Linux-Advocacy Digest #383, Volume #31 Thu, 11 Jan 01 06:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: The real truth about NT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows ("Tom Wilson")
Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: RPM Hell ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long) (Jacques Guy)
Rand, God, Jesus, et al. (Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?) (Jacques Guy)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Donn Miller)
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:35:56 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:uGd76.288$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93in2m$adklg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >The Windows setup files are all 8.3 conformant. We were talking about
> > using
> > >a network card, not a modem.
> >
> > I thought we were talking about installing from the internet so both
> > netcards and modems are relevent here.
>
> As if installing Linux via modem is feasible.
I have great admiration for anyone with patience enough to install Linux
from a dial-up connection. I know I couldn't do it. I got impatient
downloading the Windows 98 Beta image from a T1 connection.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:34:16 GMT
In article <mwd76.285$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> God, this is great. No sooner does he start writing before he
contradicts
> himself.
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:93jjc5
$c7k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > It must be about 4 or more months since my last post - but I was
very
> > busy!
>
> Yes, Apparently doing 3 years worth of work in 4 months.
You misunderstood - 4 months since my last post. The particular site
I'm refering to was my responsibility now for the last 3 years.
>
> > Any way, I found another number of interesting (but not surprising)
> > facts on why business in general should avoid NT/2000 for any kind
of
> > solution.
>
> You "found" these facts? You claim you personally experienced this.
No claim - just the facts
>
> > 1. Over the last three years I had to re-install most NT boxes once
per
> > year (general average of 20 odd boxes). Problem is that they fall
over
> > regularly and one day they just never come back up. Most of the time
> > it's corrupt page files (I'm still searching for a solution -
anyone?)
>
> How exactly did you do this over the last three years when you just
found
> out about it in the last 4 months?
Refer to my previous comments...
>
> > 2. Disk Space - I don't think I have to say more...
>
> I guess you should, since you don't seem to have a point.
POINT: NT requires lots more disk space then Linux (machines doing
roughly the same work)
>
> > 3. DBX Files - Two key problems: a) SIZE and b) File Format. I used
a
> > utility called oe2mbx.exe to convert a inbox.mbx file to an Linux
mbx
> > file. The result was this: DBX = 808Kb MBX = 488Kb. Further more I
> > think the dbx is a realy dumb format. You can't do anything with
it. If
> > you import it in an Excel spreadsheet or even Notepad you get like a
> > trillion of useless characters. M$ should have added a DBX import
into
> > Excel at least.
>
> That's why they have a compact function. Right click in OE on the
newsgroup
> and choose compact.
>
> Mailbox files are automatically compacted. Aditionally, Mbox format
is
> simply the emails appended to each other, while the DBX format uses
indexing
> to allow it to find messages faster and search easier.
>
> In any event, I fail to see this is a "general" problem for
businesses to
> avoid NT.
OE is on most Win x boxes as it is the only app most people (users)
know off. OE takes progressively longer to load as your dbx files get
larger. In older machines this can take very long with three years of
correspondence in your inbox.
I have created search scripts for the Linux boxes, and the results so
far are very good. I have not perfected it yet, but in general I get
results faster then in OE. The results can also be used in any other
app, which is not the case with OE search results (unless you know of a
3rd party app that I can get hold off)
>
> > 4. CD-RW - NT gave so far 6 duds vs 0 to Linux in my org. (Maybe
> > mentioning that the Linux box burns about 15 times more CD's then
the
> > NT box is overdoing it...)
>
> Simply incorrect. If you're making coasters, then you've got
something
> seriously screwed up.
>
Nope
> > 5. Backup - ALL User data in Linux ends up in $HOME. In NT MOST end
up
> > in ..\Profiles, *BUT*, two major problems: a) *.DBX does not end up
> > here, causing OE data not to be backed up on most sites, and b)
when re-
> > installing NT, you loose your ..\Profiles from the word go. I found
it
> > also a hassle to move Profiles to another location because you waist
> > time when re-installing NT to reconfigure everything again to the
new
> > location.
>
> 2000 doesn't use the profiles directory. But, even so, Outlook
Express
> *DOES* store it's files in Profiles in NT. On my NT4 system it's in
> C:\WINNT\Profiles\FunkenbuschE\Application
> Data\Identities\{FF07A5B0-0B73-11D3-97D5-005004608B71}
\Microsoft\Outlook
> Express.
>
> So you're wrong again. And you don't lose your profiles if you
reinstall
> NT, it just creates new ones. You only copy the files from your old
profile
> into the new one.
>
The problem is the "{FF.." part which differs. You see, in my setup I
need to convert some users dbx files to mbx files as they use dual boot
systems (users that are slowly seeing the light!).
In any case, my existing Profiles WAS destroyed. NT even displays a
warning message during the early stages of the install (file server).
Of course if it's a workstation it's a bit easier, but the local
profiles still get destroyed.
> > 6. Install time - As you might have guesed, I re-installed NT now a
> > couple of times. Average install time from scratch to a FULLY
working
> > Work Station with all apps installed takes about 4 hours (on some
older
> > systems up to 6 hours). I have not yet re-installed a Linux system,
but
> > a new install, with linking up to my company $HOME directory and all
> > the other bells and whistles takes less then an hour.
>
> Fully installing Linux took me 3 days to get all the apps configured
> correctly.
While you are learning Linux, yes - maybe. After a couple of years - no
way.
>
> > Net result: The M$ TCO theory goes up in smoke!
>
> As if there is one for Linux.
>
>
No need - it's a fact.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:43:52 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Q2376.167345$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Linux is crash free compared to Windows 98 SE. However...
>
> KDE konqueror can't seem to see SMB drives on either a SAMBA server or a
> Windows PC.
>
> Konqueror as a web browser appears to have problems with some of the web
> sites I visit. Netscape works but has two weaknesses - dreadful fonts and
> poor file saving - it displays a MOTIF style save dialog that doesn't
> understand the concept of caching the last directory saved to.
>
> KDE konqueror works fine with NFS mounted drivers, but I've yet to find a
> free NFS server for Windows.
>
> Konqueror has problems with file save dialogs but it at least remembers
> context.
>
> Windows appears to give the best all around answer but crashes or hangs
too
> much.
>
> Neither gets my vote. So, either I try Windows 2000 in the hope it doesn't
> crash/hang as much as Windows 98 SE or wait for another version of KDE2
and
> Mandrake.
As heretical as this might sound, Win2000 DOES seem pretty stable. Certainly
compared to 95/98/ME. Seems more responsive than NT4, too. I've only had one
weird incident where Internet Explorer stopped working and Windows Explorer
crapped out and died. At least the whole system didn't hang and I was able
to re-load Explorer from the task manager. Eventually I had to reboot to get
Internet Explorer up again. I did, earlier that morning, fiddle with some
shell integration code and that may have had something to do with it...It
hasn't happened since.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:48:23 GMT
"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >
> > Linux is crash free compared to Windows 98 SE. However...
> >
> > KDE konqueror can't seem to see SMB drives on either a SAMBA server or a
> > Windows PC.
> >
> > Konqueror as a web browser appears to have problems with some of the web
> > sites I visit. Netscape works but has two weaknesses - dreadful fonts
and
> > poor file saving - it displays a MOTIF style save dialog that doesn't
> > understand the concept of caching the last directory saved to.
> >
> > KDE konqueror works fine with NFS mounted drivers, but I've yet to find
a
> > free NFS server for Windows.
> >
>
> I found an NFS server for Windows98. I dont remember if it was free or
> if I just used the trial verison but I never got it to work anyway. I
> tried mounting a Suse CD in my desktop cdrom drive with the program
> (from my laptop) and the CD never did mount. After I installed Linux on
> my other desktop and turned on the NFS daemon and setup the exports file
> the CD mounted the first time.
>
> Even 3rd party software for Windows sucks.
A lot of it is because, beyond simple MFC apps, it can be a bear of a
platform to program for. Especially if you don't keep up with documentation
changes and updates.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:58:55 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7Y076.13$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > (Mind you, it seems that Matt is one of these strange people that
believes
> > that writing and debugging device drivers should be easy and
> straightforward.
> > Shows what a know-nothing kid *he* is, and what a fool you are for
rising
> to
> > his bait. :^)
>
> Not to mention that he claims to NOT be writing a device driver, but still
> somehow manages to have his code run in kernel-mode AND claims this should
> not crash the system if the code is faulty. ;)
You gotta admit, a world so forgiving that your OS stays up after your
home-brew device drivers and Explorer extension objects crap out, would be a
wonderful place to live.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:10:15 GMT
"BradyBear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2001 21:04:59 GMT, "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:LVB56.14577$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> > Another Steve/Claire/whatever troll. The pseudonyms are too numerous
to
> >> > list anymore. What you're responding to didn't actually occur to the
> >> > original poster; he/she just surfs for problems in other newsgroups
and
> >> > then adds a great deal of elaboration and posts here for the pleasure
of
> >> > seeing the responses.
> >>
> >> So these are real problems then?
> >
> >Perhaps, but they certainly aren't Steve/Claire/Whomever's. No one person
> >could be that inept and still exist outside of an outpatient program.
> >
> >These stories have been rehashed and embelished over time.
> >
> >Telling them is Steve/Clair/AliasOfTheWeek's hobby, I'm afraid....
> >
> >I view it as comic relief.
> No, you view it as chance to spew more kookish vitriole. It really
> pisses me off when some nut case like you dismisses a post without any
> substantiation. Do you know how to read headers? Do you bother?
> Do you have anything constructive to say? I've been using my alias for
> five years, and the fact that you don't recognize it only shows how
> green you are to usenet.
> You are definitely A Republican.
> FOAD
I wasn't refering to your post.
I shouldn't have jumped in, though. Sorry to have upset you.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
>
>
> _
> BradyBear
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:14:28 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long)
I'll try to answer to the fellow (I think you people
are too hard on him).
Jens wrote:
[now let's get to the nitty-gritty of it]
> So, in summary an object has the following
> properties:
> It is small
> It has a clear and limited task
> It runs on it's own
> It is persistent
> It communicates by messages
> It is network aware
This is strikingly similar to the topic
of a Ph.D. thesis by a former colleague
of mine, by the name of Wei Dai (yes,
Chinese from mainland China). Only
he called those objects "primitives"
and had picked C (without ++) as
the implementation language.
Temporarily forgetting about computer
science, what you are describing is
a nest of social insects, ants for
instance. The only possible difference
is that I am not sure (and no-one is)
whether an ant (an object) is network-
aware (aware of the relationships in
the anthill). I think it is not --
how could an ant be aware of the
millions of relationships in its
anthill? And, come to think of it, how
could an object as simple as you
aim to make?
> In addition, all communication is secure
> (encrypted).
Irrelevant. The objects communicate by
messages. The messages need only be in
a language known only to the objects.
In other words, a sort of "Navaho code",
as was used by the US in WWII (they
used Navaho Indians to translate the
messages into Navaho. Navaho is such
an alien language, phonetically and
semantically, that the Germans and
the Japanese never cracked the "code")
The BIIIIG problem is the messages by
which the objects communicate. To revert
back to computer-science jargon, the
protocol. You could imagine that the
objects communicate between themselves
using the language in which they are
written. Then your objects are the
computational equivalent of viruses
(real-life viruses, as the virus of
the common cold).
> Now the User Interface (UI).
The User Interface is, I presume, how the
objects communicate with humans, with you
and me. This is a different matter altogether,
and very important in the early stages.
> I dislike calling it
> a Graphical UI (GUI) as it is a limiting term and
> sometimes not appropriate. I like GUIs though and
> I intend to break the current GUI concepts by
> going boldly to the 4th dimension (space and
> time).
Well, and I have only half my tongue in my cheek
here, you could used sign language (any one of the
languages used by the deaf).
> Having such a high number of objects makes it a
> bit hard to try and cram each and everyone into a
> window.
Don't be silly. Only have a window that displays
the objects relevant to what you want to "hear"
from them or to communicate to them.
> These objects are handed an area
> of a window which they can draw into as they
> please. GTK-- (GTK+) is well suited for this,
> using it's boxes to pack things into.
You are getting too technically specific too
early.
> The main thing is
> to get this out and get some discussion going.
Started. Now mull over what I just wrote.
> As I said, one of
> my main goals is to make money from all this
Who doesn't! Stop thinking about making money
out of it. Start thinking about making it work.
The money will follow.
How's the weather in Reykjavik?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:25:24 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Rand, God, Jesus, et al. (Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?)
hackerbabe wrote:
> First, an example of selfishness:
>
> "Let us consider an extreme example of an action, which, in fact, is selfish,
> but which conventionally might be called self-sacrificial: a man's
> willingness to die to save the live of the woman he loves. In what way would
> such a man be a beneficiary of his action?... If a man loves a woman so much
> that he does not wish to survive her death, if life can have nothing more to
> offer him at that price, than dying for her is not a sacrifice."
So when God gave His only begotten Son to save the world,
He was truly just a selfish bastard. Well met, that is
why I am an atheist. Or was He a politician pork-barrelling
at Someone Else's expense? Whichever, I am still an atheist.
And when His only begotten Son complained "Lama sabakhtani"
now just what was He? A whingeing socialist, or an objectivist
pissed at having His life squandered at a bunch of billions of
layabouts (us, poor sinners)?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 05:27:22 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Tom Wilson wrote:
> I have great admiration for anyone with patience enough to install Linux
> from a dial-up connection. I know I couldn't do it. I got impatient
> downloading the Windows 98 Beta image from a T1 connection.
I could download the entire FreeBSD distro minus Xfree86 in less than 1
hour via cable modem. This included entire src code + ports
collection. Just a data point. IOW, it took about as long as
installing Windows ME from CD!
====== 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: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:46:45 GMT
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> > I have great admiration for anyone with patience enough to install Linux
> > from a dial-up connection. I know I couldn't do it. I got impatient
> > downloading the Windows 98 Beta image from a T1 connection.
>
> I could download the entire FreeBSD distro minus Xfree86 in less than 1
> hour via cable modem. This included entire src code + ports
> collection. Just a data point. IOW, it took about as long as
> installing Windows ME from CD!
Cool!
I'm one of those who think Microwaves are too slow! OS installations give me
ulcers. You should have seen me re-doing my development station at home -
Windows 98 / Windows 2000 dual boot partition plus Mandrake 7.1 on a
separate drive. Added to that, Visual Studio 6, Office 2000, and a buttload
of my home-brew stuff. 10 gigs of utter hell!
What do you think of FreeBSD so far?
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
