, and so many people that work on websites, that the veracity (or
lack of same) should be easily verifiable in a few instances. Since no one
has yet to come forward with a site that they know is incorrect (and some
people have claimed to work on sites that they 'know' will fool Necraft),
then it's reasonable to assume that the numbers are somewhat accurate.
How accurate? That we'll never know, but no one said that we should live or
die by these numbers. No one, that I'm aware of, has claimed that these
numbers should be taken as gospel. A lot of people claim that they should
be totally ignored, but these are the same people who only offer hypotheses
as to why they should be ignored, never showing a site where the uptime
numbers are incorrect or where the uptime numbers match a different OS than
reported. Only sites that 'may indicate that other sites may be wrong'.
Fine, your opinion is just as valid as mine, but it's just that: an opinion.
Until you can show some evidence of some kind (something not
circumstantial), it will remain an opinion.
Adam Ruth
------------------------------
From: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 11:28:46 -0500
Reply-To: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JSPL wrote:
> >
> > runs flawlessly. I'm currently checking out Whistler and have to say it
> > shall (due to quality) put the slap down on all desktop competition for
> > years to come. I can hear the weeping and wailing of the Linux advocates
> > now! Their supposed 3% (actually .03%) share of the desktop market will
be
> > eliminated as though it was never there.
> > http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2000/October/os.html
>
> 1. That site merely counts the number of visitors to it. If the visitors
> are equally distributed, then it might be a good reflection of
systems.
Better go back and read some more. It's compiling stats from about 566,000
different websites (as of Jan. 2000) which use the counter.
> 2. One presumes that this site can properly enumerate UNIXen systems.
When calling the counter image from the server, the OS is accurately logged.
Any file request on a server divulges the OS of the requestor.
eg. <IMG SRC="http://c2.thecounter.com/id=23566" will put the requesting OS
into the respective log for account #23566.
> 3. One is not sure if this site can handle firewalled systems or systems
> using network address translation.
Firewalls are irrelevant in this method. It's all sent through the GET
request header from the client.
>
> Since other sources of information are at odds with this one, it
> might be wise to trust it not.
What sources are at odds? www.linux_forever.com, or how about
www.linux_will_takover_the_earth.com? I think I'll stick with a method
which draws upon 500,000,000 samplings in a one month period from 500,000
different sources and does so by automatically getting the information from
the 500,000,000 computers using industry wide and accepted header field
standards, with no human polling or involvement to skew the information.
> Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!)
Date: 31 Dec 2000 16:37:26 GMT
On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 05:56:39 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I love how you idiots "plonk" people when they have something logical to
>say.
Jacobs your such a lame Wintroll, and a very stuck record player.
Flatfish is a known Wintroll, a known Linux hater, whos declared
aim is to become 'Linux's worst enemy'
In fact you're so dense Jacobs, I bet yo mommas a black hole ?
<plonk>
>
>Well, whatever keeps you in your little Linux world, where Linux is supreme,
>the only available choice, and your own, personal Microsoft.
Hahahahahah, keep dreaming mate, keep paying too.
>
>"Ignorant Lutefisk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:91th8i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Hi Claire (swango, some other shit)
>> pl0nk!
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<big snip of Wintroll tripe>
>> >
>> >
>> > Flatfish
>> > Why do they call it a flatfish?
I told you why, its because a 4 ton penguin stepped on it!
>> > Remove the ++++ to reply.
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Microsoft deemed security threat to U.S.
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 17:37:29 GMT
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/12/29/csis.microsoft.report.idg
/index.html
And it only took them 3 months to figure this out!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 17:43:41 GMT
On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 09:49:22 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What I can't understand, is the bitter hatred and resentment that some
>of the Windows zealots have.
>The only reason I can come up with is fear. They must be afraid of
>Linux.
Many of them seem to be "Microsoft Solution Partners", or work for
companies that are. They aren't used to having competition and are
worried that the gravy train they've been riding may be slowing down.
Microsoft may not be able to dominate the server market after all and as
more productivity apps appear on Linux, the business workstation market
may not be as secure as was once thought either. Solution Partners
don't make money on the home gamer market.
Yes, it is fear. Fear of having to compete on both price and quality
for the first time in the history of Microsoft.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Conclusion
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 19:49:26 +0200
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92nmsu$2maj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > All of this arguing, on both sides, is speculative. None of us knows,
> > beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the numbers are accurate or inaccurate.
> >
> > Without a audit by a professional auditing firm, we would really never
> > know how accurate their algorithm for determining uptime is.
> >
> > Given that they can't really determine the OS of the webserver or even
> > the web server platform itself with any great reliability, it stands
> > to reason that their uptime methods are questionable as well.
>
> Of course it's is speculative, and of course they could be wrong, and of
> course... blah blah blah. But if we had to go around auditing every piece
> of data that came floating our way, we'd never get anything done. The
point
> is that we can know, reasonably well, that their numbers are relatively
> accurate.
>
> How? By looking at a sample. There are so many people that read these
> newsgroups, and so many people that work on websites, that the veracity
(or
> lack of same) should be easily verifiable in a few instances. Since no
one
> has yet to come forward with a site that they know is incorrect (and some
> people have claimed to work on sites that they 'know' will fool Necraft),
> then it's reasonable to assume that the numbers are somewhat accurate.
No one has come forward and said that the numbers *are* correct, either.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rich Walsh)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:23:58 GMT
On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 06:14:38, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gary Hallock wrote:
> >
> > But you are dead wrong. xedit does not work that way.
>
> It did in 1980-83 on the Oakland County Schools S/370,
> in 1985 on a S/370 at Purude University, in 1997 at Ford
> Motor Company, and 1999 at Kmart.
You mean to say you're ~35 and still using a .sig befitting
a socially-stunted 19 year-old? Sad...
--
Rich Walsh
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:28:56 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Well, I have dissimilar experiences. I've had Linux boxes crash dialy,
Sorry, that's just not beleivable -
For instance:
zdnet did a year long test of windows nt and linux, running
their office server tasks. In one year the Linux servers did
not crash once. the windows nt servers crashed 13 times.
In our own shop: we have Linux servers that handle mail, dns,
network monitoring, web serving. They have been up for about
200 days (last booted to install new kernel) and had been up
for about 6 months before that. They simply do not crash.
OTOH there are windows nt boxes doing pretty similar
stuff and need to be rebooted nightly.
> All this proves is that your own experience is not the reality of everyone.
No, it proves that windows trolls are willing to say anything
to try to discredit those OSes that they see as a threat.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:33:38 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Alt-Fn to a new console screen, you idiot.
>
> You CAN'T. The whole computer is locked SOLID. The keyboard is not
> responding, nor is the mouse, or any other human interface device attached
> to the computer.
serial port, network interface?
> It's called a "freeze", and you Linux nuts don't want to admit they exist
> under Linux.
I'm skeptical - people from a windows background such as
yourself assume the system is locked up, but in fact it probably
isn't - what hapened when you tried the magic sys rq keys?
jjs
------------------------------
From: "mud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!)
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:34:41 GMT
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >
In fact you're so dense Jacobs, I bet yo mommas a black hole ?
And here we see the maturity of the lintroll.
plonk you.
------------------------------
From: "mud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:42:07 GMT
Germany doesn't like win2k because of the ties its defragger has to
scientology (Executive Software).
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92n1ld$2s9$07$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Well that is something we have heard many times already from
win-advocates.
> The NEXT version of win will be the do all, perfect OS which everyone will
> use. when it was pointet out that NT4 is just shit, win-advocates say
> win2000 is the real answer (I flatly refuse to install it, although as a
> programmer i also have to do programming for windows). Did you know that
in
> certain parts of Germany and in the christian churches of germany it is
NOT
> allowed to use win2000 for security reasons ?
>
> Now it will be Whistler. What next ?
------------------------------
From: "Martigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, Great to grow with.
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:49:26 GMT
I am interested "man with many words" why do you think so?
"John Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:F%x36.184125$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Martigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:LC736.205081$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > One of the many great things I have noticed about Linux is not that
> there
> > are great programs out there for free BUT one can code a program for
> > anything possible and post it some where and get some great help,
reviews,
> > wise cracks .... and perfect their program. I think this will help the
> > programming future and keep great programs not only free but will keep
the
> > good quality.
> >
> > Am I wrong?
> >
>
> Yes
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:55:33 GMT
JSPL wrote:
>
> Better go back and read some more. It's compiling stats from about 566,000
> different websites (as of Jan. 2000) which use the counter.
>
> > 2. One presumes that this site can properly enumerate UNIXen systems.
>
> When calling the counter image from the server, the OS is accurately logged.
> Any file request on a server divulges the OS of the requestor.
> eg. <IMG SRC="http://c2.thecounter.com/id=23566" will put the requesting OS
> into the respective log for account #23566.
>
> > 3. One is not sure if this site can handle firewalled systems or systems
> > using network address translation.
>
> Firewalls are irrelevant in this method. It's all sent through the GET
> request header from the client.
>
> What sources are at odds? www.linux_forever.com, or how about
> www.linux_will_takover_the_earth.com? I think I'll stick with a method
> which draws upon 500,000,000 samplings in a one month period from 500,000
> different sources and does so by automatically getting the information from
> the 500,000,000 computers using industry wide and accepted header field
> standards, with no human polling or involvement to skew the information.
I'm still skeptical. Why then are Linux books such a large segment of
computer books in the bookstores nowadays?
Too many factors here. It still seems to me that the site merely counts
systems that are using the counter. So it could simply be that this
site merely has a counter popular with "Windows system administrators".
In spite of your long and irrelevant claim of trust in big numbers,
you haven't confirmed what the numbers mean.
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Microsoft deemed security threat to U.S.
Date: 31 Dec 2000 19:06:36 GMT
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/12/29/csis.microsoft.report.idg
> /index.html
> And it only took them 3 months to figure this out!
> Charlie
But but but...what about the C2 certification???
=====.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
