Linux-Advocacy Digest #101, Volume #32 Sat, 10 Feb 01 14:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Red Hat 6.2 as nis server and an aix as client (help) (Andrei Ivanov)
Re: Linux reference distro (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Peformance Test (Mike Martinet)
Re: Peformance Test (Mike Martinet)
Phat Linux versus Windows 98 (please, someone, answer my question)... ("Johan De
Clerck")
Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Craig Kelley)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Peformance Test (Mike Martinet)
Re: Perfectly ME (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Mike Martinet)
Re: What .NET is... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Mike Martinet)
Linux Distributions. (Bloody Viking)
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop ("Mathias De Belder")
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrei Ivanov)
Crossposted-To:
redhat.networking.general,redhat.servers.general,redhat.general,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Red Hat 6.2 as nis server and an aix as client (help)
Date: 10 Feb 2001 18:10:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.networking Irger Armin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If i use the lsuser (shows all users) an lsgroup (shows all groups) on
> the aix. I got all users/groups from the nis server, all users exist on
> the aix, but no user can't login on the aix. "Wrong user or passwd".
> But all users and groups are on the aix. The uid and gid are right.
By default, RHL6.2 stores MD5 hashes in /etc/shadow (and in NIS/YP
map, therefore), but AIX (I guess) uses crypt()'ed passwords instead.
See http://www.geocities.com/ivanov_andrei/nis/ for clues.
--
andrei
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux reference distro
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:16:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ray Chason
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 10 Feb 2001 16:13:03 -0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Now that various Linux companies are having money issues, as
>>with most tech companies in the U.S.A, this might be a perfect
>>time to reassert the notion of a standard linux configuration.
>>
>>An open standard about package format, configuration files, and compliance
>>versions, anyone remember this?
>
>The Linux Standard Base, http://www.linuxbase.org/ , is an effort to do
>just that.
A Yahoo! Websearch ("FSSTND") also dredged up http://www.pathname.com/fhs ,
which touts itself as "the home of the Filesystem Hierarchy Stanadrd
(FHS)". There's also a reference to http://www.freestandards.org ,
which incorporated May 8, 2000, on linuxbase.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 5d:05h:45m actually running Linux.
This is the best part of the message.
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Peformance Test
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:19:27 -0700
Well... This is mostly a joke. I doubt W2k will even RUN on a 486-50
with 32M. If you get it running, I doubt it'd have the leftover memory
necessary to run Windows Explorer to look for Exchange in the first
place.
MjM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Mike Martinet wrote:
> >
> > Here's a nifty Linux vs. W2k performance test. Round up a Linux
> > distribution (Slack, RH, whatever) and a copy of Win2k. (Using any
> > software other than that provided on the Linux/W2k disks is cheating)
> >
> > Get ahold of a couple of 486-50's with 32M of RAM, a 2.5G HD and network
> > cards. You'll only need one VGA display adapter*. Install on the
> > machines (Hint:do the Linux box first) and configure them as mail
> > servers - pop, sendmail, fetchmail - and nothing else.
> >
> > *Once you've got Linux running, switch the kbd and VGA card from the
> > Linux machine (don't try this in reverse) to the Windows box (you might
> > want to add a mouse at this point).
> >
> > Now measure how much mail each system is capable of handling daily in a
> > 25-user environment.
> >
> > (I *am* smiling)
> >
> > MjM
>
> You say only use the software with the distro? Is this even _possible_
> on windows? They _include_ a mail server?
> --
> http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Peformance Test
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:20:43 -0700
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
>
> W2k will not work without a Video card and not a keyboard either.
>
That's why I gave the hints 'do the Linux box first' and 'don't try this
in reverse'.
MjM
------------------------------
From: "Johan De Clerck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Phat Linux versus Windows 98 (please, someone, answer my question)...
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:17:20 +0100
Can i really install Phat Linux without losing Windows?? (Or do I to
repartition my HD?).
If yes (on the first question): do you have to install it via Windows-itself
or via MS-DOS?
Thanks
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses
Date: 10 Feb 2001 12:20:52 -0600
"Osugi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:96038v$8sv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <3a836c6e$0$11937$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I love the lies - this is really hilarious.
> >
> > There are SOOOO many items in this post that make it perfectly
> > obvious that the writer is either lying or so completely
> > idiotic that I refuse to believe
> > he could spell linux let alone run it.
>
> Take that thought a step further: maybe it was sarcasm or parody.
Unlikely in the extreme.
>
> > This "Pfaffenberger" is a total fucking moron.
>
> Personally I doubt that total fucking morons can write
> that well. On the other hand, a total fucking moron
> might qoute the entire loooong post and just add a few
> lines of commentary at the beginning.
He did not write well. He just made some crap up and spued it forth for
those that are so vehmonently anti-MS that they'll believe ANYTHING that
paints windows is a bad light. there is not a single shred of truth in his
enitre article.
>
> > I laugh at him and would in his face.
>
> I laughed too, but not at him. If I laughed in your face,
> would you become violent? The tone of your post makes me
> think you might.
You think this violent? perhaps you don't like the fact that I've skipped
the silliness of a line by line (sometimes word by word) rebuttle and proof
of fiction for his "article" and just cut to the chase and declared it utter
crap not worth of any more than a few lines of commentary.
>
> > Linux: it's fanatics lies outweigh any hope of acceptance.
>
> Microsoft (and to be fair, many other companies as well)
> are famous for their lies. FUD is just another business
> tactic with them. As far as I know, Linus has never been
> guilty of spreading FUD. Can you say the same about BG?
As you wrote, other companies as well. It's what a business does about it's
competition. Can't think of a company that praises it's competitors,
actually. And, yes, Linus has done his share repeatedly. But, who cares;
this isn't Gates and it isn't Linus. This is someone just plain lying.
That's a lot different than "FUD"
>
> (what do you mean by outweigh?)
>
> BTW your post has done nothing to improve the image
> of windows users.
Calling a liar a liar is something I can have no shame for.
Besides, why would windows users have to worry about their image let alone
improve it? It's not like we are still typing at the a case sensitive
command line or running 20 year old software
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: 10 Feb 2001 11:22:43 -0700
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But I saw a lot of people blindly asserting that the gimp used
> the standard linux printing model. It does not *quite* do so (if
> it sets the -oraw option, then it *is* overriding the default
> queue), so Pete may have a point here.
Not any more so than using PageMaker under Windows doing the same
thing. To get a 'perfect' layout you pretty much need to do that (at
least with UNIX and Windows printing architectures).
--
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] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:24:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Hasler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 10 Feb 2001 13:52:31 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Stefan Ohlsson writes:
>> I know the atheists have a theory that man will develop to a super-man
>> that can travel back in time and will create it all. That's the simple
>> version anyway. I know, sounds weird.
>
>Who are "the" atheists?
>
>Steve Mading writes:
>> Are you being deliberately silly?
>
>Well, it isn't as silly as the old guy with the beard.
Hey! I have a beard, and I'm not old! :-)
(Just because I can remember the VMS commands to compile FORTRAN and
COBOL programs back in the mid-80's......)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 5d:06h:54m actually running Linux.
The US gov't spends about $54,000/second. I wish I could.
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Peformance Test
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:29:27 -0700
You have to read ALL of the post.
For your edification
Mike Martinet wrote:
>(Using any software other than that provided on the Linux/W2k disks is cheating)
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > W2k will not work without a Video card and not a keyboard either.
>
> Sorry, wrong on both accounts. It's true that NT and W2k won't work without
> a video card *DRIVER*, but there are headless drivers available that are
> just NO OP's for headless operation.
I think the whole thing is hilarious. I've read a lot here from Windows
advocates about how difficult it is to get Linux running. I'd like to
see one of you post (on the honor system) that you have a standard
distribution of Win2k running on a 486 with 32M of RAM. After that, you
can go about removing the video card and give us an update.
For extra credit, you can then shell out the $500 or so for a 25-seat
license for Exchange and see if you can get that running.
You KNOW it can't be done. And you KNOW that if you put Redhat 7 on
that same box it would sit in a corner handling email happily forever.
Still smiling,
MjM
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Perfectly ME
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:31:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ralph Miguel Hansen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 10 Feb 2001 12:37:21 +0100
<9638re$f1g$04$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
>>
>> My wife used to run Windows. She used it to keep up with
>> office tasks. She decided one day to use my Debian system
>> for some reason and the following day she asked me install
>> Debian. The Performance in Linux is undenyable for the desktop.
>>
>> She was also appearently awakened to the lack of lockups
>> and the cool appearance of Gnome.
>>
>You lucky one. WinME is really the best anti-M$-propaganda I ever saw.
Only if the users see better alternatives. I hope Linux next year
gets a commercial in the Super Bowl :-). And the best advertising
is still word-of-mouth.
So I'm hopeful, but maybe not quite yet. (But I still can do
things on Linux that would be impossible on Windows -- like logging
on to my machine remotely using a 56k modem line and ssh/sshd.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 5d:06h:01m actually running Linux.
>>> Make Signatures Fast! <<<
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:40:07 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Mike Martinet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > From what I've read
> >
> > http://wired.com/news/business/0,1367,41622,00.html
> >
> > Microsoft isn't waiting for antitrust legislation to destroy them.
> > They're doing it themselves. If I understand correctly, with Whistler,
> > people will have to phone in registration numbers to get systems to
> > run. And that the copy protection supposedly includes a scheme by which
> > the reg. number gets tied to the machine's configuration - hard drive,
> > net card, modem, etc. This is insane. If true, people will have to
> > re-phone in their regs when they upgrade peripherals!
>
> Yes, it's true, and no, it doesn't mean what you think it does. Stop
> jumping to conclusions. The article you quote even specifically says that
> you can upgrade your periphials without re-activating.
>
> > But it gets better.
> >
> > Future versions of MS software (upgrades, service packs*, add-ons) will
> > only be available online through .NET. This looks like an attempt by MS
> > to force people to pay for software on a monthly basis - like cable TV.
>
> Where did you read that? I've seen no mention of it anywhere.
>
You obviously didn't read the article. Ignoring the subsequent
responses already informing you of that, I'll post my own:
"Le Tocq said naming the software "XP" gets rid of the idea of versions
and moves Microsoft (MSFT) toward subscription services."
"When you subscribe to a cable channel, it's not like you get HBO
version 1 and a year from now HBO version 2, you subscribe to HBO," Le
Tocq said. "It may change over time but there's no versions associated
with it."
> > So, you change your NIC card and in order to make use of your monthly
> > software subscription to get the new driver you have to wait on hold
> > with your computer's configuration list for someone to re-enable your
> > machine so you can download the software you're already being billed
> > for. This sounds neat.
>
> Completely wrong. You get 50 days of use before you have to activate. You
> can do so at your leasure, and if you have an internet access, it can do it
> without calling anyone. The call is only for people without net access.
>
"One or two peripherals can be swapped out of a system and the hash
would be preserved, but a major overhaul or new system would require the
user to call Microsoft to confirm that they have rights to the software
to get it activated. If the software isn't registered, the Microsoft
operator can see how many times the software has been activated and
decide based on the number of activations and the story the user tells."
(Okay, so I stretched the NIC example. But I've been inside enough
computers to know that changing a single peripheral can turn into a
'major overhaul'. I'd REALLY be pissed if a simple card change spiraled
into a situation where I had to sit on hold with MS in order to prove I
owned the computer that I'd just toasted.)
"Microsoft insists honest users have nothing to fear. "'If it's an
honest customer, then they know what they did, they don't have to
remember a bunch of lies,' said Nieman. 'If you're pirating the product,
you have to remember a bunch of lies.'"
Software consultant David Moskowitz, president of Productivity
Solutions, warned that requiring users to make phone calls before
reinstalling software could result in irate customers.
"If it gets to be a pain in the butt or starts causing people grief when
they discover they have to call Microsoft to get permission to install
the software, it won't fly," he said. "That could hamper upgrades if
people perceive it is creating a nuisance for themselves."
"Moskowitz also points out that...
READ THIS PART, Erik,
...the prior generations of Windows have been notoriously corruptible,
forcing users who tinker with their system to reinstall the OS and
applications from scratch several times per year. "I don't believe
people will try to get around it for piracy reasons, I do think they
will try to get around it for nuisance reasons," he said."
MjM
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: What .NET is...
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 18:42:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 09 Feb 2001 16:24:24 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It's late.
>> >>
>> >> Okay, seriously, I saw a book in the store about C# programming. Yeah
>> >> yeah, C# != .NET, but still the two kind of go hand-in-hand, right? The
>> >> advent of one brings on the other, right? Also, I turned down a job
>> >> recently where the company was getting into .NET technology, but hadn't
>> >> had much to do just yet.
>> >>
>> >> My question is, has anybody besides the folks at Wrox (company that
>> >> published the book, you know, the line of books with all the
>> >> funny-looking guys on the covers) had occasion to work with any of this
>> >> stuff yet? Diddling or tinkering or actual workplace implementation of
>> >> betas or what-not?
>> >>
>> >> I'm genuinely curious. I don't have a Java bias or anything.
>> >>
>> >> Sent via Deja.com
>> >> http://www.deja.com/
>>
>> > NOBODY knows what the fuck .NET is.
>>
>> > It's vaporware. That's why the descriptions are sooooooo vague.
>>
>> Now, thats not fair. .NET really is a real thing, its just a poor idea
>> stolen from other, more innovative companies, rolled out in an effort to
>> once again lock the populous at large to the MSOS regime.
>
>So far, they STILL haven't defined what it actually *IS* though, have
>they...
Actually, that's easy. It's a way for Microsoft to try to make
more money selling Windows -- sorry, LOSEdows -- products.... :-)
Whether it will succeed may largely depend on Microsoft's execution
and the gullibility of purchasing managers. :-) (Oh yes, and its
utility for developers and end-users might be a small factor...)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random cynicism here
EAC code #191 5d:07h:12m actually running Linux.
Use the source, Luke.
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:46:23 -0700
I believe the sentiment (if not actually the article itself) is
expressed in "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" an updated version of which
was just this week referenced on 'Wired'
http://wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,41726,00.html
If that's not it, I'd look up stuff by Richard Stallman.
MjM
mlw wrote:
>
> I read an interesting article a few years back, about software piracy. (If
> anyone recognizes the article by this description, I'd love to find a copy
> again.)
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Linux Distributions.
Date: 10 Feb 2001 18:46:20 GMT
I know that nowadays Slackware is used by a minority of Linux fans, while the
majority prefers Red Hat and similar distributions. My first and all
subsequent installs I made were always Slackware.
Slackware has one advantage over all the "polished" distros. Red Hat and
others force you to attempt to install LILO while Slackware does not, allowing
you to use Loadlin with DOS. For all of DOS's crappiness, DOS does one thing
well. It does load in a boot loader well, while LILO is always flaky.
Over the years, I ended up using as standard procedure Loadlin from a DOS
partition, using some flavour of DOS. FreeDOS can work for a Loadlin booter
just fine, as can the old Novell DOS 7. Novell DOS 7, for those who don't
remember, was an odd DOS that was able to multitask.
Meanwhile, LILO will always be flaky, making it a challenge to build a machine
without even FreeDOS to boot the Linux. Many times, I have temporarily ruined
hard drives whereby I had to do the old DOS "fdisk /mbr" trick to un-ruin
them.
Despite my ages-old LILO problem, I can think of an OS that's far worse:
Windows NT. I once bought that crap (talk about a waste of money!) and all
attempts at its install on a homebrew computer resulted in the famous Blue
Screen Of Death. I wasted that money in a vain effort to learn it to
eventually become a techie. Apparently, becoming a techie isn't in the cards.
Instead, I will always be a home Linux user, albeit with a DOS partition to
Loadlin boot the Linux.
Maybe my next move should be to buy a computer with Linux pre-installed to
avoid my ages-old LILO problem. Most such boxes use Red Hat instead of the
time-tested Slackware I've always used on my own starting on July 10, 1994
when I first successfully installed it using a pile of AOL Disks(tm). I've had
problems in the early days with CD drives, but over time I solved that pet
problem unlike the LILO problem.
Being a home Linux user, I can safely say that Linux will always be harder on
home users than Windows et. al. if for no other reason than the old LILO
thingy being tricky to install, at least on generic equipment with flaky
BIOSes. Modern distributions apart from Slackware always force you to attempt
to install LILO, a thing which has always caused this home user problems. What
would be nice in a modern distribution would be a LILO/Loadlin choice whereby
the install is with a freeDOS to boot it up.
A reliable easy to install booter is one thing needed, as without it, all the
nice Windows-like apps will never be useful until booted. Linux is a great OS,
with only a booting problem as of now. While I found a workaround for myself
with always using Loadlin, any new home user will have no idea what to do.
Until I can use LILO, I'm limited to using only Slackware becuse of my pet
workaround.
Some things I'd like to see in a Linux distribution:
The LILO/Loadlin choice upon install. Or a better LILO.
X pre-configured and ready to go upon typing "startx". Home users may want a
choice during install to slip into the .login script a line that auto starts
X upon the login.
Samba installed pre-configured, with good docs to config to taste. (techies
would like that item) Or, GNU NFS client software for Windows boxes.
Office apps, obviously intended for "normal" home users.
Better docs. The man pages can be cryptic even for old-timers. The HOWTO docs
are a big help!
Apart from "a better LILO" these items could be added readily enough. All
booters have the 512 meg bugaboo, so a "better booter" may always be a
problem. My only complaint these days, after nearly 7 years of using Linux is
with the LILO install enforcement with all distributions but Slackware. Too
bad Slackware isn't sold in stores like Red Hat is.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: "Mathias De Belder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 15:06:52 GMT
> I'm not claiming that Windows, in the absence of driver disks, would
> fare any better; that's not the point. The point is that the first
> impression of many people who try out Linux will be the installation
> process, and this often requires rather more fiddling by the user than
> most people are comfortable with.
>
> Is this the `fault' of Linux? No - it's the `fault' of the
> manufacturers for not playing nicely with Linux (by providing driver
> disks or making sure the hardware identifies itself correctly to the
> installation program). Nevertheless, it is the reason why many people
> are put off Linux in the early stages.
No offence, but that's bull. First of all, some manufacturers do provide
special drivers for their hardware, and nVidia immediately comes into my
mind. They provide a kernel module that'll get your 3D-accellerator to do
what it was designed for : do 3D-accelleration.
BUT, do you think it's as easy as in Windows ? No, it really isn't. The fact
of the matter is that Linux is too fragmented to provide driver upgrades.
God knows what kernel you're running, or what hardware your machine is based
on. A simple driver.exe file isn't possible to get your card running. And
then you'll have to fiddle with MESA to get everything working, because Mesa
is GPL'ed, so it is HOLY and BETTER then the rest (really! <*g*>). Desktop
users want a computer that works and does the job for them, and not the
other way around.
And it's the same with everything else. I had to compile ALSA-modules to get
my soundcard working, read huge readme files to get some basic things (an
FTP-server for example) working under Linux.
Everything I need runs flawlessly under Windows for me, so why should I
botter to go with a SLOWER (yes, stating that programs will run faster under
Linux is purely FUD) solution, that isn't as polished and is incompatible
with the majority of the software used in the world ?
Don't get me wrong though, Linux is a great OS, but it is a SERVER OS ! The
old programs (sendmail, wu-ftpd, postfix, slrn) are really well made and top
of the line cmd-line programs. But the current trend to get everything
ported to X is a drawback for the GNU-model. Face it : KDE and Gnome, and
almost EVERY GUI program you can find for Linux is SLOW, bloated,
non-functioning and extremely buggy. Every wanna-be coder wants to write
some lines of code, and the result is disastrous. The KOffice package is a J
O K E !
So, to summarize everything : compareLinux as a desktop OS to Windows9X, and
even the most diehard Linux user will have to admit that the windows gui and
programs win hands down. BUT, if you compare Linux as a server OS with
Windows2000, you get a different picture. Both have their merits and they
are thightly matched. Linux is an *alternative* to windows as a server os,
but certainly not a huge improvement.
Just my .03 Euro's for this thread.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 19:01:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 09 Feb 2001 16:02:05 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>ono wrote:
>>
>> > > So why run Linux?
>> >
>> > Why are you running Windows? I'm running it because I've yet to see
>> > Netscape or KNode take out my desktop. Sure I've found other problems, but
>> > in general usage, none so far.
>>
>> I've yet too see IE take out my desktop!
>
>...he said with eyes closed tightly and covered with the palms of his
>hands.
I've yet to see IE take out my (NT4) desktop, but I have seen it do
some weird things with tooltips ("Hi, i'm now blank and you can't
use me to help figure out your icons!"), and it does have a bad habit of
rebuilding the desktop "automatically", every so often, which basically
does a lot of disk I/O to no apparent purpose. (I don't know whether
this is connected to NT's "fast file finder" or not.) I've even
caught Outlook's text composition form (widget? window? thingy?)
corrupting memory, although how one proves that without a videocam
running over one's shoulder, or a copy of Rational Software's Purify
tool, is not quite clear.
I've also seen some oddball stuff with icons. I'm not sure how I
can describe it, though, save that occasionally Windows will
pick a different icon than the one the user might expect, for
a file or series of files. Thankfully, VC++ doesn't crash more
than about once every three months or so -- although of late I've
been using Tera Term with SSH to log into my Linux box for Java
development, and using Windows prioarily as a Web site/documentation
viewer (it has the better monitor). Samba shines here, too;
I can edit files residing on my WIndows box using my favorite editor
(vi). :-)
(Note that the brain-damaged method of associating icons with the
file NAME, rather than a magic number within the file itself -- to be
fair, Windows may have done that in the name of performance/expediency --
doesn't help. I tried once to read a .doc file which was supposed
to be text by double-clicking. Word didn't get far, although it didn't
crash the system. [It certainly didn't do what I would have expected
at the time.])
I don't know about win2k enough to say much about it, other than a
program which I wanted to install and run stopped working when I
installed a new video driver to (try to) take advantage of my video card's
OpenGL capabilities. (It's an old ATI Rage card.) This sort
of brain-deadery just makes me wonder, although I haven't tried
to develop OpenGL stuff on Linux yet -- I'm not even quite sure where
to *start*, but I am confident that I can at least find some
documentation on MesaGL if I look hard enough. (I don't know if my
videocard at home -- the ATI Rage is on a work system -- is up
to the challenge, either. Money? What's that? :-) )
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 5d:07h:22m actually running Linux.
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
