Linux-Advocacy Digest #924, Volume #31 Sat, 3 Feb 01 01:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is a fad? (J Sloan)
Re: The 130MByte text file (J Sloan)
Re: More Mandrake Fun :( ("Adam Warner")
Re: More Mandrake Fun :( ("Adam Warner")
Re: Linux is a fad? (.)
Re: The 130MByte text file (J Sloan)
Re: Suggestions (SERIOUS ones please) requested (.)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (J Sloan)
Re: The 130MByte text file (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: More Mandrake Fun :( ("Adam Warner")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (J Sloan)
Re: The 130MByte text file (J Sloan)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (J Sloan)
Re: Linux is a fad?
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (J Sloan)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (J Sloan)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (J Sloan)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (J Sloan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is a fad?
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 05:16:53 GMT
"--==<( Jeepster )>==--" wrote:
> I have tried linux, mandrake, redhat, storm, turbo and even yellow dog on
> machine i borrowed for a month.
>
> Dont like them...sorry, maybe its personal taste, but i'd rather stay with
> windows 2000 where i can
Yep, it's personal taste, or something.
I've tried windows 95, 98, nt 3.51, 4.0 and 2000.
I'm sorry, I just prefer Linux where I can do all my
work, all my play, and not be subjected to all the
little limitations of pc operating systems.
> a) buy software off the shelves
Check, I was just at Fry's - great Linux section.
Not as big as the non-linux section, but infinitely
bigger than it was not too many months ago.
connect the dots, if you can.
> b) play the latest games
Yeppers, plenty of games, way more than I have
time to even try. I basically prefer the first person
shooters, and there are quite a few.
> c) use the latest hardware (do the words USB still strike fear into your
> heart?...it should, as far as I know only mice & keyboards are
> supported....oh dear)
Now, how would a linux newbie like yourself have
any idea about what's supported and what's not?
> d) not worry that the libraries will get broken if i had to install beta
> test software.
You seem to have this all backwards.
Hello? Do the words "dll hell" ring a bell with you?
Only in windows do applications overwrite system libs,
that's simply not done in the Unix world.
> e) use a good browser rather than the beta offerings or the half finished
> offerings given to linux users. LOL - case in point Netscape 4.x/6 and
> Konqueror..... NOW thats BAD.
use ie if that's what you like - I prefer Netscape, and Mozilla
is even starting to shape up, as are opera and konqueror.
> f) worry about getting the latest Kernel and then buggering it all up
> because the kernel needs to be patched to enable sound, PPP etc etc rah rah
> rah
That's simply not true, the kernel comes ready to rock
and roll, right there in the distro. kernel compilation is not
for non technical end users such as yourself, you don't
need to care or even know that there is such a thing as
a kernel.
> g) I can use standard applications at home and then go into any office and
> hey, the same things...wow......
Yep, I use Linux at work, and Linux at home - Sweet!
> h) avoid arcane command line crap....i mean, who the hell wants to go
> through an entire user manual to get the sound card to initialise and then
> find it wont ?
I'm not sure what this is all about. In various Linux boxes
I've got a pnp sound blaster vibra 16, an sblive, an sb 32
awe, an sb 128, and some no-name taiwan clones. All of
them work fine, and all of them were detected and properly
set up from the red hat "sndconfig" menu.
> i) who would want to sacrifice a Windows/Windows solution for a
> Linux/Windows integrated solution until there is some more solid, documented
> applications and cases that have already tried it and detailed the pros and
> cons? Linux has a long way to go before stepping up to the corporate
> plate...
I'm not sure what you mean by "long way to go", it's
been there for years, at least in the server room, it's
just speading out now. Perhaps you haven't heard
about IBM's billion and a half dollar Linux push this
year, or Dell's announcement to ship Linux business
desktops, or HP and Sun's decision to adopt the gnome
desktop.
>
> Chew on that Rabid LINsUX user....
Thank you for your criticism, it will be considered
with the appropriate degree of seriousness.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 05:23:10 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> 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.
Your story is suspect of course - as you have seen,
others here have carried out your experiment on their
Linux systems and had no trouble.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Mandrake Fun :(
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 05:23:19 GMT
Hi [EMAIL PROTECTED],
I only use a text login. It sounds like you only logged out though.
At a command prompt type this:
shutdown -h now
(In other words "shutdown and halt now")
And report back on results.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Mandrake Fun :(
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 05:26:47 GMT
Hi again,
> shutdown -h now
Note you may have to be superuser to shut down the computer. If so type:
su
To switch to superuser. And then type the shutdown command.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux is a fad?
Date: 3 Feb 2001 05:27:09 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sure I have, but floppies are dead so it is a moot point.
> I have yet to see a person who could not slip in an AOL or Earthlink
> CD and connect to the net.
You have never worked tech support then I take it, and know no one
who does.
The tech support people at the exceedingly large company where I work
have seen TENS OF THOUSANDS of these people.
Your very narrow perspective is worthless.
> I'm on Wall Street 3 times a week doing business and Linux is nowhere
> to be seen on the desktop. In a server closet maybe, but on the
> desktop, no way.
Server "closet"? I dont think youve ever even SEEN a server.
Oh, so now you "write" midi jingles for websites AND work on wall street.
Thats very interesting.
>>Lemmings follow the masses in a mindless parade. Smart people follow sensible
>>standards, the dumb people follow the stupid ones.
> No we use what everyone else is using.
Ummm...thats what "lemmings" means, claire. You damnable moron.
> See how far you get designing an automobile that uses bolts that are
> completely non-standard and then expect the rest of the world to make
> wrenches to fit your car.
Automobiles are not designed on windows machines.
=====.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 05:28:59 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [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.
What happened was he claimed to have tried to install
Linux on the machine, but suffered no end of comical and
unbelievable woes, and posed as if he were seeking help.
When the folks here tried to help him solve his self inflicted
pain, he gleefully revealed that he'd actually installed windows
on the machine in question.
There was some discussion about whether he had ever
actually installed Linux, or whether it was just another tactic
to chew up bandwidth, waste time, and lower the already low
signal to noise ratio in the group.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Suggestions (SERIOUS ones please) requested
Date: 3 Feb 2001 05:28:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2001 04:34:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>Oh really? I have a windowsME book at work that is all of 700 pages
>>long. I guess that much is really nessesary to understand that
>>incredibly complex operating system.
> It figures.
> Only an idiot like you would need a book to figure out how to install
> Windows.
Et tu, samba.
> I'll bet you're the only asshole who bought a copy.
I didnt buy it. The IT department did. Theyre full of MCSEs.
Apparantly they needed it or something.
=====.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[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: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 05:37:31 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> Unix cost *much* more, and gives *much* less.
This is of course completely false.
Windows is one of the more expensive OSes, to be sure.
Let's compare Solaris 8, Red Hat Linux, FreeBSD, and win2k
datacenter server, and set up a mail server for 5000 users.
Let it serve web pages too, what the heck.
Windows is by far the most expensive.
Let's look at specweb 99. Compare Linux and win2k.
win2k is frightfully expensive, but doesn't quite match
Linux performance wise.
How does that translate, in any sane universe, to
"unix costs more and gives much less"?
Explain, if you can.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 05:47:44 GMT
On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 23:12:25 -0500, Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|>
|>
|> Translation: you want me to be more forgiving and tolerant of the little
|> inadequacies of Linux. Well, sorry, no!
|>
|> I want Linux to _replace_ Windows. But it can't really do it if it falls
|> over when Windows carries on regardless. I thought Linux had a far
|> better paging system than Windows - is this wrong?
|
|
|I once tried to open a 70+ meg file in Word. It was my Trash file from
|Netscape. Word opened it but it sure did take a long time. It opened it
|all at once and trying to scroll using the scrollbar wasn't almost
|useless as it didn't seem to match up the page numbers that appear when
|u use the scrollbar with the actual page number that was displayed at
|the bottom of the page.
|
|Saving seemed to be a chore too.
|
|Haven't tried the same thing in Linux. I did open a 22 meg file in vi
|and it worked just fine but nothing close to 70 megs or even 200 yet.
Just for kicks I opened a 700+Mb binary file (a tar of my squid cache,
if you are interested) in 'vi' on my Linux box (a PII-350).
It took about 10 minutes to open, but nothing crashed.
This was while running over an SSH login from a remote site.
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Mandrake Fun :(
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 05:41:41 GMT
Hi [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> Difference my experience is real and yours is imagined or you would
> have posted it here earlier in glee.
It is highly unlikely you were able to trash your partition just by turning
the computer off.
And there is no way an ext2 file system check would take 5 hours of
churning. How big is the partition? 1000GB?
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[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: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 05:42:09 GMT
Daza wrote:
> Erm, maybe you should look at the tpc results more closely. Windows2000
> does not appear in the top ten *Non-clustered* results. This implies that
> Wintel SMP systems do not scale well. The only way to get Wintel to give
> high-end performance is to use clustering. Mature OS's like True64, AIX,
> OS/390, Nonstop Kernel and Solaris have excellent SMP/MPP scalability.
> Linux and Windows are not as "single box" scalable as these.
Not sure why you are lumping "Linux and windows" together,
it makes about as much sense as "Solaris and windows".
Have you looked at specweb 99? Nobody has better 8-way
results than Linux, not solaris, not aix, not Tru-64 Unix.
microsoft, with their all-out "benchmark buster" web cache
configuration, came close, but you can see the results for
normally aspirated windows pcs way down in the results.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 05:45:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 04:13:44 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Abiword is not a Linux app - it's a work in progress, and
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> So is Linux :)
Yes, Linux is indeed a work in progress -
and yes, there is still much to be done.
However, it is coming along very very nicely.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 05:47:38 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > hehe - I'm trying to visualize all this - here, you spend
> > all this time futzing around to create a 130 MB file just
> > for the purposes of abusing some editors, and you call
> > that "leaping into your lap"....
> >
> > too funny -
>
> When someone tells me a Windows GUI editor cannot handle a file less
> than 100MBytes, and I try it for myself and it _works_ and a couple of
> corresponding GUI editors on Linux either SIGSEGV or hang the system,
> yes, I'd say that leapt into my lap.
Well to be quite truthful your story is very suspect.
Others have duplicated your "experiment" with different
results from what you reported - perhaps you assumed
that noone would try to verify it?
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux is a fad?
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 05:49:07 -0000
On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 04:57:34 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On 3 Feb 2001 04:04:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David
>> Steinberg) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Your definition of "standard" is "whatever Microsoft is doing this
>> >week." Real standards, including USB, are supported by Linux.
>>
>> No.
>>
>> I can take my USB scanner, printer and camera and move them from my
>> Windows PC right over to my iMac and they work fine.
...if you're lucky. Otherwise, you might just discover that
the hardware vendor doesn't value your business. Even running
Win2K won't prevent this from happening.
OTOH, Linux users have been using devices in each of these
classes for quite some time now.
>>
>> They don't, however work under Linux.
>
>I think I'll get a usb scanner this weekend and
>hook it up to my main Linux system. If flatfish
>claims it doesn't work under Linux, that's just
>about convinces me that it will work just fine.
[deletia]
Check linux-usb.org. USB is just a bus standard, much
like PCI. "support for USB" by itself doesn't get
you very far. Some devices aren't even vendor supported
under NT5. While other vendors like to make their hardware
as non-standard as they can while refusing to release
documentation.
--
>
> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Kyle Jacobs, COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 05:50:28 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > rpm -qa | grep kde
>
> How about the about boxes of the applications, or simply typing
> konqueror --help?
Dunno, those might give some info, but rpm is guaranteed to.
> A hung system is stopped. Mouse doesn't move, keyboard dead etc.
Could be something has horked the console - perhaps
if you get out of X, or try logging in from your windows pc?
> So it's my boxes fault is it? Surely, it's the software it's running,
> not the hardware.
You have so many uniquely comical woes.
The laffs never end.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 05:53:14 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> I didn't burn you. You burnt yourself.
You burned not only me, but a number of folks
who went out of their way to try and help you,
not knowing that you playing mind games.
> I admit I'm not looking for answers, but neither am I acting the class
> clown.
Ah, but your endless antics have earned you that crown.
> > > Ah, but I wish it were true.
> >
> > I doubt that.
>
> What, you doubt my sincerity?
I believe you are very sincere, and in deadly earnest,
about your "mission to counter Linux advocacy".
jjs
------------------------------
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: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 05:53:32 -0000
On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 02:21:01 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Daza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:95etd2$ib1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:OLye6.2162$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > "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.
>> >
>> > -Chad
>>
>> Erm, maybe you should look at the tpc results more closely. Windows2000
>> does not appear in the top ten *Non-clustered* results. This implies that
>> Wintel SMP systems do not scale well.
>
>No, it's just that there aren't 192-processor Intel boxes. Which, I'm not
That doesn't matter. If NT can't run on decent, modern, powerful
microprocessors, then that's as much a fault of NT as anything
else one could point to.
[deletia]
Bear in mind that these benchmarks are performed pretty much
with just Microsoft software. If MS really wanted too, they
could target even a Starfire.
They have chose then the sandbagger's path instead.
Excuses won't help you when you need more performance in
a single server.
--
Regarding Copyleft:
There are more of "US" than there are of "YOU", so I don't
really give a damn if you're mad that the L/GPL makes it
harder for you to be a robber baron.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[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: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 05:59:12 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> Which doesn't really matter. Several flaws in Linux were exposed.
> Linus admitted that there were issues and he moved to fix them.
He did fix some issues, however the mindcraft tests
did not reflect real world configurations or usage, but
were focused on the weakness in linux i/o scalability
in certain situations. However, as c't showed in more
realistic benchmarks, Linux still bested nt in real world
workloads.
> To what extent he fixed them shall remain to be seen.
I think the extent became pretty clear last summer when
Linux smoked nt and 2000 by a wide margin on spec99!
Hope this helps,
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[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: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 06:06:42 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Didn't they smoke windows nt in 4-way specweb
> > back in the summer of 2000?
>
> Smoke? 3%? Not really.
Let's do a quick remedial math for chad:
4 way results last summer:
Linux win 2k
4200 1598
How do you get 3% from that, Chad?
On nearly identical hardware, windows performed
(1598/4200) ~= 38% as fast as Linux.
> And that was using kernel trickery.
Not sure what you mean by that, but you are misinformed.
jjs
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
