Linux-Advocacy Digest #531, Volume #31 Wed, 17 Jan 01 12:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Poor Linux (Kevin Ford)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Kevin Ford)
"Basing the new supercomputers on Linux was a no-brainer..." (sfcybear)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (Donn Miller)
Re: Some things are easier in Linux (Mark)
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux (Ian Davey)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (LShaping)
Re: Linux Mandrake and Diamond Viper - No Screens Found (Ilja Booij)
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux (Kevin Ford)
Re: Poor Linux (Kevin Ford)
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] (Kevin Ford)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (Kevin Ford)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (Ilja Booij)
Re: i LOVE this- the auther is a genius (Donn Miller)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (Ilja Booij)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] (.)
What really burns the Winvocates here... (Aaron Ginn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:51:01 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't know what you lot are on about, mine is doing 66 just fine
Trevor once wrote:
>At least MSDog supplies one.
>
>mlw wrote:
>
>> Classy Jones wrote:
>> >
>> > Still can't work with UDMA 66 and 100 out the box.
>>
>> Nor does Windows or NT, so what. They all need a driver.
>>
>> --
>> http://www.mohawksoft.com
>
--
---
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:57:54 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shane Phelps once wrote:
>
>
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> Kev Ford wrote:
>>
>> > Windows 98 will crash every 2/3 days if it is doing any sort of
>> > networking. Witness
>> > my so called web proxy that became utterly unresponsive after about 50
>> > hours uptime.
>>
>> That explains why our Windows 98 SE system at work stays up for months on
>> end serving files to our group of a dozen developers with no problem at all.
>>
>> --
>> Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
>You must have got a really good 'un. Windows 9x seems to have become
>progressively more unreliable since the first release of Windows 95
>(which was actually quite an improvement over WfW 3.11)
>
>3 - 4 weeks seems to be the practical limit for NT in normal networked office
>use, and 9x is a lot less reliable than that. Most of the 9x users I
>know seem
>to power off every night.
I wonder if this particular system has had a nightly reboot shoved into it by
these developers.
I just read that article about that new Micreboot ad and we found that we fully
agree here with the uptimes. We have 125 NT servers that are on a controlled
fortnightly reboot schedule in order to ensure they don't fsck up during work
hours. Windows 9x was ditched from laptop builds about 6 months ago (we have
NTw4 on the desktop as the number of support calls was ridiculous for such a
small percentage of the installed workstation base.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: "Basing the new supercomputers on Linux was a no-brainer..."
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:29:31 GMT
"Basing the new supercomputers on Linux was a no-brainer, Reed said,
because the platform provides users with a familiar computing
environment that covers single-user desktop workstations and small
research clusters to the largest systems."
http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2001/0115/web-linux-01-17-01.asp
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: 17 Jan 2001 09:51:33 -0600
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why don't you liberate your mind and take a programming course or two.
What, and have his brain cells multiply? Can't have that.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark)
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:07:57 GMT
On 16 Jan 2001 21:53:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) almost c
>Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Mark wrote:
>>> He then proceeded to do the network
>>> setup in Windows. 45 minutes and at least 3 reboots later the PC was
>>> connected to the internet and I said a fond farewell to my techie.
>
>> I don't believe 45 minutes to configure a network on a Windows PC. What
>> kind of network is that? TCP/IP takes all of a few minutes, if that.
>
>Idiot, if youd ever worked in a company that employed techies like this
>and understood that they let them loose on the field after a maximum
>of a couple of hours of training (with no other computer experience at
>all), you would understand that this scenerio is quite plausable.
This is pretty much what happened. There was no requirement to install
new hardware, as I let him use the NIC that was already being used for
the LAN. I left him to do his job, because I assumed, probably
wrongly, that he knew more about Windows networking than I did. He
seemed to become confused by the existing values that were being used
to connect to the LAN. Of course, each time you make changes in the
Networking subsystem, Windows requires a reboot, hence the multiple
reboots he had to do, because he kept missing things.
Now maybe a more experienced technician would've been a bit quicker
about getting it running, but I know from experience (having to
connect the cable modem to Windows again to convince tech support that
the problem I was having wasn't with Linux...) that changing the
network properties in Windows is a pain, mainly because of the reboot
you have to do after any change to the network properties. The
smallest mistake and it's another reboot to fix it.
Incidentally, I've had the cable modem for 6 months now. It's worked
perfectly through the Linux box except for one occasion, when it
turned out to be a cable problem. The Linux box has been connected to
the internet continuously for those 6 months, apart from two reboots
due to power cuts.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:14:24 GMT
In article <#fNLtYJgAHA.272@cpmsnbbsa07>, "tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Within our organization after nearly a quarter of a BILLION dollars (that's
>right, a quarter of a BILLION dollars) invested in an IBM conceived and
>executed network (wan/lan) and computing infrastructure (utilizing AIX and
>top of the line CISCO switches) the majority (not the wan/lan) of the
>systems was replaced by an NT based computing facility. In terms of bang
>for bucks AIX did not perform well and was found to be somewhat flaky
>considering its costs.
AIX != Linux which is what is in the heading of this thread. And there are
currently lots of examples of Linux supercomputers. So what is this example
supposed to prove exactly?
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:05:39 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16139.html
The conclusion is "You need to buy Whistler because Win-9x sucks".
But I knew that already :o)
LShaping
------------------------------
From: Ilja Booij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake and Diamond Viper - No Screens Found
Date: 17 Jan 2001 17:29:18 +0100
"rnwalker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So I did myself another installation and keft it simple. Installed the
> minimum (300mb) amount of components, no Internet connection instead of
> ADSL. During the video card install, the screen defaulted to no device, I
> selected Diamond Viper 770, this being the card I have. It has a TNT2
> chipset.
>
> After setup and first reboot, the OS stayed at the prompt after login. I
> ran startx and here is the message I get:
>
> (II) N; driver for Nvidia chipsets...
> (EE) No devices detected
> Fatal server error
> No screens found
> X connection to 0.0 broken
>
> This being my 3rd installation now, does this mean my video card is not
> supported even though it is listed on the install menu? What do I do next?
>
You're installing under VMWare, aren't you?
Doesn't VMWare use some kind of display driver of it's own?
Then you should use that one, and not the TNT2-driver.
I think this is the case, seeing the "No Devices detected" output.
Ilja
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:57:14 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tony roth once wrote:
>Within our organization after nearly a quarter of a BILLION dollars (that's
>right, a quarter of a BILLION dollars) invested in an IBM conceived and
>executed network (wan/lan) and computing infrastructure (utilizing AIX and
>top of the line CISCO switches) the majority (not the wan/lan) of the
>systems was replaced by an NT based computing facility. In terms of bang
>for bucks AIX did not perform well and was found to be somewhat flaky
>considering its costs.
>
AIX is probably the most expensive Unix in history.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:59:42 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bartek Kostrzewa once wrote:
>Sauosol wrote:
>
>> Your quite right, and this is the one point that embarrasses me most
>> about Linux. It does not truly support the latest hardware and I'm
>> afraid never will.
>
>Oh really? Well, out of the box, UDMA 66/100 doesn't work out of the box
>on Windows neither, you have to install your controller's/mobo's drivers
>first, and for Linux, that's either compiling some modules, or
>recompiling the kernel if you don't want to use modules for that...
>
Can I just say
IA-64
booyakasha!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:03:05 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers once wrote:
>
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > Linux isn't anywhere. It's Linux that has the uphill battle. Windows
>> > is everywhere and not giving up any market share to anyone.
>>
>> I know, we truly want to believe that, Chad - I'm with you,
>> I really am, but let's face reality:
>>
>> * Windows/iis has been steadily losing ground to linux/apache
>> in the web server market.
>
>If you're referring to the heavily skewed Netcraft, results,
>I would point you to:
>
>http://www.biznix.org/surveys/
>
>Netcraft counts each virtual host as a server, which is grossly
>incorrect.
>
>For the numbers that really matter (Fortune and Global 500)
>IIS is in the lead. These are realatively new numbers, the gap
>is widening between IIS and Apache. Apache was the stronghold, now
>it's losing share left and right to IIS.
>
>iPlanet (Netscape) is a player now. Apache is on its way out, it's
>IIS and iPlanet now.
>
>> * Linux destroyed windows in the specweb results.
>
>Questionable.
>
>>
>> * IBM is investing a BILLION dollars in Linux this year.
>
>I'm suprised you mention that. IBM doesn't have a very good
>investment record... Lotus?
>
Ho ho.
IIS isn't even capable of staying up whilst doing virtual serving.
Surely this is a feature of apache that should be recognised?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Ford)
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:22:18 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Donn Miller once wrote:
>JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Maybe, but you've got to admit that Windows is easier to get to know
>> than Linux for beginners, as it does most things by itself.
>
>Maybe. But even then, there's a certain learning curve in getting to know
>where everything is at under Windows. It also takes a certain amount of
>skill in using the Windows' GUI. For example, if you want to create a
>start-up disk under Windows, you have to know to go to settings->control
>panel->add/remove programs. I might even be wrong! And yet, I know all of
>the unix commands and tools like the back of my hand.
>
>
It purely depends on your background. I've been force fed DOS and Windows
3.0 at an early age, as my Dad used DOS at his office and we had 3.0 at
school.
Then I went to University and had to do HP-UX which taught me a bit of
Unix.
Then when I left Uni Windows 95 had been out for about a year and I wanted
to buy a PC and get on the Internet and hadn't heard much of Linux at this
point. So I got Windows 95. It was OK, but very buggy, something I was not
at all used to after HP-UX.
98 came and I tried that, but it wasn't really much of an improvement.
Then I took the plunge and tried Linux a couple of years ago and haven't
looked back, it was more what I was used to.
But in the end anyone with even only a years experience is not really
going to want to try and do something new without valid reason, especially
people who consider themselves gurus at whatever o/s they use suddenly
finding themselves asking people that they perhaps don't like for advice.
I find Linux easier to use because I can do more stuff with it myself
without forever hitting the shareware sites for software that will expire
in a month.
There is not much to choose between the GUIs. They're all virtually the
same anyway. Linux's seem to be a bit more configurable, but perhaps
Microsofts is more if a standard. I don't like the way the whole o/s seems
dependant on the stability of the gui with microsoft though.
Linux is definitely more suited to people who don't mind learning a bit in
order to get more out of their PC's. I enjoy working with my PC rather
than expecting it to do what I want and stubbornly waiting for the next
release if it doens't.
------------------------------
From: Ilja Booij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: 17 Jan 2001 17:34:11 +0100
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > All of the small, strange little commands that have to be memorized... is
> > easier than Windows?
>
> Oh, I find typing the command that does what I expect is much easier than
> using my mouse to navigate through tons of cascading menus and dialog boxes.
> With unix, you're not restricted to mostly GUI or mostly command-line,
> because you can mix parts of both in whatever portions you like. Take
> me, for example. I like using KDE, because there's a lot of nice little
> things built-in. But mostly, I find myself at the Konsole command line.
> Newbies, OTOH, would probably fall back on the easy-to-use KDE configuration
> tools much more than I would. So you see, you can make unix as GUI or
> command-line as you please. With Windows, you're forced to use mainly GUI
> apps. There's some command line tools, such as ftp, included with Windows.
> But, they're horrible, and they don't seem to follow any set pattern. The
> only aspect of Windows that maintains consistency from release to release is
> the GUI aspect.
One of the things I really like about CLIs: You can explain to
somebody (either on the phone, or via email) which commands to type,
instead of saying: No go left with mouse, CLICK, no make six circles
and do a double backflip (don't forget to press the left button while
you're upside down) and press again.
just saying
dd cp ~/files/foo ~/files/bar is so much easier
Ilja
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: i LOVE this- the auther is a genius
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: 17 Jan 2001 10:31:10 -0600
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah, if that's the case, I can donate many more billions to a charity
> foundation of my own, provided it returns them to me so I can donate them
> again. Does it make me a big philanthropist?
No, but it will create an image of you being a philanthropist in the public
eye. The public sees Gates giving away these large sums, and people think,
well, maybe he's not such a bad guy people make him out to be. The only problem
with that logic is that the very purpose of his charity may be for tax
deductions. Provided he gets all the money back he gave to his charity, he
not only breaks even, but gets a break on his taxes as well.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
From: Ilja Booij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: 17 Jan 2001 17:36:55 +0100
Ilja Booij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > All of the small, strange little commands that have to be memorized... is
> > > easier than Windows?
> >
> > Oh, I find typing the command that does what I expect is much easier than
> > using my mouse to navigate through tons of cascading menus and dialog boxes.
> > With unix, you're not restricted to mostly GUI or mostly command-line,
> > because you can mix parts of both in whatever portions you like. Take
> > me, for example. I like using KDE, because there's a lot of nice little
> > things built-in. But mostly, I find myself at the Konsole command line.
> > Newbies, OTOH, would probably fall back on the easy-to-use KDE configuration
> > tools much more than I would. So you see, you can make unix as GUI or
> > command-line as you please. With Windows, you're forced to use mainly GUI
> > apps. There's some command line tools, such as ftp, included with Windows.
> > But, they're horrible, and they don't seem to follow any set pattern. The
> > only aspect of Windows that maintains consistency from release to release is
> > the GUI aspect.
>
> One of the things I really like about CLIs: You can explain to
> somebody (either on the phone, or via email) which commands to type,
> instead of saying: No go left with mouse, CLICK, no make six circles
> and do a double backflip (don't forget to press the left button while
> you're upside down) and press again.
> just saying
>
> dd cp ~/files/foo ~/files/bar is so much easier
hmm, I must be half asleep.. dd and cp in the same command..
better go home and get some fuel into the brain
Ilja
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:30:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:04:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:33:43 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> You are generalizing for a random large collection of
> >> individuals.
> >
> >No I am saying ANYONE who hunts around a typical Linux system and
> >clicks on help will be more than likely be greeted with a message
> >along the lines of "Help not Written Yet".
> >
> >
> >
> >> This is assinine and trivially absurd.
> >
> >It sure is considering how long kde and Gnome have been in
> >development.
>
> ...compared to what? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years?
>
> Compared to what Windows was like 2 years after it's
> inception, GNOME is a bloody masterpiece.
That comparison makes no sense.
GNOME uses Linux or some other Unix, that have been around for years.
GNOME uses X, that has been around since ages.
GNOME uses GTK+ that has been around 4 years.
GNOME itself has been around over 3 years.
Compare things as they are, and maybe try to explain away lacks
as being in process of being fixed, but comparing what currently
exists to something noone even remembers is wishful thinking.
--
Roberto Alsina (who can say exactly the same thing about KDE)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:33:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:16:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >And Linux applications follow some sort of style guide?
>
> Ask Roberto.
Just in case: yes.
http://developer.kde.org/documentation/standards/kde/style/basics/index.html
Not complete, but it's there, and we are expected to follow it.
We are also strongly encouraged to think about
http://developer.kde.org/documentation/design/ui/index.html
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: 17 Jan 2001 16:44:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > Linux isn't anywhere. It's Linux that has the uphill battle. Windows
>> > is everywhere and not giving up any market share to anyone.
>>
>> I know, we truly want to believe that, Chad - I'm with you,
>> I really am, but let's face reality:
>>
>> * Windows/iis has been steadily losing ground to linux/apache
>> in the web server market.
> If you're referring to the heavily skewed Netcraft, results,
> I would point you to:
> http://www.biznix.org/surveys/
> Netcraft counts each virtual host as a server, which is grossly
> incorrect.
Because it makes windows, which cannot handle the number of virtual
hosts that linux (or any other UNIX) can, look very bad.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: 17 Jan 2001 09:38:52 -0700
is that we really don't care whether or not Linux supports all their
shiny new hardware with X,Y, and Z features or that their favorite
application 'foo' is not available for Linux. It's not that we're not
willing to help people that ask for it, but we also don't care when a
Windows user comes in here and says "Linux sux because it doesn't do
blah, blah, blah" or "Linux blows because there isn't a port of
'insert random Windows application here'".
Maybe Linux isn't quite ready for my mom to install and use out of the
box, but it's good enough for me and for anyone else here that uses
it. I still marvel at the fact that I got a server-class quality OS
with literally hundreds of apps for the cost of a 30 minute download
on my cable modem, i.e. nothing but my time. I can't even _pay_ $200
and get a server-class OS from Microsoft.
I started using Linux with Red Hat 5.2 two years ago, and the strides
that Linux has made in that time are truly amazing. The difference
between that OS and Mandrake 7.2 is akin to the difference between
Win3.1 and Win9x. At the current rate of improvement, does anyone
here really doubt that Linux will overtake Microsoft in the next few
years. The _only_ thing remaining is for some forward-looking OEM to
start shipping preinstalls to the masses. I realize these already
exist, but I'm talking about your local Comp USA or Best Buy.
Linux ain't goin' anywhere guys. You might as well get used to it.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
