Linux-Advocacy Digest #56, Volume #32 Thu, 8 Feb 01 12:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Tim Streater)
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop (Craig Kelley)
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop (Craig Kelley)
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop (Craig Kelley)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Stefan Ohlsson)
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop (Craig Kelley)
Re: Oh dear...another 1 (nearly) bites the dust... (Darren Winsper)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Ian Davey)
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop (Craig Kelley)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Steve Ackman)
Re: The Wintrolls (Craig Kelley)
Re: The Wintrolls (Craig Kelley)
Re: The Wintrolls (Craig Kelley)
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop (Stephen Cornell)
Re: The Wintrolls (Craig Kelley)
OK, How do I get a debian distribution that supports 2.4.1? ("spicerun")
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop (Stephen Cornell)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Brian V. Smith)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Streater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 15:25:34 +0000
In article <dxxg6.286$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Unknown Poster"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Unknown Poster wrote:
> > DIY-shops don't target consumers then?
> >
>
> Excellant Point, and I concede! How about we say this:
>
> *nix is not ready for the consumer who is not technically
> inclined, nor will he ever be. This is the person who is
> exactly like 90% of the Sr. Executives where I work. All
> they know how to do is turn it on and use the software.
> If the system says 'Domain Controller Not Found' because
> they've forgotten to plug in their network cable to their
> NIC port on the laptop, that's when they call the Help Desk,
> and that's when I get dispatched to plug them in, because they
> won't accept 'phone help'.
A system that says "Domain Controller Not Found" is obviously not for
consumers, unlike a Mac which would give a hint about cabling.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: 08 Feb 2001 08:55:51 -0700
"ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> check out http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/January/os.html
> linux 0% , windows 91% (and linux hardly beats Win 3.x :-).)
> Maybe the rest of linux users is busy compiling kernels or the yet have to
> figure out how to get onto the internet.
Just more proof of Microsoft's monopoly.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: 08 Feb 2001 09:00:52 -0700
Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:21:40 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I didn't say that. I said 66% couldn't even get it to work, that's not the
> > same thing.
>
> So did this sample all try to install Linux on a machine previously
> configured for Windows? Because if so then we need an equal sample all
> trying to *install* Windows on a machine currently configured for Linux,
> and see how well they get on. Of course Windows won't give you a disk
> partitioning utility to allow you to make room for Linux. Of course Windows
> will assume there's no other OS on the machine and crap all over your boot
> loader. Etc, etc, etc. Level playing field, please.
Not to mention Alpha, PowerPC or any of the other architecutres that
are really difficult to install Windows on... :)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: 08 Feb 2001 09:20:00 -0700
"MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Browsing: Very weak in Linux. Worst browser choices of all PC platforms.
Translation: Microsoft Internet Explorer is the only browser worth
using. (I don't agree)
If everything has to be Windows-like, then use Windows. If, God
forbid, you want to use free UNIX then BSD/Linux is for you.
Incidentally, IE 5.5 crashes my Windows desktop more often than any
other program -- the start menu stops funcitoning and all the open
Windows stop responding until EXPLORE.EXE restarts.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Reply-To: Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 8 Feb 2001 17:21:18 +0100
On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 13:27:10 GMT, Johan Kullstam wrote:
>Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>And if not, could you explain - in a clear and non-ambiguous way (*) -
>>how the universe came into being?
>only if you can explain -- in a clear and non-ambiguous way -- how god
>came into being. invoking a creator of the universe adds complexity.
>
It all ends in the same question with or without God, the only
difference is what entity is asked about:
If God created the universe, where did God come from?
If God didn't create the universe, where did the universe come from?
I don't see a clear answer on any of these questions.
BTW, are there any newsgroup where this kind of discussion is on topic?
/Stefan
--
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] · There will always be survivors - Robert A. Heinlein · []
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: 08 Feb 2001 09:27:03 -0700
Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:58:46 +0000, Pete Goodwin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> <deletia throughout of this troll>
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > Windows costs money. Now in Whistler they're talking about a product
> > activation code.
>
> Any copy protection code one can put in, another can rip asunder. And don't
> forget the copy protection code proposed for hard disks. Curiously,
> Microsoft is opposed to that. I wonder why...
Not if half of a public key resides on a server somewhere.
Besides, this new 'activation system' is aimed at the casual pirate;
the one that buys Office once and installs it on all their computers
at home. These people will not go out and buy another copy, they will
switch products instead.
> In any event, only the lemmings desperate to hold on to their Microsoft
> based IT jobs will push for Whistler. Other than job security, why should
> anyone push for yet another round of the Microsoft upgrade cycle, with more
> and more bizarre features like .NET consuming gigabytes of disk space.
> Imagine - an OS needing over a gig to provide an environment allowing you
> to type a letter and surf the net.
>
> I suspect many IT managers and company executives will have a reality
> check, and decide enough is enough. The uptake of Whistler will be even
> lower than that of Win2k.
The Gartner group said that Windows 2000 was the last major upgrade
that the IT world would stand for. I guess we'll see if they were
correct in that statement.
[snip]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oh dear...another 1 (nearly) bites the dust...
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 16:27:36 +0000
Jeepster wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16736.html
>
>
> Alas poor suse...
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/02/07/2040225&cid=159
Please get your facts straight before putting together a post.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 16:28:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stefan Ohlsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It all ends in the same question with or without God, the only
>difference is what entity is asked about:
>If God created the universe, where did God come from?
>If God didn't create the universe, where did the universe come from?
>
>I don't see a clear answer on any of these questions.
The difference being their are theories to explain the latter, but almost
resounding silence on the first.
>BTW, are there any newsgroup where this kind of discussion is on topic?
No idea, though I suspect this thread will soon whimper into non-existance...
just waiting for a cosmic big bang to recreate it a few months down the line.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: 08 Feb 2001 09:28:44 -0700
"ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've yet too see IE take out my desktop!
Uh-huh. And I have a bridge to sell you....
IE 5.5 + Windows = EXPLORE.EXE crashes every day (horray for
integration!)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Ackman)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:16:14 -0500
On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:28:05 +1100, Geoffrey Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>One would hope so, because the egg's not on Jeb Bush's face,
>it's on the United States's.
...the United States'. ;-)
--
Steve Ackman
http://twovoyagers.com
Registered Linux User #79430
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: 08 Feb 2001 09:41:48 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Linux has to install to the lowest common denominator CPU, the 386. That
> means the kernel is optimized for that. Some distro's will perhaps install
> a 586 or 686 optimized kernel later in the install process, but it will
> still be a generic one.
RedHat has been installing optimized kernels and glibc libraries since
version 6.0. If you install it on a 686, your kernel and C library
will be optimized for a 686.
> > Better to start with an rpm 4 distro, you apparently made quite
> > a mess of things -
>
> Mandrade 7.2 is still RPM 3 based.
The RPM 3->4 was a huge problem. They stupidly made the rpm-4.x
install files only work with RPM 4 (!). This reminds me of lha for
the Amiga way back when, I downloaded a new version using Archie
(bonus points to anyone who remembers that) and you could only unpack
it by using that version of lha. Talk about a chicken-egg problem.
The RPM folks made you install version 3.0.5, which could then install
RPM version 4.x -- this also allowed you to upgrade your RPM database
without any hassle. They thought that these problems wouldn't affect
the average-joe user, but when rpm-4 packages hit the servers it
caused all sorts of problems. I know of 2 friends that moved over to
Debian after that.. :) Couple all that with RedHat releasing
Pinstripe using the as-yet-unreleased RPM 4.x and you have problems.
> > > This is what led me to wipe the
> > > disk and install FreeBSD.
> >
> > You can find Linux distros that don't use rpm as well.
>
> With far fewer packages available for them.
Au Contrair, using alien one can convert RPM packages into debs.
> > That's funny, I was running 2 ne2000s, then 2 realtek 8139s.
> > Now I'm running 2 eepro100s - I'm not sure why you found it
> > so difficult.
>
> Really? Then explain this:
> http://www.coastnet.com/~pramsey/linux/homenet.html
>
> Pay close attention to section 3.1 and the "Two Identical Network Cards"
> section.
Well, it is only 4 lines of explanation... Not exactly 'difficult',
especially considering that he's talking about ISA cards, for which
probing is a dangerous task anyway.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: 08 Feb 2001 09:43:45 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:95rhf3$3cu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > And besides that, even if it WERE true that the linux kernel was optimized
> > for 386 chips (which is actually quite a meaningless statement if you know
> > anything about the kernel or kernel architecture in general)
>
> It's not a meaningless statement. There are numerous ways to optimize a
> kernel for a particular processor.
>
> 1) Use compiler optimizations designed for that processor. These will
> continue to work in most later processors, but you won't get many of the
> speed improvements the processor is capable of.
>
> 2) Not using processor specific instructions to take advantage of speed
> increases in later processors.
>
> 3) Optimizing for a specific set internal cache type.
>
> For instance, with the FreeBSD kernel, there are internal options for each
> processor that's supported. By removing options for the 386 and others, you
> increase the efficiency of the kernel.
Linux does this as well. Why would you think that it doesn't?
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: 08 Feb 2001 09:45:36 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > For instance, with the FreeBSD kernel, there are internal options for
> each
> > > processor that's supported. By removing options for the 386 and others,
> you
> > > increase the efficiency of the kernel.
> >
> > So how is that in any way different from the Linux kernel?
>
> Here's how you configure and compile a FreeBSD kernel:
>
> cd to /sys/i386/conf, copy GENERIC to whatever name you choose. Edit the
> new file and comment out or add options that are fully documented in the
> LINT file, cd to /usr/src and type make buildkernel.
>
> Configuring your linux kernel is MUCH more involved.
LOL
---- How to build a Linux kernel ----
cd /usr/src/linux
make menuconfig
--> Use menus to select your kernel (including the processor type).
make bzImage
---- End ----
MUCH more involved? Hmmmm.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: 08 Feb 2001 16:48:21 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) writes:
>
> I found this post interesting.
Thanks :-)
> A competitve 'leverage' quite out of proportion with it's technical
> merits?
>
> Strange comment.
Er, not really. In other words, if people were to judge Windows on its
technical merits alone, it wouldn't be so widespread.
> Well, the Wintrolls cruising around here just keep posting and
> posting their idiotic nonsense and Linux just keeps growing
> and growing and expanding it's market.
True, but then no-one is listening to them anyway (people who
hang around in COLA tend already to have made up their minds - at
least, the ones who bother to post).
> effort. It's one of the few sucessful global efforts mankind
> has ever achieved.
Yes, the politics/idealism of Free software (and Linux in particular)
is very appealing.
> Here's where we break company. Linux *DOES* meet the need of the
> masses today. It's the masses who have to come around to this.
Well, it depends on what you mean by `need'. I would agree that
Linux/Netscape/Staroffice provides most of the functionality needed by
desktop users - but, then, so does Win 9X + IE + Office (or Works) -
or indeed Win/Netscape/Staroffice.
However, most people would define their `needs' in terms of being able
to run mainstream software - and at the moment that means Windows (or
Macintosh, at a pinch). They want to be able to go into any computer
store, pick a box off the shelf, and know that they can use it. The
majority of software - educational, business, games - only runs on
Windows. Moreover, many business users (the ones who share files with
other companies) really need 100% compatibility with MS Office -
Staroffice does an impressive job, but it's not perfect and I
regularly get documents which can't be deciphered without a Windows
machine.
It's a vicious circle - everyone uses Windows, so everyone ends up
using things that work with Windows, Microsoft then makes sure these
things *only* work with Windows, so anyone buying a new computer also
needs to buy Windows. That's the status quo, and it will take a major
shakeup for this to change (it may happen, but it hasn't yet).
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: 08 Feb 2001 09:50:24 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Linux has to install to the lowest common denominator CPU, the 386.
> >
> > On the S/390 mainframe? or an Alpha? How about a PowerPC?
>
> There is only one CPU supported of those families, thus their lowest common
> denominator is that single CPU.
That is a lie.
Linux can/is compiled for specific CPUs. Most distributions even ship
optimized kernel/libc images for your specific chip.
> > Most x86 distros ship with a boot kernel that will run on
> > a 386 with no mathco, but also include kernels that are
> > optimized for 486, 586, or 686.
>
> Most? Some. Mandrake doesn't.
Umm, Mandrake originally made their claim to fame by having everything
compiled with pgcc; nowadays it uses i586 optimized code for egcs on
*everything*.
RedHat 6 and higher have separate packages for different x86
architectures (kernel and libc).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OK, How do I get a debian distribution that supports 2.4.1?
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 10:09:54 -0600
OK debian gurus,
With the demise of Suse <actually I don't want to support a president of
an organization with such a crappy attitude towards open source>, how do
I get an actual distribution of Debian that supports kernel-2.4.1. I
have looked on Debian and the link to 'Woody's' iso images isn't
functional. I don't want 'Potato'. The reason I want iso images is that
I can hit the ftp site at work in one swoop, download the images and burn
the CDs.
Please don't even suggest Slink or whatever.....these tools are
great for someone with unrestricted high speed access that can hit many
sites to load the upgraded programs....However, if you're behind a
firewall like I am at work, there is no way all the sites that would be
referenced to be seen <some will even give a company violation
notification>. Forget about downloading with the 56K dialup at home since,
like downloading the iso images, would take a couple of days for just one
image. I know Slink is popular for the people running servers since it
cuts down their traffic...but it does irritate me that no thought is
given to how inconvenient to impossible it is for people actually trying
to use Slink is.
Thanks in advance for any information. Contrary to the above paragraph,
I am not a Wintroll.....I despise Windows every time I have to use it.
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: 08 Feb 2001 16:53:14 +0000
"MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you're posting to cola, you have no intention of doing anything other
> than bitch-slapping with the trolls, or dick-sizing, or pretending to be
> experts in some field.
So which of these describes you?
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian V. Smith)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: 8 Feb 2001 16:59:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|> False premise. I'm a registered LIBERTARIAN, asshole.
Ooooh, We're in the presense of a master debater.
--
===============================================================
Brian V. Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www-epb.lbl.gov/BVSmith
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
I don't speak for LBL; they don't pay me enough for that.
Check out the xfig site at http://www-epb.lbl.gov/xfig
To the optimist, the glass is half full. To the pessimist, the
glass is half empty. To the engineer, the glass is twice as big
as it needs to be.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[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: 08 Feb 2001 10:04:54 -0700
Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > YEAH! Everything that bad old SUN company promised to do but
> > > never came thru on.
> >
> > Yes, such as submitting Java to ISO, and then ECMA for standardization.
> >
> > > Perhaps the $20 million Microsoft just agree'd to pay them for
> > > *STEALING JAVA* in the first place might have had something
> > > to do with that.
> >
> > You haven't a clue. The $20 million was to buy out their existing contract
> > with Sun. Sure, they won the battle, but they lost the war. Microsoft
> > can't use the Java compatible logo, but Java doesn't mean anything anymore.
>
> Except that I was requested to enable Javascript in order to read the
> Microsoft link you provided (in broken format).
Javascript has nothing to do with Java.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
