Linux-Advocacy Digest #345, Volume #31 Tue, 9 Jan 01 02:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Hatred? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linux a non-starter at CES (Ray Chason)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Linux a non-starter at CES ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (Matthew Soltysiak)
Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm) ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: KDE Hell ("Tom Wilson")
Re: You and Microsoft... (J Sloan)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Ray Chason)
Re: Microsoft releases Games console (J Sloan)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 05:49:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why would one need to write their own version if Linux was the best to
> start with? I'm sure most all users would love to write their own
> operating system. Definately on their top ten most enjoyable ways to
> spend their life.
Many people buy the "one size fit's all" styles at K-Mart or Target.
For many, this is all they need.
Most people however like to buy clothes that are cut to size. They
like their clothes to fit.
Some people, for very special occaisions or for expensive suits, will
have the tailor make custom alterations to the pants and the coat.
Some people will even go so far as to go to the tailor and have a
tailor-made suit.
The Windows 95/98/ME is the "One Size Fit's All" solution. Both Windows
2000 and Linux offer "cut to size" outfits. But Linux also provides the
necessary seams and lengths for "custom alterations".
Your more high-end UNIX systems with High-end databases and middleware
are your "tailor made" solutions.
> Truth is most people would rather just wax
> and drive their cars than to
> play full time mechanic. Same for operating systems.
This is particularly true of those who buy Brand New "Status Cars",
whether they are Luxury cars, Sports Cars, SUVs or 1/2 ton trucks,
brand new, right off the lot. They pay a premium price, the highest
overall interest, and then sell it right after the worst of the
depriciation is over. Usually they own their own business and can
take a tax deduction (let the tax-payers pay half his car payment).
But once the lease is up, he trades it in for another, and the dealer
sells the lease return to some poor guy who either has the option of
bringing it back to the dealer every few months, or taking it to
a local mechanic. Eventually, the cost of the repairs gets so high
that it's cheaper to "trade it in". The dealer then sells the car
do someone who does his own oil changes, brake jobs, and general
maintainance. When he lets it go (at anywhere from 10-15 years old),
it is usually purchased by someone who is so good at mechanics that they
can rebuild the engine and other major components as necessary. They
will often "blueprint" (rebuild to original factory specifications),
resulting in a car that is better than the one that rolled off the lot.
There are those who get an emotional or political gratification out of
having the very latest in technology. The want the fastest processor,
the biggest disk drive, the fastest network connection, and the most
expensive operating system they can buy. Of course, they usually expect
someone else to pick up all or part of the tab in tax deductions,
employer reembursement or purchase. Some will even opt to cut staff so
they can have the most expensive toys from Microsoft.
Then you have the guy who buys in the "Sweet Spot". He buys the chip
that was the fastest 6-12 months ago (and now costs 50% less than the
top of the line). He buys it with his own money, and isn't real keen on
spending $300 or more for Windows 2000. He will either pirate the
software (which I don't respect), or he will install Linux, which gives
better performance for that "suite spot" machine than Windows 2000 gave
the "Top of The Line" machine.
Personally, I'm one of those guys who watches 50% of my income (for
which I trained, volunteered, and worked professionally for 20 years
to achieve). I pay real money for my software and hardware, and I
managed the budget for some of the other things I like to do like
eat, feed my kids, and keep my own car running.
--
Rex Ballard - VP I/T Architecture
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a non-starter at CES
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 06:05:20 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 22:19:02 GMT, Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>An interesting article by Kevin Reichard appeared in Linux Planet today,
>>about how Linux appeared to be a no-show at CES this year:
>
>Mainly because CES is all about SELLING and MAKING MONEY and using the
>word Linux and the phrase "making money" in the same sentence doesn't
>make sense.
>
>Once again Linux is being ignored because it is too fragmented,
>inconsistent and unappealing to the high rollers.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So, I should use Windoze because that's what the rich guys want me to
use?
Oh-kaaaaaayyyyyyy....
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 9 Jan 2001 06:14:23 GMT
On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:44:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On 8 Jan 2001 21:08:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
>wrote:
>And this is EXACTLY why Linsux is failing so miserably on the
>desktop's of home users,
Bullshit. Linux is not widely used by home users, because "being
used by home users" is not one of its design goals. All of a sudden,
lots of Windows users jump on the bandwagon and say "I want to make
Linux an OS my grandma can use", but they don't realise that it
just wasn't designed for that, and trying to force something to
do what it wasn't designed to do is always an uphill battle.
>When I put exec kwm at the end of .xinitrc file I get kde. Looks like
No you don't. You get kwm.
>a Windowmanager to me...It puts Windows that look different than if I
>put exec wmaker there instead.
Well of course it does. That's because kwm is a window manager.
But kwm is not the same thing as KDE. You can use KDE applications
without using kwm, and you can use kwm without using other KDE
applications.
kwm is not KDE any more than kwrite or khexedit is KDE.
I think the parable of the three blind men and the elephant is applicable
to the misconceptions about what KDE is. One blind man thinks KDE is a
development environment (he sees kstudio). One man thinks it's an office
suite (after someone shows him koffice). Another thinks it's a window
manager.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 9 Jan 2001 06:21:16 GMT
On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 05:17:41 GMT, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>Heh, if Linux nuts did that, Linux wouldn't suck.
The fact that you don't find it useful is no reason to attack it, or
the developers. It is a remarkably useful operating system. The fact
that it's not suitable for what you want to do with a computer does
not make it any less so.
FYI, several developers are very concerned with making Linux more user
friendly and your implicit assertion that the direction of Linux development
is controlled or even influenced by "nuts" is a crackpot notion that
deserves a place in the annals of COLA silliness (and earning such a
place is no mean feat !!!).
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 00:16:13 -0600
Matt Soltysiak wrote:
> I've noticed that a lot of Windows advocates/users/kids are spreading
> enormous bullshit regarding Windows 2000's stability.
For a discussion at Linux Today, I pulled some stats from Netcraft a couple of
days ago. You can find the relevant posts at
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-01-07-004-20-OP-MS-0022
and
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-01-07-004-20-OP-MS-0042
For the broader discussion of Windows uptimes, the top-level thread is at
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-01-07-004-20-OP-MS
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a non-starter at CES
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 00:18:05 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Once again Linux is being ignored because it is too fragmented,
> inconsistent and unappealing to the high rollers.
I think you meant to say, "because the high rollers can't 0wn it".
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Matthew Soltysiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 06:39:52 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "Matt Soltysiak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:2Ww66.114530$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I've noticed that a lot of Windows advocates/users/kids are spreading
> > enormous bullshit regarding Windows 2000's stability. Here's my tests
> > on Win2k and true _FACT_ about this nice, bloated operating system.
>
> Hmmm.. very strange, since your facts don't appear to match reality.
Ask anyone who has used Windows 2000. They should tell you. Of course,
you look the other way each and everytime. Denial.
>
> > Windows 2000 has failed me more times in 3 to 7 months than any other
> > operating system I've used, including Windows NT server, for 4 years.
> It's
> > amazing.
> > Here are some of the common failures:
> >
> > 1.)If I change an IP address in Win2k, order to join another network in
> > another city, Windows 2000, upon boot up, crashes and pops up a nice
> > blue screen with kernel and panic errors all over the place (you all
> > know what
> > that is). Just to change the IP address!!! Now, I do this all the time
> > with Win 98 or Unix, and I never had problems like this.
>
> Win2k doesn't require you to reboot to change the IP. Of course, if you'd
> actually used Win2k, you'd know this.
Uh, i know more than you in this department. When i changed the IP
address, Win2k didn't send a broadcast across the network at all. I
checked, checked. No sucesss. I then decided to "reboot" and Windows
decides to leave, and head into the wilderness, where the skies are blue.
>
> Strike 1
>
> > 2.) If I copy a few files, Windows 2000 will simply lock up and nothing
> > happens. At first, I thought it was just the slow byte-to-byte
> > algorithms MS uses, so I decide to wait a few minutes...but, alas, it
> > locked up cold, and I reboot.
>
> Lots of information here. Just wave your hands around and claim
> mysterious things.
Again, you look the other way, etc. Total denial.
>
> The same happened to me with Linux. So there, your statements are as
> founded as mine are.
Sure..I can believe that.. I've heard the same. The only difference, Linux
doesn't lock up like Win2k.
>
> > 3.) When printing a document in Windows 2000 Professional, it simply
> > locks
> > up solid. This is with MS Office 2000. Just to print a document!!!
> > Windows 2000 Server and Advanced Server fix these problems, however.
>
> <rolling eyes>. You do realize that Windows 2000 pro and server/advanced
> server are *THE SAME OS*, right? If it works in one, it'll work in the
> other.
Wrong. Check your manuals. You should know this. Oh, i forgot...you
don't.
>
> Strike 2.
>
>
> > 5.) When writing an assembly program in order to interface with an
> external
> > card reader (using an ATMEL microcontroller), Windows 2000 locks up,
> > upon
> > program execution. Now, this was my fault, and I corrected the bug.
> > But
> an
> > operating system SHOULD NOT lock up when doing this. Normally, I write
> this
> > shit for DOS, and everything is A-OK. Even windows 98 works with the
> > reader!!
>
> Windows 2000 doesn't allow you to access hardware from user mode programs.
> Of course, if you'd actually tried this under Win2k, your program would
> simply be ended at the first access to memory it didn't own.
That's why it's in kernel-level, dude. Have you written asm programs in
NT? If you did, you would acknowledge this. Of course, you don't.
>
> Strike 4.
>
> > 6.) Then there's some games I like to play (Unreal Tournament), and
> windows
> > 2000 locks up, as usual... Though it's a driver issue.
>
> Uh, whatever. More hand waving.
Uh, and more denial from you...as usual.
>
> > Now, I have tried to be patient with Windows 2000, and I've tried to
> > give this shit more than one chance, hoping that maybe Service pack 1
> > would fix
> > these problems, etc. But it always fails me - always. I can't afford
> shit
> > like that, and nor can many people.
>
> Try actually using the OS instead of dreaming about it next time. Your
> statements prove that you didn't in fact use the OS.
Since i've used Win2k from the beta days, and actually saw promise in it,
your statement above falls apart rather fast. Why don't you take those
blinds off your eyes, and stare into reality? Win2k is flawed like hell.
In fact, i had better results with the Beta's than the final product.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm)
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 00:35:30 -0600
Shane Phelps wrote:
> I think the original intention was to enhance Minix, but Andy
> Tannenbaum (spelling?) didn't like the idea so Linus built the
> original kernel from scratch.
...
> Microkernels were an academic holy grail in the 1980s.
Here's a link to a transcript of the famous Tannebaum-Torvalds flamewar of '92 -
http://www.dina.dk/~abraham/Linus_vs_Tanenbaum.html
I love Tannenbaum's claim that while Minix cost $169, the license allowed making two
backup copies, so the effective cost was on $60. Twisted logic, that.
Also, T was already bringing up the Fork FUD argument, way back then.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 06:54:22 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:44:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On 8 Jan 2001 21:08:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
> >wrote:
> >And this is EXACTLY why Linsux is failing so miserably on the
> >desktop's of home users,
>
> Bullshit. Linux is not widely used by home users, because "being
> used by home users" is not one of its design goals. All of a sudden,
> lots of Windows users jump on the bandwagon and say "I want to make
> Linux an OS my grandma can use", but they don't realise that it
> just wasn't designed for that, and trying to force something to
> do what it wasn't designed to do is always an uphill battle.
The end result would be an OS as buggy and unstable as Windows.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 06:58:31 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message
> > >You will never find a version of Microsoft Windows which can
> > >achieve an uptime of over a week.
> >
> > This is debatable; a recent benchmark suggests that NT can run
> > an average of 6 weeks.
>
> two years is not recent. Remember, 2 years ago we had the mindcraft
> benchmark. Are you going to say that Linux today is the same as it was when
> the Mindcraft tests were run? And before you go claiming that they were
> bullshit, even Linus admits that they pointed out flaws in Linux.
Yes, they were bullshit, and yes, they did point out one
scenario, not encountered in the real world, where windows
can be tuned to run quite quickly.
Not to be outdone, the Linux developers, while working
on a number of kernel areas, also cleaned up the vm and
networking code so that Linux now bests nt by a wide
margin in unrealistic "lan test" web benchmarks.
It is common knowledge that the 2.4 kernel is significantly
more scalable than the 2.2 kernel.
But the converse is not true: It is not generally agreed that
windows 2k offers any improvement in performance or reliability
over windows nt.
jjs
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 06:56:55 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I am saying that you have a dinosaur of a machine that is rife with
>non-standard hardware, that was even non-standard when it was built.
But I thought Windoze was supposed to run on everything.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft releases Games console
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 07:00:25 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> http://www.ultimatetv.com/
So, how come tivo is popular, but nobody's even heard of this one?
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 07:04:41 GMT
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:936gbr$put$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "The 2.4 kernel is compatible with upcoming generations of computer
> > microprocessors, including Intel Corp.'s (NasdaqNM:INTC - news) upcoming
> > 64-bit Itanium chip, and supports symmetric multiprocessing, which allows
> > machines to run up to 32 computer chips at once."
> > See http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010105/tc/linux_torvalds_dc_2.html
> >
>
> Wow! 32 "computer chips" at once! Is that like counting the CPU, memory HUB,
> BIOS, hard drive controller, sound controller, etc? A whole 32 chips! woo
> hoo!
>
> p.s., W2K can support 64 CPU's (and lots more computer chips too!) at once
Actually the so-called "32-CPU" windows system is just four 8 way
systems. If you call this supporting 32 CPUs, then you have to admit
that the 256 CPU linux supercomputing clusters out there support
256 CPUS - can't have it both ways!
jjs
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
