Linux-Advocacy Digest #168, Volume #31 Mon, 1 Jan 01 05:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why Hatred? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Alan)
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Uptimes (J Sloan)
Re: Why Hatred? (Form@C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 03:27:05 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> John Smith wrote:
> >
> > So, it's ok for Linux users to hate Windows, but not Windows users to
hate
> > Linux? Can you spell "hypocrite"?
>
> Ok, you tell me. What reason would a windows user have to hate Linux? It
> is not as if they are forced to use it. It isn't as if it is something
> they even have to deal with.
I can tell you why people I know who've tried Linux hate it.
1) Took them several days to get it to work out of the box. This has
gotten better in recent distro's, but about 2 years ago it could be quite a
challenge.
2) Overwhelming amount of work needed to acomplish even minor tasks.
3) Lack of functionality.
4) And mostly, becuse after fidling with it for a week they realize they've
been wasting their time.
> So again, why would a Windows user even have an opinion about Linux?
The average Windows user wouldn't. But people that have tried Linux would.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 09:26:38 +0000
Terry Porter wrote:
> Honestly Goodwin, I can't remember, its been a LONG time since I had to
> use Windows, Aug1997 in fact.
Well good for you!
> >Because you guys keep reporting misinformation about Windows that's why!
> Hahahahahah, talk about reverse history!
If the shoe fits...
> I agree with Bob's theory, its sensible, and logical.
And completely untrue.
> >Currently I'm certainly not afraid of Linux.
> Hmm I disagree.
And how do you know that? Telepathic are we?
> > I _want_ Linux to compete with
> >Windows.
> Why ?
You mean you've not been reading any of my posts?
> > I just wish it did!
> You havent a clue Goodwin, you Wintroll.
Ah, here we go. When you can't find anything useful or logical to say, you
resort to the old tried and dusted insults.
Yawn.
> > What amazes me is the depths of insults you
> >guys have to stoop to when things don't go your way!
> Hahahaha, come on Goodwin, one would think you'd never met Boris!
Who's Boris?
> Goodwin is a recent COLA blow in, a LameWintroll, and fools no one.
Seems like I've got you fooled. You're fixated on your prejudice and you
can't move beyond it.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 09:28:06 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Because they are afraid of change. They might have to learn something.
About the only people I can see that are afraid on change are the Linux
zealots.
In case you hadn't noticed, Windows API changes very often. Microsoft are
adding new stuff to it quite rapidly (and not always wisely).
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 09:31:46 +0000
kiwiunixman wrote:
> No, it would mean that they would actually need to read a book once in
> their miserable lives (you know what they are, normally made out of
> paper, have words in them, carefully placed to make it meaningful).
Pandering to the stereotype I see.
> Because the ones who does spread FUD can only program in Visual Basic
> (whip-de-doo!). The ones who tend to be more open are those who
> programme using using cross platform languages such as C, who can see
> the beauty in the open source programming model, hence, they are not
> adversely effected by the change in the OS landscape. Also, what it
> would mean is that closed-sourced, profit motivated software packages
> will have to compete harder (in terms of quality of product and support
> infrastructure) as free open source will software becomes more mainstream.
Still pandering...
I'm not a VB programmer. I use Visual C++, Borland Delphi and C++ Builder.
I know C and C++. As for programming for cross platform using C, why would
I want to castrate my applications by going that!
> They're afraid of change, from getting outside their comfort zone or
> requiring them to use that space between their ears (known as a brain)
> for once in there miserable existence.
Really? I thought that was true of the UNIX zealots, they don't want to let
their UNIX evolve any further that the '70s.
In case you hadn't noticed, Windows API is always changing as Microsoft
introduce new stuff.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: 1 Jan 2001 09:33:18 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> > > The answer is to not use Windows NT for these programs OR use NT in an
:> > > insecure way. Most users will choose to use NT in an insecure way.
:> >
:> > No, the answer is to use it the way it's intended to be used.
:>
:> That may be all well an good, but you can't argue, on one side, that
:> Linux is hard to use because one sometimes needs to manually manipulate
:> settings, and then argue that NT isn't for the same reason.
: We're talking about two entirely different useages. Sure, in a controlled
: by IS situation, Linux would be perfectly fine for the desktop (assuming
: that the proper applications existed for the users use).
Funny you should mention that.
Over the past year, Mozilla and Konqueror became usable, and
StarOffice was finally freed.
Hence, it's now possible to create a VERY reliable, functional, and
cost-effective Linux desktop in a corporate environment for about a
fifth of the initial cost of its NT equivalent, and with virtually
zero ongoing support/maintenance costs. (There will be a one-time
cost for retraining heavy MSOffice users.)
"What about custom VB/Powerbuilder/Delphi apps," you might ask? Well,
in the short term, you can keep NT boxes around for these, and access
them via VNC. In the longer term, though, most of the kinds of apps
these tools used to be used for are being redesigned and rewritten
using an n-tier architecture, with thin (browser-based) clients being
the preferred mode of access. There is no reason the app should know
or care what kind of OS the browser is running on.
: In a more
: traditional windows environment though, say a home user or even small
: unmanaged business then Linux is not something that is acceptable.
That's changing too.
It is very conceivable to me that within the next two years, 50% or
more of games and home-oriented apps will be cross-platform.
Even in a mostly Windows-dominated world, it makes sense not to tie
one's code tightly to any particular version of Windows, since there
are now dozens in widespread use, and they differ fairly substantially
from the perspective of an application developer. It's much better to
isolate the platform-dependent code behind some type of abstraction
layer, *even* if most or all of your users use Windows. You then have
most if not all of the platform-specific problems, bugs, and fixes
confined to one relatively small section of your app.
But, once you've done that, it becomes possible to port the app
relatively easily to other platforms.
Hardware support: this is a chicken-and-egg problem, exacerbated by
pressure illegally asserted by Mafia$oft, but even so, we're seeing
more chickens and more eggs all the time. I predict this will be a
non-issue within those same two years.
Appearance: yes, we need better font rendering. XFree86 4.0.2 has it.
The toolkits need minor adjustment to take advantage of the render
extensions. That will be a done deal soon, with completely
antialiased distros available probably midyear if not sooner.
Ease of installing new packages: Debian's apt-get and the *BSD ports
collections solve this problem nicely. RPMs, even with GUI front
ends, still need for someone to go out and fetch the required
dependencies, and this process needs to be better automated. As Linux
becomes more "mainstream," my guess it that it will be.
. . . .
:> The user will user a system with the least amount of work. Just because
:> there are work arounds for this limitation, and it is a LIMITATION, does
:> not mean the average user will use the more complex solution. Most of
:> the NT users I have seen just give themselves admin privileges.
: And most Linux users i've seen run as root.
I find that hard to believe, since I've never seen *any* Linux user
run as root, but, if that's really the case, you should be able to fix
that problem yourself with minimal effort. :)
Joe
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 09:38:00 +0000
Perry Pip wrote:
> >Oh life is so hard using Windows isn't it!
>
> When it takes one twice as long to do one's works under Windows it's
> unreasonable at all to dislike it.
What are you doing wrong?
> >Because you guys keep reporting misinformation about Windows that's why!
>
> Misinformation?? Where?? You're the one with six years Windows
> experience, a week of Linux experience...claiming Linux is not as
> good.
I see misinformation here all the time. People report that Windows is so
unstable it crashes with an hour or two. Yet, the machines I use do crash
but not as often. Someone claimed a machine would not stay up beyond a
month - I had a web server that lasted two months. That kind of
misinformation!
And the misinformation you're spouting about my using Linux for a week! HAH!
> No, you _want_ linux to be like windows, becuase you're too lazy to
> learn something new and different. This is why you are waiting for
> Borland to port their dev tools to Linux instead of learning the tools
> that already exist.
Something new and different? How new is UNIX? Was it not around when I
started at Digital? Has it changed so very much since then?
New? HAH!
> Insults?? Like your thread about renaming this newsgroup? Your entire
> presence on this NG is about your frustration with something that is
> new and different.
Rubbish!
How about "shithead" or "liar" or "Wintroll". Those are the REAL insults!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 03:48:39 -0600
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a502b40$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:peP36.4629$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > I don't fear Linux. In fact, I run my web server under Linux. I simply
> > don't find Linux useful as a desktop system today, and get annoyed when
> > Linux zealots insist that Linux can replace Windows today. It can't.
If
> it
> > could, I'd be using it.
>
> > Fact is, as long as Linux must be maintained by through text files, it's
> not
> > going to be able to replace Windows. Yeah, there are tools like
> linuxconf,
> > but I find these tools to be brittle and break easily.
>
> The fact is that Windows and unix variants such as Linux represent two
> entirely different cultures and philosphies.
Ahh.. and that's just it. Like most philosopies, everyone has a different
idea of what should and shouldn't be. There will always be a lot of people
that prefer to have tools to do things for them, probably more people than
the other way.
> I feel that GUI sysadmin tools
> under unix systems such as Linux are pointless, because the entire unix
> culture relies on editing config files by hand that are well-documented
with
> comments and are very "human readable".
Oh, you're going to sit there and tell me that .Xdefaults is
"well-documented with comments". Also, perusing through XF86Config I find
lots of comments, but over half the entries are not documented. For
instance, XkbKeycodes, XkbTypes, XkbCompat, XkbSymbols, etc...
That only works if the documentation is consistent.
> Windows, OTOH, has config files
> that are designed to be "machine generated" instead of human-readable,
like
> with unix.
Much easier for most people.
> One of many problems with Windows is that it is a proprietary standard.
For
> example, it's pretty difficult to port a program from Windows directly to
> Solaris. OTOH, all unix systems are similar in that it's pretty easy to
> port a program from Linux to FreeBSD and Solaris with little difficulty,
as
> long as there are no low-level obstacles. This is due in part to the fact
> that unix systems are set up very similar.
This has nothing to do with windows being "proprietary" or not. It's just
different. If Windows were an open standard, it would be just as difficult
to port between Unix and Windows.
> For example, all unices have man
> pages, and a C runtime library (libc) with basically a fairly common
subset
> of functions. All have socket(), connect(), read(), and write(), for
> example. Windows, OTOH, has it's own variants of these commands. For
> example, I don't know if Win98 directly supports the open() function. You
> pretty much have to use OpenFile(), which is tied to Windows' GUI. Also,
> Windows doesn't use connect() AFAIK, but a WinSock implementation of this
> syscall. So now on the network side of things, you've got to do some
> translating between standard unix socket calls and the equivalent WinSock
> calls.
open works the same on Windows as it does Unix. Windows, however, doesn't
use file based devices for everything.
Windows also uses the same API for sockets, though WinSock requires some
additional setup.
For instance:
connect
The Windows Sockets connect function establishes a connection to a specified
socket.
int connect (
SOCKET s,
const struct sockaddr FAR *name,
int namelen
);
which is identical to the Unix connect(). Same with read, write, etc..
> I'm much more at ease knowing that I'm programming on a system that is a
> standard. But, how exactly do you acheive an "open standard" with a
> Windows-type OS? "Well, it has a very weak CLI interface, and is 99% GUI
> driven, and the Windowing system has it's own built-in widget set and is
> closely intimated with the kernel". Heck, it's very hard to acheive a
> standard like that! Let's see, Windows, BeOS, and MacOS would fall into
> that category. Yet, they don't seem as compatible with each other as the
> unix variants (FreeBSD, Solaris, Linux) are.
That's just different. And Linux has lots of function calls that don't work
natively under FreeBSD or other Unixes. FreeBSD has to have an emulation
library in order to support it.
> It's only natural that we programmers should choose a standard over a
> proprietary system, which is why I like unix systems better than Windows.
There are lots of standards. POSIX is the only standard you've got (apart
from ANSI C libraries), and that's quite limited. I doubt you stick only to
POSIX function calls. And of course, NT/2000 support POSIX.1
> OK, let's try this thought experiment. Microsoft releases the source code
> to all their products, including Windows 98, ME, NT, 2000, etc. They also
> release all the internal documents regarding Windows NT and 98's
> architecture and design. The two questions I have then are as follows:
>
> 1.) Would Windows NT and 98 be established as an open standard?
Linux's non-posix API hasn't been established as an open standard either.
What's your point?
> 2.) What would happen to Microsoft in terms of revenue? Well, one obvious
> conclusion would be that Microsoft's earnings would drop like a rock.
But,
> if they could somehow copy RedHat, SuSE, and Corel's business model, I
think
> they could stay afloat, but their monetary value would sink faster than
the
> Titanic. This is because now, see, MS has just released the source code
to
> their products, effectively making them open source. They could no longer
> be the only vendor selling and supporting Windows, because now Company X,
> whomever that may be, could make their own Windows disribution, modify it
to
> their liking, and sell it with support. If Microsoft were truly
innovative,
> they could survive and still pull in a healty profit with that scenario.
That has nothing to do with it. Being the only vendor is not what makes
them money. It's the fact that they can sell licenses that does. You're
confusing two seperate concepts.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 03:51:35 -0600
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92pi1f$s27$06$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > If you think that's "normal", you're crazy.
> >
> No, i do not think that this is normal or should be normal.
> Thats the reason I do NOT use NT anymore.
>
> By the way, both of these machines run on linux without glitches, there
was
> no hardware problem of any sort, no power problem, nothing. NT just went
> down. THAT is something i will NEVER accept.
> And this is not only my personal experience, several other people told me
> similar things about NT just crashing. The difference is, those people
> think they still need windows. I don't
Stop twisting words. What you describe is an abnormal NT situation. It
doesn't work that way for millions of people that use NT on dual processor
machines daily.
Your experience is abnormal, yet you're acting like it's the typical one.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 09:48:04 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:K2Y36.47456$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> > Because they are afraid of change. They might have to learn something.
>
> About the only people I can see that are afraid on change are the Linux
> zealots.
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, Windows API changes very often. Microsoft are
> adding new stuff to it quite rapidly (and not always wisely).
Nor with an eye towards consistency.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 09:48:55 GMT
On Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:28:58 GMT, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Please show me ONE, just ONE example where the Republicans "bent" the law.
>
>-Chad
Didn't a republican county allow faxed in ballots (against Florida
state law) to be used in determining total votes. This was a "bending"
of the law.
Face it Chad. Bush won fair and square based on the law. However, in
that brief period after November 4, a lot of ugly politics was played
on both sides. For the first time that I know of, the back room deals,
arm twisting etc., that has been going on for decades was out for the
public to see (on both sides). For you to say that democrats did this
or that IS ad homenim. At least say that "elements of the democratic
party did this or that." You're implying there is one grand
conspiracy dude, and for that you should go to alt. conspiracy.jfk.
If the situation had been reversed, Bush's team would have done
almost exactly the same as Gore's team. I can't prove it, but it is
the nature of politics lately that the party comes before the country.
And that is wrong (for both Dems and repubs). And that sucks, for you,
me and this country.
Check out Guliannos post on this. I think he was fairly accurate in
his appraisal (not bad for being over 4KM away)
As always, Have a nice millenium
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 03:53:48 -0600
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:5LX36.47378$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > Fact is, as long as Linux must be maintained by through text files, it's
> > not
> > going to be able to replace Windows.
>
> In some instances, it is very useful to be able to use an editor to edit
> these text files and configure the system. Sometimes a GUI can just "get
in
> the way".
>
> I don't think Linux is going to be held back by being configured by text
> files - I think your other excellent points are closer to the truth.
You misinterpret what I said. I said as long as Linux *MUST* be maintained
through text files. In other words, even with tools like linuxconf, you
still need to maintain quite a bit through text files exclusively.
There's nothing wrong with text configuration files, as long as there are
easier ways to maintain it as well.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 09:58:38 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Stop twisting words. What you describe is an abnormal NT situation. It
> doesn't work that way for millions of people that use NT on dual processor
> machines daily.
It is the windows experience that conditions people to
accept frequent reboots, reinstalls of the OS, random
lockups and the like.
> Your experience is abnormal, yet you're acting like it's the typical one.
It's all too common.
Eric, why do you haunt the linux newsgroups?
jjs
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 09:59:45 GMT
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<3a502b40$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:peP36.4629$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> I don't fear Linux. In fact, I run my web server under Linux. I
>> simply don't find Linux useful as a desktop system today, and get
>> annoyed when Linux zealots insist that Linux can replace Windows
>> today. It can't. If
>it
>> could, I'd be using it.
>
>> Fact is, as long as Linux must be maintained by through text files,
>> it's
>not
>> going to be able to replace Windows. Yeah, there are tools like
>linuxconf,
>> but I find these tools to be brittle and break easily.
>
>The fact is that Windows and unix variants such as Linux represent two
>entirely different cultures and philosphies. I feel that GUI sysadmin
>tools under unix systems such as Linux are pointless, because the entire
>unix culture relies on editing config files by hand that are
>well-documented with comments and are very "human readable". Windows,
>OTOH, has config files that are designed to be "machine generated"
>instead of human-readable, like with unix.
>
IMHO computer "users" shouldn't have access to config files - apart for the
most mundane changes. Windows is actually very good in this respect. A
fully-featured CLI would ruin it.
I generally agree with your comments re. Linux configs but GUIs have
appeared and it looks like we are stuck with them. In some cases the GUI is
better simply because it restricts the number of options available. Some of
the tools really *need* reference to a manual before using them!
>One of many problems with Windows is that it is a proprietary standard.
<snip>
>It's only natural that we programmers should choose a standard over a
>proprietary system, which is why I like unix systems better than
>Windows.
>
All very true. The problem is that the Windows approach has become a
standard (of sorts) by sheer weight of numbers, in spite of being a closed-
source system.
>OK, let's try this thought experiment. Microsoft releases the source
>code to all their products, including Windows 98, ME, NT, 2000, etc.
>They also release all the internal documents regarding Windows NT and
>98's architecture and design. The two questions I have then are as
>follows:
>
>1.) Would Windows NT and 98 be established as an open standard?
Why would they need to "be established" as an open standard? They already
have wide distribution, a lot of developers and a huge user base. It would
simply be a name change from "closed" to "open" standard.
>2.) What would happen to Microsoft in terms of revenue? Well, one
<snip
Assuming that this scenario were to take place in the present time:
M$ has really got two parts. OS design and application design.
The application design side would continue almost as if nothing had
happened. They would have more competition its true, but their user base is
now so large that it may well be self-sustaining. They would simply adapt
their product to the current state of the OS platform. If they really
wanted to they could probably write for Linux just as easily and, in your
scenario, they may well do so to supplement their meagre income! <grin>
The home/small business desktop OS side (i.e. Win 98 SE/ME) may improve
drastically and wipe the floor with everythig else. I, for one, would
*love* a fully-debugged Windows system. I don't care who debugs it, whether
its via OSS or proprietory. There are probably enough people out there to
make this possible. Linux just needs too much development to get more than
a toe-hold in this market at present.
The only part liable to suffer would be the NT/W2K department who would
find the rug pulled from under their feet - mostly by Linux. This part of
the market is far smaller (numerically "bums on seats", not financially
AFAIK) and IMHO their products just don't compete either financially or
operationally with Linux. M$ may well decide to drop these products in this
scenario - which would definitely not help financially in the short term
but, over a longer period, may lift a huge burden from them and allow them
to transfer their rescources to other departments. You have to remember
that the GUIs used on NT and W2K are really Windows products which have
been copied onto the business platform. They would not disappear. They have
done *serious* R&D work on GUIs - even if they didn't invent them!
Basically, I feel that M$ would not only survive but may even get bigger.
Their market would move, but that is to be expected.
All the above is, of course, pure speculation on my part...
:-)
Personally, I would like to see the OS/2 Warp GUI on top of a Linux kernel.
That would be an interesting combination and, who knows. it may happen!
--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
