Linux-Advocacy Digest #542, Volume #31 Thu, 18 Jan 01 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Some things are easier in Linux ("Todd")
Re: Some things are easier in Linux ("Todd")
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (.)
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] (.)
Re: More Linux woes ("Todd")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (.)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... ("Todd")
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (Salvador Peralta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:11:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 17 Jan 2001 23:17:57 GMT
<945975$svo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On 17 Jan 2001 22:24:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>> So have I, and it seems to be getting worse with every new release.
>>>
>>>You have not been using netscape from the very beginning; this is an
>>>absolute lie.
>
>> I was using Netscape while you were still in middle school sonny :)
>
>I was in middle school (east coast lingo; that would be "junior high"
>for most other north americans) in 1982.
I was in college. Netscape? What Netscape?
Hell, we didn't even have a graphics-capable terminal, except
for a Tektronix emulator in a Vt100. It worked, but
it wouldn't have been too good for modern web browsing. :-)
We did have a bunch of cursor-addressable terminals, though
(Fox, Teleray, and Vt100 being the ones I remember offhand).
>
>> That's Windows and OS/2 versions.
>
>I still dont believe you. You have enough of a vocabulary and skill
>for lying to not be a complete moron; therefore if you have experience
>in this field dating back that far, you must certianly be an idiot for
>none of it actually rubbing off.
>
>So between the choice of labeling you a liar or a moron, I take liar.
I also seem to recall that DOS was the big exciting thing then when I
came *out* of college (I graduated in '83) -- if one could call it that.
(I also remember the "Peanut" -- code name for what eventually became
the Macintosh -- being discussed by a classmate of mine in the summer
of 1982 or so, or maybe winter 1983.)
If Flatty thinks Windows was actually able to run Netscape by then,
he's not remembering his history very well. :-) I certainly
remember it slightly differently.
In the world of engineering workstations, when I came out, the
VS100 was talked about, and Woolongong might have released its
socket code -- or it might not. X10 might have been out.
I will also note that RFC1945 (that's HTTP/1.0) is dated May 1996.
It's very hard to see how Netscape could exist without a protocol! :-)
Of course, HTTP might have been in use some years before it was
standardized -- but it certainly wasn't in use in my college years.
Not even Usenet existed in my college years; RFC977 is dated
Feb 1986. (Maybe in yours, yttrx, since you seem to be slightly
younger than yours truly. :-) )
Note also that IP came out -- or, at least, RFC791 did -- in Sep 1981.
It mentions Telnet, FTP, and TFTP (oddly, TFTP uses UDP packets
in this diagram; maybe it still does :-) ).
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random rememberance here
EAC code #191 6d:03h:16m actually running Linux.
Yes, uptime & wall clock aren't in synch; I don't know why.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:45:48 +0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:01:08 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Todd wrote:
> >>
> >> > For me, when I subscribed to cable modem, they installed the network
> >card
> >> > and turned on the machine.
> >> >
> >> > I was expecting to have to configure *something*, but Windows 2000
> >> > automatically installed the network card, *and* detected and
configured
> >the
> >> > network settings, in this case DHCP.
> >>
> >> Sounds a lot like my Red Hat system -
> >
> >I have RedHat 7.0... still trying to get my ethernet card up and
running...
>
> Either it has the driver available or it doesn't.
I'm sure it must... it is a 3Com card that is fairly standard.
>
> 'Ease' isn't the problem, vendor support (most likely) is.
>
> NT5 would give you the same problem if you had a logitech
> usb webcam.
Well, we weren't talking about NT5 or webcams, but rather how this popular
ethernet card isn't being recognized or automatically configured for use
under Linux.
-Todd
>
> [deletia]
>
> --
>
> |||
> / | \
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:47:05 +0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd Needham ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Todd [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > For me, when I subscribed to cable modem, they installed the network
> > card
> > > > and turned on the machine.
> > > >
> > > > I was expecting to have to configure *something*, but Windows 2000
> > > > automatically installed the network card, *and* detected and
configured
> > the
> > > > network settings, in this case DHCP.
> > > >
> > > > I didn't have to do anything at all.
> > > >
> > > > Now *that* is easy.
> > >
> > > All of which was pioneered in Unix/Linux.
> >
> > That could be true, but I wish it just *worked* under Linux.
>
> It does, dipshit.
Common Linux user response to people that can't get Linux to work as
Linadvocates claim?
> We are not responsible for Todd Needham's stupidity
The funny thing is, it is you that seems to be in error, not me. Again, I'm
not Todd Needham.
> > I still can't
> > get my ethernet card recognized under Red Hat 7.0. And for some reason,
it
> > didn't seem to install sound card drives for my on-board sound.
> >
> > Oh well... I'm sure I'll get it working one of these days...
>
> Maybe if you try pulling your head out of your ass.
Hmmm... you seem to be the more likable of Linadvocates.
-Todd
>
>
> >
> > -Todd
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > Unix Systems Engineer
> > > DNRC Minister of all I survey
> > > ICQ # 3056642
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: 18 Jan 2001 04:48:21 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I was in middle school (east coast lingo; that would be "junior high"
>>for most other north americans) in 1982.
> I was in college. Netscape? What Netscape?
> Hell, we didn't even have a graphics-capable terminal, except
> for a Tektronix emulator in a Vt100. It worked, but
> it wouldn't have been too good for modern web browsing. :-)
The first computer I laid hands on was around that time actually,
and was a commodore PET. (I cant remember which model). We wrote
BASIC programs that made little ascii rockets fly up the screen.
> I will also note that RFC1945 (that's HTTP/1.0) is dated May 1996.
> It's very hard to see how Netscape could exist without a protocol! :-)
> Of course, HTTP might have been in use some years before it was
> standardized -- but it certainly wasn't in use in my college years.
> Not even Usenet existed in my college years; RFC977 is dated
> Feb 1986. (Maybe in yours, yttrx, since you seem to be slightly
> younger than yours truly. :-) )
Well, I was in college from 1987 to 1995. Usenet certianly existed, and
I accessed it through an account on a VAX VMS setup. Those days were
alot of fun for me; the entire internet consisted of Usenet, IRC and
NetHack. I actually didnt use any sort of graphical interface for
anything until a couple of versions into Mosiac; and then it was mostly
for looking at what I was looking at with lynx in the first place---
subgenius propaganda. Remember what would happen when you fingered
or emailed [EMAIL PROTECTED]?
Those certianly were some fun times.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: 18 Jan 2001 04:49:58 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <9458ul$svo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:944i4h$2vd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> 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.
>>
>>> Oh really? And genius period man - tell the class ... what's the limit of
>>> virtual hosts for IIS (free hint#1: it isn't any windows limitation, you
>>> yutz)?
>>
>>Alright, you stupid bastard, on absolutely, ABSOLUTELY identical hardware, (it
>>was the same machine):
>>
>>IIS: 250
>>
>>Apache under Freebsd: 22,000
>>
>>Apache under linux: 18,000
>>
>>And thats the end of the story. IIS chokes HARD above 50 on said configuration,
>>and dies utterly at 250. It simply cannot handle it.
>>
>>You will of course find lots of people who swear up and down that theyve seen
>>a couple of thousand virtual hosts running on one IIS install on one machine.
>>
>>Theyre all lying.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----.
>>
> I want a rematch with 2.4 installed here.
No way. It was a huge pain in the ass in the first place, and the reasoning
didnt even have anything to do with testing of any sort...:P
=====.
--
"It's natural to expect there might be people doing stupid things
with computers"
---Michael Vatis, director of the FBI's national infrastructure
protection center commenting on Y2K concerns about hacker attacks
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:52:03 +0800
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Todd
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:05:48 +0800
> <9435gs$bkm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Todd wrote:
> >>
> >> > Linux *is* too hard to use - Linux will *never* replace Windows on
the
> >> > desktop if Linux users have this attitude.
> >>
> >> The desktop is dying, anyway. The future is embedded, where
> >> Linux dominates already.
> >
> >Funny... I've heard this comment for years now...
> >
> >Last couple of years it was Java replacing Windows...
> >
> >Hmmmm... guess some things never change!
>
> I rather doubt Windows is going to die anytime soon. It's a bit
> like COBOL and FORTRAN in that respect.
I wasn't aware that COBOL and FORTRAN were #1 in popularity... I've been
using C++ all this time. DAMN!
> And look at how long DOS is taking to die; Cairo was supposed to
> merge the NT and Win9x (then Win3.1) lines years and years back,
> after Chicago came out (Win95). That was almost 6 years ago.
> Now Whistler will finally kill the underlying DOS dead.
> You'll pardon my slight skepticism, I'm sure.
Well, MS *did* focus on the *customer* (not the OS lover) and did try to
make things as backwards compatible as they could.
> And then there's the notion of Unix being old and antiquated.
It's not that Unix is 'old', it's that it doesn't ever seem to be updated.
Still hard to use in this day in age. Unacceptable.
-Todd
>
> Winvocates can't have it both ways. :-)
>
> [.sigsnip]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> EAC code #191 5d:17h:20m actually running Linux.
> Microsoft. When it absolutely, positively has to act
weird.
------------------------------
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: 18 Jan 2001 04:53:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:07:41 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:04:16 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:38:38 GMT, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> 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:
>> >> [deletia]
>> >> >> >> So? What's the real problem with that.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> ><sigh> That question alone proves you have no concept of what
>> >> >> >we're talking about.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >We don't have all the time in the world.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then educate us, assuming you can actually articulate
>> >> >> the details of the 'problem'.
>> >> >
>> >> >Splitting all the movies into 15 minute segments just to
>> >> >accomodate our poor choice of a poorly designed OS wouldn't
>> >> >not be high on the list of things the Video department
>> >> >would've wanted to do. Especially since they were strapping
>> >>
>> >> Odd then that consumer digital is distributed
>> >> in JUST THAT FORMAT.
>> >
>> >huh?
>> >
>> >1.) I don't think you know what you're talking about
>> >2.) We weren't distributing "consumer digital" products, we
>>
>> Even so.
>>
>> How lame can your authoring system be if it can't seamlessly
>> cut together disparate pieces of video. HELL, that's the whole
>> point of a corporeal video editing system.
> <sigh> It's not that it CAN'T, it's that we don't have the time
> to do it.
> It takes time to split it into pieces. It then takes more time
> to put the pieces back together for final editing and post
> production.
> It would essentially triple the time it took with a real OS that
> could handle > 2GB files.
Linux can do all that.
But I think we all understand perfectly that you should be doing
in-line realtime video editing with a toaster on an amiga.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:01:55 +0800
"Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> 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'".
Actually, that doesn't 'burn' me, nor do I think Linux sux because of the
above reasons.
> Maybe Linux isn't quite ready for my mom to install and use out of the
> box,
it sure the hell ain't
> but it's good enough for me
fair enough... but it may not be good enough for other users... such as
those like me who prefer Windows 2000.
> 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.
Linux *can* be used as a server, but then so could the Max OS (not OSX) if
you really tried.
Those hundreds of built-in apps. are small little command line programs that
are usually built into Windows 2000 anyway.
> I can't even _pay_ $200
> and get a server-class OS from Microsoft.
Maybe because MS doesn't *sell* their server OS for $200?
> 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.
So what you are saying then is that Linux is a few years behind? I'd
strengthen your comment by saying that Linux has a longer ways than that to
go.
I just saw Whistler beta 2 and it is gonna be great. (more on that in
another thread maybe :)
> The _only_ thing remaining is for some forward-looking OEM to
> start shipping preinstalls to the masses.
Been there, done that. The support nightmares would drive them into
bankruptcy.
> I realize these already
> exist, but I'm talking about your local Comp USA or Best Buy.
Why do you think they *don't* do it? Are you one of those conspiracy
theorists? Hell, *get a clue*. Linux is too hard for your common average
user that probably doesn't even *know* what a command line is!?!?
> Linux ain't goin' anywhere guys. You might as well get used to it.
I don't think I need to say anything here except that I agree for the most
part... Linux ain't goin' anywhere.
-Todd
>
> --
> 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]
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:02:38 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Hasler wrote:
> BTW, much of the software you use every day on Linux is licensed under
> terms similar or identical to those used by FreeBSD.
Assuming that you are writing your software for distribution, the main
distinctions between the 2 licenses are that the GPL requires that you
provide the source code ( or access to the source code ) with the
distribution and that the product must be licensed at no cost to all 3rd
parties. BSD has no such requirements.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
