Linux-Advocacy Digest #519, Volume #31 Tue, 16 Jan 01 22:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Charlie Ebert)
Re: More Linux woes (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows 2000
Re: More Linux woes (Charlie Ebert)
Re: More Linux woes (mlw)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:52:27 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:49:39 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I wonder if they have figured out how to disable DAE on that beast?
>
>Quite frankly, no one believes you. No one can reproduce what you claim
>to see, and you haven't yet posted a dump of dmesg for us to see.
I have a sneaking suspicion that if I actually go to the truble
of firing up KDE and running xmms that it will infact NOT use
DAE to play CDs...
Then again, I haven't played raw audio off of a CD since I
got my 30G drive...
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:52:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, J Sloan wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>But he's totally off in left field anyhow - the smb.conf file
>has absolutely nothing to do with printing to ms pc-lan
>printers from linux.
>
>jjs
>
I'll give you that point. True.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:54:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gary Hallock wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:54:15 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Like IBM, for instance?
>>
>> IBM runs NT and OS/2 in their hardware support centers. They run VM
>> legacy applications along with Windows at the call center where you
>> place your service calls. They Run VM legacy applications to dispatch
>> their CE's via a Motorola RIM device. They Run Lotus Notes under Windows
>> as their official corporate mobile platform.
>>
>
>Try Lotus Notes on Linux.
>
I've always wanted to try that.
How do you like it...
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:57:20 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:34:48 GMT, Bones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>> I wrote:
>>> I always like to go back and leaf through this old hardware manual
>>> where they theorized that it would be completely and utterly impossible to
>>> move past 28.8kbps on analog modems...
>
>[snip]
>
>> On some line's 28.8K isn't attainable. Also, 28.8K is pretty
>> near the theoretical upperbound allowed for common copper
>> wiring and US FCC regulations.
>
>Well, I believe V.34 and V.34+ can go over the same wire with the same
>signal level. The extra speed is gained by better data compression.
>Obviously fitting more data per time unit would result in greater data loss
>per time unit if the quality of the line stinks, so it makes sense for the
>modems to negotiate a lower speed.
Doesn't the extra speed also come from restricting the length
of the line?. I imagine that those older estimates are with
more pessimistic assumptions.
[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] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:58:59 GMT
In article <UOR86.79701$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> I'm totally convinced that Flatfish, Claire, ect,ect,ect, is being
>> paid by somebody to do this. He's on practically 24 hours a day
>> and he's spent his time performing nothing but anti-linux pro
>> Microsoft propaganda.
>
>Have you been calculating time zone factors into your assumption?
>
>> He's either got to be on Microsoft's payroll doing this or
>> He's one of the mentally sick people this country has every produced.
>
>He hasn't killed anyone, he just disagrees with your opinions, strongly.
>I'd reserve the term "sick" for people with real problems.
>
I think anybody who spends 19-20 hours a day posting to COLA is sick.
Sorry.
>> Clearly, the 3 greatest mass murderers convicted in this country have
>> not produced the kind of stamina Flatfish has against Linux.
>
>???
>
>> If you look at his posting notes, you notice Flatfish here sleeps
>> for about 5 hours a day if that.
>
>I don't know what "posting notes" are, but if they're anything like post
>time-stamping, then I pitty you for actually wasting your time reading them.
>But then you are a Linux user, and clearly have pleanty of time to blow
>doing nothing but tracking down endless dependency after dependency for your
>new software.
>
If you used Linux, you would notice a program called statnews
>> And while what he's doing IS legal, it would be very interesting
>> to see WHY he's doing it.
>
>The same reason your on this group, constantly touting Linux as the
>operating system that God would use, if he had a computer.
>
>
Nope. I'm not that dedicated.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:05:17 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Nick Condon wrote:
> >
> > Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
> > >
> > > This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
> >
> > ROFLMAO!
> >
> > Damn. Now I'm going to have to clean all that coffee off my monitor.
>
> Since when did the National Security Agency take charge of Mars landers?
Since the movie "Mars Attacks."
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:02:49 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:28:04 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:58:09 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> 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).
> >> >
> >> >It's complex layer upon complex layer. It's fast becoming a house of
> >cards.
> >>
> >> It will amusing to see you try to actually support this assertion.
> >
> >You already did. "Its' various things built on top..."
>
> Moron. That's how ALL engineering is supposed to be done,
> including computer science.
Moron...Cute.
Do you find it at all unusual that a free OS with such an advantage in raw
performance, versitility, and stability lags so far behind Windows on the
desktop?
Is this the result of good engineering?
Instead of creative editing and childish insults, you might try to actually
discuss something.
>
> [deletia]
>
> Someone should slap you with a harcopy version of the OSI
> network layering model & and CS 100 textbook.
Been there done that.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:03:18 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:49:53 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Hasler 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.
>>
>
>How would you know what Microsoft has already copyrighted under
>their own from BSD? The license clearly allows that now that
>they've dropped the disclaimer that Berkley get's credit for
>the work.
The /etc/hosts in Windows is kind of a dead giveaway...
>
>
>
>>> ...thus not contributing back to the base code.
>>
>>No free software license requires that.
>>
>
>
>If you build on GPL'ed code you MUST release under GPL license
>or you can't use the code.
>
>So GPL'ed software requires you contribute back to the system
>or NOT USE THE CODE.
"contribute" isn't quite the right word.
You don't have to contribute. You just can't steal.
If you take something, you must do so in a way that
discourages you from entangling it in your own
property and claiming ownership over it.
Something like Sockets could easily be licenced LGPL and
kept open without any burden placed on corporate interests.
Only "embrace and extend" would be interfered with.
>
>
>>BTW, much of the software you use every day on Linux is licensed under
>>terms similar or identical to those used by FreeBSD.
>>--
>
>True.
OTOH, GNU couldn't have come into existence and gained the
necessary popularity it has without a less robber baron
friendly licence.
This whole notion that free software contributors don't want
to be a corporate welfare beaureau was one of the things that
created the need for the GPL to begin with.
Some of the early Emacs contributors did not like being abused
in a FreeBSD fashion to someone else's profit.
--
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
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:39:51 -0500
In <c1.2b5.2Yz1V2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/16/2001
at 04:40 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>In <3a63b7ab$12$fuzhry$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Shmuel (Seymour
>J.) Metz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >In
><c1.2b5.2YyXH8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/15/2001 > at 09:47 AM,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>>
>>>You won before you started - earlier this month Mr Metz claimed that
>>>IBM running Linux on a mainframe was a hoax. So much for credibility
>>>...
>>
>>Another liar heard from. I claimed no such thing.
>>
>from deja --------------------------------------
>In <c1.2b5.2YZhcC$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 12/14/2000
> at 02:49 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>>You ain't just whistlin' Dixie ... and the guys who can make Linux
>>run on OS/390 in VM's
>There are no such guys; Linux does not run on OS/390.
>Hey Flounder! You trusted a press release!
You fool, that text says "OS/390", not "mainframe".
>I suppose someone forged your signature
No, the correct explanation is that you're an illiterate fool. Where
does it say "mainframe"?
>btw,
>"Linux OS/390" at google - 23,700 hits in .08 seconds.
>Must be a lotta us flounders out here swimmin' about.
Perhaps so, certainly you are one. As the text that you quoted shows,
I never claimed that Linux does not run on a mainframe; you are the
author of that claim. If you did a bit of research before composing
insulting articles, you might look like less of a fool. Since you are
obviously a few bits short of a kilobyte, I'll remind you that
"mainframe" and "OS/390" are not identical, any more than "car" and
"driver" are identical. And the quoted text has the wrong driver in
the car. HTH. FOAD. HAND.
--
===========================================================
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me. Do not reply to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:28:29 -0500
In <940ln1$hv5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/16/2001
at 12:20 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Brock) said:
>As seems to be your habit, you have once again deleted almost
>everything I wrote without acknowledging or responding to any of my
>arguments.
What arguements. You admitted that you knew what I bent but
deliberately attributed to me something that I didn't say. I
acknowledged, and debunked, what you said.
>That's it, I'm out of here.
Don't let the door leave you as you leave. I have no tolerance for
liars.
--
===========================================================
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me. Do not reply to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:07:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donn Miller wrote:
>Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What? It's inane and stupid to say if they offer OSX for Linux I want to
>> try it?
>
>> What's inane about that!
>
>Because! Don't you know that if you run Linux, you've secretly signed a
>special agreement never to try `evil' graphics systems like svgalib and GGI?
>Anything you do *absolutely* has to be layered on top of X11! The 11th
>commandment says "Thou shalt not run graphics in any shape or form on thy
>Linux box other than X11!"
>
Yes sir Donn Miller. God bless you sir!
>What the heck is wrong with trying alternative windowing/graphics systems on
>Linux other than X11? Oh, right, running svgalib will create this enormous
>security hole that will enable every world terrorist to log into your machine
>simultaneously! Then, they will destroy the entire solar system, and you
>will be sorry that you dared think of running any other graphics system other
>than X11 on your Linux box.
>
Yes sir Donn Miller. God bless you sir!
>So, I suppose the moral of this story is this: do NOT attempt to develop an
>alternative graphics system to X11. Doing so will create a security hole the
>size of some unknown galaxy (ironically, called "x11") that will cause every
>terrorist known to man to log into your Linux box, and destroy the universe
>as we know it. Then, X11, as well as all the matter in the known universe,
>will be history! Then, you will be sorry that you committed the cardinal sin
>of starting to think about running graphics systems other than X11 on your
>Linux box.
>
Yes sir Donn Miller. God bless you sir!
>Also, it's a little known fact, but the reason we Christians (assuming you are
>one) are baptized at birth was to rid us of the extremely horrible sin of
>plotting to start to think about running a graphics system other than X11 on
>our Linux boxes. In fact, there will be extensive research in the medical
>field in the near future of this magical pill that, when swallowed, will rid
>mankind of evil thoughts of running any other graphics system other than X11
>on your Linux box.
>
Yes sir Donn Miller. God bless you sir!
>In fact, a lot of people probably panicked when W was being developed for
>unix systems. "What???!! They want to put a windowing system on top of a
>tty-driven CLI operating system? Will the universe end?" Of course, back
>then, people probably abhorred the thought of ever running anything other
>than curses on their UNIX boxes.
>
Yes sir Donn Miller. God bless you sir!
And good night to you sir!
Promise not to disturb you again sir.
Charlie
------------------------------
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: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:09:42 GMT
In article <9413rs$dnm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Brown wrote:
>
>Chad Myers wrote in message ...
>>>
>>> I've not heard about a TPC or TPD benchmark yet. I'm not sure
>>> Linux will do well there, unless it runs on heavy hardware such
>>> as an S/390, or perhaps a big multiCPU Sparc.
>>
>>I don't really consider Mindcraft or ZDNet major industry benchmarks,
>>necessarily. While relevant, TPC and similar industry benchmarks
>>are more reliable and standards based.
>>
>>c't is just FUD all around no matter what they're comparing.
>>
>
>
>The problem with benchmarks does not lie with Linux - it lies with the
>commercial software suppliers. There is no point in doing comparisons on
>database servers, or web servers, or whatever, as long as the commercial
>suppliers (understandably, I might add - they have a reputation to maintain)
>have such tight restrictions on what benchmark results can be published. No
>one, not even ZD or Mindcraft or TPC, can actually run independant
>benchmarks, so everyone is left guessing at benchmarks referring to "unnamed
>commercial database 1" and the like.
>
>
>
I agree but don't understand why BYTE doesn't just perform it's own
independent test and invite some Microsoft representatives with w2k
to come and DUKE it out with Linux 2.4 Debian folks on both the
workstation and server arenas.
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
