Linux-Advocacy Digest #646, Volume #31 Mon, 22 Jan 01 00:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("JS PL")
OpenSource Question (Mark Johnson)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (T. Max Devlin)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. ("Lloyd Llewellyn")
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (mlw)
Designed for Windows! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 03:57:45 GMT
Said . in alt.destroy.microsoft on 22 Jan 2001 02:36:08 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On 22 Jan 2001 01:41:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Tell me claire, exactly why it is that while linux recognized my secondary
>>>PCI IDE controller (ATA/100) instantly and with no configuration nessesary,
>>>windows decides that its a 'new device' every time I reboot and incorrectly
>>>names it a "PCI RAID CONTROLLER"?
>
>> Because you say it does.
>
>It does, actually. One of the very many reasons that I only very rarely
>run windowsME, and then only to play unreal tournament.
>
>Curiously, one of the MCSEs that I work with has the exact same problem
>with an entirely different IDE controller, to which he consistently responds:
>
>"fucking windows".
Bwah-ha-ha-ha.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 22:58:25 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS PL wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > JS PL wrote:
> > > > But you would have no way of knowing that I lie when I say that in
> > approx.
> > > > 11 months my Win2K OS has crashed exactly "once".
> > > > Give me a way or method to crash Win2k, I've yet to find one on my
own.
> > >
> > > Here is the problem, when you say 11 months, that may mean that you
turn
> > > it off every night and boot it every morning. It is unlikely that you
> > > will see a problem. If, as you say, you have seen it crash once, then
> > > this is significant in this configuration, and falls well within the
> > > MTTF study.
> >
> > I don't turn it off every night. It runs constantly, it usually runs for
> > 10-30 day spans before being shut down for one reason or another.
> > Now if my dial up to a Unix server could be so stable. I usually can't
stay
> > connected for more than 48 hrs!!
> > Last time I shut it down was to install a modem that Linux could
understand.
> > Sometimes it's just because I fucked it up the network settings so bad
that
> > it's easier to just bring back the HD mirror from a spanned 3 cd set
(1hr)
> > than to fix it. Sometimes its just that I'm bored and install a
different OS
> > on the one HD. Last week for instance I (attempted ) an install of
> > windows1.1 for shits and giggles.
>
>
>
> Did you get it to work?
No, it didn't work, and it was due to DOS verison being 7. I got a splash
screen for 1/2 second after install.
>
> I tried (for much the same reason) btu it didn't much like dos 7. I
> tried to back install dos 6.22 so that i could load it with "previous
> version..." but I buggered up so badly that I needed to re-install
> everything on that drive.
>
> Which DOS version do you need?
I'm not sure which version you need. A real early version :-)
------------------------------
Subject: OpenSource Question
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Johnson)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 03:48:46 GMT
(I don't know where else to post this question, if there is a better group
for OpenSource question please let me know...)
Let's say that my company would like to sponsor 2 or 3 OpenSource
programmers to help me build a system for in-house use only instead of
spending an a huge amount of money on a closed proprietary off-the-shelf
product which only address 2 or 3 needs (in a less then optimal way) out of
5.
Instead, we would build this custom product fully intending to release it
as OpenSource, however we would release it to the community only after that
product had reached a basic but significant level of functionality and,
most importantly, when my company has been firmly established such that
possesion of this product by competing companies would not introduce a
significant threat to the well being of our company.
Would this be a bad way of doing OpenSource development, counter to the
intensions of OpenSource?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:08:03 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 22 Jan 2001
>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 00:30:55 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>flatfish, you are utterly clueless. What the hell do you
>>DO with computers?
>>
>>Chris
>
>"I" do nothing with "them", it's what "they" do for "me".
>
>Applications Chris, applications.
>Tons of useful applications that perform useful (to me and 10 zillion
>other desktop users).
So you're telling us that the reason you've been an annoying asshole
through more than a dozen pseudonyms is because you're terrified you'll
lose your applications when Linux replaces Windows? Is that all?
>I'll tell you what I don't do:
>
>I don't play with config files and that includes the registry with the
>exception of the occasional regclean.
Neither do I. I gave up trying to troubleshoot or work around that
registry shitpile at least two years ago. That's why I'm going to
Linux.
>I don't spend my time looking a log files to figure out why pppd
>deamon died.
You just reboot and try again, I'd expect.
>I don't spend time downloading 10's of megabytes of files just to keep
>up to date with kde.
Yet you do to keep up with monopoly crapware. Why is that?
>I don't spend time fiddling with colors/themes/fonts trying to make a
>decent looking desktop.
Again, I've ceased playing with desktop themes, myself. After getting
started on the Mac, I have been continuously disappointed by Windows'
capabilities in this regard for years and years. That's why I'm going
to Linux.
>I don't spend time trying 7 different Window mangers because there is
>no one WM that does everything I need, easily.
And Windows, by definition, does everything you need, easily. Yea,
right. What a goofball.
>I don't spend time figuring out how to star/run and add an icon to the
>menus for the program I just installed.
Well, you did, once upon a time. Worried the first time was a fluke?
>I don't spend time figuring out that mess of IPChains and IP Masq. in
>order to set up a firewall which is probably full of holes anyway
>because the documentation is a mess.
Indeed, you have no opportunity at all, on Windows to spend any time
configuring things like this at all. Ironically, you have much more
reason to do so.
>And last but not least, I never read a cotton picking thing to use
>Windows. In fact it is rare that I even read the read me files that
>come with the programs I use.
Yea. You learned how to use the OS through osmosis, and you had Office
coded as engrams in your fetal brain tissue.
>You see Chris, I use applications, lot's of them unlike the
>bit-twiddling Penguinista that spends time compiling kernels.
>
>That is what computers do for me.
"Just what the hell do you *do* with computers?" he asks with a mirthful
bellylaugh bubbling through his chest.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:12:35 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:02:52 -0500;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >Give me a way or method to crash Win2k, I've yet to find one on my own.
>
>Once again Give me a way or method to crash Win2k, I've yet to find one on
>my own.
>If it is so unstable there must be a real easy way to cause it to
>crash...short of dropping the box down some stairs.
>Lets have ONE way. ONE.
You don't quite seem to understand what is meant by the word "unstable",
kid.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:16:56 GMT
Said Jim Richardson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan 2001
>On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:40:54 GMT,
> T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan
>> [...]
>>>>Again, your knowledge seems sound, but your understanding is flawed.
>>>>There are no subnets 'reserved' for anything, unless you're dealing with
>>>>a full-blown firewall (which by nature breaks all those rules about how
>>>
>>> Or routers.
>>>
>>> There are certain addresses that aren't meant to be routed.
>>> To do so will cause name collisions.
>>
>>Routers don't have anything to do with names; I'm not sure what a 'name
>>collision' is, or what mechanism you're trying to explain. The only
>>addresses that "aren't meant to be routed" are 127.0.0.1, and 0.0.0.0.
>>Perhaps you got something about DHCP a bit mangled. There was much ado
>>about how 0.0.0.0 needs to be handled concerning Cisco's "DHCP
>>forwarding".
>
>don't forget 192.168.0.0 and 10.0.0.0, and something in 172.mumble.mumble.0
That's a different set of issues. That has to do with ISPs, not IP.
The router *software* knows how to handle 127.0.0.1, and 0.0.0.0,
specifically. The 'private address blocks' are strictly a matter of
router *configurations*.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:27:19 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 22 Jan
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> This is a convention, not a rule of routing or the IP protocol.
>
>It is not a convention. Look up the appropriate RFC's. The private IP
>address ranges should never appear on the Internet.
That's what we call a convention. Notice the "should". Where as,
0.0.0.0, and 127.0.0.1 *cannot* appear on the Internet. Get it?
>>>You clearly have no understanding
>>>of Internet routing and firewalls.
>>
>> To be modest, my knowledge and understanding literally dwarfs your own.
>
>Crap. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Oops.
[...]
>Yes NAT is independant of how a firewall implements a security policy.
>However most if not all firewalls implement NAT as it is the logical
>place to do so.
I think you mean "this is an available feature in most firewall
products". Whether a firewall implements NAT is not as trivial a matter
to guess. But you can generally tell those enterprises which attempt to
use NAT to 'secure their network', as they are the ones with slow
performance and intermittent connectivity.
>>>They use PAT to translate many internal addresses to a single
>>>external routable address.
>>
>> Indeed; Proxy Address Translation.
>
>Now you are showing your ignorance. PAT is not Proxy address translation,
>whatever that might be.
Oops. You caught me. I certainly don't know what *you* are talking
about. Forgive me if I point out that, this little bluff aside, I *do*
know what *I'm* talking about. Which is to say I will figure out what
you're talking about, eventually, though I'm not at all sure the reverse
is true.
>PAT is port address translation often also called
>hide address translation. When you do many to one NAT you have to have
>some method of knowing which packet belongs to which connection. Doing
>port translation allows this. Nothing to do with proxies which work at
>the application layer.
Don't move! You've just stepped on a land mine. Carefully, without
bending over, pretend you never said "the application layer".
>>>The good
>>>firewalls also allow 1 to 1 NAT.
>>
>> No, a "good" firewall will leave NAT up to a NAT system, just as a NAT
>> leaves firewalling up to the firewall. Sure, in theory we could munge
>> all these things together. Have fun; its too braindead an idea for me
>> to waste my time on, personally.
>
>Grief, have you ever administered a firewall? Every firewall I have
>worked with, it is my job by the way, provides NAT facilities.
Again, I'm still not sure what you're saying by "provides NAT
facilities". Are you saying you used them? Or they were a feature on
the box? If you have indeed used them on "every firewall" (or even if
you say they all have them), then apparently it is your experience, not
mine, which is limited, as this proves you can't have ever touched a
firewall before 1998.
>>>MAC addresses are used to send the packet
>>>to the next hop on its route.
>>
>> Yes, MAC addresses are used to *transmit* the *frame*, containing the
>> packet, to the receiver. Note that whether the receiver is "the next
>> hop on its route" is one of those rules that you should fuck around with
>> lightly. The rule is, "you don't know, you can't know, and it doesn't
>> matter." Because routing doesn't have anything to do with
>> transmissions. So MAC addresses don't have anything to do with packets.
>
>You really don't have a clue. The above paragragh is gibberish. Please
>read the book you say you have and build a test network to see how it
>really works.
Listen, lamer. I'm trying to keep my peace and keep my temper, here,
but you're starting to get on my nerves. Don't make me flame you to
crispy critters, butter-cakes. I've been explaining this stuff
professionally for about seven years now, solid. If you didn't quite
get it the first time, don't blame me.
>>>When the packet arrives at a router connected
>>>to the destination host the MAC address is that of the destination host.
>>
>> No, when the packet is *transmitted* *from* a router connected to a
>> transmission channel shared by the destination host, the destination
>> address of the *frame* bearing that packet is the MAC address of the
>> transceiver related to that host.
>
>And how does the router get the MAC address? Your terminology shows that
>you really don't have a clue about how IP and ethernet work.
ARP. The more you come up with this lame-brain stuff, the more it
annoys me that you've got such a snot-nosed attitude.
>It's quite clear you have been nowhere and done nothing regarding networking.
>
>Guffaw indeed.
Why don't you do a quick search for my name in an RFC archive sometime.
Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:28:37 GMT
Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 19:48:50
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>>Said SomeoneElse in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:57:13
>>GMT;
>>>On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:02:29 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>The simplest workaround is to avoid using gcc, and using kgcc instead.
>>>>>Reason is that kgcc is the previous version of gcc, which will work
>>>>>correctly, unlike the gcc that you'll have with RH.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe I've been fooling myself all these years, by continuing to think
>>>>of Usenet as an intellectual exercise. Why does nobody seem to be
>>>>getting this?
>>>>
>>>Because everyone else is getting it, and you are the person not
>>>getting it.
>>>The newests open source apps ( whether for Windows or Linux or
>>>other OSs ) almost always come out in source code form first.
>>
>>Nope, you're still missing it, sorry.
>
>What is he missing? Just because *you* don't want to compile programs does
>not make any difference - the whole point of open source software is that
>the source is available, and many developers leave it at that. [...]
You've apparently come in the middle of the conversation. We were,
indeed, discussing specifically whether it makes a difference to me, and
not to anybody else whatsoever. Check the subject line, if you're still
confused.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:33:36 GMT
Said SomeoneElse in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 22 Jan 2001 01:59:41
GMT;
>On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 19:48:50 +0100, "David Brown"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Because everyone else is getting it, and you are the person not
>>>>getting it.
>>>>The newests open source apps ( whether for Windows or Linux or
>>>>other OSs ) almost always come out in source code form first.
>>>
>>>Nope, you're still missing it, sorry.
>>
>>What is he missing? Just because *you* don't want to compile programs does
>>not make any difference - the whole point of open source software is that
>>the source is available, and many developers leave it at that. They write
>>their fine new program, and distribute the source when it is ready - if some
>>distributer like Red Hat wants to make a nice binary package, then fine -
>>but the developer's source is the newest version. Perhaps the developer is
>>running on a PPC - lucky for you it is the source he gives out not his
>>binaries.
>The point is not that you may not be able to get binaries at all ( in
>most cases you will eventually get binaries ).
>
>The point is that if you are not willing to compile things for
>yourself you may have to wait for the binaries. This can be painfull.
>
>An example:
>You work at an engineering firm. [...]
I don't work at an engineering firm. ;-D
I'm sorry. I guess it seems I'm just "having fun" with someone (and
someoneelse, I guess). I was indeed trying to point out that I really
truly have no plans or desires to be on *any* edge, save running Linux
to begin with. I do not intend to acquire software other than in
binaries, and do not anticipate this will be a problem, as software
which is available and which will serve my purpose functionally must, by
definition, be in binary form.
For now, at least. I could change my mind; I'm known to do that, in
fact. But for now, no, the issue is gcc is entirely uninteresting to me
from beginning to end. Thanks for the warning, though; I'll be sure to
get the newest rev from Redhat before I ever do become motivated to
compile software from source.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Lloyd Llewellyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:38:01 GMT
>> Like application availability. I've spent the last couple of days looking
>> for a WYSIWYG web page editor so
>
> These don't really exist. HTML is not a page layout language, so it will look
> different on every machine. What you see may be what *you* get, but not what
> the person who downloads your page gets.
I'm aware of this, many people have replied similarly, but it's off-point.
I was looking for a visual web page layout designer. Call it whatever you like.
I want to lay out the web page, insert tables, move regions of the table around
within the table. I want to be able to switch between source and graphical
views, and edit in both. Some website organization features would be nice too.
When I looked for a tool like this, all I found were text editing tools, some
that colored tags and did some indenting.
I'm not arguing the superiority of one over the other. One is easy to use, the
other results in cleaner HTML.
...but the reason I brought this up in the first place is to make the point
that, often, up-time is not a critical factor on the desktop. For a majority of
non-technical users, application availability is; and that's why I cited the web
page editor example.
FWIW, I think this thread is instructive in itself. Imagine if a non-technical
person were to take that big step and give Linux a try. He gets on the
newsgroups asking about a FrontPage or Dreamweaver analog, explicitly stating
that he wants a visual design tool. Instead, he is directed to use vi, emacs,
or even Bluefish for that matter.
That person is going to sigh, and then he's going to wipe his Linux partition to
make room for more Windows files.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:38:40 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> It is not a convention. Look up the appropriate RFC's. The private IP
> address ranges should never appear on the Internet.
Still, Windozzzzzzzz will broadcast a private IP, and it will show
up in the logs. I used to see 192.168.100.1 quite often.
Chris
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 23:43:04 -0500
Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:
>
> > If I could get her on Linux, i.e. get a good tax package for her, I would.
>
> Yes - on the desktop it comes down to applications...
Not the generic desktop of word processors, spreadsheets, etc. but maybe the
specialized desktop.
She actually said to me that she would not need to buy Turbo Tax next year,
because all the information and forms would be on the IRS and MASS web sites. I
will put her on Linux if that is true. She will be happier for it.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Designed for Windows!
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:26:38 GMT
Hello folks,
The idea of creating this Linux logo struck me
when I found my IBM thinkpad with Linux gives
1. double battery life
2. better suspend resume performance (win98 could not ever resume 100%)
3. my ricochet 128k never gave 128k on win98...but on linux it gives
200-250k! (honestly not exaggeration!)
4. ofcourse much better speed performance.
have a look and let me know what do you think.
http://www.geocities.com/acme_new/linux-win.gif
-ajay
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:42:14 GMT
J Sloan wrote:
>
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> > Plus, if /etc/fstab is set up properly, you can reduce it to:
> >
> > > > mount /dev/fd0
> > > > cp /mnt/* /tmp
> > > > umount /dev/fd0
>
> eesh. why bother mounting & unmounting?
> just mcopy the thing over in one step...
Because it is a trivial amount of typing. And because I never paid
much attention to the m-tools... until now. Thanks (truly meant).
> > Plus, if you have the floppy icon on the desktop, you just have
> > to insert the disk and double-click the icon, then do the Windozzzzz
> > drag'n'drop thingie, then right-click to unmount. Not at the difficult.
> > About as easy to get used to as Windozzzzzzzz telling you the floppy
> > is missing when you didn't expect it to be needed anymore.
> > Or waiting for Windozzzzzzzz to read the exe's from the floppy just so
> > it can put the right icons in the Explorer display. Yeesh.
>
> Yep, there are GUI floppy/cdrom access tools as
> well, but it's not good to overwhelm the wintrolls
> with too much information -
Wintrolls tend to kvetch and retch at anything that isn't exactly
correspondent to the Win tools they've come to be dependent on.
The Wintroll is a person who cannot, or does not like to, perform
an operation in more than one way. In my bumble obinion.
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:46:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, J Sloan wrote:
>Peter Hayes wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:24:02 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
>> wrote:
>
>> > The simplest workaround is to avoid using gcc, and using kgcc instead.
>> > Reason is that kgcc is the previous version of gcc, which will work
>> > correctly, unlike the gcc that you'll have with RH.
>
I think all we need to do now is convince Linus Torvalds and
the kernel team that including this alpha compiler was a good deal.
They are the ones who complained about this compiler being
inept.
>Unlike the local wintrolls, I have actually used gcc-2.96 on RH7,
>and it works just fine - The "kernel gcc" aka "kgcc", was provided
>for the paranoid, specifically for kernel compilation, which has
>exceedingly rigorous requirements. But the 2.4 kernel compiled with
>gcc-2.96 seems to be just fine - as it should be, considering the
>considerable compiler expertise of cygnus.
>
>
>> Wasn't kgcc put in for compiling kernels?
>
>precisely for that reason, for the truly paranoid.
>
>> Jusr remove the current link to gcc and replace it with a link to kgcc and
>> all will be as it should have been in the first place.
>
>Probably won't harm anything, but some of the more advanced
>c++ compiler features needed by some high end customers
>wont be there with the older gcc.
>
>jjs
>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:49:24 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001
17:55:21 GMT;
>On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 16:40:04 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>You seem blissfully unaware that this argument clearly points to how
>>little technical merit Windows has, and how forcefully it brings home
>>the point that they have been illegally monopolizing in order to ensure
>>this result.
>
>No I happen to run those very same applications you do and there is
>nothing, that I have found in the Linux world that even comes close.
>
>You will see.
>
>Having *nix experience will help you with the technical details and
>cli of Linux, nothing else. It will not make the applications any
>better.
>I use SMIT or smitty under AIX to configure hardware. Doesn't help me
>with Linux though. I use CDE or Perspectives under AIX and its the
>same thing.
>
>When you see the pitiful way you will have to read news after using
>Agent, or how Agent runs terrible under Whino (Vmware I never tried)
>you will understand.
>
>You're argument is based upon not using Linux and relies on how Gates
>has monopolized the world.
>
>My argument is based upon having used many different varieties of
>Linux and applications.
>It's all about applications.
>
>Time will tell.
Your argument is having been weaned on Windows; that's a story as old as
Bill Gate's monopoly. Yes, its all about the application barrier;
haven't you read the conviction?
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
