Linux-Advocacy Digest #915, Volume #31 Fri, 2 Feb 01 16:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Sound a networks ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Re: The 130MByte text file (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The 130MByte text file (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The 130MByte text file (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING (Karel Jansens)
Re: The 130MByte text file (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The 130MByte text file ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is a fad? (Karel Jansens)
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Re: The 130MByte text file
Re: Linux is a fad? ("--====--" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Re: The 130MByte text file ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
New version of Windows! Yay! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sound a networks
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 20:11:16 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:958jnp$sa4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <SBLd6.1533$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Did it detect it?
> >
> > Remarkably enough, yes.
> > Getting 100MBits out of it with no problem, too.
> >
> > Hardware detection isn't Mandrake's problem...
> > The crippled install and incomplete set of packages included with the
> > "Complete (sic)" version is the main problem.
>
> I've always gone for custom - but I never seem to get the same results
> twice.
I've yet to figure out what the custom install is even for... They still do
way too much behind your back. Anything short of individual package
selection is a crippled install IMHO...
>
> In "Server saga", I tried three times to install on my old machine with
> three different results. At work, it went just fine.
At least it performed when it counted, anyway<g>
>
> Is there a distribution that installs things correctly without too much
> hassle? Or should I go back to Slackware 8)?
I don't know. I generally take the approach that if you want things done
correctly you have to do them yourself. This goes for Linux installations
too. Just grab tarballs and start compiling...You never fail doing this.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 20:11:34 -0000
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:55:13 -0500, WMH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Once in applications, most people have to memorize pictures for functions,
>and
>> if possible turn of the pictures, and revert to words. In the next version
>of
>> the application, the pictures change confusing the users. This is not easy
>to
>> use, hell it isn't easy to "relearn."
>
>One of the worst 'gui vs cli' arguments I've ever seen.
>
>I've not seen a GUI where the graphical representations of reptitive tasks
>have had pictures changing from version to version. (unless you're referring
>to the mish-mash of icons under the Unix Gui model)
>You want confusing icons? Look at some under KDE. KMail is an example. Now
>look at the same 'pictures' under an application like Outlook Express. Which
>facillitates a quicker recognition of the task the picture represents? No
>contest.
What icons?
The icons are so small in Outhouse as to be barely noticeable.
>
>Then there are menus --isn't a meun just a more efficient way of presenting
>a common group of options?
>
>File open, file save, copy, so on and so on, have not changed so radically
>as to have you 'relearn' them from version to version. In fact, MS's GUI's
>have remained consistent with this for years. Now open a unix text editor.
>Is it ^o to save? or is it ^s? What are my terminal's keymappings? No
vi and emacs are even more unchanging than Microsoft.
Both PREDATE MS-DOS, nevermind windows. If you had learned
either 10 years ago, you would not have need to relearn
everything else.
Plus, Unix tends to be more modular. So, instead of having
a separate little editor in all your applications you can
just use one common component across the entire system.
Then you wouldn't have to even worry about frivolous upgrades.
>contest in ease of use due to conformity in a standard GUI menu system vs. a
>CLI app by app non-standard usage of key combinations. Unix forces you to
>learn more than one way to perform a mundane task in many applications.
No, Unix allows you to perform the same mundane task with the
same tool across your entire system.
This is preferable to trusting 10 random developers to follow
the style guide. It also allows individuals to use tools that
suit them rather than forcing the individual to suit the tool.
>Modern GUI's offer you one way to do the same thing in many applications.
>
>Yes, we're all lemmings because we don't see things as you do. Operating
>systems as religion is an example.
It's a real shame that OpenDoc never got anywhere, or that
Microsoft is so interested in keeping you trapped that they
would never think of unleashing the full potential of OLE.
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 20:13:18 -0000
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 21:25:05 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 13:38:54 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Chad Myers 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.
>> >>
>> >> You've just proved my point.
>> >>
>> >> First of all, don't include your pc operating system
>> >> in the same sentence as Unix, it just makes you
>> >> look silly.
>> >
>> >Should be the other way around.
>> >
>> >Reference: tpc.org
>> >
>> >Windows 2000 owns #1 - #4. Unix is silly.
>>
>> No...
>>
>> Windows requires massive shared nothing clustering
>> to crawl into the "big leagues".
>>
>> Unix does not.
>
>Unix cost *much* more, and gives *much* less.
It all depends on what you need.
If you need TPC/C class thruput with a unified
database architecture, Windows simply doesn't
cut it.
>So I can either buy several computers running Win2K, or a single Unix box.
>I will spend *more* on the Unix than on the 2K solution, and I'll get much
>less.
You'll also have 100 discrete databases.
That may or may not actually solve your business problem.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 20:20:29 +0000
. wrote:
> You yourself showed that linux can indeed handle it when you used
> Xemacs to open it, tard.
And it can't handle it with another application.
> Opening files has nothing to do with an operating system, it has to do
> with the editor you use UNDER the operating system. As once again, you
> have been kind enough to prove.
Oh, I see, so opening a file does not involve the OS huh? It happens
without its knowledge. That's amazing.
> > I'm running X, my machine has hung, how do I log into anything? The
> > system is _hung_ that means login _does not work_.
>
> And again, you yourself said that you have a broken telnetd (though
> how you broke it is beyond me; its probably just commented out in your
> inetd.conf. Comment it back in and then type the following as root:
> killall -HUP inetd). You cannot show that your OS hung, you can only
> show that X hung.
Ah, but it was hung because it was thrashing itself to death trying to cope
with the load. That tells me that telnet (if it worked) would probably be
hung too.
> X hung. Not the operating system. Please discontinue use of ALL unices
> until you understand this fully.
The whole system hung due to heavy swapping. I understand that one pretty
well.
> You telnet into your box and fix it. Or ssh. Or rlogin. Or slogin.
> Or under certian 31337 circumstances, ftp.
And if telnet is not available?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 20:21:43 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That I will leave as an exercise to the reader who insists on not running
> Linux on his second machine :)
I know. It was a rhetorical question.
Incidentally I tried to get Linux Mandrake to run on the second machine.
See "Server Saga" to see why it didn't happen.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 20:24:03 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm just curious as to what your motive is for this little experient.
> If you're working with text files as massive as 500MB, you shouldn't
> be using an editor on them anyhow. You should be using sed or awk, or
> even a perl/python script to break down the file and perform whatever
> action it is you want to perform. Stream-editors are made for this
> kind of thing; text-editors are not.
Someone claimed you cannot load a < 100MByte file into PFE on Windows. PFE
is a free GUI editor available for Windows. I tried editing a large file
and went beyond 100MBytes, up to 130MBytes. The system struggled bit it did
not hang.
Then I tried it on Linux, and found some applications crashed, and one hung
the system.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 21:23:05 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 17:03:24 +0100, Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >>
> >> Nigel wrote:
> >>
> >> > Also, the Acorn Archimedes had 32bit multitasking 8 years before win95
> >> > came out (and had a very similar taskbar idea to the one in win95).
> >>
> >> It was cooperative multitasking, which is not quite as good as the
> >> multitasking used in Linux, Windows 9x and 2000.
> >>
> >
> >Cooperative and pre-emptive multitasking are merely two different ways
> >of doing the same thing. Cooperative multitasking is more dependent on
> >well-behaving programs (since it usually is the program that decides
> >when it will give up control of the cpu). This is less of a problem in
> >envrionments with stricter quality control, like the Apple and Acorn
> >architectures. The major advantage of cooperative multitasking lies in
> >a more economic use of system resources.
> >
> >One could say that Windows and linux required pre-emptive multitasking
> >because more crap is written for those platforms <G>.
>
> No, the Unix design paradigm has never been naieve enough to
> believe that a random collection of developers would ever
> play well with each other.
>
> This is bourne out in practice, Apples included.
>
> --
Um. There *was* a sarcastic <G> at the end of the post, but you're
right. It seems like Microsoft found that out too. But not too well,
hence the hodgepodge which was Windows 95 multitasking.
IBM did it like it should have been done with OS/2 2.0 and Warp.
>
> >> 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.
> |||
> / | \
Indeed, but I didn't write that sentence. (I now wish I had, though)
Regards,
Karel Jansens
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 20:26:41 +0000
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> I'm curious: where did you find kedit in KDE 2.0? Last I checked that
> didn't exist.
[goodwin@xxxxx goodwin]$ kedit --help
Usage: kedit [Qt-options] [KDE-options] file
A KDE Text Editor
Generic options:
--help Show help about options
--help-qt Show Qt specific options
--help-kde Show KDE specific options
--help-all Show all options
--author Show author information
-v, --version Show version information
--license Show license information
-- End of options
Arguments:
file File or URL to Open
[goodwin@xxxxx goodwin]$
> Try KFTE. I have opened larger files.
Not heard of that one.
> Install the joistick reboot daemon.
Is that the same as the plastic chicken daemon? You know, the one you wave
at the screen when everything goings wrong?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 20:22:50 GMT
In article <95eapi$odt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Does not work! ctrl-alt-Fx will not work since the keyboard is not
> receiving input If the keyboard stuff is not running at higher
> priority than the rest of XFree then forget it - it will never work.
Are you speaking theoretically? Because It's how I got out of my
situation. Of course, I was in text mode at the time.
When in XFree, all I had to do was right click on the app that wasn't
responding, and choose Kill App, and that got me out too. This was with
a 130 MB text file, both times. What apps were you using that neither of
these didn't work with?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is a fad?
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 21:31:22 +0100
"--==<( Jeepster )>==--" wrote:
>
> and TiVo, 8-track, betamax and videtext?
>
An incarnation of Betamax is still used as a professional recording
system. Videotext became Teletext (or CeeFax) and is hugely popular,
at least in Europe. I don't follow the TiVo developments, but isn't it
a bit early to call it a dead duck, as you seem to imply with your
ill-conceived list.
And why isn't BOB in your list? It seems like the proverbial examople
to me.
But I guess you were right with 8-track. 1 out of 4 isn't actually
that bad for an astroturfer.
Regards,
Karel Jansens
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 20:42:52 -0000
On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 21:23:05 +0100, Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 17:03:24 +0100, Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >Pete Goodwin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Nigel wrote:
[deletia]
>> >One could say that Windows and linux required pre-emptive multitasking
>> >because more crap is written for those platforms <G>.
>>
>> No, the Unix design paradigm has never been naieve enough to
>> believe that a random collection of developers would ever
>> play well with each other.
>>
>> This is bourne out in practice, Apples included.
>>
>> --
>Um. There *was* a sarcastic <G> at the end of the post, but you're
>right. It seems like Microsoft found that out too. But not too well,
>hence the hodgepodge which was Windows 95 multitasking.
Knowing about something and a willingess to actually
put the required work into the solution are two
vastly different things....
>
>IBM did it like it should have been done with OS/2 2.0 and Warp.
[deletia]
For them, the PC was an abberation.
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 20:45:21 -0000
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 20:20:29 +0000, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>. wrote:
>
>> You yourself showed that linux can indeed handle it when you used
>> Xemacs to open it, tard.
>
>And it can't handle it with another application.
So? The fact remains that tools are shipped with the system
to do the job in question quite adequately.
>
>> Opening files has nothing to do with an operating system, it has to do
>> with the editor you use UNDER the operating system. As once again, you
>> have been kind enough to prove.
>
>Oh, I see, so opening a file does not involve the OS huh? It happens
>without its knowledge. That's amazing.
Don't play dumb with us. The differences between the like
of kword and emacs in this particular situation have been
pointed out in gory detail here.
[deletia]
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "--==<\( Jeepster \)>==--" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is a fad?
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 20:44:35 -0000
I shall expand the list for you.....
Sinclair Microdrives (UK tape alternatives to floppies in the 80's)
Sinclair C5
TV-AM
Peter Mandleson MP
all are like LINsUX, almost good, but fall at the last jump where it really
counts.
"Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "--==<( Jeepster )>==--" wrote:
> >
> > and TiVo, 8-track, betamax and videtext?
> >
> An incarnation of Betamax is still used as a professional recording
> system. Videotext became Teletext (or CeeFax) and is hugely popular,
> at least in Europe. I don't follow the TiVo developments, but isn't it
> a bit early to call it a dead duck, as you seem to imply with your
> ill-conceived list.
>
> And why isn't BOB in your list? It seems like the proverbial examople
> to me.
>
> But I guess you were right with 8-track. 1 out of 4 isn't actually
> that bad for an astroturfer.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Karel Jansens
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 20:36:55 GMT
In article <95efha$u14$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <95e5gv$m63$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Here's a quick and dirty method to fix it the heavy resource shift
> > (which, by the way, is what you're going to get if you try to open a
> > 130MB file, you dork). Assuming you're logged in at tty1:
>
> Any decent OS ought to handle 130MBytes without hanging...
Oh, you mean like mine? Last night? I did your exact same test and had
no problem getting out of it. Using the exact steps that I gave you
before, based upon your criteria: 130MB text file, Linux editor. I gave
you one text and one GUI, neither hanged the entire system. That's
enough to refute your claim that Linux can't handle 130MB without
hanging.
> I'm running X, my machine has hung, how do I log into anything? The
> system is _hung_ that means login _does not work_.
Well, I have no idea. I created a 130MB text file, tried opening it in
vi in text mode and kwrite in GNOME, and in both cases I could get out
of it without having the entire OS crash. Without being able to sit down
at your computer and see what the hell you're doing, your story cannot
either be dealt with or verified.
As far as I'm concerned, at this point it's just your word we have to go
on, and since you already have an obvious bias against Linux, I'd say
whatever problems you claim to have are less a fault with Linux, and
more a question of you WANTING to find fault with Linux. Hence, your
word is questionable.
> > press: ctl-alt-F2 to get to a new login.
>
> Not if the system is hung!
>
> [snip]
See above.
> Any system that freezes the mouse, keyboard etc. is hung. That's what
> I call a hang, what do you call yours?
See above. I didn't call it a hang because my system didn't hang.
> > If you're in GNOME, right-click on the hanging application on your
> > taskbar, and select "Kill App". Should kill it.
>
> And if the mouse has stopped responding, what then?
See above.
> The original text file is 10MBytes. I pushed it up to 130MBytes to
> demonstrate a point - that PFE a GUI text file editor does not die on
> Windows.
I see. A fabricated test. Just like what your average desktop user might
want to do. See above about your obvious bias. In the real world, your
average desktop user has better things to do with their time, and Linux
has plenty of tools to offer to help them do this.
> I didn't come here for help.
Well, you ought to be seeing SOMEONE.
> What's the name of this group? Advocacy? I came here to say "Hey guys
> Linux is not all its cracked up to be". As long as I find this kind of
> thing, I ain't going nowhere, so piss of yourself.
The basis of your advocacy is a silly test, performed by a person who
doesn't know how to get out of a little bit of trouble. For that, yeah,
you may piss off, because the body of people that you represent isn't
worthy to be in an advocacy discussion. You do not represent the average
Linux newbie, you do not represent the average Linux user, and you do
not represent the average desktop user. All you represent is one of the
small group of trolls who manufacture retarded comparison tests in the
hope of getting a little bit of attention based on results of said
retarded comparison tests. At this point, if anybody else wants to pay
attention to you, they can feel free.
But you hear that sucking sound? It's the gaping void between your ears
desperately searching for IQ points surrounding it. And I for one am
through dealing with it on this discussion.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: New version of Windows! Yay!
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 20:38:22 GMT
Got this from email. It's probably old by now, but here you go...
' It seems Microsoft has come up with a new operating system that
combines the attributes of Windows CE, Windows Me, and Windows NT. It
will, of course, be called Windows CEMeNT -- "Hard as a rock, Dumb as a
brick." '
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
