Linux-Advocacy Digest #414, Volume #31 Fri, 12 Jan 01 11:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: You and Microsoft... (Roberto Alsina)
Re: The real truth about NT ("fmc")
Re: KDE Hell (Craig Kelley)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Knock off the FreeBSD vs Linux bullshit. (Craig Kelley)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (Tim)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (Craig Kelley)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (Craig Kelley)
Re: MS Office Porting to OS X--Linux Next? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Paul 'Z' Ewande®")
Re: KDE Hell (Matthias Warkus)
Re: KDE Hell (Matthias Warkus)
Re: kernel problems ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:57:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bloated GUI interface (where X is even more bloated [when running 3d
> games with NVidia dirvers, 100 MB memory footprint, wtf? although this
> got better with 4.0.2 now, it's still hopelessly bloated, framebuffer?
> nah, want my 3d] than explorer)
Don't trust everything ps tells you. Usually 3d drivers mmap the whole
size of the video memory several times. It's not system memory, and
it's not even all really used.
For example, one of my programs starts with an instant footprint
of 40MB. Yet it works just fine on a 32MB box. Why? Because it uses a
database that mmpas the whole data file at startup. It is really using
about 8MB.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:02:03 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:93m5ho$kl4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8lp76.54471$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:93jjc5
> $c7k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Hi all
> > >
> > > It must be about 4 or more months since my last post - but I was
> very
> > > busy!
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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?)
> >
> > That one's easy. Just put the pagefile on its own partition. It
> solved the
> > problem on my NT 4.0 system, so it should work on Win2000.
> >
> > fm
> >
> > <snipped the rest - I don't have all the answers>
> >
> >
>
> Thanx
You're welcome. You can have up to 16 pagefiles, one per partition, but
it's best not to put more than one on a physical disk, because it can slow
performance by forcing concurrent I/O hits to the same device.
One caveat to moving it off the boot partition is that you can't use the
stop dump feature because the core dump routine looks for the page file in
the boot partition. (They must have coded that on either Monday or Friday.)
You'll probably want to read the occasional dump, so a workaround might be
to leave a small pagefile of 2 MB or so on the boot partition, and locate
the main pagefile on another physical disk with its own controller.
The tiny pagefile might have some unexpected consequences, and as far as I
know there's no way to tell the system to use C:\pagefile.sys only for
dumps, so you'll have to experiment. It's easy enough to change though; you
just have to reboot each time to initialize the new settings.
Again, this is from the NT 4.0 perspective. W2K may have a better solution
available.
Good luck,
fm
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 12 Jan 2001 08:24:35 -0700
J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> > I guess you haven't read what Wired, AND CNET both said about the new
> 2.4
> > kernel's SMP support.
>
> I guess you haven't read what specweb 99 said about the
> new 2.4 kernel's SMP support -
>
> BTW real world results count more than any cluless IT
> "pundits" you may wish to trot out.
Note that Kyle never put forth any links; probably because he's
talking about "studies" done years ago.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 12 Jan 2001 15:31:29 GMT
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:03:40 -0500, MH wrote:
>
>> > And yes, this was originally what Linux was trying to do. You can read
>> > his original usenet post on my webpage.
>
>Idols?
>At your age?
>Hmm...
I don't know what you're referring to, but that usenet post is certainly
appropriate (if not essential) material in any discussion about the
history of the Linux OS.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Knock off the FreeBSD vs Linux bullshit.
Date: 12 Jan 2001 08:33:30 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >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
> >
> >Um, doofus...most of the Linux vs. BSD stuff is started by the BSD folks
> >(And, by the way, i "grew up" on BSD...4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 in college).
>
> 3.X Series here!
>
> Now a Debian user.
My first UNIX box was a NeXT slab (connected to a cube, of course!),
which ran quasi-BSD 4.3.
I was surprised the first time I ran Linux and I didn't have to go
through contortions to compile gcc.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:27:59 +0000
"Form@C" wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> <snip>
> >
> >shows where his priorities are...."avoid thinking at all costs"
> >
>
> Shows where *whose* priorities lie, Aaron?
>
> It's just that "avoid thinking at all costs" should be "avoid thinking
> about how the computer works at all costs" and is generally exactly what
> seems to be required by employers when looking for "data entry technicians"
> and by many members of the general public!
>
> As a home computer user, I do take some security precautions but nowhere
> near what would be required by a business. The reason for this is that my
> livelihood doesn't depend on me even having a computer, never mind a
> working one. We have different priorities.
>
> Businesses also tend to fall into the low security trap in their effort to
> provide a simple to use system for their (often minimally trained)
> employees. Have you seen what it costs a business to send one employee on a
> training course for a single application? They have to pay through the
> nose. Do you think they would welcome the additional costs incurred by
> training people to use something even as simple as KDE when they can have
> as many Windows users as they want walking in through the front door? Their
> accountants wouldn't like it! Note that even with completely free software
> the training would still be necessary and would probably still be charged
> at silly rates. Did you know that many small businesses do not offer their
> employees *any* training as they firmly believe that, once an employee has
> been trained, they will either ask for more pay or leave to get higher paid
> work elsewhere?
>
> At the end of the day, something is going to have to give if Linux is to
> succeed on the business desktops (not servers note, Linux is already
> there!). Business, as a whole, will *not* switch over to Linux unless
> certain things happen: Linux has to gain a lot of compatibility, and keep
> it updated as new software packages are released on other platforms. Linux
> also needs a severe "dumbing down" to the point where the abilities to
> load, remove, maintain & run applications easily take a far higher priority
> than they have at present - even if this is at the expense of other things.
Are you trying to say that the "dumb data entry clerk" should be have
permissions
to install, upgrade, and configure the software he uses? That should be
the job of
the technician who would be trained and experienced in these fields, not
some
dumb low-salary personnel who can't tell one setting from another.
> Both of these, and others which I have mentioned in previous posts, *are*
> being addressed at present. Once again, as I have previously mentioned, the
> answer may be in using the Linux kernel as the base for what appear to be
> completely different OSs for different types of users. Once Linux is
> established on business desktops *then* you can start to wean them onto
> better, more stable and secure versions. The initial problem is to get
> Linux there to start off with - at present it is simply not acceptable.
>
> If all this is seen as "avoid thinking at all costs" then so be it. If it's
> what the customer wants, then he will attempt to get it. If your product
> doesn't fit his specification the he will use someone elses. It doesn't
> matter in the least how much you go on at him about Linux being "better"
> than the alternatives - that would probably only make it even harder to get
> your product accepted in the future. It probably doesn't even matter very
> much if your product is appreciably cheaper if it is *any* harder to use
> than others. The cost of your competitors product would simply be offset
> against the cost of training for yours.
>
> --
> Mick
> Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: 12 Jan 2001 08:39:13 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 01:03:04 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>
> > Personally, I hate having to add a decent mp3 player, a CD
> > mastering app, or a basic archiving tool to NT5.
>
> Personally I hate not have ANY decent varieties of the programs you
> mention available for Linux.
>
> Oh yea, for NT5 Try MusicMatch Jukebox and Winzip.
> Both free/shareware.
Ok Claire,
MusicMatch -> $19.99 (also available for Linux)
Winzip -> $29.00 (equivalent functionality comes with Linux *free*)
> > 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.
>
> And I hate that you can get 3D acceleration for the Matrox card under
> Xfree 3.3 but if you use 4.x the performance suffers (or the other way
> around, I forget). Under Mandrake they even tell you this when you
> select the card.
> No consistency with Linux, it's just a mess.
I'll wager that I can find more than a few 3D cards that work under
Windows 98, but not under Windows 2000.
Your point?
[snip]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 12 Jan 2001 15:40:08 GMT
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:18:32 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 09 Jan 2001
>You haven't a clue of the subject as a whole. Then again, neither does
>Roberto; he trumpets KDE because he's a big fan who stands to profit
>from the deal.
No one is paying Roberto to write KDE. You're putting the cart before
the horse here -- he works on KDE because he likes it, not the other
way around. (It's not as if he couldn't have worked on GNOME instead)
> I'm not sure why Donovan's concerned that we not confuse
>kwm with KDE.
Well, because they're different. Is that not a good enough reason ?
I think an important point here that a lot of people don't get is that
one can benefit from KDE without having to run kwin (formerly kwm)
> Me, I've still got a bad taste in my mouth from Windows,
>and would just as soon avoid KDE, simply because it *is* the default, in
>so many implementations.
If you've got the time to do so, I'd recommend that you play around with
all the available applications and Window managers and decide for yourself
which ones you like.
I think you'll find some of the KDE applications pretty convincing.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: 12 Jan 2001 08:39:58 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:08:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 01:03:04 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Personally, I hate having to add a decent mp3 player, a CD
> >> mastering app, or a basic archiving tool to NT5.
> >
> >Personally I hate not have ANY decent varieties of the programs you
> >mention available for Linux.
> >
> >Oh yea, for NT5 Try MusicMatch Jukebox and Winzip.
> > Both free/shareware.
>
> So then, what are wrong with the Linux variants you seem
> to despise so much? Please be precise.
And remember.... MusicMatch Jukebox is AVAILABLE for Linux.
[snip]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Office Porting to OS X--Linux Next?
Date: 12 Jan 2001 08:43:47 -0700
Richard Storey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "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?
Nope. MacOS X uses Quartz. Linux uses X11. They are completely
different.
Besides, even if they had Microsoft Office for Linux, they would never
sell it. Ballmer rightfully claims that Linux is a threat to
Microsoft, and so the bundling and such must continue in order to
perpetuate the monopoly. The only way the Office group will be
allowed to make money in a free market will be if the company is split
up.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande®" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:54:50 +0100
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
bdE76.28128$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> Even I, a professed Linux hater, will say that that's absurd.
What !? You actually make a buck from hating Linux ?
Sorry, couldn't resist. :)
<SNIP> Some more stuff </SNIP>
> -Chad
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:50:14 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:29:17 GMT...
...and Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is where you come off as a tad, ah, obsessed. It's a fact, Windows
> NT supports SMP better than Linux does (including the new 2.4 series,
> which "levels off at 4 CPU's). Windows 2000 supports SMP even better than
> Windows NT did.
According to what I've heard and read, Linux 2.2 "leveled off at 4
CPUs". Linux 2.4 is supposed to scale up to, um, 32 or such.
mawa
--
You never gain something but that you lose something.
-- Thoreau
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:29:40 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 11 Jan 2001 03:05:20 GMT...
...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like Enlightenment, and I have said that before. Mainly because at
> least it IS different than Windows and has a fresh look and feel to
> it.
>
> It is however very hostile in the configuration and user friendly
> department.
>
> I'm hoping this will improve in time.
ROTFL.
What was the last version of Enlightenment you tried? DR12? Become
up-to-date for once and have a look at 0.16.x.
mawa
--
THINGS THE WORLD NEEDS MORE OF #3:
Beautifully typeset at-signs.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:24:57 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <I9D76.610$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:edom39.08b.ln@gd2zzx...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > I have lot's of time, lot's of time. Being self employed has many
>> > advantages over reporting to a cubicle everyday and watching the CEO
>> > (who has a contract BTW do you?)get rich and fat, and the slaves lose
>> > their benefits one at a time.
>>
>> In other words you're unemployed. Failed your MSCE exam I
>> presume. You then thought you would get into Linux and
>> become a Unix system administrator. However, as you have
>> stated so clearly yourself, you cannot get any Linux
>> distribution to work properly (and it seems you have
>> tried them all). So you now have a grudge and all this
>> spare time to troll away on cola. I presume your PC came
>> preinstalled. Be careful with it (ie don't install any
>> other SW on it) and it might run for 6 months. Of course
>> you could spend this spare time learning a trade. Brick
>> laying sounds about right.
>
> Actually, brick laying can be damned complicated.
> Microsoft help desk worker would be suitable.
> All you need to do is say "Reboot the machine"
You are correct of course. I humbly apologise to all brick
layers. Looks like he's unemployable. :-)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
