Linux-Advocacy Digest #499, Volume #31 Tue, 16 Jan 01 01:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Re: More Linux woes
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: The Server Saga
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:43:37 -0000
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:33:25 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93vdji$3et$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> So what? Who wants to take over the world?
>
>Aparently, your spokespeople at Linux.com
>
>> Let the idiots wallow in their own ineptitude. They seem to prefer
>> it that way anyhow, right claire?
>
>Except for one small problem, you call everyone who can't recompile their
>Kernel five minutes after booting the damn OS an idiot. And you guys are
>the first place where newbies turn for help.
>
>TRANSLATION= You all suck at tech support, and have the gall to call the
>people you've been insulting for years idiots.
This is not a proper tech support forum, so you can't
really make a proper evaluation. The 'users' in this
forum are infact MS cheerleaders with an axe to grind
for the most part.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:46:12 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:56:06 GMT, John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Charlie Ebert writes:
>> I've used FreeBSD and I have some comments.
>
>> It's license allows for corporations to steal the code and copyright it
>> for their own purposes,...
>
>No it doesn't.
Two Words: "Windows Sockets"
[deletia]
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:50:04 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:41:28 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>>
>> The digital cable still requires CPU time to decode the data stream coming
>> from the CDROM drive, even through the labeled digital audio conduits.
>>
>> Linux Mandrake 7.2 does not always activate the "accelerated" driver for
>> your video system, and even then, the acceleration is not typically "on par"
>> with Windows directsound and directdraw handling audio & video
>> (respectively) .
>>
>> Skippage is being caused by CPU time being reallocated from the audio
>> subsystem (kernel level) to the redraw request being made by XFree86.
>> Because Linux does not intelligently detect "important" processes, this will
>> continue to be a problem until you upgrade either your X Server, or
>> recompile your kernel with better sound modules.
>>
>> Linux sux.
>
>If it IS just x that is causing shit, nice it to +20!
You can even use a point and drool interface like gtop to do it.
What you can't do as a 'mere' user is increase the priority level
(negative renice) of a process. This is somewhat annoying. It would
also be nice to associate a nice/priority level at the fs level.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:52:43 -0000
On 14 Jan 2001 22:06:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 2001 21:04:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:18:21 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>>> Here is a question for all us Linux people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
>>>>>> others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
>>>>>> consider it?
>>>>>
>>>>>The problem is that X is so entrenched in Linux that it would be damn near
>>>
>>>> The bulk of what constitues Apple NeXTstep is already
>>>> running on top of X courtesy of GNU and has been for
>>>> awhile now.
>>>
>>>The bulk of what constituted NeXTStep was display postscript, and is not
>>>running on linux at all.
>
>> ...DPS has been running under Linux/GNU for at least 2 years.
>
>Indeed; I was quite incorrect.
>
>Except that its much, much better under OpenStep/OSX. :)
GNUstep is OpenStep.
[deletia]
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:51:04 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >God forbid business should stop on one of my workstations for *GASP* 3
SOLID
> >MINUTES.
> >
> >Or I could forgo the rebooting, and replace the OS with something that no
> >only doesn't need to be rebooted, but will make it unusable for as long
as
> >the computer is powered.
> >
> >
>
> Time obviously isn't money in the Windows World.
>
> 3 minutes of downtime for a Website collecting orders for your
> company can be disasterous.
We're talking about workstations here. I wouldn't trust IIS on ANYTHING
that even closely classified as "enterprise". Or do you have another
definition of "workstation"?
> Or how about 3 minutes downtime in the insurance industry with
> 1,200 employee's attempting to hit your server for SQL data
> on insured.
SERVER. Again, I don't trust Windows for data services, except for file
sharing. That's a catagory I have NO choice in. (not that I need one)
> But that's the pity of Windows. It's not just 3 minutes downtime.
> It can often be DAYS before your company see's service again.
Only if you reboot your system AND throw it out a window.
> This is mainly due to Windows total LACK OF TOOLS to monitor
> your internal networks to determine quickly what the problems
> are.
You haven't used Windows in a while, have you?
> A simple tools like NTOP in Linux is a totally unheard of tool
> in the windows world. I find NTOP undespensible in emergency
> situations.
I can openly admit I have NO idea what 'ntop' is.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:55:22 GMT
In article <h8O86.7527$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:31:34 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:19:13
>> >> >"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> [snip]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Hmm, oh well. Never had a reason to really. The past two jobs I've
>> >> >> > worked at, Linux couldn't be used AT ALL because of all it's
>> >> >> > shortcomings, so this "option to be configured" really doesn't
>> >> >> > mean dittly squat.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Where did you work? At a gas pump?
>> >> >
>> >> >1.) Video people did tons of video editing with files well over 2GB.
>> >> >Linux couldn't be used without spending thousands of dollars for 64-bit
>> >> >hardware to overcome Linux's poorly designed VFS infrastructure. Windows
>> >> >2000 was the prime choice. It was the best performing, most stable
>> >> >server software to serve to both the Mac and PC video editing machines.
>> >> >Never failed us once.
>> >>
>> >> I'm sorry, there comes a point where your fabrications become so obvious
>> >> that no reasonable person could possibly believe they are anything but,
>> >> in fact, fabrications. That you 'happened' to 'absolutely need' a
>> >> single file to be larger than 2GB, I can barely believe (it is one of
>> >> the favorite "what Linux can't do" in many misinformed and ill-informed
>> >> discussions, generally resolving to a mistaken belief about the
>> >> relationship between files and data stores <and an assumption they're
>> >> identical>).
>> >
>> >
>> >No fabrication Max. Sorry that you're incapable of comprehending it,
>> >but we worked with several minute long, high definition digital videos
>> >that would range from 1GB to 8 or 9GB in length.
>> >
>> >We were low on budget and my boss suggested I look into linux.
>> >
>> >If you look in the archives, you'll notice I posted an open request
>> >to several Linux newsgroups asking what the optimum configuration for
>> >my storage needs would be (how to properly set up mac connectivity,
>> >how to best squeeze file serving performance from Linux, etc).
>> >
>> >It was then that I learned that Linux couldn't handle >2GB files on
>> >a 32-bit platform (something that it still has a problem with today!).
>>
>> Considering that Alphas still stop all over IA32 based machines
>> in terms of floating point (and digital media tends to be
>> chock full of floating point calcs), actually getting an Alpha
>> for the job wouldn't be such a stupid thing to do.
>
>Like I said, I was looking for a relatively inexpensive solution,
>which is why Linux was in the running.
>
>If I was going to buy a bunch of big, expensive hardware, I
>wouldn't have bothered with Linux in the first place.
>
>
>> Thus, restricting the hardware to '32 bit' is entirely arbitrary
>> on your part and specifically designed to yield the failure that
>> you really wanted.
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> FILM QUALITY PRODUCTION VIDEO has been done under Linux, so
>> a few TV clips shouldn't be a problem.
>
>They either had to clip everything to approx 15-minute segments
>(2gb at the encoding rate we were using), or they were using
>big, expensive hardware. Remember, we were trying to keep
>it relatively inexpensive.
>
>> I would imagine that applications availability would be the
>> overriding concern and not filesystem limitations.
>>
>> Afterall, DVD seems to get along just fine.
>
>We wouldn't think of doing the video product on Linux, give
>me a break, what a joke. We just needed tons of storage space.
>The Macs and the Windows boxes did all the recording, editing,
>and preprocessing, I just needed some mondo storage.
>
>After looking into it, Linux couldn't even do that well. With
>all the stability problems with ext2, and it's laughable design
>and all the limitations, it was quickly out of the running.
>Linux may be free, but you get what you pay for, we found out.
>
>-Chad
>
>
Yah Chad. Ha ha ha..
It's funny how many dedicated people working are posting at midnight CST.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:04:01 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Well what do you expect from a man who claims Linux doesn't scale
> well. How many god damn super computer clusters do they have
> to build with Linux before EF comes to his senses?
Why do you keep making this shit up? I never said any such thing, and your
continuing practice of saying otherwise is beginning to get annoying.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 05:59:28 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:34:39 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Tom Wilson wrote:
>> >
>> > "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > J Sloan wrote:
[deletia]
>smaller,
>> > local GUI system would be a wonderful thing. It isn't going to make
>major
>> > inroads into the desktop market without one, IMO.
>>
>> how much smaller would it be to make a "local only" GUI?
>> 5%?
>>
>> probably not even that.
>
>I'm looking at performance and stability issues for the most part. Most
...except X isn't the part of the system that tends to bog
down and bloat. It's various things built on top, and it's
not even even all of them (of a particular type).
Also, X is a bloated pig in comparison to GEM or System 6.
Compared to contemporary GUI's it's not bloated at all. From
what I've heard of MacOS 10, it makes X seem positively trim.
>folks don't need the capabilities offered by X. Many just want a simple,
>single desktop ala WinDoze. With Linux's performance edge, a simpler
>windowing system sitting over a simple audio/video HAL would run circles
>around MS's GUIs. It would scream. As much as some folks would hate it,
Take into account that Windows and NT systems are poor at multiple
process concurrency and X under Linux already is. WinDOS only has
an edge when doing fairly exclusive high bandwidth multimedia
access.
>utilizing a multi-purpose clipboard ala Windoze with the exact same
>functionality would be a big improvement too.
[deletia]
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:04:22 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:14:37 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:31:34 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:19:13
>> >> >"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> [snip]
[deletia]
>> >my storage needs would be (how to properly set up mac connectivity,
>> >how to best squeeze file serving performance from Linux, etc).
>> >
>> >It was then that I learned that Linux couldn't handle >2GB files on
>> >a 32-bit platform (something that it still has a problem with today!).
>>
>> Considering that Alphas still stop all over IA32 based machines
>> in terms of floating point (and digital media tends to be
>> chock full of floating point calcs), actually getting an Alpha
>> for the job wouldn't be such a stupid thing to do.
>
>Like I said, I was looking for a relatively inexpensive solution,
>which is why Linux was in the running.
Compared to a PC suitable for video production, an Alpha
based system really isn't that much more expensive.
Furthermore, Alpha and Sparc based systems have been
available in the PC price range for longer than you've
been trolling this newsgroup.
>
>If I was going to buy a bunch of big, expensive hardware, I
>wouldn't have bothered with Linux in the first place.
>
>
>> Thus, restricting the hardware to '32 bit' is entirely arbitrary
>> on your part and specifically designed to yield the failure that
>> you really wanted.
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> FILM QUALITY PRODUCTION VIDEO has been done under Linux, so
>> a few TV clips shouldn't be a problem.
>
>They either had to clip everything to approx 15-minute segments
So? What's the real problem with that. Software systems
have been able to seamlessly represent multiple files
as one contingous element of data for quite some time
now.
>(2gb at the encoding rate we were using), or they were using
>big, expensive hardware. Remember, we were trying to keep
>it relatively inexpensive.
>
>> I would imagine that applications availability would be the
>> overriding concern and not filesystem limitations.
>>
>> Afterall, DVD seems to get along just fine.
>
>We wouldn't think of doing the video product on Linux, give
>me a break, what a joke. We just needed tons of storage space.
This rant merely demonstrates that you've run out
of semi-rational things to say.
>The Macs and the Windows boxes did all the recording, editing,
>and preprocessing, I just needed some mondo storage.
>
>After looking into it, Linux couldn't even do that well. With
>all the stability problems with ext2, and it's laughable design
Titanic did well enough with it.
[deletia]
--
Having seen my prefered platform being eaten away by vendorlock and
the Lemming mentality in the past, I have a considerable motivation to
use Free Software that has nothing to do with ideology and everything
to do with pragmatism.
Free Software is the only way to level the playing field against a
market leader that has become immune to market pressures.
The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:02:42 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > I think that some of these counter-arguments I'm reading about the GUI
not
> > mattering all that much are a bit on the weak side.
>
> For scripting, GUIs are anathema.
Your either missing the point, or ignoring it. I am inclined to believe the
second choice more than the first one.
> > Let's face it, much of
> > the reason we buy and use things relies upon the way they make us feel,
> > that's what it's about! We wish to buy cars that look nice, clothes that
> > make us look attractive, houses that are clean and well designed, etc.
Along
> > with this, we also care about how all these things run and how long they
> > last, and how good of quality they are.
>
> That is why many people abjure automatic transmission, any buy a sportster
> with a hot manual stick.
???
> > The same is true for computers,
> > especially an OS. These days, the GUI interface is so common in our
daily
> > lives, it's like a separate room that we go into for hours on end and
spend
> > quite a bit of our days inside. Who wants to work (or play) in an ugly
> > environment?? Not too many I should say.
>
> Work is work. You do the work in the environment that gets the job
> done fastest. Sometimes it's the GUI, other times it's the console.
No, for YOU it's the console. Because your work probably involves
scripting, or administration. You are one person, and your work COULD be
done under a GUI, but you, and many other Linux zealots are totally
unwilling to make a concession.
Because Linux is aparently striving to become a desktop competitor, a
scenario in which Linux's current "styling" of cut-and-paste platform
formation will just not do.
> > As far as Linux goes, it is improving in terms of interface,
>
> Some would argue that it is worsening, because more and more CPU cycles
are
> being thrown into looks instead of speed.
Only people like you, who prefer the masorchistic methods of doing things
under Linux.
> > and the more it
> > improves, the more fun it will become to use.
>
> Not so much fun if it is slow. Case in point... the whole line of Windows
> desktop interfaces.
Case in point: StarOffice; Linux
Case in point: Netscape Communicator; Linux
Case in point: Netscape 6.0;Linux
Case in point: Mozilla; Linux
Case in point: GNOME/Enlightenment; Linux
Case in point: GNOME/Sawfish/Sawmill; Linux
So, it's OK if Linux software runs like sludge, but Windows Explorer, that's
evil. What a wonderful double standard you've fallen on.
> > After all, if GUI is
> > insignificant, why does themes.org do so well??
>
> How is this relevant to computer use? More like desktop dressing than
> functionality.
It goes to the UI genious. UI's are CLEARLY popular. Get with it.
> > Unfortunately Linux is no
> > where near as user friendly as any Windows or Mac OS.
>
> Have you /used/ Linux lately?
Ah, the typical defense of a Linu-nut. "Have you used it". "It" hasn't
changed enough for anything in this post to be less true that it already is.
Come on, there ARE advances clearly being made in Linux on the UI front, but
they aren't as big as they could be, and they aren't catching on very fast.
> > Unless you are a
> > programmer and understand compiling, code, libraries, and the rest, you
have
> > a pretty steep learning curve- one that is questionably worth it for
your
> > typical user. That includes myself, as I am now content and gratefully
> > writing this on a Win2k machine that I am pleased to know I can use!
>
> Good for you! We've heard from your side of the multifaceted environment
> of computer users.
You've been hearing about it for years, but your ears have been quite
closed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:06:35 -0000
On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:12:43 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>pip wrote:
>
>> There is a big difference between choosing the wrong run-level and
>> not having simple tools installed! On some options under mandrake
>> it assumes that you don't need to install a ftp server of telnet server
>> and these tools are *very* handy when setting up a Linux boxen!
>
>And the options aren't made very clear, I think.
I dunno, the last time I installed Mandrake and tried to use
a relatively restrictive security scheme the installer warned
me that certain things would be disabled, most notably the
automounter.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:08:44 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:30:46 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Nope, works just fine with windows pc-lan attached printers,
> >>unix printers, netware printers, or local printers.
> >
> >After how many hours screwing with smb.conf files?
> >
>
>
> Well Christ! Why don't you just use WEBMIN?
> WEBMIN is so easy to use, it makes anything Microsoft
> came up with like a useless 4th class mistake.
It's one of the most straightforward and easy configuration tools I've ever
seen. I'm curious, though, whether or not it is suceptable to
buffer-overflow exploits and the like. I'm not going to install it on any
vulnerable servers until I'm sure of there being no issues.
> I've NEVER run into a printer which Linux couldn't write to.
> APSFILTER has every printer in it which was made since day 1.
That mirrors my experience too.
--
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
******************************
