Linux-Advocacy Digest #362, Volume #31 Wed, 10 Jan 01 01:13:05 EST
Contents:
Ayn would probably agree with you. (hackerbabe)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (.)
Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm) (J Sloan)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (.)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (.)
Re: KDE Hell (J Sloan)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (*)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (J Sloan)
Re: KDE Hell (.)
Re: KDE Hell (.)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (.)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
(The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: kernel problems (TTK Ciar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hackerbabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Ayn would probably agree with you.
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 05:04:57 GMT
> No, she was a bigot. I knew an Objectivist who insisted I would see > the light if I
>read Ayn Rand's stuff, so I tried reading "Atlas > Unshrugged". When I said she was a
>selfish bigot he told me I didn't > "get" it.
Ayn would probably agree with you to some extent if she was alive today. She
wrote a book on "The Virtue of Selfishness":
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/107-9401393-4754920
She also thought America was the best nation in the world, despite the
country's problems. However, she did not consider herself racist.
"Racism is the lowest, most primitive form of collectivism...Which means, in
practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions,
but the character and actions of a collective of ancestors." -_The Virtue of
Selfishness_
In case you are wondering about my support of Ayn Rand, my answer is that I
agree with her philosophy in some respects, but not on others, and therefore
I don't call myself an Objectivist.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 10 Jan 2001 05:13:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
> Really? Is this including the NEC, Unisys and several other vendor's 32-CPU
> and 64-CPU boxes? One single box with 32-CPUs is actually just four 8-way
> CPUs? That's not what their sites say, so they must be falsely advertising,
> right?
No, actually what that is is chad myers not understanding multinode
multiprocessing.
An e10K with 64 processors in it has 16 system boards in it.
Do the math.
=====.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is not UNIX(tm)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 05:14:10 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Why do you suppose it is that Aaron is only capable of making stupid
> comments on other peoples facts (without snipping any irrelevant text),
> rather than coming up with logical, well thought out statements of his own?
hehe, that really bugs you doesn't it?
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: 10 Jan 2001 05:16:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Download drivers?
> Install them?
> HAHAHAHHAHA!
> Try "download kernel source".
> Try "recompile kernel source"
> Try "editing modules.conf", or "conf.modules" or whatever the hell it is
> now.
Wow, when I installed mandrake a few days ago, my soundblaster live
card "just worked".
Looks like you are incorrect.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: 10 Jan 2001 05:18:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, this certifies you have never had to work with REAL people during your
> tenor as an administrator.
Nor would I ever want to. As anyone in the field will tell you, people
are the enemy.
> Says a lot about why you use Linux then.
You have no idea why I use linux, or what exactly I use it for.
> Those of us who deal with real people, people who aren't as FORTUNATE as I
> am to know what I know about computing, know why Linux is totally
> unfeasible.
Its actually quite feasable in many instances, and anyone who doesnt
understand that needs to stop using computers at once.
=====.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 05:20:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sure looks like it is trying to be like Windows to me.
Like most newbies, you don't realize that all GUIs have
a lot in common -
> If that were
> not the case why not just leave the gui as it was 4 years ago with
> fwvm and CDESim and such?
Much greater utility in gnome & kde than in those old WMs.
> Why are the improvements to Linux mostly in the gui area?
huh? The GUI is quite possibly the least improved area.
where do these cluless wintrolls come from?
--
------------------------------
From: * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 05:21:56 GMT
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> CAN WE PLEASE STOP TALKING ABOUT CARS?
oh, don't worry kyle.
soon you'll be old enough to get your license too!
y'r pal -kK
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93e7bb$4rv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > >then there's your ridiculous assertion that drivers of either car are
> > >limited to what they do - like it takes any skill to drive a
> > >beetle. like you're always hearing of beetles flipping
> > >over. umm. this is simply not true. the McLaren driver could not only
> > >drive their McLaren, but they could also drive your beetle. and
> > >almost certainly better than you.
> >
> > I would seriously doubt it. There are very few areas in human life where
> > experience can't make up for a heck of a lot of theoretical knowledge.
> > Last time a friend of mine wanted to drive my Beetle, she couldn't even
> > get it started. She did all the right moves, but nope, no start. We
> swapped
> > seats again, started first time. I don't know what I did different, so
> > I couldn't even teach her how to do it.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 05:25:40 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Matt Soltysiak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > 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:
> Give me a break, do you really expect anyone to believe this bullshit?
> If you're going to lie, at least make it halfway believeable.
By pointing out some flaws in windows you have kicked over
a hornets nest! These blue nosed, humorless windoze zealots
are not to be taken lightly!
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 10 Jan 2001 05:25:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93fhop$cut$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > Sure looks like it is trying to be like Windows to me.
>>
>> We've completely covered this and decided quite a long time ago that
>> thats because youre a complete idiot.
> Really? Because he has a point;
She.
> KDE looks a little like Windows.
Yes it does.
> Even the
> KDE website attests to this.
Yes it does, but we werent disucssing KDE, we were discussing linux. Did
you have something valuble to add?
>> Because people want more. So they wrote more. People like asthetic
>> AND functionality.
> And people like YOU will go to your grave insisting that such a paridgim
> doesn't exist.
People like me will go to the grave never having once used the word
"paradigm" in a context other than qualitatively descriptive.
> And comming soon; Installshield for Linux...
Why is this nessesary?
> These all sound like GUI and desktop enhancements to me, and they sound
> pretty "big" as well.
And utterly unnessesary.
>> > No. You may hope that Linux is not trying for that market but the
>> > movers and shakers with the money riding on Linux sure are hoping it
>> > is.
>>
>> Linux developed nicely without the movers and shakers, and continues to.
> Please. Linux needs those movers and shakers more than ever. And most
> importantly, it needs THEM to revoulitionize the platform.
Needs? Linux was revolutionary before them, it will be revolutionary
after them. People like you seem to forget that linux existed quite
successfully for years before becoming commercial, and still exists in
more non-commercial forms than commercial today.
>> The problem with the "movers and the shakers" is that they believed that
>> they could make money from something which was already being given away
>> for free. They were quite mistaken; that business model does not work
>> at all. And now they know it.
> And yet they are still plodding ahead with their potential revoulition for
> Linux.
And they will fail. The future of linux has nothing to do with their
bankrolls.
> You do realize without "them", you would not have a Linux.
You dont know what youre talking about. Ive been using linux for five years,
i.e. since before commercial interest was a driving force behind development.
> THose
> movers and shakers are what motivates independent programmers to waste their
> free time, without pay, creating some idillic, dumb little app for Linux.
Thats not true at all. If you had any experience with the subject at all,
you would know this.
> If the movers and shakers were all to disappear, Linux would go back to a
> small little circle of geeks with WAY too much time on their hands.
It actually wasnt that small, and it was quite successful as it stood.
>> And at this point, for a good chunk of applications, linux is as good as
>> any other useful unix-ey operating system. AND it doesnt cost anything.
> THis is the mark that indicates you are a penguinist. Forseeing Linux as
> the BEST UNIX variant out there.
This is the mark that indicates that youre an idiot. I didnt see that it
was THE BEST UNIX, I said that FOR A GOOD CHUNK OF APPLICATIONS, IT IS AS
GOOD AS ANY OTHER UNIXEY OPERATING SYSTEM.
You are a fool and a retard. What I said has absolutely nothing to do
with what you read.
> Please. FreeBSD totaly has you beat out
> on the server technology arena,
In many ways, yes. But not in all ways. Linux SMP is vastly superior
to freebsd's as is its easy implementation of journaled filesystems.
If you knew anything at all about either operating system, you would
know this.
> and Linux just can't hold a candle to
> commercial UNIX's either.
Depends on which one, and what the application is. Id much rather use
a linux cluster running apache than a solaris cluster for MANY reasons,
not the least of which cost related.
> Same with workstations. Commercial UNIX's have Linux beat so bad, it makes
> Windows and Linux look like an even playing field.
For workstations? Which one, exactly?
Oh come on, say IRIX. Please. So I can mop up your shit laden logic
with your idiotic blather.
=====.
--
"It's natural to expect there might be people doing stupid things
with computers"
---Michael Vatis, director of the FBI's national infrastructure
protection center commenting on Y2K concerns about hacker attacks
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 10 Jan 2001 05:27:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess you haven't used FreeBSD then.
> FreeBSD kicks Linux into it's deserved corner as a server through
> unification AND technology.
> Firstly, FreeBSD isn't a terrible Hodge-podge of everyone's different
> library files (dll hell for Linux). FreeBSD has unifying library revisions,
> unifying dependencies, and the ports collection to dynamically locate,
> compile and INSTALL programs, their dependencies AND anything else required
> to run "it".
Aaaawwww...a ports monkey. Isnt that sweet. I wouldnt trust a ports-only-
installed system further than I could shove logic and reason up your
pinhole ass.
> There may not be a central admin system, but thanks to the uniformity of the
> platform, 3rd party programs that perform administrative tasks are POSSIBLE
> and WORK under FreeBSD, instead of having to deal with the massive array of
> text files, and VI... (Flashback circa 1989).
Try running it on an 8 processor machine.
> FreeBSD's swap "chunk" is quite superior to Linux's swap system, providing
> efficiency in a component that is quite desperately required in a service
> situation.
Uhhmmm...care to go into a little more detail about this?
> That's why FreeBSD is superior.
I see. You're an idiot.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: 10 Jan 2001 05:29:09 GMT
Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The thought of an OS ALONE requiring over a gigabyte of disk space to
> install itself is f***ed up..
I did a Debian install this week that was almost, but not quite 20 megabytes.
What was your point again?
=====.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 05:30:25 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> > Linux has support for at least 2 choices of journaling filesystem (reiser or
> > ext3 )
>
> Neither of which are stable and each have their own caveats. NTFS 5 has none
> of these problems.
So say the windows zealots - but of course it's not true.
Suse has been shipping lvm and reiser for some time now,
and is used in production environments.
> The filesystem doesn't "get in the way" and it's never been an issue. Even
> NT 4 still kicks Linux's ass in all things performance.
Is that why Linux is the reigning specweb champ?
It seems the windoze zealots all want to live in the
past, and keep reassuring themselves with tales
of the old discredited mindcraft benchmarks.
Wake up, rip van winkle! windows is losing ground
and market share on the server side -
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.linux.sucks,alt.linux.slakware
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 05:44:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 9 Jan 2001 20:58:53 GMT
<93fu2d$ib4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jure Sah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Yup. At least until it gets a Linuxal Basic that is better than Visual
>: Basic.
>
>That's already happened.
>
Just out of curiosity -- where?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- might be Java :-)
up 5:05, 4 users, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: TTK Ciar
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: 10 Jan 2001 05:19:02 GMT
Once upon a time, "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Oh boo hoo, you have to reboot your system. Boo hoo... Give me a break.
No, really, trust me, it really is a pain in the ass to have
to reboot the system every five minutes for an hour, when you need
to make a lot of changes. My coworker was moved to profanity last
week when he was doing exactly this with a fileserver.
We exchanged the usual quips (like, "You have moved the mouse; in
order for these changes to take place, you must reboot the system
now!"), and then:
"You know, this server isn't doing anything a FreeBSD system couldn't
do instead."
"Yep."
"We should do that soon."
"Yep."
We both hate the bullshit Windows forces on its users (fortunately
I have the pleasure of working exclusively with *nix boxen), and we
both know that FreeBSD doesn't partake in this bullshit-forcing, so
kicking Windows out the window just makes sense. It'll be the last
non-desktop Windows machine in the company. Good riddance.
>Linux patch modules almost never work. They're just flat out unreliable,
>more often then they are reliable.
You are thinking of Linux kernel patches.
Linux kernel modules are not Linux kernel patches.
A "patch" (also called a "diff", since they're usually created by
comparing two dissimilar codebases and describing how to make one
codebase look like the other (an activity automated by a utility that
is called "diff")) is a slice of code that has been changed between two
applications (or kernels, or whatever). Applying the patch changes the
code, making it into a slightly different application.
A "kernel module" is a linkable object (natively executable binary
code) that is linked at runtime to the kernel's process space, much as
a DLL in Windows (or .so in Unix) is linked to a running application's
process space.
Linux kernel modules almost always work (and the mature ones are
100% reliable, as far as I can tell). Almost all device drivers in
modern Linux distributions are implemented via kernel modules, rather
than compiled into the kernel, because they are more robust, contribute
to smaller kernel images, and can be linked in and out as needed (so,
for instance, you can try an alternative device driver and then revert
back to the old one without having to reboot).
>And installing those patches is a royal pain in the ass, when most Windows
>drivers come with (GASP) INSTALLERS.
Linux comes with "insmod", which will work on *all* Linux kernel
modules. It also comes with "rmmod", which will remove *any* Linux
kernel module. Windows, on the other hand, has a different installer
for every driver, and drivers often do not have uninstallers.
So .. now which operating system is "crude and inconsistent"?
-- TTK
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
