Linux-Advocacy Digest #987, Volume #31 Mon, 5 Feb 01 11:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Billy White Jr.")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Billy White Jr.")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Daza")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Edward Rosten")
Re: whining drive? Fix it! suggestions on keeping it working (Henry_Barta)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: DOS2Unix (mlw)
Re: Suggestions (SERIOUS ones please) requested (Henry_Barta)
The Wintrolls ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Re: DOS2Unix (Mike Martinet)
Re: Here's what THIS newbie would like to see ("Jerome Davies")
Re: The Wintrolls (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Billy White Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 14:20:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, G3
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Aaron R. Kulkis at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote on 2/4/01 11:14 PM:
>
> >>> The only reason gates has succeeded is because Apple was dumb enough
> >>> to fire
> >>> Jobs. Now that Jobs is back he is once again proving there's only
> >>> one
> >>> company in the damn industry that can come up with a NEW idea.
> >>
> >> Hmmmm. Jobs is a God, but also a complete nutter, after he was ousted
> >> at Apple they had their most profitable years.
>
> Mostly because he was ousted on the verge of Mac's taking off...
>
> >> Also, Jobs liked the
> >> quotation:
> >> "Good artists copy, great artists steal", and has admitted to stealing
> >> good ideas for integration into their products.
>
> Apple usually "Finishes the Job" though. A lot of people say Mac OS
> ripped
> of Xerox. Baloney.
>
> 1: Mac OS did several things (direct object manipulation, window
> overlapping) that PARC never got NEAR. Why? Because the Mac team saw
> pictures of PARC and ASSUMED it could do them, thus knowing it could be
> done they'd stop at nothing to accomplish it.
Wrong. They saw a dog and pony show *AT* PARC, seeing the actual
machines in use. They never saw code, but they saw working machines
running the code. The work was similar to the computer Jeff Raskin
envisioned, and Raskin used the meeting to sell Jobs on the concept, who
was *against* the Mac, and the GUI concept, until the PARC demo. And
several elements and concepts from Xerox's work appeared in the MAC GUI
- if it was imitation or concurrent development is up for debate.
Many at Xerox feel Apple ripped them off - some at Apple feel justified
with what they did, and claim that they did'nt. Apple also paid for the
demo, but it's unclear if there was an injunction implicit in the
agreement for Apple not to use what they saw. Make your own judgement.
Xerox did sue Apple, but they lost - clearly the judge thought Apple was
innocent.
> 2: By the end of it all the key people from PARC were on the Mac team
> anyway.
Yup.
------------------------------
From: "Billy White Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 14:23:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2: By the end of it all the key people from PARC were on the Mac team
> > anyway.
>
> The Mac team was essentially the PARC team...PARC started shutting down,
> and the majority of them ended up taking the majority of slots in the
> Mac project.
PARC shut down? That's funny, my Dad had many a meeting there up until 4
years ago. In fact, there's rumors floating that PARC is up for sale
right now.
------------------------------
From: "Daza" <[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: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:59:09 -0000
Reply-To: "Daza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daza wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Daza wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nor could they make either OS truly multi-user. One would
> > hope
> > > > that,
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > these were competitive products, they might take advantage
of
> > the
> > > > fact
> > > > > > > > > that a microcomputer does not necessarily benefit from the
> > > > multi-user
> > > > > > > > > methods of Unix-style OSes, instead of constantly failing
to
> > even
> > > > > > > > > recognize the distinction, let alone take advantage of it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Explain this statement, why do you think that NT isn't a
multi
> > user
> > > > OS?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How many people can log into an NT Server machine and control
it
> > > > > > > using the GUI interface?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just asking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Currently, I've one remote session, one console session, and one
TS
> > > > > > connection from the console to this computer (I'm doing some
admin
> > work,
> > > > and
> > > > > > don't feel like logging off, adn runas works only half the time
in
> > > > > > Whistler).
> > > > > > The top that this computer has been through was 6 sessions +
> > console,
> > > > it's a
> > > > > > PIII 500 + 384MB, it didn't seem to cause major slowdown to any
of
> > the
> > > > > > connections.
> > > > > > I can't really answer this question, but I've heard numbers that
> > range
> > > > from
> > > > > > 20 to 50 or more.
> > > > >
> > > > > How many $$$$$$$$$$$ extra did you have to spend to get this
> > 1960's-era
> > > > > capability
> > > > > --
> > > > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > > > Unix Systems Engineer
> > > > > DNRC Minister of all I survey
> > > > > ICQ # 3056642
> > > >
> > > > With NT4 and W2k (and 3.51 I think) you can easily use a remote
console
> > >
> > > If you're willing to spend $300/machine for the 3rd-party software,
> > > or, with Lose2k, about $150/machine for the Terminal Services
licenses.
> > >
> > >
> > > > session to do command line administration. With W2k server you can
also
> > use
> > > > Terminal Services to do remote GUI administration tasks. These are
> > standard
> > > > tools supplied by Microsoft as part of Server versions of their OS.
No
> > > > extra cash required.
> > >
> > > ...other than licenses.
> > >
> >
> > Remote Admin, either terminal or GUI, does not require extra licenses
with
> > W2k server. You are correct that remote multi-user sessions do require
a
> > per user license to use authenticated Terminal Services. But if you
really
> > need to employ Windows apps (sometimes you have no choice!) in a large
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> A highly doubtful presumption right there
Please read what I say before commenting. Why is this a "highly doubtful
presumption"? For a multiplicity of (sometimes valid) reasons many
companies want to standardise on using Microsoft Office for basic
productivity (ha!) software. If you are working within the IT department at
one of these companies you have four choices;
1) Install Office 2000
2) You happen to work at a media firm and so install Office:Mac
3) Resign
4) Waste your energy trying to convince the decision makers that StarOffice
etc. is much better. Is this really worth arguing over? Very boring. And
interia is a bugger, right?
Familiarity is probably the major reason for using M$ Office. A former
employer of mine specialised in the distribution of technical components to
resellers. The Call Center staff had to do a lot of Wordprocessing,
Spreadsheet and Presentation work internally and shared with clients and
suppliers. As with all Call Centers, there was a constant small turnover of
staff, so new recruits/temps had to get up to speed quickly. In this case
it made sense to use Office. All (I do mean ALL) of our partners used
Office, or at least had access to it. This made exchanging documents easy.
Most recruits and all of the temps already knew how to use Office. This
meant that training could concentrate on doing the job and using internal
bespoke systems, rather than how to use an unfamiliar workdprocessor.
(Yes I know that data exhange using XML would be much better, but that
assumes that all parties have implemented this technology.)
>
> > organisation, Terminal Services is a good solution.
> >
> > You know, Linux makes a good workstation OS to support accessing
Terminal
> > Services.
>
> Linux/Unix makes an even BETTER workstation in a Microsoft-free
environment.
>
> IF you don't believe me....ask ANYONE who works at an automotive supplier.
>
I am sure there are many situations where a M$ free environment works just
great. Totally believe you. "There can be only one" may be true in
Highlander, but it does not apply to IT.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 15:12:37 +0000
> Most of the serious CP/M systems were Zenith, Heathkit, etc, at the
> time. I bought a Z80 board with CP/M for my Apple II but I wasn't
> terribly impressed. I didn't like the Apple II much, either. I thought
> the TRaSh80 was much better. Or did the Model II run CP/M? About all I
> can remember is it used 8" floppies.
>
> As a completely irrelevant aside, one of Tandy's TRS80 guys has released
> a stack of TRS80 stuff on the web, and even has a TRS80 emulator. Once I
> work out how to read my old SS/SD 5 1/4" disks I'll have to give it a
> spin for old times' sake :-)
If you ever find out, could you email me (I haev a 5.25" disk drive, but
can't read my old BBC floppies)?
Cheers
-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: Henry_Barta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: whining drive? Fix it! suggestions on keeping it working
Date: 5 Feb 2001 15:17:32 GMT
B'ichela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> One solution is to add some Graphite to the ground point that
> the axle touches to keep the friction down. Or.. if you feel Gutzy
> enough use a fine light oil and oil it yourself, you need to oil the
> bearings. Some of the oils used for Model trains work great (Do it at
> your own risk in a dust free environment. If the drive is already dead
> You cannot lose much if you already backed it up. At the least you get
> a education on drive mechanics!
Since the drive is already experiencing errors and in fact,
the kernel has remounted it as RO, I have already written it
off. At this point it becomes an experiment in "how long can
it run and provide firewalling and masquerading." Since that
is in the kernel and doesn't get swapped, this might be until
the next power outage. (Even though it is a laptop, the battey
is toast so it requires AC power.) As long as the logging S/W
doesn't "go crazy" because it can't write logs, it seems like
it might be able to go on for quite some time.
Since it is a firewall, installed S/W is minimal and a reinstall
even w/out backups will be simple when the time arrives.
--
Hank Barta White Oak Software Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Predictable Systems by Design.(tm)
Beautiful Sunny Winfield, Illinois
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 15:20:06 +0000
In article <95m7es$kpd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete Goodwin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Translation: Pete didn't allocate enough swap space for what he's
>> trying to do.
>>
>> Conclusion: Yet another deliberate sabotage by Pete Goodwin.
>
> What? Linux cannot grow its swap space beyond what is allocated? What a
> limitation!
1 If you've allocated several times more swap than you have RAM and you use
up all the swap, you should seriously consider more RAM, since things
will start going very slowly
2 Linux uses a partition optimized for awap space, not file staage, so
that it is faster. The swap partitions can not suffer fragmentation.
3 You can (if you want, but consider point #1 and #2 if you need to) tell
Linux to use a file on a mounted partition for swap space at a lower
priority than the other swap. You could probably automate this if you
needed to, if the memory usage got too high.
-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: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DOS2Unix
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 10:25:10 -0500
"Douglas D. Anderson" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How can you not love Linux?
> >
>
> <snip>
> >
> > All I ever wanted to do was multi-task DOS, really. And that's where
> > Microsoft went wrong, IMHO. They built up Windows and tried to hide
> > DOS. They could have made DOS as powerful as any UNIX and sold Windows
> > as an application. But no.
> >
> > Oh well.
> >
> >
> > MjM
>
> I like/liked DOS as well, in fact I have an older socket5 Pentium 90
> with DOS, just for hacking that... but as far as I know, DOS could
> never be multi-tasking in the truest sense of the word, because it
> is entirely based on a layer just above the machine, with dependencies
> on calls directly to the ROM Bios and real addressees, all of which
> make task swapping possible, but don't allow for the very sophisticated
> handling of memory, system calls, and interrupts which a true multi-
> tasking system require. Btw- I was a bit disgusted when MS tried to
> put the squeeze on DOS by such annoyances as allowing DOS programs
> to run in virtual machine windows, (basically DOS emulators), but
> never addressed the issue of resizing graphics and animations in those
> windows. Windows is such a big blob of code it would not have taken much
> more to be able to resize videos in DOS windows, but their attitude
> seems to be to try to force users to cooperate with their 'upgrades'
> like they are the Sat Gurus and the users are submissive devotees.
Actually, DOS is a very interesting environment, and quite capable of
Multitasking, IF a few assumptions are made:
The 8088 and 8086 use a segmented memory addressing space. It is accessed via
two registers, a segment register and an offset register. Both these registers
are 16 bits. The segment registers represent 16 byte aligned segment starting
points, the offset registers are added to the segment registers when a physical
address is created. For instance: segment 1 and offset 0, written as 0001:0000,
is actually address physical 000010.
As long as the program never looked at the segment register, it could be moved
around in memory at will. The processor, unfortunately, had no way to protect
itself, so multitasking is not very safe. However, in a carefully programmed
environment, it was quite reliable.
DOS was designed thinking that the "small" model (16 bit code, 16 bit data)
would be used to run multiple CP/M based programs at the same time. This
capability never materialized. CP/M ported programs quickly ignored guidelines
and started using much more than 64K data. If Microsoft had a memory management
strategy for the introduction of DOS 2.0, multitasking DOS would have been a
reality.
Oddly enough, Windows 1.0/2.x/3.0 (real mode) was a multitasking (cooperative,
but could have been preemptive) operating environment for DOS using the
8088/8086 segmented memory model with a pretty cool overlay manager. It
simulated virtual memory with discardable read-only code segments. Data
segments were swapped in an out of LIM "expanded" memory, but code segments
were called in as needed and discarded after use.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Henry_Barta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Suggestions (SERIOUS ones please) requested
Date: 5 Feb 2001 15:26:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Oh dear me, and I was told setting up Samba via SWAT was so easy.
> Can't be that an entire library of books has to be written to use it.
More books have been published on Windows and Windows applications than
any other computer related subject.
> Sya it's not so?
It is so.
--
Hank Barta White Oak Software Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Predictable Systems by Design.(tm)
Beautiful Sunny Winfield, Illinois
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The Wintrolls
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 15:29:12 +0000
Has anyone ever noticed how the wintrolls seem to have absoloutely vast
software libraries in their homes? Only the other day, flatfish claimes
to have 4 encyclopedias. Who the hell needs 4 encyclopedias?
Mabey they buy every bit of software on sale just to find stuff that
doesn't work under Linux?
Also the range of problems the trolls have is, quite frankly, vast.
What's odd about these problems is that they rarely seem to make it on to
he serious news groups, and no one else ever seems to suffer from them.
Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux and
seem to have is crashing the whole time and can't run software they want,
yet they keep on using it. Why? No sane person would carry on using
something if they had so many problems with it (usless it was forced on
them).
Just my £0.02
-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] ()
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: 5 Feb 2001 09:26:06 -0600
>> Most of the serious CP/M systems were Zenith, Heathkit, etc, at the
>> time. I bought a Z80 board with CP/M for my Apple II but I wasn't
>> terribly impressed. I didn't like the Apple II much, either. I thought
>> the TRaSh80 was much better. Or did the Model II run CP/M? About all I
>> can remember is it used 8" floppies.
Heath/zenith's (really the same thing) computers were toys compared to
quality S-100 systems.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DOS2Unix
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 09:02:57 -0700
mlw wrote:
>
> Actually, DOS is a very interesting environment, and quite capable of
> Multitasking, IF a few assumptions are made:
<snip>
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
Thanks. I really enjoy reading stuff like that. I knew about the
segment-offset, but I understood that it was because the 88/86 used
20-bit addressing, which necessitated using the lower four bits of the
segment address to add to the 16 bit offset. I'm not sure that we're
not explaining the same thing with different words - nevertheless, I
just like reading explanations of how hardware does stuff.
MjM
------------------------------
From: "Jerome Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.help,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Here's what THIS newbie would like to see
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 16:08:33 -0000
This is one of the most useful things I've read all week. (The length of
time I've been using Linux)
Jerome Davies
PM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:eAhb6.58161$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What you teach depends on just how much time you have. For myself, I'm
more
> interested in finding out WHAT I need to learn, not so much the details on
a
> specific program. A list of important progs and config files with a short
> description of what they're for would go a LOOONG way in getting a newbie
> started. Remember the parable about giving someone a fish? Here's an
example
>
> whatis - tells you what something does e.g. whatis ppp
> apropos - Lists files that pertain to a topic e.g. apropos ppp
> man - masochists manual reader for what apropos shows you
> locate - find out where that pesky file actually is
> chown - change ownership of files e.g. chown nobody.nobody *
> chmod - change what people are allowed to do with a file e.g. chmod 777
> mywebpage.html
> pico - simple command line editor
> vi - the masochists dream text editor
> linuxconf - detailed configuration of your linux from menus
> setup - configure some basic OS functions and set startup programs
> Xconfigurator - configure xwindows to your hardware
> kernalcfg - set up loadable modules (network cards etc)
> netcfg - configure your network
> <add mail/news setup here - I still haven't gotten them to work - I use my
> windoze box>.
>
> You'll definately want to go over installing RPMs (and other vendor
equivs)
> as well as the basics of how to compile (perhaps a list of packages
required
> to enable compiling - thats another thing I've had zero luck with - I just
> don't know WHAT I have to have. libc,glibc what the hell is the difference
> and which do I need?)
>
> And don't forget to tell people how to update things like the locate
> database (locate -u). I still don't know if you need to do that with man
or
> apropos...
>
> RTFM is fine and I try to, but if I don't know it exists I can't really
read
> up on it can I.
>
> And for you *nix grognards out there, vi is NOT easy. It seems a lot like
> dos's edlin to me... (hella more powerful I agree, but more cryptic and
and
> just as conceptually unfriendly!)
>
> Oh and someone please invent a "man -translatethejargonintoenglishplease"
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 11:09:47 -0500
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> Has anyone ever noticed how the wintrolls seem to have absoloutely vast
> software libraries in their homes? Only the other day, flatfish claimes
> to have 4 encyclopedias. Who the hell needs 4 encyclopedias?
>
> Mabey they buy every bit of software on sale just to find stuff that
> doesn't work under Linux?
>
> Also the range of problems the trolls have is, quite frankly, vast.
> What's odd about these problems is that they rarely seem to make it on to
> he serious news groups, and no one else ever seems to suffer from them.
>
> Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux and
> seem to have is crashing the whole time and can't run software they want,
> yet they keep on using it. Why? No sane person would carry on using
> something if they had so many problems with it (usless it was forced on
> them).
I do find much of the wintrolls posts, quite frankly, very hard to believe. Not
any one incident, mind you, but that they seem to have ALL the problems ever
posted about Linux. This has always been a cause for me to ponder what it is
that they are doing.
I use my computer to work. My work consists of designing software and
procedures for others to write software. I need software development tools, and
standard office tools. Drawing, charting, presentations, etc.
I have yet to be lacking any of the tools I need to work under Linux. These
guys carry on like presentations must be done in postscript code authored in
VI. The funny thing is that I never log any time lost to random crashes, or
reboots to "fix" a problem. Which is funny too because Microsoft has been
working so hard to make the boot process "quicker" so people don't lose as much
time, but the reality it could take longer if they would work on making Windows
more stable.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.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
******************************
