Linux-Advocacy Digest #563, Volume #31 Thu, 18 Jan 01 23:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (J Sloan)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ("Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz")
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: I just can't help it! (J Sloan)
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (J Sloan)
Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Hatred? (J Sloan)
Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now? (J Sloan)
Re: I just can't help it! (mlw)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Sgt Detritus)
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: And this NZ "Supercomputer" story is great ("kiwiunixman")
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux ("kiwiunixman")
Re: "Basing the new supercomputers on Linux was a no-brainer..." (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:22:05 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> I never said "Linux sucks". I did say "Linux lags behind Windows (desktop)".
You might not have used those words, but that has been your message.
> > Linux doesn't "claim" anything, it simply is.
>
> Is what?
is, period.
> Is greater than Windows? No it isn't!
That's your opinion -
> Is more stable than Windows - yes, I'll grant you that?
Thank you for that bit of honesty -
> Is easier to install than Windows? No it isn't!
I find it much easier - I got my wife a new system for
Christmas, and installed Red Hat 7.0 on a partition at
the end of the disk, as a sanity check. As usual, it all
went smoothly, all hardware was recognized and duly
configured first time.
Then it was time to install windows on the remaining
partiton -
bad idea.
It took a few weeks of struggling with windows 98 until
the sharpest windows friends I have also threw in the
towel and installed windows 2000 instead.
Anyone who thinks windows was easier to install
is in denial of reality.
> > OTOH the desktop is a complicated subject, and it all boils
> > down to personal taste. One man's paradise is another man's
> > purgatory -
>
> Yes, but the multiple mess of different toolkits on Linux + whatever mean
> you end up with differing standards for different products instead of an
> orthogonal whole. A bit like the 8086 instruction set compared to the ARM.
I'm not sure what you mean by "mutliple mess", could you explain?
> > How can you argue with personal taste?
>
> If it were only personal taste.
Actually I was trying to be charitable, but I see that
was lost on you -
It's not only personal taste that causes me to prefer Linux
to windows, it's tangibles like viruses, blue screens, random
crashes - it's seeing my little girl lose all the documents she
had stored on the computer because windows decided to
scribble all over the disk.
It's seeing difference at work when I go back and forth
between the windows desktop and my Linux desktop,
which is like a breath of fresh air after the silliness of ms
windows, let me tell you.
jjs
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
From: "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 05:20:58 -0500
In <c1.2b5.2Z0H9N$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/18/2001
at 05:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>"VM" being OS/2 slang for a "Virtual Machine" EXACTLY as you point
>out above.
Wrong again: he said "VM/ESA", which is the name of a specific program
product. VM/ESA is not part of OS/390 and can not run under OS/390.
>Oh ! Sooo sorry ! I called it a virtual machine
>instead of a virtual image facility !
Wouldn't have helped; the statement would still have been totally
incorrect. VIF also is not part of OS/390 and can not run under
OS/390.
> IBM's never called anything
>a virtual machine (?) so the concept must be totally incompre-
>hensible to y'all.
Congratulations: you've got three wrong out of three. IBM has been
using the term "virtual machine" for three decades. Don't forget to
take your prize as you leave.
>now this winvocate's
The best way that you could advocate windows would be by stating that
the other Windows users aren't as irrational as you are.
>now this winvocate's bidding his adieux to the thread 'cuz it's
>become stupid beyond belief.
Oh, you've finally looked in a mirror? Don't let the door hit you on
your way out.
--
===========================================================
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Atid/2
Team OS/2
Team PL/I
Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal
action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any
abusive E-mail.
I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to
domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me. Do not reply to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:24:10 GMT
On 19 Jan 2001 03:17:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>Honey, you arent supposed to run those applications as root.
Doesn't matter.,....
>> to a long
>> list of major bugs like Glint,
>
>Which youve never used.
So how do I know about it?
Do some reasearch on it...
>> mis-named kernel (they put an extra
>> extension on it)
>
>Its not misnamed actually.
It was around Redhat 5.x or so.....
They put an extra .06 in there and while they added it to the source
tree, the compiler (or whatever does the compiling) didn't find it....
Do some research again....
>> so re-compile failed and so forth.
>You didnt even attempt it.
Do some research because you are looking like a fool here.....
>
>
>
>-----.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 19 Jan 2001 03:26:39 GMT
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 02:43:45 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:39:59 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>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 know, I thought so too when I first heard of Python. But after
>using it for some real projects I must say that it really doesn't get in
>the way at all. If you use an editor with auto-indent (even the simple
>"indent to previous level" feature), it just isn't a big deal.
I should point out at this point that Max's reponse of scepticism is
not at all unusual. I was also sceptical, and most people find it hard
to accept what appears on the surface to be a "radical idea".
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:27:56 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Nobody has said that NT cannot be unreliable. What most of us have said, is
> that NT can be reliable if it's properly configured (good hardware, good
> drivers, managed software, etc..) We've all had very good luck with long
> uptimes on NT,
We have not all had "very good luck with long uptimes"
Some of us have been "unlucky" enough to see windows
nt crash unexpectedly, or need daily reboots to keep
running with any sort of reliability -
> so our experiences tell us that NT can be quite stable.
but our experiences tell us that nt is usually not so stable.
> Likewise, some of us have had very poor experiences with Linux's stability.
I suspect the motives of those who report such things, as it's
usually coming from a flaming microsoft bigot with an axe to grind.
> Gee, why does Google need hundreds of servers?
processing power -
> MS serves up tons of dynamic content, which is a lot more intensive than
> static pages.
It could all be done with a handful of Unix servers rather
than the "farm" of windows pc servers.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:29:28 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:ke9649.u2d.ln@gd2zzx...
> > From the January 17 SANS NewsBites:
> >
> > --11 January 2001 NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
> > A survey posted on Attrition.org ranks Windows NT as the most vulnerable
> > to crackers, garnering nearly 60% of December defacements. Microsoft
> > may be targeted because it is so widely known, or because it has a
> > reputation for hurrying the release of applications, which suggests that
> > security might take a back seat.
> > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1007-200-4449902.html
>
> Kind of ironic, consider the RameN crew worm that's loose on Red Hat Linux
> 6.2 and 7.0 machines throughout the internet.
Tee hee, I think you are exaggerating the scope of this -
I have a number of Red Hat servers out there, and none
of them has been hit with this...
> In any event, all it takes is one vulnerability and you can make the top of
> the list as well, as Red Hat is finding out.
But they haven't made the top of the list - microsoft's lead
is most likely insurmountable at this point.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:29:56 GMT
On 19 Jan 2001 03:15:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wagner)
wrote:
You are eliminating the "sucker effect" from your theory.
Why are Chrysler PT-Crusiers advertised in the Newspaper for more than
list price?
Because Chrysler didn't make enough of them?
Hardly....
Because Yuppies are willing to spend big bucks for them.
Why is Evian Water $1.50 a bottle?
Because of supply?
Water is everywhere.
Nope...
Because people are stupid enough to spend for it.
Same thing applies to Dell..
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:31:04 GMT
On 19 Jan 2001 03:16:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>Interesting, where exactly did you get this information?
On the corner of Wall Street and Broadway at the RR train station.
I couldn't find a single person who ever even heard of Linsux....
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:33:04 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >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.
> >
> > Since when is pointing and clicking on menus outside of the
> > reach of today's users?
>
> Have you actually tried to setup and configure nfs or samba through those
> interfaces?
Actually yes, I introduced a marketing manager to samba
and he therafter adminstered the "shares" for his department
through a webmin interface -
If a marketing guy can handle it, you mean to tell me that
a computer "stud" like yourself can't cope?
> They're not much better than configuring the files manually.
Really? "click to add a new share".
Hmm, rocket science?
> There is virtually no help and there are a number of parameters that most
> users wouldn't even have a clue about.
There is indeed help, and the defaults are sensible, so one
really doesn't need to change a parameter if one doesn't
know what it does...
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:33:33 GMT
On 19 Jan 2001 03:15:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>fl
>Actually, im staring at this using tin in an Xterm, I'm happily playing
>one of my 5500 mp3s with winamp (with a nice kjofol skin), I'm writing
>up a report for work with Abiword, and im compiling the latest glibc
>so I can get cool themes with gkrellm.
Too bad your newsreader can't thread articles.
>> I've seen MVS/XA systems stay up for years. Am I going to balance my
>> taxes on one?
>
>1. no you havent, the guy who writes your posts for you has though.
You must some kind of real idiot....
What does dm do?
How about du ?
v path?
v device?
ds p,
would you like more?
>2. some of us balance our taxes without the need for a computer, and
> its much, much faster.
I'll bet Uncle Sam loves you....
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:41:27 GMT
> On 19 Jan 2001 03:15:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
> >Actually, im staring at this using tin in an Xterm, I'm happily playing
> >one of my 5500 mp3s with winamp (with a nice kjofol skin),
Why futz around with winamp - are you doing it via wine?
There's something called xmms that most Linux users run,
it's similar to winamp, but is a native X windows app - and
it uses the kjofol skins nicely.
BTW xmms can also play quake movies, a feature I haven't
seen in any other program.
Of course maybe it was a thinko - you meant xmms but
typed winamp?
jjs
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:50:07 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > And the real kicker is the score that NT4 recieved.
> >
> > We've been saying this for *years*, but the blind Widows advocates
> > would beat the "anectodal evidence" drum and point to all the slavish
> > PC (er, I mean *E*) Week articles that trumpetted the second coming of
> > Windows, the Greatest Operating System Ever.
>
> Nobody has said that NT cannot be unreliable. What most of us have said, is
> that NT can be reliable if it's properly configured (good hardware, good
> drivers, managed software, etc..)
The Microsoft funded NSTL study proves that this is unlikely.
> We've all had very good luck with long
> uptimes on NT, so our experiences tell us that NT can be quite stable.
> Likewise, some of us have had very poor experiences with Linux's stability.
There is now a verified credibility gap (winvocates lose). We all say
that NT is dreadfully unstable, and you guys counter with unbelievable
claims of NT stability. When you counter with unbelievable claims on
instability with Linux, I think we have to consider it in the same
light.
Now that we have all seen the NSTL report, which is undisputed, and
supports our observations, we have good reason to doubt your claims of
NT stability, and thus claims of Linux instability.
When the winvocates claim to have long and consistent uptimes and
reliability, we have documented proof that this is unlikely.
> That doesn't mean that Linux cannot be stable, it means that it can be
> unstable if incorrectly configured.
On stable hardware (As with all software), Linux is light years ahead of
NT. Proper configuration is important for performance, however.
>
> > Just the fact that Microsoft needed 50+ machines to run their website
> > should have been a wakeup call.
>
> Gee, why does Google need hundreds of servers?
Pure disk I/O. A billion web pages, indexed, and presentable take up
terabytes. The google cluster system is amazing. (www.alltheweb.com, is
better, but that is a different debate.)
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Sgt Detritus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:37:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip some funny stuff>
>
> Sure enough, mean time to failure (MTTF) tests for 98, NT and 2k
show, among
> other things, that the heavily-sold consumer OS is hopelessly buggy
and in
> fact eager to crash.
>
> 2K wins the competition hands down with a respectable MTTF of 2893
hours
> (actually sounds like a professional product, doesn't it). NT showed
> considerable anaemia, struggling for an MTTF of 919 hours, while the
crap OS
> most of you are using as you read this article, Win9x, exhibited a
> predictable, consumer-schlock MTTF of only 216 hours.
>
> ---If I were a OS vendor I would be very ashamed of that uptime! if
the
> uptime was, say, 10 months, YES, jump around and
celebrate..however...most
> commercial UNIX's and Linux achieve 2893 with out too much effort.
Something odd that I have noticed. Bill Gates steps down as CEO and
begins riding herd on the programmers and they turn out a product that
is slightly more palatable than the shit we've been fed for years. It
seems the programmers are working as though pursued by Satan himself.
Makes you wonder, don't it!
--
Any man agitated enough to lift a 300lb. ape
without noticing is a man with way too much on
his mind.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 04:02:11 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> >http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-201-4508359-0.html?tag=st.ne.1002.thed.sf
>
> What's interesting is that this report proves one thing beyond a doubt:
> Linux use is growing rapidly. To have sufficient population density
> that a purposefully selective worm can propagate enough to be such a
> large problem means that everything Funkenbusch trolls on and on about
> how Microsoft's trouble's can all be hand-waved away as results of
> 'popularity' are now moot.
>
> Linux's first media-reported worm. What a cool thing. (Kind of ironic,
> since the patches to prevent the exploits used by the virus are already
> available, given the claims by the sock puppets that Microsoft is so
> quick to fix the excessive number of security holes found in Windows,
> et. al,.)
Given a few months experience with Linux, one should realize that
running rpc.statd and wu-ftp is not generally a good thing.
Been there, been hacked.
Chris
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: And this NZ "Supercomputer" story is great
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:06:43 +1300
I'm still waiting for Claire Lynn/steve/flatfish to reply, "there are
people/cultures/nations outside the USA?"
kiwiunixman
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:943eje$3r0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi pac4854,
>
> > From the country that brought you the legendary BOFH* chronicles. Would
> > you really expect less?
> >
> > * http://bofh.ntk.net
>
> Thanks for the link. I've been following the BOFH for a while now over at
> The Register. Took me a long while to work out what a PFY was :-)
>
> Regards,
> Adam
>
>
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:10:07 +1300
Not as good at the SGI Origin Server I have in my living room, or the s/900z
sitting in my basement :)
kiwiunixman
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:942k6n$etp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi all,
>
> I know these stories have been popping up often, but it's hard to get too
> blasé about 2 Teraflops of computing power.
>
> http://lwn.net/daily/ibm-ncsa.php3
>
> (No crosspost to nt.advocacy because that would just be mean :-)
>
> Regards,
> Adam
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: "Basing the new supercomputers on Linux was a no-brainer..."
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 04:09:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
>sfcybear wrote:
>
>> "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."
>
>You can bet that Linux's inroads on the desktop are deepest in the
>fields of science and engineering, and getting deeper there every day.
>Businesses will lag along more slowly.
>
This could be BETTER said as business are pathetic followers.
Where ever the cattle troff leads them they will go.
They are not leaders of anything.
>Bobby Bryant
>Austin, Texas
>
>
Charlie
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
