Linux-Advocacy Digest #256, Volume #31 Fri, 5 Jan 01 03:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Why NT? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Microsoft hurts the reputation of software engineers. (Donn Miller)
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Would Linux be invented if? ("kiwiunixman")
Re: Linux, it is great. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windows 2000 (Pete Goodwin)
RPM Hell (BradyBear)
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("kiwiunixman")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why NT?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:45:04 +0000
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) wrote:
> I've told this story a few times, but here it is again.
>
> When I was working at Computer Consoles back in 1983, we purchased
> some VAX 11/7x0 Minicomputers because we wanted to run Berkely 4.0
> on it (BSD had just released).
>
> Unfortunately, the DEC reps got almost NO commission on BSD and
> HUGE commissions on VMS, not to mention huge commissions on VMS
> applications. The DEC rep saw 4 huge vaxen in our computer rooms
> but no $2 million bonus and commission checks.
>
> DEC published a fix tape for VMS and the DEC rep decided to come
> up and "FIX" the CCI vaxen. He came unannounced, managed to get
> upstairs and into the computer room, and proceeded to format
> the RM80 drive (which had root and /usr partitions on it) and
> installed VMS and applied the service pack.
>
> Of course, there were 200 users plugged into these machines (not
> much more powerful 80386/4 with 2 500 meg drives) who were suddenly
> all over the sysadmin because the computer was down.
>
> The sales rep looked so happy and proud. He said "I came here to
> fix up your VMS system and realized some hacker had been playing
> with the disk drive, so I reinstalled VMS and applied that bug fix.
That's an interesting story. Did you report this guy to Digital? What was
the outcome? You see, I find it hard to believe someone from Digital could
be as dishonest as you say he is.
> The sysadmin smiled, walked the rep down to the guard's desk,
> and gently tugged the man's shoulder as he got the guard's attention.
> He then said to the guard; "Get to know this man's face very well.
> If he attempts to leave this desk without me present - shoot him!
Anyone I know at Digital would have reacted to this threat. Your story
starts to sound more and more like an "urban legend" than actual fact.
> Eventually, the Rep would make an appointment to come, after hours,
> at which time, the sysadmin would remove the UNIX drive from the RM80
> and install a "dummy VMS pack" that couldn't even see the 6 300 meg
> CDC "washing-machine" drives sitting next to each processor.
For that to occur the guy from Digital would have to be unbelievably thick.
> > Thousands of VMS people? There weren't
> > that many working at Spitbrook.
> > A few hundred maybe. The rest of us (the thousands
> > you mention) with VMS skills moved on - in my case,
> > UNIX and Windows.
>
> According to the press releases DEC reduce the VMS staffing by over
> 3000 people. I believe the entire series of staffing cuts was nearly
> 5000 of 8000 from 1990 to the time of their merger with Compaq. This
> included sales, marketing, manufacturing, and field support.
I did say Spitbrook, where OpenVMS was developed. The rest of Engineering
was heavily cut, that covers the rest of the world.
> And yes, many of them did learn UNIX.
Yes, I learnt it before this reduction in staffing.
> > Your comments come across as insulting propoganda, BTW.
>
> I think UNIX lovers and VMS lovers have a mutual respect
> for each other, but they get frustrated with each other's machines.
> I loved BLISS and RDB, but RMS and DCL were a PAIN!!!
BLISS!!! Blimey, talk about a non-standard language. You do realise the
usage of BLISS was phased out slowly, that everything started to switch to
C over time!
As for DCL being a pain, it made more sense to me than the peculiarities of
each individual shell on UNIX.
> Yes. Very nice system. RDB was one of the best
> parts of VMS. The overruns I was talking about
> were the NT projects which were based on estimates
> that were competitive with UNIX bids.
You think RDB was one of the better parts of VMS... 8)
> The problem was that X11 for Windows 3.1 was horribly buggy
> (windows DLLs would crash), Windows 95 was only slightly
> better, and NT 4.0 had traffic limits. One of the earliest
> successes of Linux desktops was a site that used X11 for
> monitoring network traffic. Win95 on a large desktop machine
> failed. Windows NT on a huge desktop machine (128 meg RAM, 4 gig
> drive, 100/T LAN...) also crashed every few hours.
The project I worked on used ODBC to connect to the database (and that
meant whatever proprietary protocol was need to connect to the database via
whatever network was supported) and CORBA.
The product worked on Windows 95 and NT; I don't remember either of those
crashing every few hours.
> > So we rewrote our massive text based front end as a GUI on Windows.
>
> Dedicated "Thick Client" GUI or Web browser interface?
Dedicated "Thick client". I can't see how a web browser interface would
have been faster or slicker than what we created. We needed to display
large lists and tree structures, something not available in a sensible form
in a web browser.
> It's funny how "the curses program from hell" turns into a trivial
> CGI or "mod_perl" script.
Our UI was originally written in IFDL, a huge translated text based system.
> Linux was gaining acceptance as a server. The GUI was actually
> superior to Windows 3.1 or 3.51 but it took almost 4 months to emulate
> the Windows 95 desktop. Ironically, when users were given the
> choice between fvwm2, fvwm95, afterstep, and KDE, the "windows 95
> look and feel" wasn't that popular.
Because we were Digital we used Digital UNIX. Also neither Oracle nor
Informix produced a free version of their products.
You think the GUI was superior? 8)
> Windows 2000 is MUCH BETTER. But it still isn't near as good as
> Linux and UNIX are.
Depends what you mean by "Linux" here. If you mean Linux on its own, I
might agree with you. If you mean Linux + GUI, there here we disagree.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: 5 Jan 2001 07:44:08 GMT
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:12:49 +0800, Todd wrote:
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> You fucking dumbass.
>
>Are all Linux users like this?
No -- Mr Kulkis is one of a kind. I think we're unanimous on this one.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: 5 Jan 2001 07:45:10 GMT
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:09:08 +0800, Todd wrote:
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> chrisv wrote:
>> >
>> > "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict. MS did not break the law.
>> > >
>> > >-Todd
>> >
>> > You're an idiot, Todd.
>>
>> Specifically, Todd Needham, Microshaft employee
>
>You Linux users are wrong many times. Here is another example.
"You Linux users" may take offence if you confuse them with
Mr Kulkis.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: 5 Jan 2001 07:46:20 GMT
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 15:08:02 +0800, Todd wrote:
>
>"chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Nope... appeals *will* overturn the verdict. MS did not break the law.
>> >
>> >-Todd
>>
>> You're an idiot, Todd.
>
>We will see when the verdict is overturned. Who will be the idiot then?
Nahhh .. the verdict isn't going to be overturned, so why not just call
him an idiot now and spare yourself the wait ?
--
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: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:51:31 +0000
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> That would depend on how good the extensions were, and how good the
> ideas were. An API that's constantly being extended to incorporate new
> ideas would be something of a monstrous nightmare, as an API, if the
> extensions were not well designed, or the ideas were not particularly
> good to begin with.
I did say "not always wisely".
> From my own experience, abandoning my oath to avoid dichotomies, I can
> characterize all the developers I've heard or read entirely and
> completely into two groups:
>
> A) Those who think Windows is wonderful, Win32 is wonderful,
> monopolization is wonderful (or at least inevitable and beneficial), and
> generally (possibly coincidentally) can't hold up their end of a
> reasoned argument or otherwise engage in reasonable debate in explaining
> why, but inevitably resort to arguments from ignorance, second-guessing
> the market, and generally spouting Microsoft hype in place of factual
> results.
>
> B) Those who agree that Windows APIs as a whole are generally monstrous
> nightmares.
I think you need more groups, because I certainly don't think WIN32 is
wonderful, and neither do I believe the Windows API is a monstrous
nightmare.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 02:53:54 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft hurts the reputation of software engineers.
Darren Winsper wrote:
> I have to agree with you there, to an extent. However, take a look at
> things like IE. Microsoft have probably outdone themselves there.
> What's their cometition? Opera with its god-awful UI and hopeless DOM
> support, and Netscape 6 which is very buggy.
Sounds like the world could use a few good web browsers. The last time
I tried Konqueror, I was impressed. The Java worked in just a few
cases, but was operational. The only thing bad thing about Konqueror is
that you have to install KDE, i.e., kde(support|libs|base). Well,
that's not necessarily a bad thing if you like KDE. I did try running
Konqueror outside of KDE itself, with nothing more than WindowMaker
running. It worked OK, except now Java applets opened an external
window instead of running inside the browser itself.
I'm not knocking KDE or anything, so don't get me wrong. I just like to
minimize the dependencies when I install seperate components. KDE is a
fine thing, to be sure. But it wouldn't be so bad to see other
environments. I just wish there were such a thing as this one true
ideal unified unix desktop environment(tm), so that we could focus all
our energies on one particular desktop.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:56:24 +0000
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >I see, so I have to work in the LCD do I?
>
> Yes.
That's what lost us the argument, when I was working on a large project
back in Digital. People didn't want the crude "lowest common denominator"
style GUI's. They wanted a native GUI. Windows was it.
> >WIN32 isn't always changing. It's being extended.
>
> You said it was always changing. You were right. As for being
> 'extended', that's the monopoly integrating away competition.
So you say. Some extensions are not, as you put it, "the monopoly
integrating away comptetion".
> Under the heels of a monopoly which has stymied any innovation they
> can't profiteer on, wondering why every version is more worthless than
> the one before it.
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.
> >>> Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
> >>
> >>Or is he?
> >
> >Well, this is being posted with KNode. I would have thought that was
> >obvious if you examine the message headers. I could of course, be faking
> >it, but why would I do that?
> >
> >Are you really so paranoid as to believe that I, someone who actually
> >likes Windows, that I might lie about what I'm running?
> >
> >If that is the case, then I can only pity you.
>
> His point was that you seemed bemused why cross-platform development
> would be a good idea, when you obviously use both Windows and Linux. If
> you are actually ignorant about the value of cross-platform development,
> when you use more than one platform yourself, then I think your pity is
> mis-directed, or possibly simply a rhetorical fabrication made by
> someone too dim-witted to understand their own circumstances.
I think you're reading a little too much into this statement. I think he
was saying he didn't believe I'm running KDE2 on Linux. That's what I
responded to. You, on the other hand, are selectively picking up on
something else better to demonstrate your point, but a little off context
to the thread.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would Linux be invented if?
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 07:55:53 GMT
either that or the new VW beatle
kiwiunixman
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> kiwiunixman wrote:
> >
> > Correct, what would you rather have, a Mercedes Benz or a Ford Falcon?
I
> > would rather have the Mercedes Benz!
>
> Depends on the Mercedes. Mercedes only exports their luxury lines.
>
> In Europe, most Mercedes that are sold are more along the line of
Chevrolets.
>
>
> >
> > kiwiunixman
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Charlie Ebert wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > Donn Miller wrote:
> > > > >You forgot Plan 9. When I had this particular interview, the
person
> > > > >doing the hiring said that Windows NT is easier to use than unix.
He
> > > > >also said that a lot of software was being ported to Windows from
unix,
> > > > >so that makes it a good reason to switch. (*Shrugs*. This is a
good
> > > > >reason to switch?!) Departments switching from unix to NT also
cite
> > > > >that fact that Windows has the great clipboard thingie, and that
you
> > can
> > > > >do all kinds of sophisticated OLE stuff with it. For example, if
you
> > do
> > > > >some analysis with engineering software, you can select the data,
or
> > > > >click on a graph for example, and select "copy" from the menu.
And --
> > > > >get this -- brace yourself -- Windows' clipboard is so neat and
> > > > >ulta-sophisticated, it allows you to select what kind of data you'd
> > like
> > > > >to paste into your document. For example, you can select "plain
text",
> > > > >"word document", and "bitmap". Dammit, X11 doesn't have anything
near
> > > > >this sophisticated, so I suppose that automatically makes Windows
NT
> > > > >better. Besides, they say, unix isn't a good OS to use unless you
are
> > > > >doing intensive computational projects, or running a server.
> > > >
> > > > I wonder what people would think about this idea.
> > > >
> > > > If there were no Microsoft and Windows was never invented.
> > > >
> > > > If we still had Novel and Apple battling it out with Unix's,
> > > > WOULD THERE HAVE BEEN LINUX?
> > > >
> > > > I think the answer to that is YES.
> > > >
> > > > Linus mastered Linux because he wanted a replacement for Minix.
> > > >
> > > > Linus had no vision of conquering Microsoft at all. This was
> > > > never his objective.
> > > >
> > > > Isn't it funny how all those companies who HAD OBJECTIVES to
> > > > conquer Windows failed and the one who was just playing one
> > > > year with a kernel with NO AMBITIONS WHAT-SO-EVER will be
> > > > the one to topple Microsoft.
> > >
> > > Thus, QUALITY was the primary goal, instead of marketing.
> > >
> > > High quality sells itself.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This is the work of god.
> > >
> > > No...its the work of quality.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Charlie
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, it is great.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:58:34 +0000
JM wrote:
> So you wouldn't mind if I put a camera in your bathroom and taping it
> all? I know I would't mind watching the tapes...
That's a particularly bad example. Why would anyone want to watch me do the
usual things in a bathroom?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:03:11 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > I've seen you reply to 100+
> > line posts, where your only contribution (if it can be called that) was
> > to write LOSE (or some variant) where the original poster had written
> > Win[32|NT|dows]. Is there some point to you doing this?
>
> Annoys the fuck out of you, doesn't it.
It demonstrates how little you contribute to this group. It hardly annoys
anyone, but when you post, because of the way you post, people pay little
attention to what you have to say, because you've amply demonstrated your
inability to hold a sensible conversation.
BTW, your signal to noise ratio is still very low. When are you going to
learn and change that? (BTW: that was a rhetorical question - you're
incapable of learning, so it won't change).
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: BradyBear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RPM Hell
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 08:02:23 GMT
Well, I decided to give KDE 2.0.1 a shot. So I downloaded all the
relevent rpm,s. But before I can install my shiny new desktop, I need
to install the latest version of QT. So, I go grab QT2.2.3. Great. Got
the rpm, type rpm -i and I get failed dependancies... qt needs lib.so
this and that etc. So I do a search on rpmfind and find three packages
that I need. Package one needs me to upgrade rpm. So I go get the rpm
update. Package one now installs. Package two still needs another
lib.so.etc. Installing pakage three will break App A. So now I need
to upgrade App A and the whole damn thing starts over (more failed
dependencies, more broken app's) and the whole thing escalates
exponentially until I've basically had to update the whole damn OS.
The whole time I'm doing this, I keep thinking of the last line from
the movie "The Bridge over the River Kwie" ... Madness...Madness.
And it seems appropriate. Build a bridge so you can blow it up.
That's Linux
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 08:06:15 GMT
There is a gradual move back to centralised computing (esp. in the area of
telemarketing) due to its very Low TCO when the cost is spread over a large
orgnistation, hence, the server needs to be "multi-user" and with this
demand, the OS must also be able to handle and process thousands of requests
per second. NT does not, and never will, have the scalability required to
undertake massive tasks such as Centralised processing until Microsoft fixes
the fundemental flaws in NT achitecture. This is where UNIX comes into
play. Although you could use NT's "success" in the e-commerce area as an
example of scalability, the fact remains that Windows was chosen over UNIX
due to unix's complexity when setting up the transaction side of the server.
Hence, the selection of NT was never based on the fact that NT was superior,
but because it was easier. However, this flaw in UNIX has been addressed
(by the iplanet alliance), and you will find that later (when companies
decide to upgrade etc) they will dump NT for UNIX.
kiwiunixman
"tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:eR00B6ndAHA.319@cpmsnbbsa09...
> 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.
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
