Linux-Advocacy Digest #275, Volume #31 Fri, 5 Jan 01 18:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! ("kiwiunixman")
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Would Linux be invented if? (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? ("Nigel Feltham")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 00:48:02 +0200
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:935baf$5ob$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9356ot$rqr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "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.
>
> Never seen one, really. Why would program writers do it?
Assuming that there would be a common file format, there would be GPL/LGPL
functions/classes/programs to read/write/convert it.
> > 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.
>
> Then I don't understand what you wrote.
>
> > 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.
>
> You are expecting the program maker to write a config file converter.
> I still see no reason why they will bother. Not to mention that doing
> so becomes more difficult each version.
No, I'm expecting it to use a GPL/LGPL tool to convert it.
> > > And it can indeed be a terribly difficult thing to do.
> >
> > I disagree.
>
> You know, I *did* have to write such a thing (krnconvert, check it out
> in KRN 0.6.9, it didn't quite work) and it was a nightmare. Now, why
> do you say it will be easy? Is it just a belief?
I'm assuming wide-spread use of this file format, if that would be the case,
there would be GPL/LGPL ways to deal with it.
If that would be the case, then a programmer would only need to fetch those
functions & use them.
Reading from the file itself is a non-trivial task compare to the fscanf you
need to read from a flat text file that linux programs use today.
I'm assuming the existance of ways to deal with it.
> > > > > 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?
>
> I DON'T CARE! In these issues, knowing whose fault it is and a nickel
> will get you a small coin.
>
> > 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.
>
> You haven't installed much software, have you?
Only a couple of thousands of applications.
> > > 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.
>
> What file?
http://www10.ewebcity.com/ayende/lmc.xml
> > I'll improve it sometimes this week.
>
> You are shifting the complexity around. You moved the dependency
> checking from the config tool into the file format. Now the file
> format is less human readable. Writing a config file from scratch
> is now almost impossible. Way to go!
I think that a common file format such as the one in the file above is worth
the disadvantages you mentioned.
Someone else could write a better file format, more human readable.
> Complexity doesn't usually vanish in the air, and I see no signs of
> this particular instance doing that.
Userwise, it does.
The user can configure all his programs from one tool, and I don't mean
pico, and he can see all the options that are opened to him.
Personally, I think it's worth the trouble, you apperantly disagree.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 17:51:16 -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:
>
> What part of GLOBAL doesn't apply to all?
>
There is a lot more to ALL than just find all occurrences of a simple
string. Once it displays the lines, you can edit them, execute ALL with a
different pattern, show lines above or below then matching lines. And when
you are done, ALL with no arguments will display the entire file, with any
changes that have been made.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 11:56:39 +1300
lol
kiwiunixman
"Jacques Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> kiwiunixman wrote:
>
> > As I have always said, for every 1 Linux moaner there are 5 happy Linux
> > users.
>
> Right on! Count me with the moaners. Wot, I haven't found a way to
> reset to score board of the Shisen-Sho game provided with Mandrake
> 7.0. Clearly, Linux sucks... er.... Lie-nux suxx (Tim, where are
> you when I need you?). The solution, however, is obvious: do a
> low-level format on my two hard disks, upgrade my RAM to 256M,
> shell out a few hundred, and, joy of joys! install Windows 2000,
> with fingers crossed -- will my antiquated Syquest drive show up?
> How about my Scanjet? Oh, it's only a (biiiig) fistful of dollars.
> I am fond of saying "Money grows back, life does not." Sure.
> I'll plant my money elsewhere than in Redmond.
> Like, in a few bottles of malt whisky. At least, I get a choice
> there.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 22:55:01 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 5 Jan 2001
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > There are file format converters available so that early versions of
>Office
>> > programs can open files from later versions. And, funnily enough,
>they're
>> > available free of charge from Microsoft's web site.
>>
>> Note that Microsoft did not offer these until AFTER forcing
>> all competing WYSIWYG editors out of the market.
>
>What are you talking about? When Office 97 was released (in 1996) it
>included the filter so that Word 95 could read Office 97 documents on the CD
>(as well as a free download).
Well, he's talking about the fact that it wasn't until months later
(ostensibly, long enough that 'network effect' caused the mass migration
to the new version Microsoft was trying to force) that they released the
filter so that Word 97 could *write* Word 95 documents. Whether the
Word *95* filter was on the Word *97* CD is just a bit of arm-waving,
I'm afraid.
>> If a document does not contain any new (6.0 only) constructs, please
>> give a rational, user-oriented reason why Word 5.0 can't read a Word 6.0
>> document.
>
>Word 6 was windows based, Word 5 was text based. They include vastly
>different formatting information.
Why? Because Word 6 used a GUI? That's poppycock. Besides, he's
obviously talking about the "new numbering", and is unaware that there
was no Word for Windows 5.0; it skipped from 2.0 to 6.0, in order to
match WordPerfect's version numbering. They then abandoned that, and
went to the Office numbering, with 97, 98, and 2000.
The Word 5.x you are trying to refer to is the Word "for DOS", which
used the same formatting structure and information as Word for Windows
1.0, more or less. In fact, Word 5.x for DOS mimicked a "windows based"
interface much more than Word 4.x, its well-established precursor. Word
5.x was generally rejected by the market. At least I thought so at the
time; it could have been the "last version sucks to encourage migration"
that has recently visited WinME and NT's service pack 6.
>> The only reasons could be
>>
>> 1) Microsoft puts damn little thinking into designing extensible
>> formats so that new formatting constructs can be added
>> without breaking the previous file format
>
>The format was based on the original Word format of about 15 years ago.
I though you said it was a matter of "vastly different formatting
information"? Which is it?
>> Or
>>
>> 2) Microsoft DELIBERATELY comes up with completely new, incompatible
>> formats between editions for the SOLE PURPOSE of making
>> older versions unable to read the default format of new
>> versions.
>
>Why would they include the filters on the CD and make them avialable free
>then?
To ensure that people had a unidirectional method of infecting their
implementations with the new version, of course. I should think that
would be obvious, given the only filters they left conspicuously off of
the CD, and you left out of your thereby empty posturing, was the one
which would allow either the rejection of the new version or the
coexistence of both. They didn't have to leave them all out, and in
fact it wouldn't have suited their illegal monopolistic purposes if they
had.
>> Given the fact that Microsoft has been in the habit of providing
>> "free upgrades" for corporate officer's machines (ONLY!), making
>> All documents coming from "the bosses" unreadable until the entire
>> company also upgrades....
>>
>> .....which reason do *YOU* think it is?
>
>This is a fact? Please point me to where I can get free updates (i'm a
>corproate officer of 2 different startups).
Sorry; they don't do it for small-fry startups. Even ones with flaming
Microsoft apologists as corporate officers.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 17:53:15 -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:
> vi
>
> "/" = search forwards for regular_expression
> "?" = search backwards for regular_expression
> "n" = repeat search in the same direction
> "N" = repeat search in the opposite direction
>
> /some_pattern moves cursor to some_pattern
> n moves to next occurance of some_pattern
> n moves to next occurance of some_pattern
> (repeat as necessary)
> N move in the opposite direction
>
Any editor can do this. But you still have all the non-matching lines
displayed and getting in the way of seeing what you are really interested
in.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would Linux be invented if?
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 23:51:39 +0100
JM wrote:
>
> You can't beat free speech, can you?
We were the ones who first elected Hitler and then followed him into a
nightmare. So the founders of the german democracy declared it illegal to
say that concentration camps did not exist or if they did, that jews
weren't murderd there in masses.
It is NOT forbidden to be a nazi in germany, not at all. And they can spew
their propaganda like they want. But is forbidden to lie about the third
reich. I think that is a BIG difference!
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 22:56:09 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 5 Jan 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 4 Jan 2001 \
>> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > A> An NT server would reboot automatically if BSOD and resume
>operation
>> >> > within minutes.
>> >> > B> If it doesn't, and you know *nothing* about NT, you turn to
>> >Google.com
>> >>
>> >> Well that's all well and good - but from what I hear, nt
>> >> gets itself into a state where it cannot boot again without
>> >> manual intervention.
>> >
>> >Where did you hear that? The only reason that would happen is if the
>drive
>> >crashed or there was some other hardare failure that prevented booting.
>>
>> Bullshit. NT servers notoriously 'latch' at 100% CPU utilization.
>> Always a driver's or an application's fault, of course. Must be because
>> its such a popular product, right?
>
>What are you talking about? "notoriously" latching at 100% CPU at bootup?
>I've never seen this, ever.
You've never looked. Are you a 'corporate officer', or are you a system
administrator? Anyone working with NT boxes generally recognizes the
behavior. But we all know how lucky you get with Microsoft products....
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
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: 5 Jan 2001 22:59:34 GMT
On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 21:08:19 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 5 Jan 2001 07:41:20
>>I don't think that at all. That's the problem -- when third parties
>>join the game, it becomes possible to win without a "simple majority".
>
>But since, as I mentioned, the simple majority of votes rarely if ever
>constitutes a simple majority of the population, this is a problem,
>since in a two party system, the winner acts as if it "has a mandate"
>from the majority of the population, when it almost never does.
They have a mandate from the majority of those who bother to vote. Those
who don't bother to vote don't count. Those who want to be counted vote.
>>No, it's problematic because there are large numbers of people who are
>>trying to circumvent a flaw in the system, (namely the "throw-your-vote-away"
>>concern) which is a sign that something is wrong with it.
>
>So trying to circumvent a flaw, and succeeding, by negotiating with a
>leading candidate to consider your concerns, is a bad thing? I don't
>get it.
No, the fact that the system needs to be subverted in such a way indicates
there's something wrong with the system.
>>Instant runoffs still result in a two party system, because it's not
>>possible to gain a seat unless you can get more than 50% of the vote.
>>IOW, if you have 20% of the popular vote, you get 0% of the seats.
>
>Instant runoffs DON'T result in a two party system; the results merely
>appear similar, on the surface.
>
>But I appreciate your concerns, which are valid, which is that I wasn't
>distinguishing between proportional representation and an instant
>run-off. Both share the same flaw; they require coalition governments.
No, they do not both require coalition governments.
Proportional representation *often* results in coalition governments,
but often a major party can still win a simple majority ( in Australia,
it's not unusual for a major party to have more than half the senate)
It does help to give the smaller parties a political voice in the
senate though.
Instant runoffs almost never result in coalition governments.
What gives you they idea that they "require" such a thing ?
BTW, one could argue that the US system requires this. For example, the
senate rules are written in such a way that some degree of cooperation
and civility is necessary to get anything done. And it's extremely rare
for a single party to have a useable majority in all three tiers of
government. (btw, I consider this to be one of the strong points of
the US system)
>necessarily a bad thing, *requiring* one, rather than merely allowing
>one to occur, is not the way to freedom for the masses.
Well, I'd agree. But instant runoffs don't require this, so while your
objections to requiring coalitions have merit, your claim that instant
runoffs require coalitions does not.
>>The choices are only gradually restricted if your guy loses. At least
>>you can register your support for a candidate without fear of "throwing
>>away" your vote.
>
>The idea that voting for someone who doesn't win is "throwing your vote
>away" is, to me, abhorrent and reprehensible.
Unfortunately, there's a widespread perception that voting for someone
who *has no chance of winning* is "throwing away your vote". And it's
largely because if a candidate has no chance of winning and you vote
for them, your vote will not have any effect on the outcome of the
election (bar hurting the major party candidate who you might otherwise
have voted for, which is certainly not the effect the voter would hope
for)
>About a hundred thousand times the maximum size I would consider
>reasonable for a run-off style election.
Why do you think run-off elections are so hard ? In case you don't
understand how they work, it's not necessary for voters to vote
more than once. They fill out ballots ranking the candidates in
order of preference.
Australia has 18,000,000 and has been doing just fine with instant
runoffs. There are countries in Europe that are somewhat larger
and have succesfully deployed a similar system.
The population of the US is 270*10^6, so divided by 10^5, it's
2700. Are you saying that instant runoffs aren't even feasible
in (for example) a small college campus election ? That statement
flies in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.
Instant runoffs and proportional representation aren't crackpot
schemes, they're legitimate, widely used, and succesful electoral systems.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 23:00:17 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 5 Jan 2001
[...]
>You didn't answer the question.
>
>A connection refused message happens when there is no socket to connect to
>or the port is blocked. In order for that to happen, the machine has to be
>up. If the machine is down, you'll get a timeout. Unfortunately, a timeout
>can also mean dropped packets or that your packet ended up going through a
>misconfigured router.
You are presuming that the system is functioning correctly. That's a
dangerous, and false, assumption when dealing with proprietary crapware.
With NT, you might well get a connection refused message because the
"server" is down, although the machine is up, because Microsoft doesn't
see any point or purpose in keeping the two separate, as has been long
known to be an effective method of thereby limiting the fault domain.
Likewise, the machine may be 'up', and you'll still get a timeout,
because you're using a different definition of 'up'. Certainly, it
could be a network issue, but conveniently blaming the network is
all-too-often a way to simply abrogate the blame which rightfully
accrues to Microsoft crapware.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 17:58:33 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> What part of POOR SOFTWARE SPECIFICATIONS do you not understand?
>
> My GOD, I said "IBM makes good hardware, but horrible softare"
> and then you take it to an example of the behavior of a terminal...
> the IDIOTIC behavior of which is controlled by the idiotically-specified
> specifications of the SOFTWARE running on the embedded microprocessor.
>
Please point to some documentation that says that the first 3270 terminals
had an embedded microprocessor. You lost your argument with xedit so now
your making things up as you back step.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 17:59:47 -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:
>
>
> You're so naive as to think that the 3270's operating characteristics
> aren't under the control of an embedded processor...
>
You are quite naive to think that they are. You know, there was a world
of computing before the microprocessor.
Gary
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 23:02:27 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 5 Jan 2001
16:21:12 -0600;
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:31:35 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>> > The GUI configuration tools did not work properly because it did not
>> > add the correct fields to the httpd.conf (namely the NameVirtualHost
>> > keyword). It failed to do it's job.
>>
>> There are two ways of doing virtual hosting with Apache. By name
>> (NameVirtualHost) or by address (just VirtualHost). Maybe the tool does
>> one but not the other (I don't use Linuxconf).
>
>Well, if you don't hadd NameVirtualHost it adds it by address. Now, if you
>consider that I didn't provide a unique address for this site in Linuxconf,
>it should have known that it was a name virtual site.
Yes, because we all know every part of the system should be "integrated"
together so that if something goes wrong, everything fails and you can't
tell what caused it. That's a *real* good idea, and one of the reasons
everyone is so terribly pleased with Microsoft's products.
>Either way, it
>required hand editing.
Guffaw. Oh, chore, oh, horrors.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 23:00:57 -0000
>If Microsoft says they aren't guilty...They aren't guilty!
>
>Reality is passe.
>
>Get with the program, Charlie!!! <g>
>
They didn't appeal to the guilty verdict which is as good
as admitting they were guilty - Microsoft have never denied
they were guilty, they are only appealing to get the sentance
reduced - I wish things were the same as when individual
people are on trial where the verdict stands and is acted
upon immediately then reversed if an appeal is successful
as then MS would have been broken up and be appealing
to rejoin now.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
