Linux-Advocacy Digest #73, Volume #32 Fri, 9 Feb 01 10:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Ian Davey)
Re: The Wintrolls (chrisv)
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop ("MH")
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Interesting article ("Chad Myers")
Re: Interesting article ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (chrisv)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (chrisv)
Re: Interesting article (Norman D. Megill)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 14:07:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karel Jansens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> i don't see why the origin of the universe needs explaining. it
>> *wants* explaining, i mean, i'd sure like to know how it got here.
>> but nothing collapses just because we don't bother trying anymore than
>> god would fail to exist because we don't explain his beginning.
>>
>So you accept the lot on blind faith then?
You don't need faith. You can open your eyes and see the universe exists. Pop
your eye onto a telescope and look at the stars. You can even see billions of
years into the past, towards the origins of the universe.
>> > It seems to me you are simply
>> > replacing the term "God" with "Universe" (I noticed you even write it
>> > with a capital)
>>
>> maybe you should look again.
>>
>Yeah. Sorry about that. Got posters mixed up. Again.
>Still, I see no semantic difference between the statements "God just
>exists" and "the universe just exists".
So in your view "god" equals "universe"?
The problem with the god theory is that it adds nothing to the understanding
of how the universe did originate, all it does do is provide people with a
mechanism to control others. The big questions that the existence of a god
would lead to just aren't answered by religions, because god was created by
mankind. These kind of questions seem best answered by physics and astronomy,
which are doing more to unravel these mysteries than any invented god ever
did. You can watch stars being born.
You could probably redefine god as the glitch which caused the big bang (if
you accept that theory), but it's difficult to define them/it as anything
more.
In the end though, it's irrelevant whether or not you believe in god (or gods)
as they don't actually do anything. You may as well worship The Flumps or The
Blue Meanies, it'll do just as much good and probably a lot less harm.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 14:08:31 GMT
J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Actually, there's no reason that wouldn't work, as long
>as the kernel is non-modular and lilo, being configured
>to look for /vmlinuz, is run before rebooting.
Sounds pretty involved.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:12:38 -0500
"Osugi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95vqjb$2b8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <95u7vo$e15$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > >Thats not bad 33% decided to continue using it.
> >
> > That's not what he wrote.
>
> If "2 out of every 3 people I have talked to that tried Linux, gave up
> on it without getting it to work successfully" is what he wrote, then "1
> out of 3 did not give up on it" or "1 out of 3 got it to work
> sucessfully" seem like valid conclusions. If the one-third that got it
> to work later gave up on it, he should have given us that info to
> prevent misunderstanding. Since he did not, it is not unreasonable to
> conclude that they continued using linux.
Oh. HIS assertions are 'valid conclusions' and seem reasonble. Gee, I wonder
why?
Could the 'facts' being kind to Linux have anything to do with it?
Besides, I could just as easily say that I'll bet that better than 50% of
the '1' who got it to work gave up using it at some point in the future. I
don't think that is a stretch. I know, where did I get my facts?
Where does he get his? Where do you get yours?
How dare you!!
> > > Considering the level of vendorlock currently, that is
> > > somewhat remarkable really. Also, 33% would certainly
> > > be a nice chunk of the overall marketshare as well.
> >
> > Linux isn't even close to 33% of the US market.
>
> This is frankly offensive. Are you really this stupid? Or do you just
> enjoy pointing out the bleeding obvious? He did not say that linux has a
> 33% share of the US market (where did you get the US part from?). He
> said that 33% WOULD BE nice. "Would be" (in this case) makes it clear
> that what is said is not necessarily true.
This is offensive? Thin skinned, aren't you? And you're advising me with
your condesending 2$ psycho-babble?? Will the real stupid one stand
up? ---you can sit back down now.
The poster is a known LinZealot of the highest order. I know very well what
he is implying.
I put the 'US' part in myself. The US is my navel, OK? I live here, alright?
It that OK with your hieness?
> > > Remember, those of us outside of Lemming land can be
> > > toleratant of the choices of others.
> >
> > No, I don't think so. It's the LinLemmings that are so busy ridiculing
> > windows users .
>
> And my dad can beat up your dad (if you catch my drift). His opinion,
> your opinion, who cares, give us some facts to back up your claim. You
> are, admittedly, a windows user (not exclusively, I understand) yet here
> you are, making disparaging remarks about Linux users. So at least one
> windows user does this.
That is what cola is based on. You're in cola, are you not? What's your beef
Sherlock?
I'm making remarks about individuals who are zealots. Why? Because they
offend me.
Get over it.
> > I use both, I know many more people who use windows. Do I have one iota
of
> > disdain for them because of what OS they use? Of course not. I
> couldn't care
> > less, and it never even enters my mind.
>
> You just wrote about it, so obviously it did enter your mind. Be cafeful
> with words like 'never', they are very strong.
You sir, are either pretending to have human insight and have failed --
Or, you're a complete moron. What 'never' enters my mind is having disdain
for someone based on what computer OS they use. Try a little comprehension
before you blather in *cola*
> > Can your garden variety LinLemming say the same thing?
> > NO.
>
> define linlemming. define garden variety. Where do you get your data?
> Why NO, when no or No will work just as well?
Garden variety:
Common, uninspiring, lack-luster.
linlemming:
Someone who latches onto the operating system known as Linux for the sole
purpose of validating themselves in the eyes of their contemporaries. They
are basically unwitting fan-boys for Torvalds, and can usually be heard
cutting anyone and anything even remotely associated with Microsoft to
ribbons. This includes:
Users of MS products ( 90% of the computer using population), MS itself,
anyone who has to use both to get their work done. So on and so on. FreeBSD
will soon come under the same attack as people learn that it is a much
better choice than Linux for what really matters about what the brey about.
Stable, fast, free, etc.,
Once they (linlemmings) realize they need ramp it up and become a true
'believer', they go on to bally-hoo the FSF, rms, the GNU, the corrupted
(due to MS) marketplace (which most know nothing about) -- this is the first
step to Zealotry.
Lemming comes from the fact that they faithfully follow the party line no
matter how blatantly false it can be and how distorted the facts become to
fit their cause.
NO?
Hey, it's called emphasis Sherlock. Why use a bold font? An underlined font?
Oh, you have no need for this 'emphasis', do you? (terminal addict)
Therefore it's unaceptable.
Now who's starting to look like they fit the description?
> > They live to claim superiority by virtue of not being a captive of the
> > 'borg'.
>
> Again, your data comes from where? Interviews or questionaires filled
> out by how many of these linlemmings?
>From what I read here, elsewhere, and experiences in my own life.
Many in cola site 'facts' constantly about such things as uptimes, MS's own
internal infrastructure ...
You take this as fact, but my little statement? Of course not. You're a
LinLemming.
> > What complete nonsense.
>
> You seem to have a lot of pent-up anger or frustration here. We are
> talking about a computer os here, not a cure for cancer or the end of
> world hunger. If this sort of thing bothers you so much, why waste your
> time posting to groups like cola?
>
You don't amount to sh&t to me pal. You give me slight amusement, however,
in that it's at least an attempt to confront your own affliction of zealotry
and lemmingness.
I know exactly what we're talking about. In fact, I've been saying what you
just wrote in the above paragraph for years. Why? Because I see linux
advocacy as a complete joke due to the sort of people (not all of them) who
advocate it. More harm is done to Linux by cola regulars than any other
single linux user. New users come into cola and are either brainwashed into
cola's way of thinking, or are turned off by it -and then linux in general.
But... I have only one piece of advice for your ilk:
--physician heal thyself--
> > They live to 'find' superiority by way of using a more difficult to
> use and
> > self-made underdog OS.
> > More nonsense.
> > A shallow victory to say the least.
>
> You are the shallow one here. Or perhaps a bit insecure. You are ranting
> and raving about things which you admit are nonsense. Why? What is the
> point, especially if no one is forcing you to confront this nonsense?
Have you ever met anyone who wasn't insecure in some regard?
And no, I'm not ranting and raving Wilbur. What your point is is a much
better question.
(double is, uh-oh)
> Has it occurred to you that some linux users may feel uncomfortable with
> the idea that their own friends and family are not even aware that they
> have a choice of which operating system to use? This is my own personal
> opinion. I feel no need to preach to or berate people who understand
> that they have a choice and choose to use windows. They generally have
> good reasons for doing so. Many people however do not understand the
> choices available to them, nor the ways in which proprietary "solutions"
> can be used not only to lock them in, but also - because of their
> ignorance - to lock others out. In these cases, I feel that a little bit
> of education might be in order. Note that education does not involve
> belittling people or ridiculing their operating system. It might however
> involve pointing out ways that their operating system is deficient or
> not optimized for their needs.
No problem muchacho. But your 'free the world' bent is going to wear you
thin before you know it.
Besides, most people who purchase a computer don't want another religion.
They want an appliance to make their life easier. And the certainly don't
want, or have time for, the politics of advocacy crap that comes with it.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 13:59:51 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Now...once again...do you even KNOW what the fuck ".NET" is, and if
> > > so, then, explain it to us.
> >
> > .NET represents an environment, a programming infrastructure that supports
> > the next generation of the Internet as a platform.
> >
>
> From what I've heard, it sounds like .net is merely an
> attempt to take the sort of open, working tools and
> protocols which are available today in the Unix world,
> and twist them into a proprietary, windows-centric
> model which can then be used to build a mechanism
> for extracting regular payments from windows users.
<sigh>
Where do these idiots come from? Really? Where?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 14:22:00 +0000
In article <2DNg6.625$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:95vb1l$c86$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Hell, Linux needed a new version to support Itanium too. The 2.4
>> >> kernel.
>>
>> If 2.4 wasn't in the works at the time, 2.2 would have supported it,
>> but everyone was working on 2.4.
>
> And you think this is any different for Whistler?
WTF are you talking about. You claimed that Linux needed a new Kernel. I
contend that claim. I said it didn't need a new kernel, but support did
come with the new kernel. If the Itanium was avaliable a year ago, 2.2
would have itanium support.
What has what I said got to do with Whistler?
-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: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 14:08:47 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a837a4c$0$17470$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 04:00:19 GMT, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Why, is there a MS TCP/IP implementation which isn't shit? Is it still
> > > in beta? When is it coming out? Up to now all have been one worse than
> > > the other.
> >
> > Well, first we have tpc.org. We see Windows blowing away all Unixes.
>
> Proving only that a clusters of Windows machines do much better than
> single UNIX machines.
Windows (clustered or not is irrelevant) was able to thrash all the
Unixes using said protocol at very high speeds with a large number
of transactions per minute. This is no small feat and would not have
been possible with a defective TCP/IP stack, as we saw with simple
web requests in the Mindcraft tests in Linux.
> > Secondly, we have hackwindows2000.com or whatever it was called where
> > no one was every successfully able to take down the Win2K box MS put
> > up (despite tens of millions of packets per day).
>
> I remember that. It was windows200test.com and it was usually
> unavailable. MS kept blaming it on router problems, but it was pretty
> obvious from the logs that the machine was going down frequently and
> couldn't handle the traffic.
IIRC, it went down 6 times. 5 of which were for updates (the newest
build, etc). 1 of which was questionable, I'll give you that.
It was rarely "unavailable", but really slow, mainly because it
was being bombarded with many DDoS attacks. Until MS finally got
their routers configured to block out some of those attacks so
that the pipe would be semi-available again, everything on that
circuit was toast. The server was still up and with <2% CPU
utilitization most of the time. They kept a running packet
attack counter showing all the different types of attacks. Most
ranges in the tens of thousands. Even with all that, it managed
to stay up most of the time (this was a beta OS, mind you) and
it only had one questionable reboot. None of the others were
needed, except MS wanted to apply the latest build for proper
testing.
> There was a similar challenge offered by linuxppc.org in response. It
> was rather amusing. The linuxppc machine was rather ordinary
> hardware-wise whereas the W2k machine was top-of-the-line at the
> time.
It was? I don't remember that. I remember it being a late model
Pentium III, but nothing super fancy. It was a Compaq Proliant
mid-range server.
> The linuxppc machine had a HTTPS server, MS put the HTTPS
> server on a second machine. Same with the guestbook. Except MS's
> guestbook didn't work. The PPC machine was to be given away to
> anybody who could get access to it. MS offered no prize. The PPC
> machine had to be rebooted once when it's too-small var partition
> filled up. The W2k machine was repeated crashing and being rebooted.
This is false.
> The Linux machine had it's root password posted on the website, (to
> try and stop someone who was trying to brute force the pass via
> telnet).
The Linux PPC machines was rebooted twice under suspicious circumstances.
The Windows box, a beta OS, was only rebooted once under suspicious
circumstances.
Released, production OS goes down twice, beta OS goes down once.
Not bad if you ask me.
Of course, in the later days of the trial, it went something like
one month with <2-4% CPU utilization and no reboots, IIRC. The
Linux PPC box continued to grow slower and slower and eventually,
at the end, had those two reboots. Then, not ironically,
the trial ended abruptly and no winner was announced.
> MS posted it's administrator password in response, but
> didn't offer and remote access services.
They had NetBIOS open near the end when they posted the
password, IIRC.
> > Thirdly, we have Win2K with a built in IPSec and QoS implementation.
> > Linux may have an IPsec implementation, but does it have a QoS
> > implementation?
>
> Since 2.1.
Is it pervasive? or just a token setup? Is it built into the kernel
and every packet must be inspected, or are only certain applications
compiled to use this feature?
> > Fourthly, Windows 2000 has set several data transfer speed records.
> > There was a big bally-who last fall where MS sent several gigabytes
> > over fiber in a matter of seconds, IIRC. A casual search should turn
> > it up.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 14:13:55 GMT
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9608a8$mkl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote in message ...
> >
> >It's also interesting to note that in the "Unix Administrator's Handbook"
> >they take the time to bash Microsoft.
> >
> >Why is it that whenever I read technical documentation by Microsoft or
> >about a Microsoft product, I never see any bashing of alternative
> >products, in fact, they usually have a section in the back of the
> >book detailing many of the possible alternative (including, occasionally,
> >Linux-based alternatives).
> >
>
>
> The technical documentation for Linux and other unix docs explain how their
> system interacts with other systems, such as special considerations when
> using Linux as a router on a network of Windows machines. This is not
> arbitrary bashing
No, when you see things like "but brain-dead M$ Windows requires you to..."
Hardly professional, and hardly necessary. What is it about you Unix/
Linux people that you feel the need to incesently bash MS in an
infantile manner?
> - it is essential configuration information. You will
> find that docs for most systems contain references and information about
> others - the only exception is M$ docs, which are often very limited in
> information regarding interaction with other systems, because they are not
> supposed to interact - M$ would prefer that there were no OS's other than
> Windows, so they prefer not to talk about them.
Quit changing the subject. Most, if not all, Linux HOW-TOs are extremely
poorly written, rarely have even half of the information necessary
to accomplish the task at hand, but never seem have any qualms at taking
a paragraph or two to bash M$ for apparently no reason.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 14:40:39 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I thought this article was fascinating - the CEO of SuSe doesn't think his
>business model for Linux is working. All you can say is "you moron"?
You idiot.
No doubt Microsoft has a better business model. That does not mean
they have the better product.
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 14:44:23 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gimp is one of the most powerful programs I have ever seen. It is also one of
>the most user hostile ones I can imagine.
>
>This is not a Linux problem, it is an application issue.
Yes, an application written by Linux people with the typical Linux
mentality.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman D. Megill)
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 14:55:43 GMT
In article <sSJg6.1292$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ONAg6.5171$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <95ua5o$ip490$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Fermin Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >"Peter Koehlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >> OS/2 also has a quite decent implementation of TCP/IP, different
> > >> from that MS-shit.
> > >
> > >Which parts of MS's TCP/IP implementation don't you like? On which Windows
> > >versions? Please be more specific.
> >
> > According to Unix Administration Handbook, 3rd ed.:
> >
> > "Linux pays attention to the type-of-service (TOS) bits in IP packets
> > and gives faster service to packets that are labeled as interactive (low
> > latency). Jammin'! Unfortunately, brain damage on the part of
> > Microsoft necessitates that you turn off this perfectly reasonable
> > behavior."
>
> Are they referring to QoS and just aren't smart enough to spell it right?
No, they are referring to the TOS bits. It is the second byte of the
header of the IP datagram as you can see, for example, on p. 34 of
"TCP/IP Illustrated, Vol. 1" by Stevens. TOS != QoS.
But since you've switched the subject to QoS...
> IIRC, Microsoft Windows 2000 is the first and only OS to fully support
> QoS throughout.
For Microsoft, "fully support" is a marketing term that does not mean
"works right".
> In fact, Cisco, a leader in IP innovation, worked with
> Microsoft to get their QoS right in their routers and such.
Kind of like Sun worked with Microsoft to get their Java right?
> How's Linux's QoS implementation coming along?
Done. For at least a couple of years I believe.
> > "All packets originating on Windows 95, 98, NT, and 2000 are labeled as
> > being interactive, no matter what their purpose.... If your Linux
> > gateway serves a mixed network of UNIX and Windows systems, the Windows
> > packets will consistently get preferential treatment. The performance
> > hit for UNIX can be quite noticeable."
> >
> > In other words, MS's TCP/IP just hogs the network unconditionally with
> > highest priority, forcing others to do the same if they want any
> > throughput, and making sensible prioritizing of network traffic flow
> > impossible.
>
> So this is the worst you could come up with?
No. It is a significant example because the defect affects more than just
the Windows machines themselves; it means you can't optimize a network
if it has Windows machines on it. In other words even if you don't use
Windows you're adversely affected by it.
> Are all of the packets that Linux sends out marked at varying levels,
> or all the same level, just slightly lower?
They are marked at varying levels that are appropriate to the type of
service. E.g. minimum delay - ftp, telnet, ssh; maximum throughput -
ftp-data, www; maximum reliability - snmp, dns; minimum cost - nntp,
smtp. Of course they can also be configured to emulate MS's TOS if you
want.
> Please show us documentation explaining how to configure this in Linux.
See man pages for ipfwadm and ipchains.
> It's also interesting to note that in the "Unix Administrator's Handbook"
> they take the time to bash Microsoft.
They are pointing out an MS defect that Unix administrators need to be
aware of. At least they show a sense of humor about it.
> Why is it that whenever I read technical documentation by Microsoft or
> about a Microsoft product, I never see any bashing of alternative
> products, in fact, they usually have a section in the back of the
> book detailing many of the possible alternative (including, occasionally,
> Linux-based alternatives).
I looked at a Windows installation guide and saw nothing about
alternative products, especially a Linux-based alternative. In fact it
is almost as if no other OS exists, and it even erases any non-MS OS
that might already be installed.
As for bashing, MS has gone to great lengths to promote anti-Linux FUD.
> However, when I read Linux documentation or documentation on Linux
> (even from Red Hat on occasion) I see pejorative comments about Microsoft,
> even using the "M$" moniker in professional publications.
Red Hat's installation guide takes pains to show how Linux can be
installed to co-exist and even cooperate with other OS's. I haven't
seen the "M$" moniker in professional publications, although I'm sure
it's possible. Which ones are you referring to?
> Just shows you the level of maturity between the two camps-- or perhaps
> the fear level. MS has no reason to attack, but it seems the Linux
> camp is always in rabid dog mode, spending more time attacking MS
> for their screwups and not fixing their own bugs.
Are you sure you don't you have MS and Linux mixed up here?
--Norm
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
