Linux-Advocacy Digest #5, Volume #32 Tue, 6 Feb 01 06:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Large Scale Install (Andrew O'Brien)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Suggestions (SERIOUS ones please) requested ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: win2k -> linux (Milton)
Re: Linux performance results ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Suggestions (SERIOUS ones please) requested ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Goodby MS... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Tom Wilson")
Re: how come you have to reboot when you change DNS servers in Windows? ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is awful (Nick Condon)
Re: Goodby MS... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: The Wintrolls ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andrew O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux
Subject: Re: Large Scale Install
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:35:02 +1100
you can do an install where the data is obtained from the web...
and you can also automate the install process... do the first install in
expert mode and then at the end it gives you the option of making a disk to
automate the install process
--
The usual deal with the reply-to address
--
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:33:14 -0600
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:63Pf6.560$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Thanks but no thanks...Windows 2000 Professional is the end of the line
for
> me. Whistler is totally unnecessary and .NET will NEVER pollute one of my
> machines. It's about as transparent a money vacuum as DIVX was. We will
> neither utilize it nor develop for it - period. It is something to be
> viewed with disdain, not anticipation. Only the severely short-sighted
> would actually welcome such a system.
Spoken just like someone without a clue about what .NET is.
(HINT: The subscription based services are only a tiny part of it, and
something that very few .NET programs will take advantage of. If this is
the only argument you can come up with, you're going to be quite surprised).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 10:26:24 GMT
1. People are just not interested in Linux, and I'm not talking about
IBM I am talking about Joe user who makes up the lions share of the
market.
2. It's all about ease of use, compatibility with the neighbors and
applications and Linux fails on all counts.
3. Linux is FREE for God sakes and it STILL cannot get any sizeable
market share. Do you Penguinista's have any idea what would happen if
Gates took out a full page ad in the Sunday NY Times and gave Whistler
away for free? There would be riots in the streets. Why? Because Gates
makes something that people want, and Linux does not. Editors,
compilers and megabytes of half finished code fragments ala Freshmeat
don't generate interest in an operating system.
4. Windows makes things so damm easy that screwing with Linux is just
not worth the time even if one manages to get it working properly.
I can walk into ANY computer store and you can put a blindfold on me
and I can pick out hardware and software that will work with Windows
without even looking. As long as you don't put me in the Mac section
:) and even in that case if it is USB hardware chances are good it
will work with Windows as well.
5. Why in the world should I bet my job on some word processing
program that is trying to be MSWord? Why not use the real thing? It
came with my pre-load anyway? Install StarOffice? Why? It is free even
in the Windows world yet nobody is using it. Why is that? Exactly WHY
is nobody using StarOffice? Seems to me it would be a no-brainer to
save a fortune in licensing fees but yet there is very little interest
in even the Windows version of StarOffice. Why is that? Damm if
someone offered me a free Car I think I would take them up on it and I
wouldn't care if it was purple with green polka dots.
Answer is StarOffice is garbage.
6.Hardware support under Linux is a highly mixed bag. You see LinoNuts
have to beg manufacturers to write drivers for Linux. Or they have to
reverse engineer the hardware in order to come up with their own
semi-functional drivers.
Why should I put up with using half the functions of a card or device
I paid good money for?
Windows drivers are on a CD included in the box. Where are Linux
drivers? Are there any Linux drivers at all?
I'm not even including Win_hardware here I am talking about everyday
hardware.
7. How about fragmentation. Linux currently has God knows how many
distributions with their own package management solutions and source
tree and so forth. Some are semi-compatible with others but unless you
really know what you are doing you risk rendering your system useless
mixing and matching.
Do deb packages work with RPM? Well sort of. Do SuSE rpm packages work
with RedHat? Well sort of.
How about Mandrake? Some Redhat stuff works and others do not.
How about Slackware?
TurboLinux?
Corel?
True Debian?
A nightmare for the uninformed.
So let's talk about the uninformed a little bit.
Hope you have lot's of reading time on your hands because Linux
involves lot's of reading. Generally the process starts with How-To's
and then when you find that the How-To's are either outdated or too
generic you will start searching the internet where you will find many
people sitting in the same quagmire as you. Lost souls looking to run
Linux and the net is chock full of them.
So why run Linux?
I don't know. Really I don't. Maybe you hate Gates? Maybe you have
convinced yourself that Linux is better, I have no idea.
As far as I can see only a real idiot would put up with 1980's style
applications on their desktop. That's in a nutshell what Linux is
about.
Don't believe me?
I suggest you try Linux for yourself and make your own mind up.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Suggestions (SERIOUS ones please) requested
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 10:32:30 GMT
On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 03:32:49 -0500, Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>You must have been born with the knowledge to use Windows w/o needing
>any books or experience. gee, I wish we were all like that. It would
>make tech support jobs easier.
By his own admission the guy is running digital audio. Name one
application like Cedar or SoundForge of Wavelab or even Cooledit that
works under Linux and provides the level of professional quality that
he needs?
>
>The other 6 billion people in this world aren't born with the knowledge
>you seem to have been born with and therefore need to take the time to
>get used to and learn about their computer, the application software
>they run, and the OS itself. THe OS includes the Mac OS , linux, or
>Windows. I wasn't born with the knowledge of knowing how to configure
>Windows95/98 and I won't say i was. I had to learn it. I had to learn it
>with Linux.
People aren't interested in configuring anything and that is why Linux
sucks.
>Don't act like someone needing to learn something new means they are
>wasting their time. Of course you were born with all that knowledge so
>I guess someone like you would say anyone who had to read to gain
>knowledge was wasting their time.
All the knowledge in the world won't generate the applications he
needs to run under Linux, unless he plans on writing them himself.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Milton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: win2k -> linux
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 05:26:11 -0500
On Mon, 05 Feb 2001 21:21:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>hi all:
>
>first of all, i have read the HOW-TO on linux installation, the part
>using NT loader. unfortunately, it doesn't work for me (or maybe i am
>missing something really important).
>
>i have a machine that has win2k on it, and i've used partition magic to
>move it over so i have 3 partitions (DOS, Linux Native, Linux Swap). The
>DOS (FAT32) partition is 6000MB, and linux took up the rest of the disk.
>
>after successfully installing Red Hat 7, when rebooting, it went
>straight to the Win2k loading screen. i tried to use the linux LILO
>bootdisk, and got into Linux. but after making all the changes like i am
>supposed to according to the HOW-TO, i still can't get NT (Win2k) to see
>my linux partition when loading.
>
>is there something fundamentally different between the NT4 and Win2k
>loader? or am i missing something here?
>
>any help (or pointing me to another web site) would be greatly
>appreciated :)
http://members.aol.com/gvollant/bootpart.htm
--
«««««««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
Milton B. Hewitt
CAUCE Member - http://www.cauce.org
Proud supporter of the Microsoft Boycott Campaign
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/
«««««««««««««««««««««««»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux performance results
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:40:46 -0600
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> > I do also. The first time I used FreeBSD I was shocked
> > at the performance difference. It truely is the fastest
> > OS in the world for PC's.
>
> A point I might add here. I compared the performance of Windows 98 on
> an AMD 450 against a machine running FreeBSD 4.0 on a P166 MMX, both
> with 64 Megs of RAM. You'd be surprised, there really isn't much of a
> difference in performance. In fact, the FreeBSD machine actually seemed
> slightly more responsive. But then again, that probably doesn't
> surprise too many people. Well, maybe EF. 8-)
Considering that my website runs on FreeBSD with 64MB on a P200, I think I
have some experience in this matter (not to mention I ran FreeBSD for well
over a year back in the 2.x days).
If your comment is solely about "responsiveness", then this is a purely
subjective viewpoint. I've literally seen people that were told their
computer had been upgraded when it had not been, and they said "Wow, it's
much faster". If your expectation is of such, you will convince yourself of
it.
If your comment is about actual benchmarks, then I simply don't believe you.
For instance, the rc5 cracking client runs almost an order of magnitude
faster on my PII 450 running Win98 (when I ran Win98 on it) than it does on
the P200 running FreeBSD.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Suggestions (SERIOUS ones please) requested
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 10:34:21 GMT
On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 03:35:27 -0500, Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 04:00:22 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>
>>> For a good book on the subject, I recommend Rich Sharp's "Special
>>> Edition: Using Samba". Published by MacMillan, available online thru
>>> B&N or Amazon. This one's quite current, and a good companion to the
>>> other publications in MacMillan-Que's "Special Edition" series.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Sya it's not so?
>>
>>
>
>you must not have a bookstore in your part of the Solar System that
>carries a score of Windows books even though Windows is 'supposed' to be
>the easiest OS this side of Andromeda.
Difference is you don't need them under Windows, but you sure as hell
do under Linsux.
Ever see an entire library of How-Tos included with or separate from
Windows?
I didn't think so.
People write Dating for Dummies books. That doesn't mean it is right.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 10:34:50 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:957i20$h7q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Steve Ackman wrote:
> :>
> :> On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 20:11:37 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> >John Hasler wrote:
> :> >
> :> >> Edward Rosten writes:
> :> >> > Christian morals were also invented by people.
> :> >>
> :> >> And the US was _not_ founded on "Christian beliefs".
> :> >
> :> >You're splitting hairs -
> :> >
> :> >There was a strong deist influence, at the very least.
> :>
> :> Jefferson was a Deist, yet was branded an Atheist by his
> :> Christian detractors. Deism is a far cry from Christianity.
> :>
>
> : Deism is a belief in the existance of God.
>
> One that has nothing to do with Christianity. Which is kind of
> important considering what this subthread is about.
It can. It's the belief in A god. Which isn't specified. It could be Allah,
Krishna, YAHWE (However that's spelled)....
>
> : Atheism is a belief in the non-existance of God.
>
> No it isn't. It's the lack of the belief that god does exist.
> To call this a belief rather than simple default skepticism is
> to assume that god existing is the default, which is circular.
Yes it is...
What you're refering to is called agnostism.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Goodby MS...
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:48:33 -0600
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ykOf6.552$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Actually, that would be MS not able to write a decent API and or Class
>
> It would have been nice if they had actually put some thought into MFC...
> It appears to be grudgingly written by C programmers.
MFC was actually the second class library MS created. The original library
was called AFX (and many of the names still exist in MFC) and was much more
object oriented, however it proved to be so problematic for SDK C developers
to learn, that they started from scratch and created something that would
leveredge existing C skillsets.
The thin wrapper approach has it's uses. Especially when you have to go
outside the class library. This is a big problem with Borland's library.
If you almost never go outside the library, when you need to, you find
yourself completely lost because it's so unfamiliar.
> The WTL classes are
> far superior, IMHO, but, they're no longer being developed, are poorly
> documented, and the classes that mirror MFC's are at times very
> inconsistant.
Not true. In fact, a new version of WTL was released in the November
Platform SDK. This added all kinds of new stuff and lots of bug fixes. I
agree that WTL is a very superior class framework, but it's also much more
difficult to get a grasp on for new developers. It uses so many advanced
features, and an interesting technique using templates to avoid virtual
functions, which very often confuses those who don't fully understand C++.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 10:42:26 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95fl3c$dju$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Dan Mercer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Could you please take this conversation private or at least to
> : a more appropriate newsgroup. While I believe God advocates Linux
> : (Bill Gates being the antiChrist)
comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
> : are not appropriate forums for this discussion.
>
> When insults are made in public, the responses must be equally public.
Must the responses be made ad nauseum, though?
This sort of debate has been going on for as long as humanity and it sure
as hell isn't going to be solved in COLA...We can't even agree on something
so simple as a distro around here!
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: how come you have to reboot when you change DNS servers in Windows?
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:53:23 -0600
"jtnews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I was trying to experiment with
> various networking options in windows
> 98se and for each little different
> configuration like changing a DNS server
> I had to reboot windows. Why is that?
The reason is not quite as difficult as you might imagine. The 9x TCP/IP
stack initializes at boot, and once initialized it can't be changed.
> Does Win2K require you to do the same thing?
No. With Win2k you can add or change DNS, WINS, DHCP, IP Addresses,
whatever.. no reboot necessary. Actually, with NT4 you didn't have to
either, even though it asked you to reboot.
> How come in Linux you can turn the networking
> interfaces on and off and configure whatever you
> want without doing any reboot?
Because Linux was designed differently from 9x.
> Can't Microsoft make Windows more like Linux
> in this regard?
Not 9x.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: 6 Feb 2001 10:49:38 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On 5 Feb 2001 22:46:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>>Hey claire, just for the sake of argument, try installing FreeBSD 4.2.
>>>>It has full USB support, etc. Id love to see what happens when you
>>>>attempt to install another flavor of UNIX.
>>
>>> AIX is a piece of cake to install on an SP/2, including Perspectives
>>> and pssp code.
>>
>>I didnt say AIX, you retarded piece of ass cheese. I said FREEBSD.
>
>You said and I quote "ANOTHER FLAVOR OF UNIX".
>
>>I know EXACTLY how easy AIX is to install. I also know how easy Solaris
>>and HP/UX are to install. MacOS is very easy too. I'm not talking
>>about any of those.
>
>No you don't.
>You don't have a clue.
>
>>Again you ignore that which you cannot face, including the post where
>>I asked you to provide proof that I said my girlfriend lives in the
>>hamptons, AND the post after that asking once again.
>
>You said. it.
>Prove you didn't.
Good one. Prove a negative assertion. That'll learn 'im.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Goodby MS...
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 11:08:05 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7xQf6.3499$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ykOf6.552$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Actually, that would be MS not able to write a decent API and or
Class
> >
> > It would have been nice if they had actually put some thought into
MFC...
> > It appears to be grudgingly written by C programmers.
>
> MFC was actually the second class library MS created. The original
library
> was called AFX (and many of the names still exist in MFC) and was much
more
> object oriented, however it proved to be so problematic for SDK C
developers
> to learn, that they started from scratch and created something that would
> leveredge existing C skillsets.
I only glanced at AFX briefly. I was still, primarily, hacking the 1000+
line switch/case statements at that point and time. (Old habits die hard.)
I still have a reference to it around here somewhere. (Probably lumped in
with the SCO Xenix, VMS, and CP/M stuff)
It'd been nice of the aforementioned developers to have bothered to learn
C++. How someone can work with a message/event driven platform and not see
that language's obvious advantages defies belief. Its' not like the
learning curve is that steep. Once you get past polymorphism and
inheritance you take to it like a duck to water. Easiest and most pleasant
language learning experience I ever had.
>
> The thin wrapper approach has it's uses. Especially when you have to go
> outside the class library. This is a big problem with Borland's library.
> If you almost never go outside the library, when you need to, you find
> yourself completely lost because it's so unfamiliar.
>
> > The WTL classes are
> > far superior, IMHO, but, they're no longer being developed, are poorly
> > documented, and the classes that mirror MFC's are at times very
> > inconsistant.
>
> Not true. In fact, a new version of WTL was released in the November
> Platform SDK. This added all kinds of new stuff and lots of bug fixes.
I
> agree that WTL is a very superior class framework, but it's also much
more
> difficult to get a grasp on for new developers. It uses so many advanced
> features, and an interesting technique using templates to avoid virtual
> functions, which very often confuses those who don't fully understand
C++.
Hmmmm, I guess i'll dig out the MSDN CD's, then! Glad to hear that the WTL
is finally being paid some service.
It is a superior way to go and, yes, it can be a bit of a trial to get used
to. I found the best way was to simply load up the header files and do some
studying.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:16:51 -0600
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95mgsg$hr5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Finally, you have people like Goodwin, Flatty and EF who hate linux
I don't hate Linux. I just don't agree that it's the best thing since
sliced bread on the desktop, and I don't agree that it's the crash-proof
masterpiece that most Linux zealots proclaim it to be.
> 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).
That's why I switched to FreeBSD. Almost no problems since then. The
FreeBSD port system is a breeze, and I compiling your kernel is quite a
simple task. Why compile the kernel? To optimize it for the processor of
course, along with all the utilities. Linux is optimized for a 386, though
there are some kernels compiled with various other options available, and
compiling your own kernel is quite a task.
Having said that, I like Linux. I just wish it was a little less flaky when
trying to modify it. Examples:
Upgrading RPM 3 to 4 caused the package database to need to be converted,
however no matter what I tried, even following the directions it gave, it
never could convert the database. This left me in a state where I could no
longer install any new software unless i did it from tarball, not even from
the CD. I couldn't even reinstall RPM 3. This is what led me to wipe the
disk and install FreeBSD.
I had serious problems with my video adapter using XFree86 4.0.1, and it's a
supported card. Yet 4.0.1 worked fine under FreeBSD.
I had problems with using two identical PCI network cards (3c905b's) in the
same box. Turns out, you need to specially configure the network driver for
this scenario, since it can't figure out how to autoconfigure identical
cards together.
Linux didn't enable DMA mode for the hard drives by default. It took a lot
of dinking around to figure out how to enable it, and what settings to use.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
