Linux-Advocacy Digest #270, Volume #31 Fri, 5 Jan 01 15:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm pst. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Almost 60% Surveyed Plan To Install Windows 2000 ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Hugh O'Hare")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Something is / was 20-years BEHIND other OS vendors ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Marc L. Cohen")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Marc L. Cohen")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Almost 60% Surveyed Plan To Install Windows 2000 (Shane Phelps)
Re: Linux, it is great. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) ) (Peter Hayes)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
(Peter Hayes)
Re: Need help with NT (Peter Hayes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm pst.
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 13:06:18 -0600
Jim Broughton wrote:
> The new linux kernel 2.4.0 has finaly been released.
I'm looking at Joe Pranevich's technical summary on Linux Today,
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-01-05-007-04-NW-LF-KN.
It looks like the new thing that may have the most real-world impact is
the support for I2O devices. These use a "generic" OS-independent
driver. If companies actually start writing their drivers to this
standard, that would mean that Linux would support their new gidgets the
day they hit the shelves in your local computer store.
And it's hard to see why companies *wouldn't* use I2O. Maybe Linux and
the Mac are minority OSes, but I'm sure vendors would still be glad to
have that extra 10-15% of the market covered.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Almost 60% Surveyed Plan To Install Windows 2000
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 13:13:01 -0600
Larry R wrote:
> I don't know who they surveyed, but I don't believe them. Excerpt from
> Information Week email subscription:
>
> ** Almost 60% Surveyed Plan To Install Windows 2000
They've been saying that since several years before it was released. And
now that it has been out for a year, it's still "going to". Makes you
wonder.
Of course, it may actually happen, eventually. MS doesn't like people
running old stuff that has been paid for when they could be running new
stuff that they have to pay for again instead. You can bet MS will find a
way to push people off NT onto 2K.
But the real question, assuming the 60% is correct, is this: why only 60%
? Isn't this the vaunted Unix killer?
60% is a dismal failure for a monopoly's latest offering.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Hugh O'Hare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.freebsd,comp.os.openbsd,comp.os.netbsd,comp.os.inferno
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 19:18:12 -0000
"israel raj thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The reality is that nowdays, there is a range of operating systems now
> ( NT, 2000Pro , 2000Server , 2000 Advanced Server, NetBSD, OpenBSD,
> Inferno or even Linux that routinely whip OS/2's ass.Face it,
> operating system theory and practice have come a long way since OS/2.
Since OS/2? You speak as if OS/2 is a thing of the past. It's far from that.
Very much alive and kicking and so much better than any of the Windows
offereings you mentioned above.
If operating system theory has progressed as you say, Microsoft has learned
very little about what makes for stable code.
Microsoft has gained its current market presence through a combination of:
strong arm tactics agianst legitimate competition.
Excellent marketing skills
Restrictive supply an royalty deals with hardware and software vendors (as
outlined in DOJ verdict).
Their operating systems lack stability and backward compatability with
previous versions and applications.
Why should a user have to upgrade major applications such as SQL Server and
MS Exchange just to make use of Active Directory.
This has long been an approach by Microsoft who being a software only
company must depend on being able to resell the same products repackaged in
the different wrapper to the same customer base to survive.
The reason Active Directory exists is because proper directory services
didn't exist in the original design of NT and was very quickly realised to
be a major design flaw which Microsoft made no attempt to correct.
Active Directory is a kludge and is so tortuous to set up in conjunction
with other applications that I had the experience recently of watching a
very embarassed MicroSoft Systems Engineer lose his way through a
demonstration at the Edinburgh International Conference Centre, Scotland.
Following which it was noticed and reported recently that several senior
managers at Microsoft have left the company unnanounced and almost
simultaneous with the departure of Paul Allen co-founder of MicroSoft.
The reasons given for Mr. Allen's departure were ill-health but taken
together with the recent abdication of Bill Gates from CEO it gives rise to
a question concerning the confidence of the company in its board of
directors.
This may be the start of the slippery slope for Microsoft whose notion of
the .net technology as the way forward has been received with about as much
enthusiasm as a damp squib. Who in their right mind is going to trust vital
and confidential corporate data to the vagaries of the net and the integrity
of faceless individuals running servers situated perhaps thousands of miles
away. The whole scenario is a recipe for disaster.
The stock market wasn't amused either for on the announcement of Paul
Allen's departure the company stock value fell 19c/share.
For one so vehemently supportive of MicroSoft it's a real pity that you
don't have a better grasp of the facts and experience of real life usage to
support your view.
Regards,
Hugh
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 21:02:55 +0200
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:932c5b$ju6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9306l2$5sc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Because although it knows the options change, it has no idea of
> > > > > HOW they change. For example, if optionA is now deprecated, and
> > > > > those who set optionA to valueA should now set optionB to valueB,
> > > > > it won't know, and it will (in Gus Grissom's words) screw the
> > > > > pooch.
> > > >
> > > > The program doesn't need to remember the settings, it read them from
> > > > the file.
> > >
> > > And the setting is still the old one.
> >
> > No, because when the program installed itself, it would either
> > replace the file with a new, default one, or update the file format.
>
> So, you have the choice of losing the configuration or hope there's
> a converting tool.
Of course there would be.
See below.
> > > > A new version will update the file, and should covert the old
> > > > file format to the new format with more/less/updated options.
> > >
> > > No program ever comes with config file updaters.
> >
> > How hard would it be to write such a thing.
> > Or be backward compatible?
>
> If you just expect them to be backward compatible, you end as smb.conf,
> with a bazillion options that work and are more or less the same.
No, I don't expect it to be backward compatible, actually.
I expect the program makers to be able to read the file and change the file
format to include the new options & won't include the old settings which are
no longer include in the new version.
> And it can indeed be a terribly difficult thing to do.
I disagree.
> > > The format is the same. The options are not.
> >
> > I know, so?
> > It's the program's fault for keeping an old, no-longer-supported
> > format, as its config file.
>
> Who cares? The user is still left with a non-functional setup.
Whose fault is it?
If I install a new program I fully expect it to be able to read the old
format and covert it to the new one.
> And this is really the easy part, still. What happens if you have
> interdependent settings? For instance, What happens if a global
> default setting changes the options available for others?
>
> For example:
>
> if A is "a", then B can be "1" or "2".
> if A is "b", then B can be "3" or "4".
> if A is "c", then B must be "5".
Check the file, it now has dependencies check.
I'll improve it sometimes this week.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 21:08:05 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:NmS46.54285$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:92vara$i8r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:kWy46.53665$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Yes there is a list of commands, but they don't have much to do with
> > > administering the machine. Where do I find the command that would
> > > add or remove an ip addresses for example. There is one, but where
> > > do I find it and it's documentation?
> >
> > ipconfig
>
> Let me try again. Where do I find this command and it's documentation,
> unless you meant to imply that the correct way to find out about this
> hidden functionality is to ask on usenet? Where are the on-line
> manual pages for this new stuff?
Of course not, you open the help.
Go to Index, type Command Line, and look there until you find command line
utilities
It tells you to go to command-line utilities
There you've a section that is called "command-line utilities, TCP/IP
services and utilities"
Or you can use the search "command line ip" will result in
"Windows 2000 Support Tools" as the first result, go there, go to MS-Dos
Tools
It's there.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Something is / was 20-years BEHIND other OS vendors
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 21:09:42 +0200
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les Mikesell wrote:
> >
> > "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:_Zb56.146544$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > X is a Windowing system for UNIX and POSIX compliant platforms. The
POSIX
> > > standard for an X Windowing system is IEEE regulated, isn't it?
> > >
> > > If XFree86 complies with the IEEE standard for an X Windowing system
by
> > IEEE
> > > standards, and because the IEEE does NOT recognize any other methods
for a
> > > graphical user interface, can we not therefor concider XFree86 a GUI?
> >
> > No, X is a protocol. It provides a mechanism for a GUI, not a policy.
> >
> > > With all other components to the GUI concidered just that; components?
> >
> > The other components *are* the GUI.
>
> Ever get the feeling that Kyle is still in junior high school...
No, but I got the feeling that you are.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD {TLC;RETAIL} (Win98; U)
I've yet to see a message from you that doesn't contain this in the headers.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 21:14:15 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > > Hell, the last time I've seen BSOD was when I was running the funny
> > > > screensaver.
> > >
> > > You take good care of your system!
> >
> > The screen saver I was talking about was a BSOD screen saver, which
amuses
> > me to no end.
> > I've not seen a real BSOD in a *long* time.
>
> I know, I loaded that screensaver. It scared me the first few times!!!
> The newer version of that screensaver also simulates Win 2000 problems.
> Haven't tried it yet. I should mark on the calendar the last time
> I booted to Win 2000.
It isn't very good, because it's only for Win2K Pro.
Try to do it on server and it will show the Win2K Pro startup screen.
It does work on Whistler, though.
------------------------------
From: "Marc L. Cohen" <[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?
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 13:13:31 -0600
Nick Saxon wrote:
>
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 03:43:48 -0600, Richard Steiner wrote:
>
> FYI: ALL is implemented in EPM.
But, in EPM it copies those lines to a new file. You are not editing the
original file any longer. You can switch back and forth between the
original and the subset, but it is not the same as XEDIT ALL.
>
>
> Nick
------------------------------
From: "Marc L. Cohen" <[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?
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 13:09:33 -0600
> >
> > Some folks have really WEIRD ideas about editing text! :-)
>
> IBM is apparently unaware that PUNCH CARDS were virtually phased out over 10 years
>ago...
>
And XEDIT was developed over 20 years ago....
------------------------------
From: [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?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 19:32:42 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner) writes:
>
>The network and the host machine isn't involved in any of those things.
>Only when the Transmit key or selection function keys are hit is any
>sort of signal sent outside the terminal itself because the base UTS is
>intelligent enough to interpret the field descriptors that the host
>painted on its screen.
>
>Don't assume that all terminals are patterned after DEC's brain-dead
>streaming VT-xxx designs...
>
I had a control several years ago with the same design - a Video Display
Terminal in hardware which did all the editing internally, then when you
were satisfied, hit the "Transmit" key and all edits were incorporated.
The funny part is this control used a DEC PDP-11 for the computer :-)
--
härad ængravvåd
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Almost 60% Surveyed Plan To Install Windows 2000
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 06:51:26 +1100
Jay Hunter wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >
> >I'll bet that after a lot of those Lose 2000 upgrades occur....a lot
> >of Microshaft-friendly IT managers will be out on the streets.
> >
>
> I'll take that bet. No one ever lost a job by recommending/using Windows.
.... or IBM ;-)
> And what would have them run, Linux? hehehhehe... Not yet...
Depends on the software requirements. I've yet to see a convincing
reason to switch from NT 4 to W2K (NT 5)
... and neither do the companies upgrading, apparently:
[ from the original post ]
>> Among a narrower sample of 100 IT managers at companies with 1,000
>> or more employees that are either running or deploying Windows 2000,
>> or plan to deploy within six months, 23% of respondents say their
>> Windows 2000 rollouts are part of regular upgrade cycles, and 21%
>> say they're upgrading to achieve better system reliability. Sixteen
>> percent of respondents say their decision was driven by application
>> software that requires the new software. Other reasons cited include
>> staying current with industry standards and the competition (18%)
>> and better security (11%).
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, it is great.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 19:48:12 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Why does Microsoft think anyone has to hide that compels them to put
> spy-on-the-user code in their products?
What spy-on-the-user code? You know, when I use my PC, I don't see it
dialing up to inform Microsoft anything about what I'm using. Even when I
do dial up, I don't see any extra activity that shouldn't be there. Oh
yeah, I do run a firewall that informs me when any application tries to use
the internet.
Hmmm... maybe this application is being bypassed by Microsoft and informing
them what I'm doing... blimey! Talk about paranoia!
Shouldn't Microsoft being breaking my door down because I use non-Microsoft
products - like Netscape, The Bat!, Borland's Delphi etc.? And a whole host
of other non-Microsoft packages?
> Mind if I put a bunch of web-cam around the interior of your house,
> with explosive-charges that can be detonated if you *EVER* tamper
> with any of them...
You can leave the explosive charges off and I'll decide where the camera's
go.
> > Are you (...gasp...) doing something you shouldn't be doing?
>
> Are you?
No.
8)
I notice you didn't answer the question.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 19:58:28 +0000
> >
> > Gates has a a great mind. He is a marketing genius. But a shit
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You misspelled "Racketeering and Extorsion expert with a good PR department."
>
He may do that now, but at some point he didn't have a virtual monopoly
in the desktop market, and he still sold a load of crap.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
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: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 19:51:33 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 14:51:38 +0100, Jure Sah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Peter Hayes wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Right, I can't ask you that... What about this: What's your CD drive and
> who wired your computer?
It's a laptop, built by Gateway, and the drive is the combined CD / floppy
popular with various laptop builders.
Boots fine if the CD / floppy package is removed from the computer.
Weird :-)
Peter
------------------------------
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: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 19:51:34 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 04:29:30 GMT, "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<snip>
> > 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....
> >
> > Peter
>
> Sounds like you have real computing problems.
I'm thinking of reinstalling 'ME to see what happens.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Need help with NT
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 19:58:32 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 03:15:20 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Peter Hayes wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 02:08:34 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "John G. Sandell" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Problem with friend's NT system at work -
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > Any suggestions?
> > >
> > > Buy RedHat 7.2 and install it.
> > >
> > > Problem solved.
> >
> > Didn't know RedHat 7.1 was out, let alone 7.2
>
> Whoops, brain fart.
>
> Buy Red Hat *6.2* and install it.
Now *that* I can agree with. 6.2 might not have the flash of some distros,
but it installs in minutes, is fast and rock solid.
Peter
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
