Linux-Advocacy Digest #242, Volume #31 Thu, 4 Jan 01 15:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (*)
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("tony roth")
Re: Linux can be made unstable, too. (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (John Brock)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
) (Peter Hayes)
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com ("Nigel
Feltham")
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com ("Nigel
Feltham")
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 18:04:56 GMT
In article <UxL46.129194$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Functionality". Is the ability to perform tasks in simple maners
> that don't involve complicated steps.
Oops. Sorry, I thought we were speaking english around here.
That's "simplicity", not functionality. You want your operating
system to be easy, not functional. Your choice, of course.
> Under Linux, I call this "duh functionality". The ability to do
> something that feels natural, like DRAG AND DROP functionality.
> Sure, I can drag and drop files from location to location under GMC,
> but can I Drag and Drop those FILES to applications on my GNOME
> programs menu and open them? NO!
Last I checked, that worked, IIRC. I don't have GNOME near, but
I just checked it in KDE2, and it works just fine. Actually, I can't
drag it to a menu, since the menus close when I start a drag, but I
dragged it into an icon, and it works just fine.
> Can I "reassoicate" files by selecting the "open with" option, and
> have the program I use added to a list of compatible "viewing" apps?
> NO!
KDE2: YES!
> Does Netscape query the GNOME file assoication system when dealing
> with internet files? No.
Use Konqueror.
> Do KDE and KDE2 programs function with the GNOME file assoication
> system?
> No.
Well, it depends on what you mean. I can trivially associate any
file type to a GNOME app from KDE, and it will be used.
> Do KDE2 program lists, and GNOME WM program lists syncronizse
> perfectly?
> (Or even at all under most circumstances?) No.
What program lists?
If I understood you correctly: use Mandrake, Suse or Debian. They have
systems in place for precisely that.
Or use one damn desktop only, and the synchronization problem ceases
to exist.
It will be less functional (according to the real meaning of the word),
but I suppose it will be more functional according to your definition.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 18:26:29 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Functionality". Is the ability to perform tasks in simple maners
> > that don't involve complicated steps.
>
> Oops. Sorry, I thought we were speaking english around here.
> That's "simplicity", not functionality. You want your operating
> system to be easy, not functional. Your choice, of course.
ahh. but nowhere does it say that what is functional cannot also be
simple. or as i prefer, intuitive.
it is a concept i think, that linux developers have had difficulty
grasping for the longest time.
y'r pal -kK
------------------------------
From: "tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:44:10 -0800
ok dumbass give me a good reason for a multi user server vs the
functionality provided by a typical nt server! oh boy this is going to be
fun :)
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Since you have such as vast knowledge regarding UNIX and Windows 2000,
> then you should know what it means. Why have I made this conclusion,
> because you make so-called educated conclusions regarding UNIX vs.
> Windows 2000, hence, you must experience with both platforms to make
> such sweeping statements, otherwise, what you are saying is hot air, and
> nothing more.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux can be made unstable, too.
Date: 04 Jan 2001 11:32:35 -0700
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes. Just run a lot of svgalib apps, and keep switching back and forth
> between the console and XFree86. Sometimes, XFree86 totally destroys
> the console video driver, and if it goes deep enough, it can also wreck
> the keyboard driver as well. Note that I am always able to telnet in to
> my box when XFree86 wreaks the console/keyboard, and kill XFree86.
> Machine operation goes back to normal.
>
> Unfortunately, it's just a home machine, so I have logins disabled, so I
> have no choice but to press the reset button. Granted, it doesn't
> happen very often (maybe once a year), but XFree86 can wreck a Linux
> box. It seems like XFree86 4, 4.0.1 have been making this happen more
> often. On a single-user box with logins disabled, this is as good as a
> crash.
>
> I say that even if it were possible to make a Linux box crash like this,
> it's still way faster and more responsive than a Windows box.
>
> I don't like Windows very much, as I am very much a Linux and FreeBSD
> advocate. But, I do try to be objective. I'm probably going to get
> blasted out of the window with the responses to this. 8-) Probably I'll
> see a lot of "well, what the hell were you doing running svgalib in the
> first place?????!!!!" The answer is in order for Linux to be an
> all-around good OS, a user should be able to use svgalib and alternate
> windowing systems on it if he/she chooses. In fact, I think it would be
> need to develop new graphics systems on Linux that are alternative to
> X. X is the best Windowing system for networked applications, to be
> sure. But, it sure would be neat to see some alternative ones being
> developed. Linux has to be good for more than just running X. You
> should be able to do whatever you want with it. The sky is the limit
> for open source systems.
I've had two instances in the 2 years I've been running Linux where X
has locked up my box so hard I had to hit the reset buttons. The
first time was about a year ago when I was trying to run a crappy kids
game under Wine. The second was recently when I was editing the
konqueror bookmark properties under KDE2. Both times,
Ctrl-Alt-Backspace and the Ctrl-Alt-F[0-9] keys were completely
unresponsive. I don't have any kind of network, so telnet was not an
option. The reset button was the only way to get out of it.
I've since converted all my partitions to ReiserFS (with the exception
of the boot partition, of course). If I ever have to power off
again, I know that the subsequent reboot is fast and reliable.
Of course anyone that is overly concerned about these fairly
infrequent crashes can always go out and purchase a commercial version
of X.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Brock)
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: 4 Jan 2001 14:07:24 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> Gary Hallock wrote:
>> > I thought vi sucked.
>> This is why you fail...
>>
>> Can't recognize superior technology.
>In my opinion, xedit is superior to vi.
Having used both extensively I have to agree. In particular I miss
the "ALL" command in Xedit, which has no counterpart in any other
editor I've used.
--
John Brock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 19:04:55 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:23:31 +0100, Jure Sah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Peter Hayes wrote:
> > I have a machine with 'ME on it that won't complete the boot process until
> > I hit the eject button on the CD drive. No CD needed, just eject the tray
> > and push it back. Maybe not exactly a "crash" but the next best thing....
>
> WTF of a kind of a computer do you have?!
A Gateway Solo 9100 266 MMX, about 3 years old. Works fine apart from that
small quirk.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:23:47 -0000
>The "cheap hardware" doesn't do the same task as the "overprice
>hardware". In fact, that's why its cheap; a winmodem uses the
>computer's hardware, and software, to do the same task as the real
>modem. You are correct in your thinking that this distinction does not
The real truth is that most (maybe all) winmodems are really only soundcards
with signal buffers added - this has been proved by www.linmodems.org who
have managed to use a linux network as a telephone exchange by using a
winmodem as a soundcard to digitise analog voice calls and pass them to
soundcards on any machine on the network.
At least 1 winmodem (lucent) now has a linux driver.
Most (maybe all) winprinters now also work on linux if you use 'cups'
printing
system to drive the printer (included in mandrake 7.1 - more info is
available
from www.cups.org and www.linuxprinting.org as well as downloadable drivers
for almost any printer).
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:27:58 -0000
>Choice is good - if customers could choose between cheap and functional
>winmodems (for example) or more expensive, but more reliable and flexible
>real modems, that would be fine. But customers are forced (through lack of
>information and lack of choice) to buy inferior winmodems, with very little
>real price difference.
>
Plus the fact that many new users had the modem pre-installed when they
bought the PC. If you buy a PC with free modem included how do new users
who are buying their first computer know they are not getting real hardware.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:41:14 +0000
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Actually, it might sound like I'm being a fanatic, but it appears
> there's a very large amount of rather convincing evidence that it was
> anti-competitive, indeed, illegal, behavior which is how, at a time when
> the industry was yelling for open standards and open systems, and having
> a great deal of success with it, "along came Windows", and Microsoft's
> proprietary system dominated the industry.
I think it was combination of the two.
> You said earlier that it was all sorts of threading and multi stuff that
> made re-implementing a program a breeze. And then you pointed out that
> by using this proprietary system, you lock yourself into it, because
> Microsoft doesn't have a good track record, shall we say, of supporting
> interoperability on 'exotic' libraries like audio and video.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
> You confuse the inherent benefits of proprietary products with some
> vague and unsupported acceptance of a proprietary *platform* for other
> products. It is natural for a programmer to choose the standard system,
> because it is the most reliable and dependable way to go. Proprietary
> products are OK for the proprietary features they provide, but allowing
> yourself to get locked in to using them is more short-sighted than you
> would expect a person capable of programming adequately to be.
Have you seen what you get when you go for open standard and multi platform
support. It kinda looks like you stepped backwards about ten years in time.
Of course, I'm referring to GUI applications, not applications in general.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:42:20 +0000
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Its a monopoly, as opposed to any kind of standard at all.
Monopolies of themselves are not a bad thing.
The things Microsoft has done to keep its monopoly are what's wrong.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:47:22 +0000
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Pointing out that someone is using a bit of hyperbole does not make
> their comments incorrect.
"A bit of hyperbole" is an understatement.
> >Correct. However Linux advocates here appear to represent this as typical
> >behaviour, not specific to their experience. That's misinformation.
>
> Bullshit.
Yeah right.
> >Be careful with your usage of COM. COM itself is merely a standard way of
> >representing interfaces, something that is present in Java (but not
> >called COM). That, of itself, is not any more stable or unstable as it
> >represents a binary contract (or description of a black box).
>
> Which is to say that it is, in truth and fact, as unstable as the rest
> of Microsoft's crapware.
So, interfaces in Java are unstable too?
> >If you're talking about implementations of COM servers that do different
> >things, that's a different story.
>
> Personally, I don't really care. It is not uncommon that the trolls who
> can't stand to hear Windows disparaged (the working hypothesis is that
> this makes them defensive, in fear that they will be exposed for having
> been simply making excuses for all those years, once it becomes common
> knowledge just how preposterously bad a product Windows is) will either
> argue technical design merit (the amassed 'benefits' of Win32 and
> OLE/ActiveX/COM/COM+ and whatever other closed APIs Microsoft wants to
> illegally monopolize) and ignore the routine use of predatory business
> strategies that ensure no more superior (existing!) efforts can aid the
> consumer in avoiding monopoly lock-in, or they will argue the 'success'
> of Windows, and, ignoring how ludicrously unreliable and poorly
> performing Windows is, trumpet these same "middleware" specifications as
> providing such terrific power and capabilities for application
> developers. Either the technical or the market line of the Microsoft
> Apologist resolve to the same duplicitous dichotomy; the monopolization
> of Win32 (et. al,), in addition to the monopolization of PC OSes in
> general.
We were talking about COM in general in this case, you seem to want to pull
the conversation back onto your favourite gripe.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:52:42 +0000
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >My point was that they are saying Windows this all the time. Period. No
> >qualification. No "on my system". That's misinformation.
>
> It may be hyperbole; it may be an exaggeration. Chances are FAR more
> likely, as any reasonable person is already aware, that it is simply a
> bit of rhetoric. The phrase "all the time" is often and widely used to
> indicate arbitrary but specifically high recurrence of a phenomenon. In
> fact, it is so obvious that Windows does fail 'all the time', in this
> way, yet does not fail *every single time*, that a reasonable person is
> forced to recognize that you are not being a reasonable person in your
> reading of the information being provided. That makes you an
> intellectually dishonest person, Pete, if its true.
Then let me see... what happens if I use the same level of hyperbole? Do I
get a reasonable conversation? Do I hell! You want your cake and eat it too!
> An conveniently, it ignores the fact that whether someone has been
> insulted is a subjective consideration, leaving you free to insult
> anyone you wish as much as you wish, as long as you don't "call them
> names", while providing you with a simple justification for adopting a
> passive-aggressive air of superiority.
"Shithead" is hardly subjective.
> >Besides, I don't believe Linux sucks.
>
> Yes, but you don't believe its much more powerful, useful, practical,
> and valuable than Windows. You don't recognize how pathetically bad
> Windows is. You don't realize that your opinion on these matters has
> been blinded entirely by monopolization. You don't understand what that
> means, either, I'll warrant.
I realise how prone Windows is to crashing (as I've often said). But as for
Windows 2000, I don't know the answer there yet.
As for being blinded by monopolisation, well, who knows? I use it because
it works just fine for me. When I use Linux, and I find it's GUI lags
behind Windows, what am I supposed to thinl? That magically Linux is still
superior to Windows? Huh?
> In the balance, you are certainly a less flagrant MS Apologist than,
> say, Erik Funchenbusch or 'JS/PL'. But sniping at people who say that
> Windows crashes 'all the time', or even 'every hour or so', in a fit of
> frustration with monopoly crapware; that definitely makes you an MS
> Apologist.
Well, fair enough. That certainly more polite than being called a shithead.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:55:57 +0000
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> That would potentially be a reason to spread information. But the
> question was, why do you spread FUD and criticize a different
> environment?
What FUD?
Why shouldn't I criticise something I see as inferior?
> I just wish it could. But, you know, though the wheels of justice may
> turn slowly, they do turn. And along about spring-time, I expect we'll
> see Windows being crushed by their inevitable movement.
Unless of course, politics means the monopoly case gets thrown out.
> I don't believe I recall reading any insults in the post, Pete. And it
> would be hyperbole similar to yours for me to feign surprise or
> amazement that you so enthusiastically and disingenuously responded.
In other posts.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: 4 Jan 2001 19:57:42 GMT
On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:40:40 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said chrisv in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 16:53:53 GMT;
>>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>No, what well-known fact. Sheesh.
>
>This is what people learn these days, huh? Bunch of soft-headed
>ignoramuses. The Supreme Court Decided, and that means the Democrats
>were wrong, huh? Get the fuck out of my newsgroup.
I think the fact that the vote was not unanimous and the fact that
the Florida court even bothered to listen to the arguments put forth
by the democrats in the first place implies that they at least had
a reasonable case, and were probably justified in pursuing it.
It's funny how these Republican zealots accuse the dems of breaking
the law -- I'd argue that it's for the courts to decide how the laws
are meant to be interpreted. The Rs prevailed, but it seems simple
minded at best, dishonest at worst, to pigeon-hole it as a case of
the democrats rewriting the rules.
And it's even more dishonest to hold the supreme court on a pedestal,
while at the same time dismissing the dissenting judges as "activist
judges" or something of the sort. I mean, one can't have it both ways.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:02:44 +0000
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >I did say not always wisely.
>
> But you did not say "predatorially", "badly", "monopolistically", "in an
> effort to prevent development outside their control", "in complete
> abeyance of consumer value", "despite the fact that it lowers the
> quality of their product", or "regardless of how efficient it is." That
> last is the telling blow; you were wise to avoid saying any of these
> things, since it would have been counter to your previous comments.
>
> Then again, its never to late to change your ways. Why not try to think
> harder, and stop being a passive-aggressive troll of a Microsoft
> apologist?
Let me see, what "predatorial" things can I think of in the latest
additions to the WIN32 API. Let's take a specific example, DirectX 8.
DirectX 8 appears to making it simpler to code 3D graphics. Now, does that
sound "predatorial", "badly", "monopolistically", etc.?
I use Borland's Delphi to develop software, including 3D software. I'm not
prevented to do so by Microsoft (after all, they can't be interested in me
using a non-Microsoft product, now can they?).
Now can I think of anything that might fit what you say - yes I can. I've
heard rumours to the effect that Internet Explorer uses an undocumented API
to get faster graphics than Netscape. I've also seen what DLL's get shipped
with Internet Explorer - various general purpose things that have no reason
to be part of Internet Explorer _other_ than to force you to have IE
installed on your system.
So, in one case, Microsoft are doing the right thing. In another, the wrong
thing. So what the hell should I believe? The Linux zealots all baying for
Microsoft's blood and portraying it as a company one shade less of Nazism
or a drug dealer, or one that has been caught and ought to change its ways,
but is not as bad as they make it out to be?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
