Linux-Advocacy Digest #811, Volume #31 Mon, 29 Jan 01 01:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: M$ websites down again - Problem solved -> use Linux! (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Kernel upgrade - not bad at all ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: M$ websites down again - Problem solved -> use Linux! (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here! ("Adam Warner")
Re: M$ websites down again - Problem solved -> use Linux! (Charles Lyttle)
Re: M$ websites down again - Problem solved -> use Linux! (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Linux and it's important role in healing the 'digital divide' (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Kernel upgrade - not bad at all ("Kyle Jacobs")
Yup, it's definatly Mandrake ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: KDE Hell ("Kyle Jacobs")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ websites down again - Problem solved -> use Linux!
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 05:10:15 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "CR Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "CR Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "CR Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > This is too funny! MS has outsourced its DNS to a company servers
> are
> > > > > > using a "networking implementation very similar to that of Linux."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is even worse for them than the original event. They now have
> to
> > > > > > admit they can't run a big network and switch to people running
> Linux!
> > > > >
> > > > > MS outsourced part of it's DNS to provide geographical seperation of
> > > it's
> > > > > DNS servers. It hardly matters what servers the outsourcing firm
> uses,
> > > so
> > > > > long as they can provide the service. MS has done similar things
> > > before,
> > > > > for instance it's MSN user homepages are outsourced to a company
> running
> > > > > FreeBSD or Linux IIRC.
> > > > >
> > > > > Outsourcing is not a sign of "Our products can't handle this" but
> rather
> > > "We
> > > > > can't do everything in one location, and we don't have any other
> > > datacenters
> > > > > in other parts of the country".
> > >
> > > <space inserted since you can't seem to be bothered with proper
> formatting>
> > >
> > > > Yeah, right. Like MS only owns one building and that building has only
> > > > one free room. Perhaps they only have one phone line too. So, I'm
> > > > suppose to trust my business to a company too cheap to rent a closet
> in
> > > > New York or Florida?
> > >
> > > More than 95% of MS technical buildings are all in the Seattle area.
> > >
> > > Have you any idea how long it takes to get a new T3 or OC connection
> > > installed? Call up your local phone company and ask. Typically it
> takes
> > > 3-6 months, if you're VERY lucky. This is not something MS could have
> had
> > > done in 3 or 4 days, no matter how much money they threw at it. The
> Akamai
> > > servers are extra redunancy, that's it.
> >
> > So are you saying MS hasn't been doing Internet for more than 3 months
> > or that Bell South couldn't get a T3 connection done in the last 10
> > years? Or is it that buildings are sooooo expensive in Mississippi that
> > MS couldn't afford to buy one?
>
> I'm saying that MS decided in the last few days to create geographical
> seperation of their DNS servers. This is not something you can do
> overnight, since it requires months of planning, construction of new lines,
> etc... It's far easier to just outsource it to a third party that's already
> providing the services.
OK. You admit MS was stupid and only discovered how the internet works
in the last few days.
When we started designing ARPA and MIL nets back in the 60s we knew
better than to put all our servers in one building (prefereably not even
on one landmass). So why did it take MS something like 35 years to
discover that little fact?
--
Russ Lyttle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Kernel upgrade - not bad at all
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:11:00 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:43:16 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Of course this bozo can't get anything to work in Linux -
> >
> >It's against his religion!
>
> Why should I have to "Get anything to work" under Linux?
>
> I don't have to "Get anything to work" under Windows, my USB devices
> just work.
>
> Plug them in and they work.
Experience proves otherwise.
>
> I don't have to "Get anything to work" with my iMac.
> I just plug my USB devices in and they work.
>
> It's quite simple with Windows and Mac.
>
> Same devices and 2 different platforms and they work fine.
>
> Why don't the exact same devices work under Linsux?
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ websites down again - Problem solved -> use Linux!
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 05:15:10 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "CR Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I want to know why it wasn't noticed immediately and why it took 24
> > hours to fix. MS claims reinstalling the OS is easy, so why, once it was
> > discovered did it take more than 10-15 minutes to install the old
> > configuration from backup? Perhaps they don't do backups?
>
> Given that it was a *ROUTER* configuration issue, not a Win2k configuration
> issue, your comment is quite stupid.
>
> The problem with DNS is that it takes a good deal of time for DNS caches to
> expire, so the problem doesn't become apparent immediately. A day later
> when the caches start expiring, it's not so easy to connect the two
> incidents, since you might have made changes to 100 different things in the
> last day, and given the size of MS, they probably do that every day.
My router wasn't the one down for 24 hours, so I guess I'm not the
stupid one.
It was their router. Didn't they keep a back up of the old
configuration? I keep a backup of my configuration. I can rebuild an
exact image of a 16 gig hard drive in about 1 hour and my stuff is
considered obsolete. Why did it take MS over 24 hours to fix their
system? Aren't they smart enough to save the old configuration before
trying a new one?
--
Russ Lyttle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here!
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:16:06 +1200
Hi Gary,
> Ok, I know it's late and my eyes are getting tired, but does anyone see
> anything wrong with this statement from Microsoft:
>
> "PC users still make up less than 10% of the total world population of 500
> million people".
>
> Did they just say there are only 500 million people in the world?
Yes.
> Or how about this:
>
> "Linux is simply a fad that has been generated by the media and is
destined to
> fall by the wayside in time. Windows 2000 will gradually overtake the
Linux
> share in the server market."
>
> Did they just admit that Linux currently has a larger share of the server
> market that Windows 2000? After all, how can you overtake if you are
> already ahead?
Yes. Great admission, eh?
I think "Linux is too expensive." is also priceless. As well as the threat
that "Vendors who are building up their Linux business are making a serious
mistake and need to wake up to that fact quickly." (again this is an
admission that Linux business is building).
This may be the new face of Microsoft: running scared.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ websites down again - Problem solved -> use Linux!
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 05:18:28 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "CR Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I want to know why it wasn't noticed immediately and why it took 24
> > hours to fix. MS claims reinstalling the OS is easy, so why, once it was
> > discovered did it take more than 10-15 minutes to install the old
> > configuration from backup? Perhaps they don't do backups?
>
> Given that it was a *ROUTER* configuration issue, not a Win2k configuration
> issue, your comment is quite stupid.
>
> The problem with DNS is that it takes a good deal of time for DNS caches to
> expire, so the problem doesn't become apparent immediately. A day later
> when the caches start expiring, it's not so easy to connect the two
> incidents, since you might have made changes to 100 different things in the
> last day, and given the size of MS, they probably do that every day.
After re-reading the message I just have to respond to paragraph 2. It
was soooo dumb I thought I would let it pass. I can't imagine the
technical staff not knwoing they screwed up immediately. Even if those
turkeys tried to coverup, tech support started getting calls
immediately. Did tech support just blame it on "stupid users" for 24
hours?
--
Russ Lyttle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ websites down again - Problem solved -> use Linux!
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 05:21:18 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> CR Lyttle wrote:
> >
> > Les Mikesell wrote:
> > >
> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:RLKc6.86$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > "CR Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > This is too funny! MS has outsourced its DNS to a company servers are
> > > > > using a "networking implementation very similar to that of Linux."
> > > > >
> > > > > This is even worse for them than the original event. They now have to
> > > > > admit they can't run a big network and switch to people running Linux!
> > > >
> > > > MS outsourced part of it's DNS to provide geographical seperation of it's
> > > > DNS servers. It hardly matters what servers the outsourcing firm uses, so
> > > > long as they can provide the service. MS has done similar things before,
> > > > for instance it's MSN user homepages are outsourced to a company running
> > > > FreeBSD or Linux IIRC.
> > > >
> > > > Outsourcing is not a sign of "Our products can't handle this" but rather
> > > "We
> > > > can't do everything in one location, and we don't have any other
> > > datacenters
> > > > in other parts of the country".
> > >
> > > What I'd like to know about this particular incident is how many calls
> > > did Microsoft's customer service take about the problem, and how
> > > did they dismiss each one for a whole day before anyone bothered
> > > to investigate and fix the problem?
> > >
> > > A mistake in router configuration is easy enough to make, and probably
> > > everyone who works with them has made a mistake or two, so I
> > > don't think the fact that a mistake happened should be taken too
> > > seriously (although a design that allows such a simple mistake to
> > > take down access to a large network is certainly a bad thing).
> > > However, this kind of mistake can be fixed in minutes once someone
> > > realizes there is a problem. My question, and I hope some magazines
> > > will answer this in public, is: why and how did the telephone support
> > > people who must have been fielding thousands of calls about this
> > > keep the fact that a problem existed away from the people who could
> > > have fixed it? I think this foretells the future of .NET better than
> > > anything we could have imagined, and is also the problem I have with
> > > most commercial products. The main thing you pay for is a huge front
> > > line of telephone support people that not only can't do anything to solve
> > > a real problem, but consider it their job to keep the issue away from the
> > > people who can.
> > >
> > > Les Mikesell
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I want to know why it wasn't noticed immediately and why it took 24
> > hours to fix. MS claims reinstalling the OS is easy, so why, once it was
> > discovered did it take more than 10-15 minutes to install the old
> > configuration from backup? Perhaps they don't do backups?
>
> No matter WHAT explanation M$ comes up with, it shows them to be IDIOTS
>
What makes matters worse for them is that their explanations are all
based on the assumption that their customers are bigger idiots than they
are.
Many of their customers are ignorant of computers. But ignorance is a
curable disease. Stupidity is incurable. MS is begin stupid.
> > --
> > Russ
> > <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> > Not powered by ActiveX
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
--
Russ Lyttle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:30:16 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and it's important role in healing the 'digital divide'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Does anyone know of projects like these that are using Linux as a core part
> of their solution?
I have seen a page that provided a few examples but I can't give a link
sorry.
IanP
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Kernel upgrade - not bad at all
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 05:29:39 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Why don't the exact same devices work under Linsux?
> >
> Because you don't bother to read documentation.
> Or is reading too hard for you?
Please, what you call "documentation", I call the ravings of a drunken
programmer. Those people just can not write.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Yup, it's definatly Mandrake
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 05:37:57 GMT
Ok, I've herd a lot of comments about Linux Mandrake being the biggest pile
of shit Linux available, and a lot of commentary exclaiming otherwise, I
think I've landed on: get this...
I install Mandrake 7.2, finish & reboot. Upon starting KDE2, I ran
"mandrakeupdate" because I knew that there were a lot of things "out of
date".
Ok, downloaded all the RPMS out of date (from "normal" list) and reboot.
What happens just minutes later? My Debian style KDE2 menus (part of
Mandrake 7.2) are MISSING. My "office" section, my "networking" sections
are both eradicated from the list. I figure it was a glitch, so I rebooted.
Upon getting BACK into KDE2, the menu's are STILL Missing! I guess I had
hit a defective mirror, so I REINSTALLED Mandrake 7.2.
Did the same thing, rebooted into KDE2 after the reinstall, and ran
mandrakeupdate, tried a more "offical" mirror, rebooted.
This time, "Networking", "Configuration" AND "Office" are ALL missing from
the menu! I reboot AGAIN! STILL MISSING.
Can't wait till 7.3 when mandrakeupdate blows out your video card through
software...
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 05:42:50 GMT
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >The road less traveled is less traveled for a reason genius.
>
> So, Palm must have a better OS than M$ for handhelds, after all, they have
the
> lions share of the market, and Apache must be better than IIS because it
has
> way more users.
All very correct.
Palm OS maintains the structural simplicity and intuitively found in a
simple, palm computing device, whereas Pocket PC (err, Windows CE 3)
institutes the idiotic ideals as a "file system", on which sits the
operating system, which has components, and are all vulnerable. Please. If
I wanted my ungodly overpriced PDA to BSOD, (not a feature, but an example),
I'd buy a Royal daVinci. (Can you tell I'm a Palm user?)
Apache IS better than IIS, because those that were scorned by IIS are still
unimpressed with IIS5 & Win2k.
So as we can see, the road less traveled is still less traveled for a
reason.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
)
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 05:46:22 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:952ko6$hcs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The road less traveled is less traveled for a reason genius.
>
> Most people that have a home-movie-playback device have VCRs, not
> DVD players.
>
> Therefore, DVD is inferior to VHS.
>
> I see.
Think about it, a read only media that only provides enhanced viewing and
listening experiences to people who already have top-quality video & audio
hardware.
Most people don't own a wide-screen TV, and those that do have to concider
their sound systems, of which most people don't have a Dolby audio compliant
setup.
So, paying $150 for a box that may PLAY quality video & audio doesn't mean
it's superior. You can't record TO it (you can now, but there aren't
independent devices available, yet...)
You also may not be able to even perceive the "increase" in quality, ask the
average person if they could tell a VHS/NTSC converted American movie to a
DVD/NTSC converted American movie by watching it. My expierence is that
most people can barely perceive the difference between analog cable, and
digital cable, let alone DVD and VHS.
Besides, VHS is cheaper.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 05:51:08 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > This is EXACTLY what we told one salesman 4 years ago who
> > mailed us a presentation in an E-mail. It won't run
> > on NT so we're not interested!
> >
> > Good one Flathead!
>
> Any business that equates a presentation format to the
> product in which it is interested is run by idiots.
It's called human nature. I don't hire people who don't come to me with a
quality business card (ie: If I run my moist finger past the 'name' line on
your card, the ink won't smudge) Presentation is EVERYTHING in business,
that's why we all wear suits, occasionally ties, and jackets.
It's also why we go and get our business cards done at a printer's.
> "Well, you see, from what we understand, your clustering
> solution is indeed powerful. But, ah, we cannot run
> your slide show on our corporate systems, therefore we
> cannot verify the efficacy of your system, so we'll have
> to pass on your company at this time. Sorry."
That's right. Your presentation was UNWATCHABLE, and the next guy's worked
just fine. We don't have the time or resources to waste on you while you
straighten out your presentation, you should have done that on your own
time.
> Only flatfish would dream up such an inane argument.
It's a valid one, not that you know this, because you probably haven't
worked a single day in your life outside of the campus computer lab.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 05:55:34 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Truth is truth, whether it makes you uncomfortable or not is irrelevent.
The
> > feds lied about a drug lab (they later admitted it was a lie) about
child abuse
> > (which is not even in the federal jurisdiction in the first place.) and
about
> > the actions they took. There wasn't a single day of the siege that went
by,
> > without the feds lieing about something.
>
> That...and a FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ruled *AGAINST* the various 3-letter
agencies.
They ruled against "the various 3 letter agencies" (predominately the ATF
and FBI) because it was made perfectly clear that Janet screwed up.
FBI agent's came forward in 98 that pyrotechnic CS was used on the facility,
even though there was obvious evidence (and recorded "spy tape") that the
BD's were planning to torch the building.
It's not the DOJ's job to kill people. If the BD's had set their OWN
complex on fire, it's not the fault of the DOJ, but no, the FBI & ATF,
notwithstanding the knoledge that accelerants were present in the compound,
used pyrotechnic gear in the building.
Gee, light a match in a gas filled closet, what do you think happens?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
