Linux-Advocacy Digest #400, Volume #31 Thu, 11 Jan 01 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Sucking Linux 2.0.4!!! (David Liana)
Re: KDE Hell
Re: Scientific Software Engineer needed ("Tim Cain")
Re: KDE Hell
Re: KDE Hell
Re: KDE Hell
Re: kernel problems (Geoff Lane)
Re: Knock off the FreeBSD vs Linux bullshit. (.)
Re: KDE Hell (.)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Re: KDE Hell (.)
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Re: KDE Hell (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Liana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sucking Linux 2.0.4!!!
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 19:28:50 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wow, I'm impressed by his spelling and grammer, proabably a windows
user!
genkai wa doko da wrote:
>
> linux usings being fagit who don't know real perfesional operatoning
> systim like windows NT!!
>
> fuck off!
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:42:43 -0000
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:37:01 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I guess you haven't read what Wired, AND CNET both said about the new 2.4
>kernel's SMP support.
It's moot anyways.
The 'proof' alluded to here is bogus anyways.
C't demonstrated that quite adequately at the time.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Tim Cain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Scientific Software Engineer needed
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:43:03 -0000
You don't want too fucking much, do you?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:45:00 -0000
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:35:21 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Oh yes, because you can have 32 processors, of which only FOUR are actually
>working. Doesn't this sound like, oh, let's just say, a WASTE?
There have been linux boxen chugging away with more than 4
CPUs (all in use) for quite some time now actually. Infact,
the Linux VARs have been the ones pushing x86 based SMP
systems ni this regard.
>
>When the Linux kernel can associate power with the same SMP support of it's
>commercial predecessors, THEN this garbage can be called a "reply".
You just don't have a clue.
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Donn Miller lied:
>> >
>> > Craig Kelley wrote:
>> >
>> > > How is Windows NT/2000 better than Linux 2.4.0?
>> >
>> > Easy. It has a microkernel, which allows for much better CPU scaling
>> > WRT SMP.
>>
>> Yet, for some reason Lose Neutered Technology and Lose 2000 can't
>> handle anything larger than 8-way SMP, whereas Linux handles
>> 32-way SMP without difficulty.
[deletia]
--
In general, Microsoft is in a position of EXTREME conflict of
interest being both primary supplier and primary competitor.
Their actions must be considered in that light. How some people
refuse to acknowledge this is confounding.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:47:21 -0000
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:33:46 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Clue for the clueless...there is absolutely NOTHING that is "intuitive"
>> about computers for the new user.
>
>Actually, there is. But because you concider bash intuitive, this concept
No there isn't. You've just lost all touch with the novice.
>is totally lost upon you.
>
>> If Windows was so easy to use...
>> Then why is the ratio of Windows help-desk staff : Windows users
>> sooooooo much larger than with Unix.
>
>Windows is on more workstations, UNIX is on more servers. If UNIX were on
So? That is more a quirk of history and the monopolizing
nature of software interfaces than an indication of end
user suitability.
>the same number of workstations as Windows is now, there would be more UNIX
>help desk staffers, wouldn't there?
Why? They could just telnet in and fix things themselves. They
wouldn't even have to go from NT workstation to NT workstation
manually doing upgrades.
That alone could save a remarkable amount of time.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:54:00 -0000
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:42:11 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Here is an idea. If the individual has ANY desire to begin programming in
>ANYTHING they are...
>
>1.Serious; They are, and should be ready and willing to pay for programming
>tools. If they are programming for UNIX, they should have UNIX testing
Why? Such things have been considered a core part of the OS
since before any version of WinDOS came into existence. Such
tools benefit from the same marginal cost as all software.
So, soaking people for it has no real justification.
>facilities available. Same with Windows, same with Mac.
>
>2.Knowledgeable. This usually means enrolling at a college to take a
>programming course, which satisfies the educational value of a discount on
Even 15 years ago, this sort of directive would be absurd.
Programming is not some elite activity. It's really little more
than adjusting one's methods of expressing how to do something
such that it is unambiguous and suited for machine execution.
There's nothing to mystify really. You're just enouraging people
to be needlessly intimidated.
>Windows programming tools.
>
>3.Realistic. Programming something costs money. A programmer should be
>willing to admit this. Besides, they COULD just use something like Windows
No, it costs time. That time may come at a genuine cost or it
may merely represent a surplus in other resources. The notion
that software must 'cost money' ignores the economics of
intellectual property.
>notepad, or "copy con" at the "dos prompt" to write their code, and use a
>GNU compiler (available for Win32 now) to make they're program, but that
>neat programming software adds "convince" features to programming, which
>SHOULD be charged for.
Why? Once you develop them in 1986 or 1993 they are done for
the most part and replicating them is not going to cost you
anything.
After a certain point you aren't paying for any added utility
anymore but merely being extorted by network effects to pay
good money just to make some robber baron richer.
>
>
>
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:10:40 -0500, MH wrote:
>> >
>> >> Joe Home Developer can't afford to blow thousands on proprietary dev
>> >> tools. BTW, the Linux dev tools are very good. They're not as pretty
>> >> and slick as what's available on Windows, but they're certainly very
>> >> functional.
>> >
>> >'Joe' can purchase windows dev tools at educational prices by taking one
>> >stinking class at a CC.
>>
>> The CC class itself is probably not that cheap (and not that convenient
>> either). People talk of Linux costing excessive amounts of time, and
>> yet one must enroll in a CC course to get a decent price on Windows dev
>> tools ?
>>
>> >Not slick? By slick I suppose you mean more productivity?
>>
>> No, I mean "more bells and whistles". The IDEs are OK for serious
>developers,
>> but for someone who's trying to learn the basics, they get in the way
>> more than they help.
>>
>> >> >I still think you have to get users to the desktop in order to give
>'Joe'
>> >a
>> >> >reason to invest in a radically different dev platform. (other than AN
>SI
>> >C)
>> >>
>> >> ANSI C ? How about C++, Perl, Python, and PHP ? GTK, GNOME, etc.
>> >
>> >Writing portable code is no trivial matter once you get beyond address
>books
>> >and basic I\O.
>>
>> Depends on what language you're working in. Perl and Python ports fairly
>> easily, and that includes GUI and network code. C++ is quite difficult
>> and usually requires the use of some portability layers to make it
>> "less difficult".
>>
>> >Even ANSI C doesn't always port well from linux to windows. To use one of
>> >your favorite shit hurling specials: "...[]...you'd know that if you knew
>> >anything about programming"
>>
>> I haven't tried porting that much C so I wouldn't know. I'd be surprised
>> if there were substantial problems with C'89.
>>
>> --
>> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
>> elflord at panix dot com
>
>
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff Lane)
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: 11 Jan 2001 12:07:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Don't have to build anything with Win2k, it works right out of the
> box, unlike Linsux..
So long as MS supports your hardware platform - if you are not on the
following list you are screwed...
Intel
er, that's it unless you want to run WinCE.
--
/\ Geoff. Lane. /\ Manchester Computing /\ Manchester /\ M13 9PL /\ England /\
"You forgot Rimmer's Rule: Never fight anything with more teeth than the
entire Osmond family"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Knock off the FreeBSD vs Linux bullshit.
Date: 12 Jan 2001 00:58:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Don't get me wrong, FreeBSD is good, as is solaris and HP-UX, but NT
>> > just sucks.
>>
>> Pardon me, mlw, but while I agree with most of what you say (as militant
>> as it is :)) I must disagree with you here.
> I had a "Windows just f&^%&king sucks" day, that day.
I had one of those today whilst trying to make a firmware upgrade floppy
for an old netapp. dd just wasnt doing it; I finally read the instructions
and they suggested bloody fucking "rawrite".
So I downshift to my w2k machine and grab the image file from their ftp
site.
Or at least I thought I did. I made the huge mistake of linking to the
ftp directory with "explorer" right from their webpage and saw a bunch
of nifty icons for everything in it. "wow" I thought, "just like OpenStep".
I dragged the file I needed onto my desktop and I get this:
"error copying file <ok>".
Then one of the shiny happy MCSEs who was walking by noticed my dismay (it
was pretty easy; id turned a pretty shade of purple by that point and was
rhythmically pounding my keyboard) and suggested that I use the 'copy'
function from a 'right click' menu and then 'paste' it where ever I wanted
it.
That worked. I went for a long walk so that I wouldnt throw the w2k machine
out the window.
> There are times
> you want to do something, either as a developer or as a user, under
> Windows (and NT/2K) where it makes perfect sence that you should want,
> and be able to, do something and after wasting hours you conclude it can
> not be done. Then you waste a trouble ticket to find out you were right.
Exactly.
>>
>> All operating systems suck. They just suck in different ways.
> I really do not think this is true. Some are better than others and all
> have their faults, but Microsoft takes the cake for making crap.
I disagree wholeheartedly. While windows is indeed the pits, all other
operating systems are downright awful as well, for their own particular
reasons.
However, in the server arena, linux clearly wins out over windows. Though
I still use a WindowsME box for games. Thats one of the areas that linux
sucks more. :P
They all suck. Try installing Xfree96 under AIX or HP/UX. Try using
softraid at ALL under Solaris. Enjoy the tribulations of getting Openview
to work on ANYTHING with any efficiency. Try running enormous DB applications
under windows. Have fun with getting GCC to work under MVS.
Theyre all awful, it just depends on HOW.
:P
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 12 Jan 2001 01:00:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3.Realistic. Programming something costs money. A programmer should be
> willing to admit this. Besides, they COULD just use something like Windows
> notepad, or "copy con" at the "dos prompt" to write their code, and use a
> GNU compiler (available for Win32 now) to make they're program, but that
> neat programming software adds "convince" features to programming, which
> SHOULD be charged for.
Unlike dictionary software, which should be absolutely free (and nearly
always is under linux), wherein you can learn how to spell "their".
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:59:40 -0000
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:51:38 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>24/7 tinkering is a DESKTOP problem for me. I don't think I care about
>Linux as a server anymore, as that distro makers are beginning to realize
>that hard-customization of Linux for server purposes just works out better
>for admins and uptime anyway.
>
>Kudzu is RedHat based Linux's only, and Kudzu is USELESS if you upgrade ANY
>software component under Kudzu (i.e., new kernel, or new Xserver, or new
>ANYTHING that isn't directly from RedHat).
>
>So If I'm not running a RH distro, I'm SOL, there is NO kudzu, and probably
>no useful central admin system either.
A variety of other distros have their own central admin facilities.
Most of the central admin facilities in Redhat are not Redhat
product. So there is absolutely no basis for your blatherings.
Besides, anyone is free to fork a new distro based on the core
of Redhat anytime they like.
Alternately, anyone is free to adapt kudzu to their particular
distribution.
Furthermore, I have infact upgraded kernels and xservers and kudzu
continued to be useful. The really useful, core parts of what kudzu
does are not horribly version dependent.
Besides, the need to run Redhat to get certain creature comforts
does not negate their existence. At most it would imply that
Redhat is ahead of the compeition.
So, all you've really demonstrated is that genuine choice and
competition are a good thing.
>
>
>"Lewis Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93jgn3$d5d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Kyle Jacobs was heard ranting about
>> <EfR66.26887$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in alt.linux.sux on 09 Jan
>> 2001
>>
>> >"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> >message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >
>> >> The weakness of Linux is that you have to fool with it.
>> >> The strength of Linux is that you *can* fool with it.
>> >
>> >Really? *Can* implies there is an alternative. You admit this in the
>> >prvious sentance, but can implies alternative, of which THERE IS NONE.
>>
>> No, the idea being that you can't fool with Windoze much.
>>
>> >don't like minutia. I have enough garbage in my life not to need a
>> >technical reference book every time I want to dial into an ISP, or
>> >reconfigure my modem (or ADD a modem for that matter.)
>>
>> Neither do I. That's why I learn it once. Besides, hey if you don't want
>to
>> do the work, You don't have to dial into an ISP at all. I'm quite certain
>> the internet will go on without you. And what do you need it for? Oh
>yeah
>> BTW ever run into Kudzu? When I switched video cards, on my linux box and
>> brought it up, before it hit runlevel 4 it told me I had removed a card,
>> and added a new one, and if I wanted to remove all the old configs, and it
>> installed my new one. :) Holy shit Linux CAN plug and play also. BUT I can
>> turn it off also.
>>
>> >> Oh, and I don't much appreciate your use of "normal" as if those of
>> >> us who actually know how our computers work are "abnormal."
>> >
>> >I like to come home, and enjoy the simple bliss of "it just works,
>NEATO!"
>> >on my home PC. I don't want to tinker the hell out of it to get some
>> >idillic, whatever working, I really just do want to use it.
>>
>> :) Yes well ignorance is bliss.
>>
>> >Linux requires tinkering, 24/7. I hate that.
>>
>> Again.. really? My DNS server is linux, and it's been running without a
>> reboot or tweak for 3 weeks, the one before that, oh I think it was about
>a
>> year. And hey the only reason my other linux boxes get tweaked everyday,
>is
>> the same reason my Windows box gets tweaked every day.
>>
>>
>> --
>> l8r
>> -LJM
>>
>> a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
>> a.k.a. MrBobaFett
>>
>>
>> "Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
>> they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
>> -- Eric Draven, The Crow
>>
>
>
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 12 Jan 2001 01:02:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh yes, because you can have 32 processors, of which only FOUR are actually
> working. Doesn't this sound like, oh, let's just say, a WASTE?
What the hell are you talking about? There are plenty of linux SMP systems
wherein many more than four processors are in use, all the time.
You have no idea what youre talking about.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 01:03:04 -0000
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:02:49 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The point is that out OF THE BOX this distro suffers from Linux's DLL hell.
>Which you seem to miss as the BIG PICTURE (because your so obsessed with
>minutia it's pathetic.)
Personally, I hate having to add a decent mp3 player, a CD
mastering app, or a basic archiving tool to NT5.
I also hate it when NT5 knows that it has found a Blade 3D but
won't bother to tell the end user that it has done so and that
there is a generic driver available to use.
You're throwing stones in a glass house.
[deletia]
Besides, the debian package management tools are well worth
any minor manual effort. Even by novice end user standards,
those tools trump what WinDOS has by a wide margin.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 01:05:40 -0000
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:57:48 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't call the autoconfiguration system of Xfree86 4.0 to be substantial.
>It could be better, and yet, it isn't. WHY?
How? It handles all aspects of the hardware in question.
>
>Because they don't care? Possible...
>
>I mean it can sniff out the top 10% of peoples interface hardware, (with
Even Xfree 3.3 can manage more than that. You are just
plain indulging in slander at this point.
>exclusion of USB peripherals, even with backported kernels).
Why would/should an X server care if something is USB even?
>
>But the point is it still could be better. Find more devices and WORK with
>them!
>
>"Lewis Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93jgs5$d5d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Richard Wright was heard ranting about <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
>> alt.linux.sux on 07 Jan 2001
>>
>> >When I install Linux its as easy to do as Windows. The only hard parts
>> >being the X configuration (there ought to be a new tool for this by now)
>> >and the partitioning - which has to be done for Windows as well.
>> >Everything else then falls into place for a great desktop operating
>> >system.
>>
>> X configurators I've seen, can usually probe. But hey I also like being
>> able to just enter the setting for my monitor and that be it, and it
>works.
>> Unless I can find a friggin driver for my SGI monitor windows keeps
>telling
>> me it can't handle the frequencys it says right in the specs that it can.
>> Linux I just tell it what it can handle and it takes it. :) AH control. I
>> like it.
This issue still remains addressed by you.
--
Freedom != Anarchy.
Some must be "opressed" in order for their
actions not to oppress the rest of us.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 12 Jan 2001 01:05:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hint fucking Hint. The ENTIRE Helpdesk staff for all of GM's Unix
>> users (over 15,000 UNIX desktops) is less than 20 people. That includes
>> both 1st and 2nd level support.
> You must love GM a lot, because they seem to be your only model enterprise
> agency. GM needs engineering software, most other industries don't (with the
> exclusion of Aerospace).
And computer/chip design and manufacture, tool and dye making, etc, etc, etc.
> GM also hires engineers to work on those
> workstations, with a few staffers who are either management, or assembeley
> staff using the occasional workstation. Gee, does this model seem a little
> idealistic to you? It does to me.
Apparantly youve never had to support "engineers" who use UNIX workstations.
Theyre just as stupid as anyone else, and are renowned for breaking things
just as constantly.
>> Conversely, about 2 miles down the road, the number of Windows helpdesk
>> people at Kmart Headquarters (about 1500 desktops) is around 50, and
>> the level of service is WORSE (GM Unix helpdesk--have a Unix helpdesk
>> agent ON THE PHONE with the user within 60 seconds....Kmart Windows
>> helpdesk -- call-back within 3 hours).
> Bad idea using white-trash mart as an example in this matter. KKK-mart's
> internet (and most of their computer systems) strat is quite new, and was
> only instituted at the demand of their very pissed off stockholders.
> Although this example shows REAL computing in action, they're computer
> systems are quite recent.
Oh I see, kmart doesnt count because it completely disproves your point.
Thats handy.
>> If it's so much more "intuitive", then why so many Windows helpdesk
>> people for so few users at such a low standard of service (and,
>> by the way, Kmart pays IT people quite well).
> Because Windows allows people who truly have better things to do than get a
> major in CS to use a computer.
No, its because windows people are by and large much, much dumber than UNIX
people.
> UNIX on the desktop (when instituted
> properly) would have the same problem if it were a noticeable majority of
> workstation machines (like Windows is).
No, it wouldnt. You clearly have no experience at all in either regard,
and its quite beyond me why you seem to believe that you are even qualified
to discuss them.
> Of course, if your experience would venture outside the realm of GM's
> computer needs, and what you hear from your IT friends at KKKmart, you would
> know this.
If you had any experience with UNIX at all, your points would be much more
valid.
=====.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
