Linux-Advocacy Digest #892, Volume #31 Thu, 1 Feb 01 14:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here!
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Re: LOL now the BIND story hits mainstream News ("--====--"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Re: LOL now the BIND story hits mainstream News ("Edward Rosten")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The 130MByte text file
Re: LOL now the BIND story hits mainstream News
Re: The nightmare that the current Open Source king (Linux) has bestowed upon us
(Mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Myths -- What I'd call Part II is here!
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:15:29 -0000
On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 08:08:53 -0700, Mike Martinet
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>>
>> Mike Martinet wrote:
>> >
>> > Actually, I don't think Linux is better on the desktop. You know, if MS
>> > had just continued to sell its 'toy' operating system to the home
>> > market, I wouldn't have minded. Linux is a pain in the ass. But the
>
>>
>> You've never administrated THOUSANDS of machines.
>>
>
>You're right. I never thought of that. But if you were administering
>Windows/DOS on thousands of machines for "users", wouldn't that be
>easier than helping non-technically inclined people with Linux?
Nope. The Unix machines can be managed centrally. They are
less prone to the sort of 'decay' that Windows is and they
are MUCH easier to 'lock down'. Unix makes it easier for the
experts to deal with the system on their own terms, easier
to keep novices from screwing things up too badly, and even
allows for the deployment of shiny happy interfaces.
The real problem is 3rd party vendor support.
>
>Remember, I don't think WinDOS is bad for the desktop. I think the
>*company* is annoying and I don't think they have any place in the
>server market - but their desktop efforts are adequate.
[deletia]
--
In general, Microsoft is in a position of EXTREME conflict of
interest being both primary supplier and primary competitor.
Their actions must be considered in that light. How some people
refuse to acknowledge this is confounding.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:17:38 -0000
On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 08:51:51 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But of course, remember, this is pete's special
>> horked up computer - he set it up so he could
>> "counter linux advocacy"...
>
>There's nothing special about this machine. It's an out-of-the box
>Linux Mandrake 7.2 installation.
Sure there is. You seem to end up with all sorts of interesting
problems that the rest of us Mandrake users seem to be spared
from.
[deletia]
--
Having seen my prefered platform being eaten away by vendorlock and
the Lemming mentality in the past, I have a considerable motivation to
use Free Software that has nothing to do with ideology and everything
to do with pragmatism.
Free Software is the only way to level the playing field against a
market leader that has become immune to market pressures.
The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "--==<\( Jeepster \)>==--" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LOL now the BIND story hits mainstream News
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:24:58 -0000
Can you not go a day without swearing you stupid little boy?
I doubt your credentials in your tagline, your attitude is too childish for
an employer to take on.
Stupid boy.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> al wrote:
> >
> > BIND doesn't run on Windows but Unix and it's clone Linux. If it run on
> > Windows, it wouldn't have security holes.
>
>
> No..instead, it would ***BE** a security hole....
> just like every other fucking thing that runs ond LoseDOS is a security
> hole,
> because LoseDOS is a security hole in it's own right.
>
>
> >
> > "Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:959oc8$qg6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "--== wrote:
> > >
> > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1142000/1142572.stm
> > > >
> > > > Linux - lol, dead before the general public even knew about
it...sure,
> > big
> > > > in geek circles, but to joe soap? HA!
> > >
> > > Now i wonder.. did that article mention Linux? Nope.. it mentioned
BIND...
> > > "the most important program" for the Internet.
> > >
> > > BIND runs on Windows... maybe we should post in windows newsgropups..
> > > "Warning! security hole found in Windows software" :-)
> > >
> > > Is it just me or is the quality of wintrolls decreasing rapidly?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers
>
>
> --
> 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.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,soc.singles
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:27:21 GMT
chrisv writes:
> Sheesh, can't you morons trim your posts?
Who are the alleged morons here?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:31:01 -0000
On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 02:06:20 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:49:33 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:53:49 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >
>> >> >> Is it true that windows 2000 finally got filesystem quotas
>> >> >> somewhat similar to what Linux has had for years?
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes.
>> >> >Is it true that Linux finally got the SMP support that NT had for years?
>> >>
>> >> Linux had that.
>> >>
>> >> What it lacked was the 'trick' of binding NICs to single
>> >> CPU's in sort of a primitive version of system partitioning.
>> >
>> >It lacked a good design of not locking resources to a single
>> >CPU. This was a problem throughout the kernel, IIRC, the NIC
>> >thing in Mindcraft was only evidence of this.
>>
>> Not at all. That magazine that you like to ignore (C't)
>> demonstrated this to not be the case. As soon as NT
>> wasn't on a machine with matched CPUs and NICs, it lost
>> it's edge.
>
>Even if this c't makebelieve was fact, it would still show
>that Linux had a brain-dead SMP design. It couldn't even
>compete on TPC or any other SMP benchmark or real world
>scenario.
>
>
>> >The SMP design still (in 2.4) lacks behind most other
>> >SMP implementations out there. I'd like to see another Mindcraft-
>> >like benchmark where they have a really good SMP-friendly software
>> >and they see who scales better.
>>
>> You mean like the 8-CPU webbench99 scores where NT either
>> are blown out by Linux or is just shy of maintaining parity?
>
>You mean the one where they beat NT by a measley 3% (blow out? yeah
>right) by taking advantage of some kernel trickery?
Talk about an assinine abuse of statistics. The lack of a blowout
on the part of Linux does not indicate that it has pisspoor SMP.
This is of course unless you are willing to admit that NT also has
pisspoor SMP.
I'd be willing to accept that combination of assertions. I don't tend
to put Linux in the same league as Solaris and such. Many Linux Zealots
don't. It's Lemmings that tend to have the dellusions of grandeur.
Linux can match NT when it comes to SMP.
That is an independently verifiable fact
that you simply can't hide from.
TPC/C is actually LESS of an effective SMP measure as the NT hardware
in question uses LESS CPU's per system. Similar Linux based compute
clusters are performing quite effectively.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LOL now the BIND story hits mainstream News
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:32:56 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1142000/1142572.stm
>
> Linux - lol, dead before the general public even knew about it...sure,
> big in geek circles, but to joe soap? HA!
Where does it mention Linux?
NB if you haven't read it yet, a nicer version is avaliabl here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/sci/tech/newsid_1142000/1142572.stm
ie replace hi woth low to get a low bandwidth version.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:33:55 -0000
On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 13:47:36 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> > The SMP design still (in 2.4) lacks behind most other
>> > SMP implementations out there.
>>
>> Such as?
>
>NT 4.0, Windows 2000, most higher grade Unixes such as Solaris and
>AIX, and several others. Basically, the big boys.
That certainly explains why Microsoft can 'barely' keep up with
Linux at 8-way SMP webserving these days.
Removing parts of replies that reference specweb will not make
the results magically go away and will fool no one.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to
build their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:39:32 -0000
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:20:57 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>
>> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > > Is it true that windows 2000 finally got filesystem quotas
>> > > somewhat similar to what Linux has had for years?
>> >
>> > Yes.
>> > Is it true that Linux finally got the SMP support that NT had for years?
>>
>> Linux has had smp support since version 1.1.31.
>
>And it was *bad*.
Demonstrate it.
[deletia]
Bear in mind that C't contradicted the findings of Mindcraft.
--
The term "popular" is MEANINGLESS in consumer computing. DOS3
was more "popular" than contemporary Macintoshes despite the
likelihood that someone like you would pay the extra money to
not have to deal with DOS3.
Network effects are everything in computing.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,soc.singles
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:39:15 GMT
Edward Rosten writes:
>>>> Marty writes:
>>>>> Edward Rosten wrote:
>>>>>> Marty wrote:
>>>>>>> Edward Rosten wrote:
>>>>>>>> Marty wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Edward Rosten wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> It has now moved on from that.
>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, the situation hasn't changed. I'm still ignoring
>>>>>>>>>>> Malloy like I was at the beginning of the thread, and Malloy is
>>>>>>>>>>> still posting his ridiculous responses like he was at the
>>>>>>>>>>> beginning of the thread. He hasn't moved on.
>>>>>>>>>> That part of the situation has changed, but Marty has since
>>>>>>>>>> joined in, which means that some parts of the situation have
>>>>>>>>>> changed.
>>>>>>>>> Actually, the situation hasn't changed. I'm still ignoring
>>>>>>>>> Tholen, and have been for over a month. Dave is still posting
>>>>>>>>> his ridiculous response like he had in other threads. He hasn't
>>>>>>>>> moved on.
>>>>>>>> Who is Dave?
>>>>>>> Haven't you been paying attention?
>>>>>> I thought I had, but I mus have missed the relavent post.
>>>>
>>>>>> Who is dave?
>>>>> More evidence of your reading comprehension problems. Dave is none
>>>>> other than Tholen.
>>>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
>>> Tholen, are you Dave?
>> Which one, Letterman?
> I don't know.
But you're the one asking the question.
> are you the `Dave' that Marty and Kulkis refer to?
Ask them. Different people have different names for me.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:42:15 -0000
On 1 Feb 2001 16:21:29 -0000, George Richard Russell CS1997 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Since both emacs and vim are available for Windows, how can they be better
>than themselves?
Bad port.
This is such a trivial point that it shouldn't even need
mentioning.
>
>fwiw, should you not be rotating your logs before they reach that sort of size
>anyway?
[deletia]
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: LOL now the BIND story hits mainstream News
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:50:51 -0000
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:24:58 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Can you not go a day without swearing you stupid little boy?
Who's more the child? The one who swears or the the
one who whines about it as if they just came in from
an episode of Leave it to Beaver?
[deletia]
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark)
Subject: Re: The nightmare that the current Open Source king (Linux) has bestowed upon
us
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:51:44 GMT
On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:15:56 -0500, "al" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> almost
coherently wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
I know you Windows fanatics love your GUIs, but please keep newsgroup
postings to plain text.
>God, save us from an Open Source world the proponents of which are =
>really nothing more than people who are too cheap to actually pay for a =
>product that they receive benefit from.=20
I'm betting you have at least one piece of unregistered shareware on
your Windows PC.
If I like something, I'll buy it. I liked winzip, so I registered it.
I liked mirc, so I registered it, I liked Free Agent so I bought Agent
(on a different PC to this one...).
Open Source means I don't have to pay, which is even better, but I'm
still willing to contribute what I can with ideas, newbie help, bug
reports etc.
>Why don't you all just go bootleg yourself into happiness and leave the
>rest of us alone.
What are we doing to you that's so hurtful?
>1. Small business buying into some form of Linux based upon a single
>employees experience and abilities (or purported abilities) and then
>everything falling apart when that person leaves the company-
This problem isn't isolated to open source software, any complex piece
of software is likely to leave a company in this situation if they
don't have the staff to support it. Even a small Windows LAN can be a
problem if nobody in the business understands networking.
>guess what, no docs, no standards, no references, no nothing!
No docs? Have you looked at the documentation on the internet?
No standards? Have you heard of IEEE? RFCs?
No references? Have you seen the number of linux newsgroups and
mailing lists?
>OR buy back into the
>industry standard world of Windows!
Windows is no 'industry standard' by any reasonable definition.
>And we still haven't seen the forthcoming problems with the virus issue
>in an "open source" environment -
You're right, we haven't seen it, and how many years has unix-like
open source software been around now? Doesn't that tell you anything?
>Oh, and did anyone ever tell Mr. small business manager that he has to
>debug his own software? Well, since open source software is, well, open,
>who is going to deal with all the issues, problems and concerns that
>develop during
No debugging required, just fire off a bug report. It'll get fixed and
you won't even have to pay for an 'upgrade', cool eh?
>Personally I find it interesting that so many companies actually thoght
>they could make money selling something that was already available to
>everyone "free of charge"....
People are willing to pay for a clean install and packaged software.
It's a lot easier than trying to download it all off the net.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
