Linux-Advocacy Digest #547, Volume #31 Thu, 18 Jan 01 10:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (Edward Rosten)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ("David James Strike-Bacon")
Re: KDE Hell (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (chrisv)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (.)
Re: Why Hatred? (.)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (chrisv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:14:47 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:12:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
> Ebert) wrote:
>
> >That's fine. Why don't you put a yellow funnel in your nose,
> >go out into the backyard, look up at the sky and pray to god
> >for rain.
>
> Because I'm having too much fun watching you do it?
Okay...
> >The problem with this logic is W2k isn't an operating system.
> >
> >It's a peice of shit.
>
> I like to look at it as an applications launcher.
> MacOS is another applications launcher.
> Linux could be an applications launcher, if it had applications worth
> launching.
Now, the world moved from very simple program loaders to operating
systems in the early 60's. Are you saying that Win2K is a fine example
of 1960's technology? I want on operating system to run my computer.
> >You still haven't heard of Debian? You know Debian has
> >4400 packages and is designed to be downloaded from the
> >net for free. All of it.
>
> Sure I have.
> Corel tried to build that horrific distribution they put out on
> Debian.
So? Don't use Corel. Use debian.
> >>Of course you can get a $1.99 CD at Cheapbytes, but again, no support
> >>and not a full system like the $35.95 version
> >>
> >
> >Intelligence does have a bearing here.
>
> Of course it doesn't because you Penguinista's love sitting for hours
> downloading some image instead of spending $1.99 to buy one.
I paid £30 for rathead 5.2 and £10 for RH6 and 6.0. Now I can download
the CDs in about half an hour.
> >>Install?
> >>
> >>Linux about 25 minutes and one reboot.
> >>Windows 2k, about an hour and I honestly lost track of reboots (3 or
> >>4).
> >>
> >
> >
> >Linux, about 45 minutes.
> >W2k an hour.
>
> Your system is slow.
True. Last time I installed Linux it took about 30 minutes.
> >But with Linux you end up with an operting system.
> >With W2k you end up with an emulation of an operating system.
>
> With Linux you end up spending the next week trying to figure out how
> to make the rest of your hardware work.
> You know, all the stuff that wasn't auto detected.
For me, that was a grand total of none of it. Now tell me how i can get
those 56Khz fixed frequency workstation moniters working with windows.
> >We lost some Windows boxes from ILOVEYOU but Linux so far
> >has never felt any pain from being our firewall.
>
> You were probably rooted a long time ago and don't even know it.
Is that the best you can do? Poor effort.
> >This get's back to the install.
> >Everything you mentioned is supported but you have to know how
> >to install it.
>
> I don't have to do a thing under Win2k.
> It all works perfectly.
Welcome to the world we've been enjoing for the last few years already.
> >>How about xmms?
> >>Compare it to the CD Player offered in the standard Win2k install
> >>(V5.5 I believe).
> >
> >XMMS looks cooler, has SKINS which the W2k thing doesn't,
> >and plays better as it's running on Linux.
>
> No it doesn't, it skips all over the place and the lettering on just
> about all the skins is blurry and boxy looking.
> It looks like shit.
It doesn't skip all over the place. I'd like to see Win2K playing MP3s
and burning CDs at 8x on a P133 without skipping (linux can do it on my
computer).
> >That's probably why they did that movie Titanic on Linux
> >instead of Windows.
> It was a rendering farm, crunching numbers.
Are you admitting that Linux is better for some things?
> >This sounds like the battle of the bloat!
> >Are you braggin here or complaining?
>
> StarOffice wins the bloat battle.
StarOffice != Linux. Besides, since the OS is so unbloated, it leaves
room for the odd bloated app :-)
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:58:58 GMT
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > When you're done with your adolescent ad homonim attacks, please
> > post a URL for a c't article praising MS for something.
> >
>
> Do you honestly believe that MS can be praised for something, except for
> an unattained ability to violate all the ethics of commerce?
Hmm...
- Windows 2000 has many advances that exceed many other OS (including
everything in Linux)
- MS has one of the best security response time to discovered exploits.
Even better than Red Hat in most cases. And MS even tests their patches
and then does a full regression test each Service Pack, something
Red Hat doesn't do.
- Active Directory Services is the most advanced directory service
architecture out there. It harnesses many open standards including
X.500, LDAPv3, SMTP, Kerbers v5, X.509 certificates, etc.
Just to name a few off the top of my head.
Oh yeah, not to mention the best all-around OS Windows 2000.
We had some Oracle reps visit our company yesterday, and even they,
who profess hatred of Microsoft, had laptops running Win2K using
PowerPoint for presentations. Why? Because there's nothing out
there that's as close to Win2K at stability, ease of use, and
functionality.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "David James Strike-Bacon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:21:24 +0800
well countered cliff
"Cliff Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:945tfu$lig$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Oh, I know enough people have replied to Steve,
> but hey, I've been too busy keep up with the group
> for several months, so I figured, this is as good a way as
> any to repost here, since I installed Mandrake 7.2 only a couple weeks
back.
>
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:17:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] speaketh:
>
> > With the exception of cost, and that is really debateable considering
> > the large amount of time wasted configuring Linsux, I can see
> > absolutely no valid reason to downgrade and run Linux.
> >
> > Let's look at Mandrake 7.2 vs Win2k Pro.
> >
> > Mandrake 7.2 cost $35.95-$120 at Borders Books in NYC depending on
> > version (PowerPack was the most expensive).
>
> I downloaded mine, so I can't comment.
>
> > Win2k Pro upgrade is about $115.00 average price mail order.
> > Full support is included.
>
> Upgrade? You're comparing the price of a full version of Mandrake,
> so let's use the full version pricing of Win2k Pro. Cheapest price
> I found quickly online for a NON-OEM version was $216.
>
> As for support....having had to deal with Microsoft Support in
> the past, I wouldn't toot my horn too loudly about getting that
> in with the price.
>
> > Linux takes that one, espcially if you consider that it can be
> > downloaded, although this is not a complete download and can't be
> > compared to the purchased version, for free.
> >
> > Do you really want to Download 650 meg of data?
> > Take a look at how many people are having trouble burning the CD's in
> > the Mandrake group.
>
> Burning ISOs? I've never had a problem yet with the 7 distribution ISOs
> I've downloaded (while trying to do some evaluations of the current
distros
> out there)
>
> > Of course you can get a $1.99 CD at Cheapbytes, but again, no support
> > and not a full system like the $35.95 version
>
> Full enough if it's the same as the download one. I'm looking to
> download staroffice just to have a well rounded OfficeSuite collection,
> but other then that and the 2.4.0 kernel, I haven't needed anything not on
> the CDROM (or immediately available via kpackage).
>
> > Install?
> >
> > Linux about 25 minutes and one reboot.
> > Windows 2k, about an hour and I honestly lost track of reboots (3 or
> > 4).
>
> My linux install took quite a bit longer, but then again, I carefully go
> through the package list to get rid of crap I need and add in things that
> won't generally get installed.
>
> > Linux wins for basic install.
> >
> >
> > So what do we have once installed?
> >
> > Security?
> >
> > Check out www.grc.com or better yet www.hackerwhacker.com on a newly
> > installed Linux system and a Windows 2k system as well.
> > Linux is WIDE OPEN to attack and only a seasoned pro is going to know
> > how to shut things down via inetd to make it reasonably safe.
> > I would be terrified to run a newly installed Linux system on a cable
> > or dsl or any "on all the time" connection because you WILL be hacked
> > in short order.
>
> Oh? Well, let's see....they have 4 or 5 different security settings.
> Paranoid leaves almost nothing open, and high what few things that are
open
> TCP wrapped with a hosts.deny locking EVERYONE out.
>
> > Win2k show ALL relevant ports closed by default on both sites.
>
> The default file shares are still there, and after installing a few dev
> tools, I had to go in and shut down all the web related services that I
> never configured to run in the first place.
>
> I believe Mandrake sets it on the middle security setting as it's default,
> but it's a pretty simple drop down. Anything above the default (i've
never
> tried the default security to verify this), and MDK wins, or at WORST a
tie.
>
> > Let's look at hardware, detection and drivers.
> >
> > Linux claimed it detected my Logitech WheelMouse and Matrox card yet
> > in reality neither was detected properly. Linux also could not detect
> > my IBM/Sony monitor, printer (Lexmark) or scanner (Canon) or digital
> > USB camera (xirlink).
>
> No comparison. My ATI card and cordless wheelmouse both worked fine right
> after installing. I did have to look up my monitor's refresh rates
> (although I could have just as easily gotten by with the defaults it had).
>
> My printer's been a PITA, although CUPS is starting to make some strides
to
> make it easier. That's one area I hope development can make easier.
>
> > Win2k detected every single piece of hardware and they all worked, and
> > in fact even the scanner and and digital camera worked. The SBLive
> > drivers stuttered a little, but a quick trip to Creative fixed that
> > problem with newer drivers.
>
> I use OSS/Linux to run my sound card, so I simply go to their web site,
and
> download the matching version (but admit that I can't make a comparison,
> since I upgraded to the 2.4.0 kernel immediately after install and then
> grabbed the driver, so don't know how the kernel configs with MDK might
> cause any problems). My AWE64 gold is always detected by the oss setup
> program (which they finally got a lil GUI on, which is good, since the
> previous curses one always had some display problems when run in an
xterm).
>
> > Sound?
> > Linux seems to think my SBLive and CDROM were designed to only provide
> > DAE mode of operation which is nice if you want to watch your system
> > crawl to a halt. Under WIn2k I could turn it off by checking a box. I
> > still have not figured out how to do it under Linux, and no
> > Penguinista has been able to tell me how.
>
> I don't know. I never play CDs on my burner. That's why I have Bose
> speakers, so I can hear CDs from my changer while in the computer room.
>
> > Applications.
> >
> > Let's talk applications shall we?
> >
> > Take a look at Netscape. Take a GOOD LOOK. Can anyone honestly say
> > that it looks good?
> > Web pages either have huge text or microscopic text or both depending
> > upon what font options you are trying at the moment.
>
> I haven't had any major issues with netscape, although I prefer Opera, and
> must say that konqueror is making a LOT of strides since the previous KDE
> release. I'm anxious to see how things are in the upcoming releases.
>
> > How about xmms?
> > Compare it to the CD Player offered in the standard Win2k install
> > (V5.5 I believe).
>
> Not an important issue to me. Besides, playing a CD on my computer means
I
> can't be playing a game or burning a CD.
>
> > See how slick and smooth and pleasing to the eye the Microsoft Player
> > looks?
> > See how boxy and crude xmms looks?
> > Did you try making it double size?
> > Can you even look at it without laughing?
> > It's a jagged mess.
>
> So microsoft wins a point for "eye candy"
>
> > How about Gaim?
> > Look at the directory tree that shows your buddies.
> > See how the tree is broken with nasty looking charactors?
> > Take a look at the WIndows equivilant, smooth and clean looking.
> > Which one looks better?
>
> Dunno, I use licq, which isn't bad, but still lacks some of the nicities
of
> the current ICQ release. Although, zicq is nice in that I can use it
> remotely from a client site via ssh over a console.
>
> > How about GVpic or whatever that program that is an ACDsee clone is
> > called.
> >
> > Miserable thing take 3 minutes to load a directory of a couple
> > thousand pics
>
> I'm guessing you're talking about GQView?
> So, you're comparing a piece of software included for FREE with
> Mandrake with one you:
> 1) have to go out and download
> 2) have to pay for.
>
> Interesting comparison. I'm sure you didn't have to compare ANY windows
> products to come to the realization that ACDSee is the best (which i'm not
> arguing the point)...however, for linux, you'll stick with whatever
happens
> to be on the box. That's a *cough cough* fair comparison.
>
> Oh, and gqview took about 90 seconds to load up a directory with 10000
> pictures in it. Not blazing, but not that bad.
>
> There may be better, but I have the better video card and larger monitor
on
> my gaming machine (if Blizzard ever starts writing games for Linux, I'll
be
> in heaven), so usually do use ACDSee.
>
> > Let's look at StarOffice shall we?
> >
> > This one you have to try for yourself, but the only comment I had is
> > you can brew a cup of coffee waiting for it to load.
> > And load it does. THis sucker takes over everything, which is ironic
> > considering how the LinoNuts complain about MS bloatware.
> > Try it for yourself.
>
> I generally have a distaste for all office suites. If anything, on my
> laptop (which I generally do most of my client site work, which is when I
> need word processing and such), I mostly stick with SmartSuit, but KWord
> isn't a bad little program for free.
>
> > If you are a WIndows user you are used to reading your news offline,
> > meaning you dial up to the server, download your messages, disconnect
> > and read and reply offline, connect again and post.
> > You are also used to launching attachments, reading HTML and changing
> > properties of different newsgroups on the fly and selectively.
> >
> > Try this one under Linux and see how far you get.
> > Best offering is pan, but it is highly unstable at the moment.
> > It's ironic that the OS that runs the net can't even have a decent
> > news program.
>
> Different tact on this. I have a broadband connection, so this isn't an
> issue, but back when I didn't, I used leafnode. It took a little bit of
> configurations, but once it was up and running, it worked just fine, plus
> it gives you complete flexibility to select ANY newsreader you want, not
> just choosing one based on offline reading capabilities.
>
> > BTW have you been using Internet Explorer 5.x?
>
> you mean the browser with the attachment problem where half the time it
> saves html files when you're trying to get a binary? Yeah, I have.
>
> > Let me introduce you to Netscape, the premier browser for Linux.
>
> konqueror is picking up steam.
>
> > It's like driving your grandfathers Edsel after taking a spin in a
> > 2001 Corvette Callway Turbo...
> > Good luck :(
>
> I'd say it's more like driving a 92 mustang vs. a 95 mustang.
> (anyone familiar with mustangs will get it). Although now microsoft has
> decided it wants to release a 99 mustang.
>
> > How about ICS?
> >
> > Easy enough to set up under Mandrake, assuming you didn't select
> > "Setup Network" when you installed Mandrake in which case you will
> > never get ICS working.
> >
> > Unfortunately Dial On Demand is non-existant, which kind of wliminates
> > the need for ICS now doesn't it?
>
> Never done ICS, so no idea.
>
> > How about Trojan protection?
> >
> > Does Linux have any program that allows you to monitor Trojans that
> > might be trying to dial out from your system?
> >
> > Windows does and it is free and it is called ZoneAlarm.
>
> Another program you have to go out and find. Did you even look around for
> the 1,000,000 firewall configuration tools out there? There are plenty
> that offer a GUI which is what it seems you need to hold your hand.
> Go looking on freshmeat under "ipchains" and "firewall"...come back when
> you've tried them all out (and not just picking one or two at random).
>
> > I could go on for hours, but I ask you to only try Linux and see for
> > yourself.
>
> I have. And thankfully it never locks up on me. I'm not sure why Windows
> 2000 insists on locking up on me from time to time, combined with the fun
> "Process has locked pages" BSOD. Lucky for me, my main stuff is on my
> linux box, so when my Win2k box decides it's time it needs to reboot
> itself, I don't get interupted from anything.
>
> What items do I still use Windows for?
> Games,
> ICQ,
> Web development (for when I do ASP/DCOM work).
>
> If it weren't for the fact that i'm such an AVID gamer, I'm sure that I
> could make do with licq, and find decent enough linux tools for web
> development (already found a few, but the UltraDev/Visual Studio combo is
> very handy for windows based development)
>
> > Don't try a hardcore distribution like Slackware or Debian, but
> > instead try Mandrake or SuSE or Redhat and see for yourself.
>
> And where does Storm fit in? A pretty nice debian based distribution. (I
> haven't put it through it's paces, but apt-get works nicely on it, so was
> able to update the entire system pretty quickly once I had it installed).
>
> > See how a simple update from Mandrake in the form of a CD can trash
> > your entire system. See how SP1 from Microsoft installs perfectly and
> > everything works.
> > See how even simple updates to kde require many meg of files.
> > See how you always seem to be missing some dependency or another.
>
> RPM is sadly lacking in dependency resolving. Rumor has it, apt is being
> ported from DEB to RPM. If that comes to pass, the end of the dependency
> problems (as well as sane full distribution updating) will be near. I've
> even used apt-get to update the entire debian distribution to their
> UNSTABLE heirarchy (which still proved more stable then ANYTHING I've ever
> used from Microsoft has been).
>
> > With Linsux it just goes on and on...What is simple under WIndows
> > turns out to be a mission of mercy under Linsux..
>
> And things that I take for granted in linux (long uptimes, symbolic links,
> full process control, fast easy remote access on limited bandwidth) are
> difficult or impossible under windows.
>
> > So all I ask is that you try Linux and decide for yourself.
> >
> > My guess is that you will decide that Linux sux....
>
> Ok steve, you pointed out the same existing problems that you always do,
> and the same imaginary ones as well. This argument was better then most
> since you compared a complete distribution to a Microsoft UPGRADE CD with
a
> bunch of programs you either purchased or downloaded.
>
> In other words, you put forth more effort to get the right tools on
> Microsoft, then bitch about them not being on the default distribution.
>
> *yawn*
>
> Ok, I feel better now, and hopefully will have more time to check the
> group out.
>
> Laters all.
>
> --
> Cliff Wagner ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> Visit The Edge Zone: http://www.edge-zone.net
>
> "Man will Occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
> of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
> -- Winston Churchill
>
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:11:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > Indeed. That's why I usually suggest Python. It's OO, but it's not
> > we-will-force-OOP-on-you-until-we-can-OOP-no-more OO.
>
> How about Perl's implementation of OOP? Yipe! Perl is great for a lot
> of things, but IMO its idea of OO is pretty scary. I've never tried
> Python, but I've heard people say it can do the same stuff Perl can do.
Pretty much. It has its quirks (like using indentation to control
flow) that drive some people nuts (hey, we are supposed to indent anyway! ;-)
> > But if you teach them, say, C (extreme example ;-), which is just
> > unsuited for OOP, you might get them to grok procedural, but you leave
> > them no escape route.
>
> Nah, you can do OO in C. You'd just have to use a lot of ugly pointers
> to functions, typedef structs, and other such kludges. Why do people
> even bother with such things, when they can do the same thing in C++?
> I'm sure there's some horrendous way that you can implement private
> member functions in C using const pointers to functions. It would be a
> scary sight, to be sure. (Even scarier than using packages in Perl to
> implement OOP.)
I can't quite imagine how to do private methods. Then again they are
not really possible in python either.
You can implement methods that refuse to be called, but there is
always a way to reach them because the class itself is an object
so you can "read" what's in it :-)
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:21:48 GMT
"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>All of the small, strange little commands that have to be memorized... is
>easier than Windows?
People forget the obvious. GUI's are not a real advantage for the
"OS" operations. Hell you learn one or two OS's in your lifetime and
you're set - big deal.
Where GUI's are great are for applications. In your lifetime you'll
have to deal with HUNDREDS of applications. Those pull-down menus and
such make learning and using all these applications MUCH easier.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: 18 Jan 2001 14:23:02 GMT
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey .,
>> Remember what would happen when you fingered
>> or emailed [EMAIL PROTECTED]?
>>
>> Those certainly were some fun times.
> How about letting those of use who are a little younger in on what used to
> happen? :-)
Oh, this was a good one. I was shown what happens many, many years ago
when my return address was forged by one of the jokers I worked with...
If you fingered [EMAIL PROTECTED], you got slammed with about 10 megs of
.plan which consisted of an enormous nonsensical subgenius propaganda
document. If you emailed [EMAIL PROTECTED], you got the same thing (in
line) returned. Really played havoc with some old systems.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: 18 Jan 2001 14:24:15 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >So I think E.F. is right -- today. Tomorrow might be another matter,
>> >especially if Java takes off (it's doing pretty darned well already).
>>
>> I think its just as likely you're talking yesterday. ;-)
>>
>> There are no "issues" which need to be "addressed"; this is a market,
>> not a project! There is production and purchasing and complaining and
>> changing that needs to go on, sure. And that will start happening as
>> soon as there is a free market. In fact, its kind of automatic. Until
>> a monopoly shows up to point it out, we hardly even notice it.
> No "issues" eh?
> Let's take file sharing. Setting up your system to share with someone else
> (outside of ftp and such). If that's a Windows machine, you use Samba, and
> configuring this isn't too bad, but way out of reach of the average user of
> today. God forbid they should want to change what they share.
NFS. All of about 5 minutes to set up.
The horrors, you have to edit a couple of config files and restart a daemon
or three.
=====.
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:27:04 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Its not a double standard. Just a single consistent standard: compete.
>The difference is, its the customers clambering for updates, not the
>monopoly trying to force them. ;-)
Heh. Different, certainly. Better, I'm not so sure.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
