Linux-Advocacy Digest #409, Volume #31 Fri, 12 Jan 01 03:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Scientific Software Engineer needed ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The real truth about NT ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The real truth about NT ("Tom Wilson")
Re: The real truth about NT ("Tom Wilson")
Do any software engineering jobs pay $800,000/year? (jtnews)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Knock off the FreeBSD vs Linux bullshit. (Richard Storey)
MS Office Porting to OS X--Linux Next? (Richard Storey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Scientific Software Engineer needed
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 12 Jan 2001 07:08:14 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Jobs available: Scientific Software Engineer (Job#219-222/OT)
[...]
>> Desired skills include: Web site design and implementation (HTML, CGI,
>> Java Servlet API, Java applets), relational database programming (SQL,
>> JDBC, ODBC), GUI design and implementation, object-oriented design and
>> programming, Perl, Python, Java, Sybase or Oracle.
>No. The proper thing at this point in your idiotic, off topic drivel
>is to set the salary range; and for a job like this it better damn well
>start in the middle 100s.
The other rather interesting thing is this list of "desired skills". I mean,
if they want a Software Engineer, and a Scientific one at that, then why
the heck do they require HTML skills? What, in fact, do *any* of the
above skills have to do with what one would think a scientific software
engineer would do for a job?
Bernie
--
One man's wage increase is another man's price increase
Harold Wilson
British Prime Minister 1964-70 and 1974-76
In a speech at Blackburn, 8 January 1970
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 12 Jan 2001 07:25:01 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On 11 Jan 2001 14:36:47 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Hello? Are you reading this? "ONBOARD SCSI" is not a SCSI card. It's,
>>quite surprisingly, "on board".
>The discussion was about standards and I said SCSI card you said
So why *did* you say "SCSI card"? We were talking about my machine, remember?
My machine doesn't have a SCSI card. Thus, the SCSI card, stamdard or
non-standard, can hardly be the reason for my machine's reboot-problems,
now can it?
>>>The fix was to call Future Domain and get the standard Future Domain
>>>Eprom and plug it on the card.
>>
>>OK. Please describe exactly where this EPROM is located in my Model85.
>>But please be aware that the Adaptec SCSI *card* that also was in the
>>machine when I got it is now in my "misc computer cards" box.
>The Adaptec card you removed is the one I was talking about. Also
>there were several different vanities, one was called the "Spock card"
>and the other was called the "Tribble card", the difference was
>onboard cache. Adaptec absorbed Future Domain Corp.
Are you sure you want to continue this? I have the Adaptec card lying
in front of me right now --- it is from 1991, i.e. it predates the FD
purchase by 4 years. It also has Adaptec EPROMs on it. It also has
what can only be described as a common-as-hell external 50 pin
mini-connector, and an even-more-common internal 50 pin connector.
But as you seem to know so much about my Adaptec card (including that it
wasn't even made by Adaptec, but rather by Future Domain), why don't you
tell me its model-id, and what needs to be done to disable the card's
built-in termination?
>>I find it amazing how someone who first referred to the Model 85 as
>>a "lappy" and suggested my problems with it were due to ACPI now
>>suddenly seems to claim exhaustive experience with it.
>I never said anything about ACPI, in fact I don't even know what it
>is?
Apologies, it was someone else from the "you shouldn't want to use this
machine" camp.
Bernie
--
Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate
John F. Kennedy
US President 1961-63
Inaugural address, 20 January 1961
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 12 Jan 2001 07:27:54 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis) writes:
>And [EMAIL PROTECTED] spoke unto the masses...
>:Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>:
>:>Well, people are people, and they ain't gonna put up with Linux.
>:
>:Thanks for excluding me implicitly from the set of "people". What, then,
>:am I, if I am not one of many "people"?
>Why you are some strange creature from a planet far far away.
Ahhhh --- that explains everything. That planet far away must have had a
rotational period of roughly 30 earth hours.....
Bernie
--
The man who makes no mistakes does not usually make anything
E.J. Phelps
American diplomat
London, 24 January 1889
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:10:32 +0000
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >No it can't. Why do you think I logged a bug on this one for KDE?
>
> I've used it. IT works.
Judging by the number of others reporting similar bugs, you must be the
lucky one.
> They {Gnome and KDE} have a plan to gut Netscape and take the
> components to build their integrated web browsers.
>
> Gnome is even going to take chunks of Star Office and integrate
> an entire office suite with it.
Available RSN.
> >Then try it.
>
> I would like more information on this before I just try it.
> Tell me exactly what to do and I'll try it as you say.
> What were you doing exactly.
My server is on a 10MBit hub and has several directories with 1000 odd
files in each directory.
Konqueror takes a while to display its window showing all the files. One
bug I have reported is that it updates this view as it does it - there's no
warning as to when this finishes so you could actually click on the wrong
file.
Windows doesn't display anything until the list is complete - it is faster
and doesn't let you pick the wrong file by accident.
Netscape when it tries to save to this 1000 odd directory on a 10Mbit link
takes _ages_ as it reads the directory into the save dialog. It does this
_every_ time, instead of caching the information (or perhaps the OS should
be doing that?). It's pretty slow.
> >It won't make any difference wether you use Gnome or KDE or whatever -
> >Netscape uses a MOTIF style dialog that takes ages on a large directory
> >on an NFS mounted tree.
>
> Nope. It's very fast.
See above.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The pros and cons of Linux vs Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:11:18 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ...except Konqueror under Mandrake 7.2 can access smbfs
> shares just fine...
Now what have I been doing wrong here?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:14:18 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:48:45 GMT, Tom Wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:b_m76.169449$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >>
> >> > Dlue for the clueless: Disk drive images are NOT an acceptable
> >> > alternative to backup tapes.
> >>
> >> Ses you.
> >>
> >> There are other backup media than tapes. CD-R comes to mind.
> >
> >They do a pretty good job of archiving base OS installations and other
small
> >amounts of data, true. They're far more portable than tape since most
every
> >modern system has a multi-read CD-ROM that can read them.
> >
> >However, tape backups are superior in terms of speed, capacity, and
> >reliability. The last point assumes a good drive with quality media.
>
> That's a VERY big IFF.
>
> Infact, most tape media are crap. This is especially true
> for consumer grade stuff. Any optical media is going to be
> much more suitable if you actually want to get your data
> back off again.
I'll agree about the consumer grade products. Tape mechanisms for high
capacity / high speed drives must be precise and extremely well built to be
reliable. The good stuff if just too expensive for most consumers to
justify. Anything costing less than 800-900 dollars, American, probably
isn't worth buying if you trust your data. Some of those high end drives are
fantastic, though. Fast and very, very reliable.
>
> >
> >When DVD writers become mainstream, you'll see tape backups being
> >supplanted.
>
> No, tapes will just get that much larger.
That's true, but, optical media tends to be a great deal more prevelant and
you won't be tied to any proprietary formats - One of CD-R's big plusses.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:22:27 +0000
Terry Porter wrote:
> >>I'm not out to impose my way of working on anyone. Terry Porter appears
> >>to be confusing CLI applications running on terminals on X with running
> >>various GUI applications as "using a GUI".
>
> And Goodwin is confused about what a GUI and a CLI is. No one has yet
> offered a acceptable definition. Goodwins endless claim that Windows is a
> GUI os, and that Linux is a CLI os are tiresome.
Tough.
Linux on its own is a CLI based OS.
Linux + X with terminals is still a CLI based OS, despite some small extras
like mouse operations.
Linux + X + KDE/GNOME is a GUI based desktop OS, assuming you use the
GNOME/KDE applications.
Why is that so hard to understand?
> Let's look at a Windows GUI IRC client, mIRC. This program has a text
> entry field at the bottom, and is commonly used to enter text or commands.
>
> Is this program a CLI ?
It's a GUI application which happens to have a CLI in it.
> On the other hand SLRN can be run in a X window, and the mouse when
> clicked on various places, causes certain actions. Is this program a GUI ?
It's a CLI application wtih some mouse support.
> I'd say the definition is unclear, but one fact remains perfectly clear,
It's pretty easy really. You're muddled.
> SLRN can be accessed from a elcheapo mono 386, or a Xwindows dual Pentium.
> SLRN is more versatile that mIRC.
If you want elcheapo mono 386 then that's fine. Both my machines support
colour and can support X.
> >I'd agree. A CLI app in a terminal window on X is still CLI
>
> I think its a murky definition.
Nah, it's pretty simple really.
> Try something other than KDE ?
> KDE hasnt even been around as long as Win95!
Precisely why Linux + X + KDE does NOT have the edge over Windows.
Now, if you meant Linux using a CLI, I'd agree with you. Since Windows has
a vestigial CLI, that's hardly surprising.
> >>I prefer GUI's over CLI's.
>
> So do I, in most cases.
Yet you still use CLI based applications.
> >> CLI's are good for scripting or remote access.
>
> Theyre also good for cheap access.
True.
>
> >>GUI's are pretty good for everything else - but you'd expect that from
> >>someone who switched from OpenVMS/UNIX to Windows some years ago.
> >
> >I don't really agree that GUI apps are better for everything else. Of
> >course, what would you expect from a someone who switched from windows
> >and mac OS to linux :)
>
> Ditto.
Going backwards?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:16:41 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:45:19 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >>
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >>
> >> > Dlue for the clueless: Disk drive images are NOT an acceptable
> >> > alternative to backup tapes.
> >>
> >> Ses you.
> >>
> >> There are other backup media than tapes. CD-R comes to mind.
> >
> >Let's see....CD-R
> >
> >Write once....and then it can't be used again.
> >Capacity ... less than 1G.
> >
> >4mm DAT
> >
> >Write once....it's still good for several hundred RE-recordings
> [deletia]
>
> It depends on whom you ask really. DAT media doesn't
> have much of a reputation for reliability.
>
> [deletia]
Depends entirely on the media and drive's respective quality. Cheap backup
solutions are worthless.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:19:42 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <ENm76.505$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:93jumn$lc0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > 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)
> >
> >Strange, My linux install was over 1GB.
> >
>
>
> My Debian server takes up a whole 300 MB of disk space.
>
> That's because I was a total jerk and selected every fool
> thing I could get my hands on with Dselect.
I did the same thing with Mandrake 7.1 on my first install and it wound up
taking nearly 3GB. Ooops!
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 02:39:50 -0500
From: jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Do any software engineering jobs pay $800,000/year?
Do any software engineering jobs pay $800,000/year
after taxes?
I'd like to work on a software engineering job,
but I'd need that much to compensate for lost
income for what I'm doing now.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:29:49 GMT
Jan, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it's very likely a
duck. Microsoft's own in-kernel SWC 2.0 web page (the outdated SWC version)
at http://www.microsoft.com/TechNet/iis/swc2.asp says that this 'front-end
cache' accepts and answers web requests, logs those requests into its own
separate binary logfile, and supports only the HTTP 1.0 protocol. The
Microsoft SWC 3.0 SpecWeb99 submission webpage (I couldnt find information
about SWC 3.0 anywhere else) at
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/web99-20001211-00082.html
says that SWC 3.0 has its own dynamic API as well: "TWC 3.0". If this
in-kernel web-thing accepts web requests, serves web requests, logs web
requests and provides ways to write dynamic webpages, then it's what? A
webserver. Surprisingly, the SpecWeb99 benchmark (check out the functional
specification at http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/) needs these webserver
features, little more. I repeat, from the submission page it's pretty clear
that little if any IIS 5.0 code was running in this test - nothing makes this
more apparent than the fact that no IIS 5.0 tuning was done at all on this
system! For example compare it with the IIS 5.0 tunings done in the
following, much much slower 4-CPU SPECweb99 Windows 2000 / IIS 5.0 result:
http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/web99-20000612-00049.html .
This submission page is full of IIS 5.0-specific tunings, while the SWC 3.0
submission has none at all! IIS 5.0 was probably just taking away some space
on disk and RAM, and was idling around - this was probably the best it could
have done to help get a better result ;-) Obviously this is not what
Microsoft PR wants us to believe though :-)
Thomas
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93l96d$s9k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Adam, the answer is simple - Microsoft did not use IIS 5.0 at all,
> Microsoft
> > used 'SWC 3.0'. This is clearly visible in the submission form. SWC I
> believe
> > means "Scalable Web Cache", which, according to www.microsoft.com is a
> > kernel-space HTTP accelerator (sounds familiar? Microsoft copying Linux?).
> > You will not find any links to SWC 3.0 on Microsoft's homepage, you have
> to
> > know the name and have to search for it to find the link. I'm not aware of
> > any sites running SWC (although there are a few SPECweb96 results done
> with
> > SWC). I can only see a March 2001 availability date, IIS 5.0 is apparently
> > just a bumper sticker. This result is Microsoft's own admission that IIS
> 5.0
> > and Windows 2000 cannot be fixed to scale. I find it pretty amazing that
> > Microsoft's kernel-space SWC server was unable to beat Tux, considering
> the
> > vast benchmarking resources Microsoft controls!
> >
> > Thomas
> >
> > > > Have you even seen the 4Q results of SPECWeb99 ?
> > > > Tux just barely got the higher score, and it's a web server *no one*
> use.
> > > > IIS got just behind Tux, and it's a commonly used webserver.
> > >
> > > Thank you for alerting me to those results.
> > >
> > > I see the results you are referring to are here:
> > > http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q4/
> > >
> > > Specifically the Dell PowerEdge 8450/700. Windows 2000 Datacenter Server
> > > only loses to Red Hat : TUX 2.0 by a small margin.
> > >
> > > Do you know how Microsoft improved the results so much? (Also possibly
> > > helped by the fact that Linux still might not scale as well as the
> number of
> > > processors is increased?)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Adam
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com
> > http://www.deja.com/
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Richard Storey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Knock off the FreeBSD vs Linux bullshit.
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:38:52 GMT
I think your hat is on too tight. :))
Clamchu wrote:
> Hey bastards, cut out the FreeBSD vs Linux bullshit. I've been lurking
> in here, and I see some of you Linux turds slamming FreeBSD for it's
> allegedly poor SMP support. First of all, you weenballs, NT 4.0 blew
> away Linux with regards to SMP support, and now Windows 2000 is even
> better.
>
> The fact is that SMP performance in both FreeBSD AND Linux level off
> after 4 CPUS. Secondly, Windows 2000 scales up much better than Linux in
> the SMP area. So does Solaris. The reason? Ever hear of a micro kernel
> messaging architecture? Windows 2000 blows Linux away with greater than
> 4 CPUs. Newsflash: W2K has a microkernel. Translation: better SMP
> support with more than 4 processors.
>
> Now shut the fuck up about FreeBSD vs. Linux. Why are two open source
> groups slamming each other? Show me documented test results that Linux
> outperforms FreeBSD in the SMP area, and I'll show you tests in which
> Linux is getting slaughtered by Windows 2000 with more than 4
> processors.
>
> Besides, shouldn't you Linux advocates be talking about your usual ease
> of use, "which is better for the desktop, Windows ME or Linux"
> bullshit? Go back to discussing which is easier to install, FreeBSD or
> Linux, because both are about even with regards to SMP support.
>
>
> -----= 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! =-----
--
______________________________
"To ask permission is to seek denial."
Scott McNealy
------------------------------
From: Richard Storey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: MS Office Porting to OS X--Linux Next?
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:51:57 GMT
"SAN FRANCISCO -- Apple's Mac OS X got a big boost on Wednesday when
Microsoft said it will ship its Office productivity suite for the new
operating system in the fall. "
"A working version of the productivity suite, which includes the Word,
Excel, PowerPoint and Entourage applications, was demonstrated at a hotel
near the Macworld conference."
excerpted from Wired article 2001/01/11.
Well, I'm new to Linux and I'm no programmer so I hope to get some comments
here to answer the subject question by those who do know. From my limited
knowledge I know that OS X is based on a version of the Mach kernel which
is a BSD version of Unix--right? Therefore, would it not stand to reason
that a port to Linux or FreeBSD would be possible after OS X and would be
done with far less effort than the jump from Win-foo to OS X?
-- R.S.
______________________________
"To ask permission is to seek denial."
Scott McNealy
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
