Linux-Advocacy Digest #205, Volume #31 Wed, 3 Jan 01 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Hatred? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft tentacles squirm deeper into software hosting (Sgt Detritus)
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com (Bob Hauck)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge ("JSPL")
Trouble logging in ("Hughie")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("JSPL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 04:37:47 GMT
In article <92tf08$hjc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I can understand why Linux users hate
>> Windows, it is something we are
>> too frequently forced to use even
>> though it, as an operating
>> environment, is terrible at best.
>
>Beyond this, especially among those of us who were involved
>with UNIX and the Internet in the 1980s, and helped commercialize
>the Web in the early 1990s, Microsoft is a bit like the school
>bully who wants to take your lunch the day your mom packed your
>favorite kind of sandwich and desert.
>
>Microsoft asserts that if users don't pay Microsoft about 20-30 billion
>a year, that they will stop making software, all computers will become
>nothing more than boxes with blinking lights, and civilization will
>revert into the Stone Age.
>
>Meanwhile, when Mark Andreeson contributed Mosaic software to
>the NCSA, and struggled to make his Netscape Web Browser as compatible
>as possible without violating the NCSA license agreement, he was
>rewarded in the following manor:
>
> The NCSA sold "branding rights" (the right to put your logo in the
> corner) to Spyglass.
> Microsoft purchased these rights, but made last-minute changes to
> the contract and put a tight deadline on acceptance, which
> gave Microsoft the right to violate the NCSA Public License
> Agreement.
> To protect the NCSA from a lawsuit by Netscape, the NCSA rewrote
> the license and removed all copies of the original public
> license agreement.
>
>In retaliation, the developer community refused to allow any further
>direct integration with NCSA, offering instead "Patches" which were
>protected under a source code agreement similar to GPL. Patches were
>made to the patches. Eventually, all of these patches were integrated
>into a new server call "A Patchy Server" which was covered by Public
>License. After a few weeks, the "Madison Avenue Types" (including
>myself) felt that we needed to change the image. It was renamed
>"Apache". The developers created the apache.org web site and
>formalized the public license and the server management process.
>
>The internet has been as effective as it was because the UNIX vendors
>who initially supported it (other vendors like DEC and IBM offered
>TCP/IP packages as early as 1982, but preferred their own DecNET
>and SNA to Internet Protocols), adhered to a voluntary set of
>guidelines established by what is now known as the IETF Requests for
>Comments.
>
>When Microsoft decided to get into the Internet, it ignored all
>of the standards and guidlines and began introducing it's own
>proprietary protocols. Many of these "innovations" introduced
>severe security holes, enabled the proliferation of viruses ranging
>from benign Milissa type viruses to catastrophic "I Love You" viruses.
>Other "Stealth" viruses, including some that may have originated in
>Microsoft's labs, remain undetectable exept for the tell-tail dump
>of an encrypted file at strange hours in the morning. It could be
>your registry, your web browser "history", or maybe just your e-mail
>log.
>
>The Linux community watches their market go through quantum leaps
>in terms of quality, reliability, ease of configuration, ease of use,
>and innovation that Microsoft can only wish they could produce, only
>to be "locked out" of the market with "Windows Only, no alteration
>of boot sequence" contracts that prevent these innovations from
>ever seeing a mass market.
>
>Linux initially targeted the server market because it was "low lying
>fruit". BBS operators were offered the chance to migrate from
>FIDO and WildCat sites which rarely collected revenue, to PPP and
>Internet sites which offered 5 different ways to collect revenue
>(PPP access, Mail access, Web Hosting, usenet news access, and
>portal services). Some actually found that Linux was so reliable
>and so scalable that they never stopped using it. Others switched
>to Solaris, AIX, or HP_UX and found that the transition was so
>trivial that they didn't have to do anything but replace hardware
>and recompile software.
>
>> What I can't understand, is the bitter
>> hatred and resentment that some
>> of the Windows zealots have.
>
>This is actually a very acurate word. For many, Microsoft isn't
>a company, it's a religeon. Bill Gates is a god. They believe
>that if they pay enough tribute to Bill Gates, that his money
>will somehow magically flow back into their pockets.
>
>The fact that Microsoft is the ONLY company who has made a
>long-term success exclusively in the PC market. Competitors
>must either support UNIX (including Linux) or they get gobbled
>up at a fraction of their original value, either by Microsoft
>(who generally doesn't make people instant millionaires), or
>by a company that does business in both markets. Even the
>PC Manufacturers are getting squeezed out of business.
>Microsoft recently announced that they will be raising license
>prices next year. This in the face of dropping PC prices,
>sluggish sales, and 5 competitors who are willing to offer VERY
>generous terms (Linux Vendors). And yet, with the exception of
>TiVo and the Internet Appliance Web browser, nearly every PC on
>display was only displayed with Windows ME (which is so much like
>Windows 9x that it's nearly indistinguishable, except that Win95
>and some Win98 programs were broken by ME).
>
>Ironically, WINE has evolved to the point where Linux may be a better
>migration path from Win9x than ME.
>
>> They have freedom of choice, they can use
>> their environment to their hearts content,
>> they can buy almost any software for it.
>
>Here in the U.S. we have fundamentalist christians who, even though
>protected by law and guaranteed the right to worship as they wish,
>seem compelled to impose their faith on others at any cost. They
>even invalidate other Christian religeons. In same cases, they will
>even resort to violence and economic oppression. But the Jews in
>Israel persecute Islamic residents.
>
>> Why spread FUD and criticize a different environment?
>
>True Microsoftians, followers of the Gospel According to Bill,
>must check in daily for the truth as proclaimed by Microsoft.
>They often have indirect economic interests, such as being
>Microsoft Partners, or having Microsoft as a major stockholder
>in their company (part of the price for the Enterprise License
>Agreement). They chat with the Apostles at MSDN. and true devotees
>will even spend their evenings watching MSNBC to see what they should
>be talking about INSTEAD of the Microsoft Antitrust case.
>
>> The only reason I can come up with is fear.
>
>Absolutely. Microsoft has a legitimate fear (that Linux driven
>innovation would leave them in the dust). They translate that fear
>into threats of the end of civilization as we know it unless
>Microsoft is left to practice it's religeon unfettered by
>regulation of any kind.
>
>> They must be afraid of Linux.
>
>They fear the unknown. The only way anyone can truly know
>Linux would be to spend actual time learning about it and
>using a properly preconfigured system, usually for about 3 months.
>Since you can't go to the strore and test-drive
>a Linux system, you can't make an informed opinion.
>
>Most of the Winvocates attack Linux based on their experiences
>with a botched installation of a user-hostile version of Linux
>such as Corel's Debian or a version of Red Hat that they (sorta)
>downloaded off the internet. Very rarely do I see articles written
>by people who actually spend money on Mandrake (advertized as the
>best version for New Users) get it installed properly (I've had
>amazing luck with 7.2, but you could call if you had to). They
>rarely install a full compliment of software.
>
>Or worse, there are many companies who now pirate open source
>products, port them to Windows NT or Windows 2000, and market
>proprietary versions in direct violation of the provisions of
>the Public License agreements of the software from which they
>were stolen. One company actually went so far as to attempt to
>patent the "double fork" used on nearly any UNIX system, especially
>with Apache.
>
>> The only reason they would have to be afraid is
>> because Linux is better than Windows.
>
>Actually, I see 4 groups who are directly threatened.
>
>Software vendors are often threatened because they have a version
>that is "one of a kind" in the Windows market, but competes with
>3-5 similar products in the Linux market. In many cases, their
>software is a direct rip-off of Linux distribution software.
>
>Windows Programmers fear that the Linux system render their
>programming skills obsolete. They've spend years learning
>to use Visual Studio, learning the subtleties of COM, OLE, MFC,
>and ActiveX. Again, in the lack of any basis to make an assessment,
>they fear that Linux programming will be too hard to learn. Worse,
>it might be too EASY to learn, which would reduce the asking price
>for programmers of that caliber.
>
>Windows Administrators who fear that Linux will be too easy to
>administer and that they will have to start doing development work.
>Since many administrators depend primarily on the "three finger
>solute" (CTL-ALT-DEL), the exectation that they actually "FIX"
>problems, as other UNIX and Linux administrators do, could be
>very threatening.
>
>Commission Salesmen, especially software salesmen, like to "take
>the money and run". With Windows, the revenue comes "up front".
>A shady vendor can promise the moon, cash the check, and play
>ring-around-the-rosie with anyone who dares to be so foolish as
>to make a service call. With Linux, the revenue comes after the
>software is installed, and on a recurring basis. A company may
>spend as much as a few thousand dollars per server on consulting
>and service contracts, but it will be credited on a monthly basis,
>and failure to provide good service can result in customers switching
>to competitors.
>
>In each case, we are looking at economic incentives of those who
>do not have the customer's best interest in mind. When you think
>of it, if you can do the job in less time, with fewer mistakes, and
>lower long-term support costs, your costomer will pay you MORE in
>terms of profit than if you attempt a similar bid on Windows and
>spend more resources on the implementation.
>
>> They have to know this, else they would not be afraid.
>
>There are some, especially those above, who should be very
>afraid. When you look at the UNIX market, Solaris, Oracle,
>Sybase, DB2, SAP, Peoplesoft, and some of the other big
>players in the UNIX market, you see a whole different level
>of service. Ironically, most of these UNIX oriented companies
>approach Microsoft in terms of profitability, and far surpass
>Microsoft in terms of quality of service.
>
>In summary, the hustlers looking for a quick buck should cash in on
>each version of Windows as quickly as possible. Get the money, and
>start programming on the next beta version of GatesOS so that you can
>get the certifications and Logo stamps to be the first on the block
>to sell software for the next version.
>
>If you are out to hustle the customer, you should avoid Linux at all
>costs. You should avoid UNIX at all costs. You should make your
>product exclusively for Windows, sing the praises of Microsoft, and
>hope that Bill decides to "Buy You Out" if you actually start making
>a profit. Who knows, he might even pay enough to cover your legal fees.
>
>If you aren't in one of those catagories listed above, you should
>probably start learning Linux now. Even if you stay with Windows,
>you'll be better equipped to support the integration of UNIX and
>Windows systems. You might find that writing a perl script intead
>of VB Script will give you BOTH worlds.
>
>Some of you are about to lose your MCSE certification because you
>haven't been certified in Windows 2000 server yet. You COULD go
>out and spend $1500 to LEGALLY purchase Windows 2K server, and
>you COULD spend $5000 or more to get an SMP server with RAID
>drives so that you will actually have hands on experience with
>that environment. Or you could buy some $40 book, CRAM for an
>exam, get the right answers to questions you don't really even
>understand, and go back to rebooting Windows 2000 boxes all the time
>(because you never learned how to edit the registry, restart daemon
>processes, and fix problems so that problems don't recurr.
>
>Of course, for $20-$159, you could purchase a copy of Linux, configure
>workstations, servers, and even clusters, using boxes priced between
>$500 and $1000 each, and have source code to everything so that you
>can trace problems right down to subroutines in the kernel if necessary,
>and have the problem fixed within a day or two.
>
>It will take a few months to really get comfortable with Linux.
>You've been using Windows since Windows 3.0 (1990) and your
>Linux desktop looks a bit different, has a whole bunch of new
>programs, and has almost too much documentation and support (most
>distributions include a search engine to help you find what you
>need).
>
>> --
>> http://www.mohawksoft.com
>
>
>--
>Rex Ballard - VP I/T Architecture
>Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
>http://www.open4success.com
>Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
>and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
And thus we see the true hero of the free software industry
again! Friends I give you mother GPL!
For without the GPL you don't have SHIT!
Thanks
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Sgt Detritus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft tentacles squirm deeper into software hosting
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 04:35:01 GMT
In article <ZjO26.47666$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snips]
>
I have seen a sig which sums up my opinion of mister Bjarnason's
commentary on the "register's" article.
"you could spend hours counting the petals on a flower
you could spend years counting the veins in each petal
you could spend lifetimes counting the cells...
and you would have completely missed the point, you f***head"
The point of the whole article seems to be that M$ (a shortened and
derogatory reference to the unethically run REDMOND, WA based software
company Microsoft, for the twits in the bunch) wants to encourage the
use of an inexpensive "dummy" terminal. the significance is that the
BEAST (see M$, above) would have control over and access to anything
that one would store in a PC on site, private, business crucial, or
not. We may not "technically" own the software that runs on our PC's,
but at least it is as secure and private as we choose to make it. NO-
ONE, NOT EVEN THE "OWNERS" of the software, has access should we so
choose (you can always sever a 'net connection). the implications are
fairly obvious from this point on. For further reference, perhaps one
should read 1984 by George Orwell.
--
Any man agitated enough to lift a 300lb. ape
without noticing is a man with way too much on
his mind.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 04:43:45 GMT
On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 20:55:11 -0500 (EST), pub10.ezboard.com web2news.pl
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>May 3, 2000
A bit old, wouldn't you say?
> WASHINGTON, DC -- The Justice Department's plan to break up Microsoft
> is not just a bad legal decision -- it's a case of "bureaucratic grand
> larceny" that has already stolen more wealth from Americans than all
> the bank robbers in history, the Libertarian Party charged today.
> Specifically, the Justice Department's announcement last month that
> Microsoft broke antitrust law -- and its decision last week to try to
> divide the Redmond, Washington-based corporation into two separate
> companies -- caused a massive meltdown in technology stocks.
How does the Libertarian Party explain the even larger meltdown that has
happened since May? Did Janet Reno threaten to break up everybody on
the NASDAQ?
They don't know that the MS ruling caused anything to melt down, this is
pure speculation. It is logical that the ruling hurt MS, but then
everybody with a clue assumed they were going to lose so one would think
that the market had already accounted for that. And there's nothing in
this press release that gives any reasoning for how the rest of the tech
industry got hurt by the ruling.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 23:45:57 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Clue for the BRAINLESS: *I* didn't put the blank there.
>
> In light of that...why does the goddamn blank exist?????
>
Why don't you read the 3270 manual and then get back to us on xedit:
http://www.s390.ibm.com:80/bookmgr-cgi/bookmgr.cmd/BOOKS/CN7P4000/CCONTENTS?SHELF=EZ2HW120
Gary
------------------------------
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: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 23:51:12 -0500
Reply-To: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JSPL wrote:
> >
> > "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:55:33 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >I'm still skeptical. Why then are Linux books such a large segment
of
> > > >computer books in the bookstores nowadays?
> > >
> > > Because there's a market! Contrary to what some WinZealots want us to
> > > think, people are using Linux.
> >
> > I just dis a search at Amazon.com for the keywords "microsoft windows"
and
> > it shows 3589 matches. I then did a search for "linux" and that keyword
> > recieved 510 matches. I also was in a Barnes & Noble not long ago and do
not
> > remember seeing nearly as many Linux related books compared to volume
after
> > volume, and sometimes multi volume SETS of books about Microsoft Windows
and
> > NT.
>
> 510/3589 = 14%, which is a hell of a lot more than 0.3% or even 3%. Not
> a bad ratio at all.
That depends on your point of view. One could argue thats it's a very bad
ratio. If it was more user friendly there would be a need for such a high
ratio, especially since the OS exists on only .3% of the worlds computers.
For example my own ratio of Linux books compared to Windows books is 2:0
And I don't even use Linux except for hosting websites and telneting into
the servers every now and then. I solely use Windows for most of my work yet
own NO Windows books. If I add in my two perl books that sends the ration up
to 4:0. I've never needed a book to show me how to operate Windows. Never
even called a Windows support number or support center, or whatever it is
that "they" do.
>
> In the OS section of the B&N store in Mt. Pleasant SC, the ratio is more
> like 40/60 if you add in the few UNIX and the single FreeBSD book.
Thats even WORSE!! :-)
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Hughie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Hughie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Trouble logging in
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 21:10:22 -0800
I create a new user in SuSE and no matter whether I use the -p switch or not
to create a password, I cannot login using the new username I just added.
What am I doing wrong? Or what am I not doing that I should be doing?
This is what my command looks like:
useradd -c dummy user -p password tjohnson
There is no -r switch in SuSE as there is in, say, RedHat.
------------------------------
From: "JSPL" <[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: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 00:02:47 -0500
Reply-To: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:C6u46.15025$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:CIk46.51464$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:fFj46.11915$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:u3R36.62473$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 31 Dec 2000
> 15:19:01
> > > > > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 30 Dec 2000
> 23:01:49
> > > > > >> [...]
> > > > > >> >While your at it, please show where Republicans have bent the
> rules.
> > > > > >> >After all, this is what T. Max was claiming, which is an
obvious
> > > > > >> >lie. I called him a liar, and I proved it. Now, prove why I am
a
> > > liar.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> You just did.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >You have a warped sense of lying.
> > > > >
> > > > > Guffaw.
> > > > >
> > > > > >You claimed that Republicans bent the rules. They did not, I
proved
> it,
> > > > > >thus proving you a liar.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, you claimed that the Democrats were trying to "subvert the
rule
> of
> > > > > law."
> > > >
> > > > Which they were. You didn't even answer the claims, instead stooping
> to
> > > > name calling.
> > > >
> > > > > I merely pointed out, which caused you to thrash wildly in
> > > > > partisan posturing,
> > > >
> > > > Spare me the story telling, Grandpa.
> > > >
> > > > > that unless you can recognize that the Republicans
> > > > > were doing the same thing,
> > > >
> > > > Which they weren't. You have not made one attempt to even back this
> claim
> > > up.
> > > > This was the claim, in fact, that I proved you were lying, or, at
> least,
> > > > grossly ignorant.
> > > >
> > > > > and to the same degree, then your
> > > > > consideration of the reality of the situation is obviously, and
> deeply,
> > > > > flawed.
> > > >
> > > > Please show me ONE, just ONE example where the Republicans "bent"
the
> law.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Watergate
> >
> > In the Florida Election process.
> >
> > If you want to go into the past and point out times when Dems and Reps
> broke
> > the law, I could cite far more Democratic law-breakings.
> >
> > Anyhow, Nixon did that on his own, that wasn't sanctioned by the RNC,
> whereas
> > this Florida fixing was sactioned by the DNC.
> >
>
> As opposed to the Republican Sherrif's setting up roadblocks to intimidate
> African American voters on their way to the polls.
It didn't seem to intimidate the busloads who were lured lured to the polls
with promises of free cigarettes and wine by the democrats though.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
