Linux-Advocacy Digest #715, Volume #31 Thu, 25 Jan 01 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Getting first W2K server (.)
Re: Does Code Decay (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (Mark Styles)
Re: Does Code Decay (Russ Lyttle)
Re: M$ websites down again (Russ Lyttle)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (.)
Re: Poor Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Poor Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows (Russ Lyttle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:11:13 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 24 Jan 2001
[...]
>If everyone actually implemented the ICCCM standard, no WM could
>support keyboard shortcuts.
Why is that?
>The ICCCM is on one hand too narrowly focused, and on the other hand,
>kinda broken.
Kinda how? I'm really interested in knowing.
[...]
--
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.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:14:59 GMT
Said . in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 24 Jan 2001 23:11:59 GMT;
[...]
>> Not entirely. Ayende is somewhat correct (it doesn't work in all
>> situations) that if you change the extension to .doc, that will be
>> enough to get Windows to launch Word when you 'open' the file from the
>> desktop.
>
>Yes, but I was very clear in saying that I opened up the document from *inside*
>word. I know better than to just double click on questionable documents.
I'm afraid we might have gotten discombobulated. The suggestion was to
change the extension without opening the file, and giving it to the
VP-dweeb who wouldn't open anything but a '.doc' file.
>> Once Word is opening the file, it will identify the format
>> and, hopefully, convert it or suggest a converter. Changing the
>> extension does not change the file format, you are correct, but its
>> enough to get Word to launch, which is the goal.
>
>Not in my case, word was already running. And I found the error: there were six
>control characters at the beginning of the first line that is particular to
>staroffice saving a document as W6.0 (possibly under solaris, I havent confirmed
>that yet) that makes word flip out, and locks up the entire operating system.
Rather peculiar behavior. Send what you've got to staroffice, I guess;
it might help.
--
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.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:16:06 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 24 Jan
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:58:25 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Said . in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 23 Jan 2001 16:32:47 GMT;
>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:35:45
>>>> [...]
>>>>>I think distributing PDF format files is an excelent idea. Even if
>>>>>it does max bandwidth. [...]
>>>
>>>> PDF files are generally much smaller than their Word document
>>>> counterpart.
>>>
>>>In this vein, guess what happens to a W2K machine when you use office2000
>>>to read a document you converted in staroffice from .rtf to .doc?
>>>
>>>Thats right kids, it locks up solid. Powercycle nessesary.
>>>
>>>What was it exactly that windows does well again?
>>
>>Pretending to be a lousy OS, obviously.
>
>"Pretending"? :-)
Its not an OS, its monopoly crapware. Not *even* a lousy OS. ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:18:20 GMT
"Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a6f569d$0$49611$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> OK, lesse...
>
> W2K:
> Insert CD into a CD ROM and turn on computer. It boots and begins to
> install. Enter your CD key, name and answer a few default prompts and
> shortly thereafter you have the a very massively feature packed OS with a
> familiar GUI up and running with all your hardware ready to rock. HTTP,
FTP,
> Media Server, Journaling file system, DirectX hardware acceleration of
every
> device, OpenGL running at the right refresh for that autodetected monitor
> and video card and the list goes on. Browser ready, wordpad ready,
> mediaplayer supporting pretty much every format (and others are a codec
> autodownload away), graphics editor and viewers, handicapped accessiblity,
> communications programs, telnet, ftp, massive network support - the list
> just goes on and you can just sit back and watch it load.
You left out downloading service pack 1, installing and rebooting,
downloading
the current IE, installing and rebooting. If you want standard xml
handling,
download the current msxml dll, the special installer, and the separate but
necessary utility to configure your proxy settings (needed even if you don't
use any proxy...). Download and install perl to get at least one language
that isn't hopelessly tied to a single platform. Now you are ready to buy
and install about $3000 worth of applications to get somewhere close to
what you would have with any of the Linux distributions - and most of them
will tell you to reboot after each install. And there are still plenty of
quirks.
For example, I installed on a box with a NIC on the motherboard that had
been disabled in CMOS with a PCI NIC installed and enabled. The
installation
went fine but when trying to develop a web site under IIS, it would only
display a few pages, then terminate and have to be restarted. A consultant
had seen something similar under NT and suggested enabling the motherboard
nic in CMOS and disabling it in the OS. After doing that and
re-installing
IIS, the machine was fairly stable. Black magic??
> ==========
>
> ok, now, how to do a BAREBONES Linux 2.4 install, no real apps, just
command
> line crap:
> ==========
I suppose you could install windows one dll at a time too, but why?
Download
an iso image of Mandrake 7.2, burn a copy, boot it, pick the type of
install you want and come back in half an hour or so with a working
machine. If you are going to talk about upgrading to something that
the distributor hasn't packaged yet, you should compare it to the same
under windows. So, where is that list of steps to build a new
windows kernel from free downloaded source before MS gets
around to packaging it?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Getting first W2K server
Date: 25 Jan 2001 04:28:12 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Where is good sight to post CV? I have IBM certifications, published
> author, and the like.
> This deciding of buyiong W2K was made by CIO out of town, with none from
> technical group specially not invited, is this regular for Microsoft
> sellers to do this sneak attack?
This sort of thing indeed has happened.
Funny how microsoft sales droids dont like to talk to technical people.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:29:29 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Russ Lyttle wrote:
> >
> > I'm cross posting this to the linux and nt groups as it seems pertinant
> > to both.
> >
> > Recently MS had a lowkey campaign to get customers to replace NT with
> > W2k because Nt suffered from code decay. I came across an article "Does
> > Code Decay? Assessing the Evidence from Change Management Data" by
> > Stephen G. Eick, on the IEEE site. You can get the article at
> > <http://wwww.computer.org/tse/ts2001/e1toc.htm>.
> >
> > For those who don't have time or can't read the large PDF file, the
> > authors looked at a system having 100,000,000 lines of C/C++ source and
> > 100,000,000 lines of header and make files. They came to the conclusion
> > that code does decay. Some symptoms they listed are :
> > 1. Excessively complex(bloted) code - the system could be rewritten with
> > many fewer LOC
> > 2. A history of frequent changes
> > 3. A history of faults
> > 4. Widely dispersed changes - fixes hit lots of modules or have a large
> > size
> > 5. Numerous interfaces(entry points)
>
> What the fuck does this have to do with LoseDOS spontaneously trashing
> it's own configuration data?
>
If I understand the paper correctly, the numerous service pack introduce
more errors than they fix. So if one part of a service pack fixes the
current bug causing trashing of configuration data, another part
reintroduces a new bug. The more un-necessary LOC, the more points of
entry, the greater the probability of an error due to any change to the
code base by either MS or the end user.
The paper seems to offer an explanation for the "bathtub" curve noted in
error reports. Soon after release, lots of bugs get reported and fixed.
Then for a long time a nearly constant low rate of bug reports, and
finally, the number of bug reports starts to increase.
> > --
> > Russ
> > <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> > Not powered by ActiveX
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>>SNIP<<
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:23:15 -0500
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:05:52 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mark Styles wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:45:45 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In otherwords, it was supposed to be ENGAGED IN THE ***WORK*** of
>> >format conversion.
>>
>> Supposed to be, yes. Unfortunately it was not, or if it was it was
>> doing it with no perceivable activity.
>
>Look, shithead, either you don't know what you're talking about, or
>your communications skills are fucking deficient as hell.
Nice attitude, I think you should go read the linux advocacy HOW-TO.
>You stated that it was "doing nothing" and simultaneously that you
>were trying to do a file conversion.
>
>"doing nothing" implies an IDLE process, *NOT* not that locks up due to a bug.
I was trying to convert a file. I told Applix to convert a file. It
either dumped core, or it sat there like an IDLE process. It never
locked up, I never said it locked up.
Now I think I'll retire from this thread before the flaming gets out
of hand, my asbestos underwear is in the laundry.
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:35:29 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:04:00 GMT, Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I'm cross posting this to the linux and nt groups as it seems pertinant
> >to both.
> >
> >Recently MS had a lowkey campaign to get customers to replace NT with
> >W2k because Nt suffered from code decay. I came across an article "Does
> >Code Decay? Assessing the Evidence from Change Management Data" by
>
> No.
>
> Code might 'decay' if vendorlock dataformats change.
> Beyond this, code should continue being perfectly
> viable for DECADES.
>
The paper pointed out that code, of itself does not "decay". But they
studied an active code base subject to frequent changes and updates.
They studied a telephone system, but framed their study in such a way
that it is applicable to both Linux and MS operating systems. By their
definition, Linux has several advangages over anything MS produces.
GNU/Linux is smaller, GNU/Linux changes more slowly, GNU/Linux has only
one design concept, GNU/Linux frequently throws away "decayed" code and
substitutes new re-writes (at least the GNU part does).
> This is what all of the Y2K paranoia was about.
>
> [deletia]
>
> Problems arose from software begin immune to decay thus
> allowing systems to operate well past their prime or
> past their original expected lifespan.
>
> --
>
> Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
>
> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
> limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
> respective writings and discoveries;
> |||
> / | \
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ websites down again
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:43:21 GMT
Milton wrote:
> =
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:45:49 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>=
> wrote:
> =
> >Did you read the article? It clearly states that the web servers are =
not
> >down, and gives you a link to them in IP format.
> =
> "Microsoft confirmed on Wednesday that a number of its online sites are=
> currently unavailable and have been down for a number of hours.
> Sohn said the problem stems from Microsoft's Domain Name Servers
> The servers are operated and maintained by Microsoft."
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2677896,00.html?chkpt=3Dz=
dhpnews01
> =
> You were saying?
> =
> Microsoft sites in Europe also appear to be affected. "We've heard some=
> customers in Europe are having problems as well," said Sohn, who added
> that the outage may affect customers globally"
> =
> I like this quote:
> =
> "Cotse.com, a specialist Web site for computer technicians, said that
> use of only one subnet broke one of the 'golden rules' of network
> engineering and meant Microsoft was effectively putting "all its eggs i=
n
> one basket".
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16340.html
> =
> --
> =AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=BB=
=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=
=BB=BB
> Milton B. Hewitt
> CAUCE Member - http://www.cauce.org
> Proud supporter of the Microsoft Boycott Campaign
> http://www.vcnet.com/bms/
> =AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=AB=BB=
=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=BB=
=BB=BB
MS is between a rock and a hard place on this one. First they said it
was their domain servers and they had not been hit by a cracker or DOS
attack. But when someone asked why MS can't fix its own domain name
SERVERS, they backtracked and said they were under some kind of cracker
attack, but Hotmail was still up. Then the reporters said Hotmail was
down too.
I don't visit their sites or use Hotmail. So, anyone know the latest
story?
-- =
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:56:08 +1300
> >> Our solaris box we've retired and I can say not soon enough, we were
> >> tired of it crashing all the time.
>
> >Two possibilities here:
> >
> >1) You're lying
> >
> >2) Your admins are incompetent
>
> You forgot 3) the machine was 10 years old and had a bad disk drive.
Always more possibilities ;)
However, should the machine have been 10 years old with a dodgy drive,
then point 2 is also in effect =) (up until the point someone refuses
to buy a new machine on the admins advice, naturally)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:55:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 24 Jan 2001 23:07:17 GMT
<94nn75$8o8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Linux does not have the ability to auto-reneice applications based upon
>: activity.
>
>Yes it does, but it doesn't because it's a really bad idea.
Actually, don't some operating system(s) increase dynamic priority
to a point when a process is swapped out or waiting, in an
attempt to improve responsiveness?
(Note: I did not say based on "foreground/background" window
paradigm, which I agree is silly. And I think this is different
from the "nice" assignment value, which, if I'm not mistaken,
is merely a hint to the scheduler; the actual priority may
be something different based on a number of factors.)
>The window
>managers *could* be written to do that very easily. But just because
>something interactive is going on does not imply that it is the highest
>priority. You could be doing a computationally intensive process
>in the background that you consider MORE IMPORTANT than the web browsing
>you are doing while you pass the idle time - for example. The UNIX
>scheduling technique simply gives more time to the programs that
>are actually using the CPU more, and less time to the ones that are
>just sitting around waiting for a user input interrupt. Xterm, for
>example, doesn't need much CPU time to keep up with my typing, so I
>would not want it to be automatically reniced to suck CPU time away
>from other programs.
It probably wouldn't anyway; an I/O-intensive process is probably
going to do a blurb of processing then go back to sleep, :-)
releasing the CPU.
Now you've got me curious. :-) Ah, open source!
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:22h:23m actually running Linux.
Hi. I'm a signature virus.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:57:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Craig Kelley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 24 Jan 2001 16:52:55 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I don't think you have a clue how Windows 2000 deals with virtual memory.
>> Windows 2000 Professional doesn't use "sleep" (to put it into UNIX
>> terminology) definitions to transfer programs, it uses the UI focus to
>> denote priority, or when changed to "background process" priority mode, uses
>> the old style of "load first" to load applications into memory, in priority
>> going to real, and then virtual.
>>
>> Pity Win2k doesn't have a "sleep timer".
>
> [snip]
>
>> Linux does not have the ability to auto-reneice applications based upon
>> activity. My GIMP process tree doesn't get priority level neicing when
>> doing a complicated math operation while the rest of XFree86 sits idle. It
>> gets what it was started at (0) and shares resources with all my other
>> programs running at the time.
>
>The linux scheduler gives CPU time to the processes that need it.
>Look at the source in kernel/sched.c if you're curious (where's the
>source for W2k's scheduler?).
Probably somewhere in Russia...or was it China? :-)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:22h:29m actually running Linux.
Darn. Just when this message was getting good, too.
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 05:03:16 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> They don't need to have special support to 2000, they need to treat it like
> ME (actually, it's the other way around, but it doesn't matter at the
> moment.)
Perhaps they don't need special support, but they do differentate
between the two when you call in.
> It should go like this:
> A> Log on as administrator
> B> Go to Start>Settings>Network & Dial Up Connection
> C> double click Make New Connection
> D> Click Next
> E> Choose dial up to the internet and click next
> F> (not logged as admin at the moment, doing it from memory) enter user name
> & password, ISP phone number, enter DNS & IP.
>
> Good luck.
>
> User wise, except for having to be logged in as admin, there is very little
> difference between ME & 2K in how you set up a DUN.
In linux ( the long way )(you don't have to be root)
cp ppp.template [newconnectionname]
emacs [newconnectinname]
provide the phone number, user name, password where prompted
ctrx-x-s
ctrl-x-c
[newconnectionname]
To be truthful, I did have to run once to see if they prompted for
"Login:" or "User Name:".
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
