Linux-Advocacy Digest #559, Volume #31 Thu, 18 Jan 01 21:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux can be made unstable, too. (Andres Soolo)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (Lewis Miller)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (Lewis Miller)
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] (Charlie Ebert)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Andres Soolo)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (Lewis Miller)
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (Nic Bellamy)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (Lewis Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux can be made unstable, too.
Date: 19 Jan 2001 01:09:26 GMT
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes. Just run a lot of svgalib apps, and keep switching back and forth
> between the console and XFree86. Sometimes, XFree86 totally destroys
The probablity is even greater if you run xawtv and then change from the
X to a text console or back.
I guess the trouble is with the TV cards which don't finish pumping images
into video memory soon enough.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I am looking for a honest man.
-- Diogenes the Cynic
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: 19 Jan 2001 01:13:12 GMT
was heard ranting about <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
alt.linux.sux on 16 Jan 2001
>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.
OK first off, when ppl compare anything to Linux why do they always grab
Mandrake. Mandrake sucks.. POS Distro, get the real Red Hat.
>Mandrake 7.2 cost $35.95-$120 at Borders Books in NYC depending on
>version (PowerPack was the most expensive).
>
>Win2k Pro upgrade is about $115.00 average price mail order.
>Full support is included.
or better yet sign up for a class at a local college with a site license.
With the proper MS site licence for a school, they get a licence for every
workstation and server, and one for each employee to take home, and all
students get one. this equals Win2k for pretty much free if you're a
college student. And if you're in college you usually have something like a
T3 connection so downloading the 2 640 meg images files for the Red Hat
discs, is just a couple hour download while you sleep.
So I can get both, and Have gotten both for free. Don't pay what you don't
have to.
>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.
>
>Win2k show ALL relevant ports closed by default on both sites.
ok, first you are using Mandrake. Sucks, and if you don't know how to close
down ports you shouldn't be using linux, in fact I would debate if you
should even be using a computer. Second, of course Win2k is closed down,
unless you get advanced server ed. it's a workstation, it doesn't need
ports open. That's kinda like saying WFWG is secure because it doesn't have
a bunch of open ports.
>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).
>
>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.
Win2k never did detect my SGI/Sony monitor, keeps telling me I can't use
the settings it supports. Linux, I don't remember if it detected it or not,
I'd just as soon put in the settings myself. For my Digital camera I had to
install the software on Win2k, linux had software already installed for it.
eh.
>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.
ok, well I don't play CD's on my Linux machine, that's what my stereo is
for. The CD drive on my Linux machine, is for putting data into the
machine. tho most of that comes from over the network. I don't think I've
even opened the CD drive more than a dozen times, not counting bumping the
button.
>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.
Um, I like netscape. The text? I can configure the size so it looks fine,
in IE I can only change the font, I can'r directly configure the defualt
pitch sizes. Hell I run Netscape even on my Windows machine, usually
handles JAVA better.
>How about xmms?
>Compare it to the CD Player offered in the standard Win2k install
>(V5.5 I believe).
>
>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.
Pleasing to the eyes is pretty much meaningless.You want pretty graphics go
use a Mac lord knows they're usless for anything but looking 'pleasing'.
blah. Besides again I don't play much audio CD on my computers, unless I'm
doing extraction, and even then I usually port it in from my stereo. And I
never use the CD player that comes with Windows, I use WinAmp when I need
to. How can you use a sound program with no graphics equalizer?
>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?
Or you can just use AIM express, besides AOL has an official release for
Linux. Not that I see a lot of reason to have AIM on my Linux box.
>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.
Well I tried StarOffice on both Windows and Linux, it's not bad, esp for
being completely free of charge. Tho there's not a whole lot of need for
an Office package on Linux. Do your self a favor and grab Lotus Suite, or
better yet, make your own. Word Perfect or WordStar, Lotus 1-2-3, and say
DBase or Alpha 4/5. :)
>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.
Yuck? No I'm a windows user, and the last time I used off-line news, was
Blue Wave packets off BBSs about 6-8 years ago. Launching attachments? I
download attachments, then decide what to do with them. I hate when shit
like Outlook Express tries to open images inline. and HTML in a news
group??! Fuck no, that's just a sin. News Groups are text only, unless
you're in a bianary group.
>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.
Again this comes back to the server workstation point. Linux is a better
OS, because it's better server. A workstation is just an appendage. But
anyways the News Readers aren't bad for Linux. Try finding a good one for
Windows, Xnews is the best I can find. Simple, fast, and configurable.
>BTW have you been using Internet Explorer 5.x?
>
>Let me introduce you to Netscape, the premier browser for Linux.
>
>It's like driving your grandfathers Edsel after taking a spin in a
>2001 Corvette Callway Turbo...
>Good luck :(
Again, I like Netscape. I run both Netscape and IE on my Windoze box. And a
good portion of the time when I use the WEB off of Linux I use lynx, :)
which I also got a copy for Windoze because it's a nice tool.
>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.
I would hope I'd notice it dialing out, since I have the speaker on, but
then that can be turned off with an AT command. But then I would notice the
lights flashing on my Modem. And besides most of the linux boxes I've used
don't have modems, they only have NIC cards.
>I could go on for hours, but I ask you to only try Linux and see for
>yourself.
>
>Don't try a hardcore distribution like Slackware or Debian, but
>instead try Mandrake or SuSE or Redhat and see for yourself.
Why not use a 'hardcore' distro?
Hmm I've got SuSE sitting on my desk, haven't tried it yet. But first I
want to try this copy of BSD/OS... hmm.
>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.
Never had a problem after an update on Linux, just fixes usually. and yes
Linux has more patches put out a week than MS, but that's because linux
patched fix things like, If this one rare occurance were to happen to this
one program while a certain file was accessed and a person knew the direct
path name and could read a binary dump, there Could be a security hole.
Windows patches only Big fucking holes that have been pointed out and
exploited in the media.. Eh that's just because Microsoft is a POS
organization.
>See how even simple updates to kde require many meg of files.
>See how you always seem to be missing some dependency or another.
Sorry, I have never run into this on any of my Linux boxes.
>With Linsux it just goes on and on...What is simple under WIndows
>turns out to be a mission of mercy under Linsux..
I don't have all these horrible problems. But then there are somethings
that could be easier. But why, I've seen shit fucked up on Windows because
someone accidently clicked a check box, to do the same on Linux I would
have to open a file in an ascii editor, edit a line, and then restart the
service. Nothing happens with out me specificly changing it.
But then I see nothing wrong with having to think to do something, AAMOF
that's one thing I hate about Windows, is it lets any idiot do lots of
things, but it also allows them to fuck it up.
Honestly ppl should have to take classes before they use computers.
>So all I ask is that you try Linux and decide for yourself.
>
>My guess is that you will decide that Linux sux....
No sorry, I've liked Linux even in highschool when I had to make boot disks
and about 80 floppies with the packages. :)
--
l8r
-LJM
a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
a.k.a. MrBobaFett
"Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
-- Eric Draven, The Crow
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 19 Jan 2001 01:14:54 GMT
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:39:59 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 18 Jan 2001
>14:11:00 GMT;
>For clarity, though, not for syntax! I was started to get a bit
>intrigued by Python until you mentioned that. Indents to control flow?
>What a nightmare. (For the novice, even more than the programmer.)
You're not the first to dismiss python without trying it.
I suggest you try it first, and *then* form an opinion.
Most people who've used python don't find using indent any more
of a nightmare than using braces (especially since any competent
programmer indents the way python wants it anyway)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 01:15:52 GMT
In article <YJG96.426$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > It's complex layer upon complex layer. It's fast becoming a house of
>cards.
>>
>> No, it's SIMPLE AND RELIABLE LAYER upon SIMPLE AND RELIABLE LAYER...
>
>I hate to tell you this, but X is not a "simple" layer. Looked at the X
>reference manuals lately? In fact, X's complexity is the main reason for
>toolkits like QT, gtk+, etc..
>
Oh it should be a nice one peice package like Windows! Or should
we call it LOOSEDOS!
You brainless dumbass.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: 19 Jan 2001 01:16:59 GMT
Donn Miller was heard ranting about <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
alt.linux.sux on 16 Jan 2001
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Mandrake 7.2 cost $35.95-$120 at Borders Books in NYC depending on
>> version (PowerPack was the most expensive).
>>
>> Win2k Pro upgrade is about $115.00 average price mail order.
>> Full support is included.
>
>Whoa, slow down thar. First off, no one forced you to use Mandrake;
>there's other choices in Linux distros. Secondly, what does Win 2000
>Pro cost if you have a blank machine with no operating system on it?
>You're going to paying at least $199. So, you only get the "lower"
>price of $115 iff you've already been pumping money into Microsoft's
>pocket, i.e., have an existing NT installation. So, for the upgrade,
>what you are paying is the price of the previous version of NT PLUS the
>special upgrade to Win 2000. So, assuming you paid $120 for NT 4.0, and
>then "upgraded" to Win 2000, what you actually paid for Win 2000 pro is
>$120 + $115, which adds up to $235. I hardly consider this to be a
>bargain.
Also to really compare, you would have to get Win2k Advanced Server edition
I do believe.
--
l8r
-LJM
a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
a.k.a. MrBobaFett
"Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
-- Eric Draven, The Crow
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 01:18:24 GMT
In article <947aj1$rnt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Leonardo wrote:
>"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9429n6$11rm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : You certainly mean "Linux replace Windows" - windows is already here,
>it's
>> : entrenched. The new kid on the block is Linux, [...snip]
>>
>> Not for servers. It was quite clear he was talking about servers.
>> For servers, Windows is more of a newcomer than Linux (although I
>> suppose Linux is actually younger, but it gains a lot of
>> "entrenchment" for free by being a UNIX clone.).
>
>Total bullshit.
>Windows is The nurmebr one in servers if you count all servers not just
>those that are www related.
>And it is growing it's market share all the time.
>
>--L--
>
>
SHIT! bye now google.com has more Linux servers running in that
ONE company that the balance of humanity does!
They have the fucking contract for Yahoo now.
Google.com is the worlds largest internet-linked computer brain.
And it's all make with Linux.
Thanks for playing.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: 19 Jan 2001 01:15:10 GMT
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Free compilers ported from Linux of course. Why not just use the real thing??
Actually, GCC existed before Linux.
What do you think Linus compiled 0.0.1 with? :-)
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Speak softly and carry a +6 two-handed sword.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 01:21:02 GMT
In article <7Mw96.287$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > is that we really don't care whether or not Linux supports all their
>> > > shiny new hardware with X,Y, and Z features or that their favorite
>> > > application 'foo' is not available for Linux. It's not that we're not
>> > > willing to help people that ask for it, but we also don't care when a
>> > > Windows user comes in here and says "Linux sux because it doesn't do
>> > > blah, blah, blah" or "Linux blows because there isn't a port of
>> > > 'insert random Windows application here'".
>> >
>> > I think your logic is flawed. If you didn't care, you wouldn't answer.
>> > This very post is a categorical denial of caring, which of course
>indicates
>> > that you do in fact care.
>>
>> So, Erik, you've joined the denizens of Windows advocates that read
>> COLA then?
>
>I've been reading COLA for a long time, because (until last week) a Linux
>user as well. Now i'm back to using FreeBSD.
>
>
Don't let the door hit you in the ass.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: 19 Jan 2001 01:22:30 GMT
Pete Goodwin was heard ranting about
<5un96.181474$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in alt.linux.sux on 17 Jan
2001
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>I've never used Microsoft support, and I've never used Linux support.
Good point. Besides the best support I've found for Linux or Windows, is
news groups or web pages. Phone support is for shit. For most ppl. Tho bar
none the best I ever ran into was for Adtran, but then that was hardware.
--
l8r
-LJM
a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
a.k.a. MrBobaFett
"Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
-- Eric Draven, The Crow
------------------------------
From: Nic Bellamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:25:00 +1300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Yes it is kind of ironic. It is exploiting known bugs in 2 or 3 applications.
> These bugs have been fixed a long time ago. Just goes to show that many
> people don't update their software when security bugs are found.
Half of them probably don't know they're running it, so why would they
know to upgrade it?
Maybe one day distribution makers will wake up to the fact that "install
and enable everything by default" is just a plain bad idea.
Regards,
Nic.
-- Nic Bellamy <nic at asterisk dot co dot nz>
IT Consultant, Asterisk Limited - http://www.asterisk.co.nz/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 19 Jan 2001 01:26:52 GMT
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:21:22 GMT, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>The perl philosophy is that if a language prevents you from doing
>bad things it will likewise prevent you from doing good things. I
>agree, at least to the point that I would not expect any programmer
>who counts on the compiler to keep him from making mistakes to
>ever do anything great.
Failing to read documentation for private class members is not a
"mistake".
As for "counting on the compiler to prevent him from making
mistakes", well I thought most of the supposed benefits of
interpreted languages was that they made it harder to make
mistakes (for example, with memory management). THerefore, I would
expect that a good interpreted language should not be unnecessarily
error prone.
Another point about compilers catching errors -- good compilers can
catch all sorts of fine problems, and issue appropriate warnings.
While a good programmer shouldn't depend on these sorts of features,
they certainly make it easier. Note that it's not just dummies who
use them -- good C/C++ programmers will turn warning levels up high,
and good perl programmers will put "use strict" in their code and
use the "-w" option.
BTW, last I checked, perl doesn't have any kind of exception handling
mechanism either. IMO it strikes me as being an error prone language
that's good for duct tape style programming, but unsuited for large
scale OO projects.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: 19 Jan 2001 01:34:58 GMT
was heard ranting about <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
alt.linux.sux on 17 Jan 2001
>On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:12:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
>Ebert) wrote:
>
--- Snipped ---
>
>I've never re-installed Win2k.
>Just put SP1 on and everything worked perfectly.
I admit I've reinstalled Win2k LESS than NT. But I've still redone Win2k
several times, including one time when Windows somehow lost permissions to
it's own files... ? How the fuck that happened I don't know.
Linux, I've installed.. I don't think I've ever reinstalled it, except
when totaly redoing a server.
>>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.
And this is a GOOD thing? Sorry I would say this is a bad thing. Not
having to know anything, is promoting ignorance. and ignorance should be a
punishable crime. Knowledge is power is more than a tag line, it's a fact.
Be a student for life, always learn. Every good teacher is so, because they
are also a good student.
>>That's probably why they did that movie Titanic on Linux
>>instead of Windows.
>It was a rendering farm, crunching numbers.
Yes, and? Why do you think SGI uses IRIX? good graphics, good sound? =
crunching numbers. Actually, all computer processes are number crunching.
But whatever.
>>They have a fancier AIM for Windows but GAIM works just as well.
>
>It looks like shit.
Um? Again, pointless. Does it work? OK then that's all that matters.
Content is more important than appearance.
--
l8r
-LJM
a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
a.k.a. MrBobaFett
"Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
-- Eric Draven, The Crow
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
