Linux-Advocacy Digest #167, Volume #32 Tue, 13 Feb 01 06:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Answer this if you can... ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Linux Servers require Weekly Rebooting (Cool Microsoft FUD and Warner research
for your reading pleasure) (Stuart Krivis)
Re: SGI XFS Installation Update (Stuart Krivis)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Bloody Viking)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Bloody Viking)
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Peformance Test ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Interesting article ("David Brown")
Re: IDE v. SCSI: Long-Term Review. (WAS: Crappy CDROM?) (Bloody Viking)
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop (Bloody Viking)
Re: Microsoft vs Reality (Bloody Viking)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Answer this if you can...
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:43:45 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:15:07 +0100, "Mart van de Wege"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>I bet a lot of prospective Linux users will be very put off by
>>you wishing them a massive headache.
>>
>>Mart
>
> Try looking at a Sony or Nec 17 inch monitor with 75dpi and you
> will most definitely have a headache.
>
>
> Flatfish Why do they call it a flatfish? Remove the ++++ to
> reply.
Yeah,
Those monitors have decent dotpitch and can handle 1024x768 and
up. So you still haven't answered my point: what if you don't
have a kick-ass monitor? 100dpi on a lower spec monitor *will*
give you a headache. Convenient eh, snipping out that which does
not agree with you?
Mart
--
Happily running Debian, posting with Pan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: Linux Servers require Weekly Rebooting (Cool Microsoft FUD and Warner
research for your reading pleasure)
Date: 13 Feb 2001 04:50:06 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 17:46:03 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:9645kp$bpk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Well, i was rather thinking about some comments i read last year that MS
>> had a specialized "assault team" that "invaded" OS/2 customers phorums
>> with malicious stories about OS/2 to discorage users from continuing to
>use
>> OS/2... I think it was on Slashdot or Linuxtoday.
>
>There was no "team". There was one guy about 8 years ago that was a MS
>employee, and it was only on a comp.os.os2 newsgroup, not "OS/2 customers
>phorums". Bad enough as it is, but nowhere near what you make out.
>
>There was also the story a couple years ago that MS's PR firm had proposed
>such a plan, but there is no evidence it was ever accepted or implemented.
Well, I wouldn't put it past them, but I never saw any proof one way or
another. MS just has this way of leaving a bad taste in my mouth.
I _do_ remember a lot of jerks haunting the OS/2 forae and trying to
make out that Windows was better.
I suspect that there are enough nuts out there that MS doesn't need to
go looking for them. They're not MS-sponsored, they do it all by
themselves.
--
Stuart Krivis
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: SGI XFS Installation Update
Date: 13 Feb 2001 04:54:27 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 04:47:21 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>may have fixed it. Webmin is a far superior config tool, IMHO...
vi is a far superior config tool. :-)
--
Stuart Krivis
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: 13 Feb 2001 09:59:14 GMT
Joel Barnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Yes, I was very frustrated when all I had was Windows. Now that I am using
: Linux, (Mandrake 7.2), things are much better.
Goes to show, even a hosed Linux distro is better than Windows! Sort of like
in 1994 when I had the choice of Windows or a hosed version of Slackware 2.2
from a SAMS book. (and it was a hosed version of a hosed distro to boot) I
still chose the Linux. After all, once you remove the last AOL Disk(tm) and
boot the Linux, it runs.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: 13 Feb 2001 10:12:03 GMT
Bob Hauck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: So, Chad admits that you need lots of add-ons to make Windows useful.
And don't forget that each add-on makes Windows that much more unstable. But
then again, an oxygen thief as retarded as a hanging chad in a Florida
election would never realise it.
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 03:58:02 -0600
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a87aea4$0$25219@reader4...
> 2. Disregarding this, you obviously relied on me to provide you
> with correct information, instead of reading the FoF yourself.
> If you had, you might have found, a few pages before the snippet
> I posted, the story of how a *major* OEM reseller was pressured
> by Microsoft, using the OEM license as a weapon, into not
> shipping it's own alternative OS. Hint: the major OEM reseller
> is IBM, look it up yourself. While MS does not prohibit OEMs
> from shipping altOSs, they can make life difficult for any OEM
> that does, and given that DELL, Compaq, and IBMs PC division
> operate in high-volume, low-margin markets, any threat of
> raising costs will cut directly into their profits.
IBM also severely underreported their sales to MS and owed MS millions of
dollars in unpaid licenses. This gave MS the opportunity to pressure them
from their own mistakes. Any OEM that keeps factual records and pays their
bills would not have been able to be so "pressured". Was it wrong of MS to
pressure them? Sure. But you needn't hand your assailant a knife and leap
upon the blade yourself.
On top of that, the PC division has always been at odds with the OS/2
division. They resented having OS/2 forced down their throats, because most
customers didn't want it. IBM go backstabbed by their own infighting,
primarily because the PC division wanted to make a profit and justify their
salaries.
Look, I worked for an IBM business partner that developed OS/2 software. I
wrote OS/2 software myself for this company. I dealt with the AS/400
divisions and the PC divisions and these people were always fighting
internally.
> So apologies for the first (slightly incorrect) post, but I
> still stand by my original contention, that MS licensing
> practices *effectively* prohibit OEMs from shipping anything but
> windows. Now you give me a link to prove that it isn't so.
So far your only evidence is the IBM situation, which had extenuating
circumstances related to IBM violating their license with Windows 3.1 due to
non-payment. All IBM had to do was pay their bill and MS wouldn't have had
any ground to offer a settlement.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 04:09:47 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:968tl8$i5k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 11 Feb 2001
> > [...]
> >>> Satisfied? Really Erik, you should think twice before challenging
> >>> someone.
> >>
> >>Not even close. All you've mentioned was the Initial boot sequence.
This
> >>is what happens *AFTER* windows has started loading, not before it.
Adding
> >>a dual boot would not interfere with the windows boot sequence as
defined by
> >>MS.
> >
> >That a lie; the 'initial boot sequence' of Windows disables any
> >dual-boot configuration set up by the OEM, purposefully.
> >
> >>You should understand what you're quoting before you jump to conclusions
on
> >>it.
> >
> >You should stop being a Microsoft sock puppet and disrupting discussions
> >about Linux with your silliness.
> >
> I noticed that he only answered after I pointed out the "approved"
> response in another post.
Try again. Pay close attention to the timestamps.
I had to search for your "approved" post, but I found that you posted it:
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:15:10 GMT
While the post you are responding to here is dated:
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:08:31 -0600
Or, in other words, at 01:08:31 GMT
My post was made 6 hours before yours was. Oh, I suppose you'll say I
changed my clock in anticipation of you "calling me" on it, so let's look at
the timestamps from the server:
Your message:
X-Trace: typhoon.kc.rr.com 981962110 65.26.87.7 (Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:15:10
CST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:15:10 CST
My message:
X-Trace: ruti.visi.com 981939622 208.42.101.74 (Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:00:22
CST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:00:22 CST
So quit pretending you are so superior.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 04:10:49 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I noticed that he only answered after I pointed out the "approved"
> > response in another post.
>
> I thought that point was a bit too cogent for Erik to come up with on
> his own. I just figured he got it from the sock puppet briefings.
> Imagine my surprise to find out he got it from you! ;-D
Imagine my surprise that you failed to verify the statements before climbing
on board. NOT.
See my post to Ed.
> > Alright Erik, you have me convinced that you *can* learn so it just
> > a matter of trying harder to not make a fool of yourself.
>
> Well said.
Even if he had been right, it wouldn't have been.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Peformance Test
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 04:19:58 -0600
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:01:48 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> Who cares? Using NT for embedded applications, particularly ones built
> >> around low-end hardware and without a GUI, is silly. You get nothing
> >> for your trouble compared with less costly solutions.
> >
> >We did indeed get something for our trouble. We didn't have to rewrite a
> >million lines of our application.
>
> You run a million-line app on a 486/66 with 32 MB? You aren't going to
> be running that out of flash.
I already told you, it runs off CD-ROM, not flash.
> >You clearly don't have much imagination, do you?
>
> Apparently not. Maybe I'm too concerned with meeting requirements.
Requirements often mean using 5 year old code that is fully debugged and
already has test harnesses and test plans written instead of writing new
code that needs massive amounts of QA to verify.
When you're talking about a system which controls carbon-dioxide lasers, one
bug can cause someone to die or get very hurt.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:19:46 +0100
OK, I see what you are saying. Let me put it another way, describing what
happened rather than who did what.
When Warp 3 came out, Win311 was the current windows version, but Win95 had
been promised Real Soon Now. Developers were being strongly encouraged to
write for Win32s, which would give them some of the extra functionality of
NT and Win95, but could also run on Win16. Software companies were working
with beta versions of Win95, and concentrating on getting their software
ready for when it came out. For some reason (a mixture of monopoly-backed
bullying, solid strategy and tactics from MS (mainting a monopoly is not
quite as easy as you make out), and poor handling from IBM), commercial
companies continued to develope for a system that was a year away rather
than for a better system available there and then. A great many planned to
first get the Win95 version working, then make an OS/2 version of the
programs, but after waiting so long for Win95 to arrive, and seeing the
market share of OS/2, then it just was not worth it.
MS told developers that Win95 would become the major market holder, and they
believed them. IBM told them that OS/2 was better, easier to program, and
available now, and many believed them too. But economics dictated that
commercial companies developed for Win95 instead (those not bound by
economics, such as freeware and shareware developers, choose OS/2 - for a
long time the selection of free and cheap software for OS/2 exceeded that
for Win95 in quantity and quality). Who is to blame? Who did their jobs
well, and who did their jobs badly? I believe (and it is with hindsight,
I'll admit) that IBM could have done a better job. If IBM showed that they
believed in OS/2, and pushed it hard with their own systems, then many
commercial developers would have choosen to do their OS/2 version first, and
the Win32 version later. As it was, IBM was much happier to sell systems
with Win311 pre-installed than with Warp 3 pre-installed, and they sold the
Windows systems cheaper.
Perhaps it is unfair to blame IBM's marketting - they did advertise widely
at the time. But somewhere in the system IBM failed badly. I think they
have problems with communications between their departments - Warp 3 was
easy to install on virtually any PC, with the exception of IBM's own PCs.
Did you ever hear the story of IBM's photocopier department? It sounds like
a joke, but is in fact true - it was a good many years ago, and they have
improved somewhat since. IBM made some photocopiers - it was not a big part
of their business, and they only sold to the kind of customer who bought
everything IBM. It was also not very profitable, so they conducted an
investigation into how to make the department more profitable. The
conclusion was that if they increased the prices, the same customers would
continue to buy as always, thereby increasing profits. If they lowered the
prices, they could become competitive and sell more photocopiers, thereby
increasing profits. The investigation itself cost more than the department
made in a year.
T. Max Devlin wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:20:48
>>T. Max Devlin wrote in message
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>>Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:08:42
>>>>IBM has a solid record of turning out brilliant technology and hopeless
>>>>marketing. [...]
>>>
>>>This oft-repeated bit of nonsense is so vapid as to be tiresome. IBM
>>>has a mixed record, as all business do, of both technology and
>>>'marketing'.
>>
>>Fair enough - they have a bit of mixed record, but it is swayed in that
>>direction (unlike certain other companies, which are swayed heavily in the
>>other direction).
>
>Making it a tentative statement makes it no less vapid, I think. You're
>just buying into the 'hindsight bias' which amateurs often mistake for
>business analysis. It is obvious that IBM did a truly excellent job of
>'marketing' OS/2, since it is still on the market despite having to
>oppose illegal anti-competitive monopolization. Not to mention it is
>apparently excellent, technically.
>
>Microsoft's business isn't "swayed heavily" towards marketing at all.
>They are entirely engaged in monopolization. They use advertising and
>press releases as a heavy smoke screen for their illegal behavior behind
>the scenes is; that doesn't make it effective marketing.
>
> [...]
>> IBM could have stood against MS, and we would be in a rather different
>> position now. But they judged the market for OS/2 to be too small to
>> make take on MS - and that is only because the market was happier to
>> wait an extra year or so for the much inferior Win95, rather than buy
>> OS/2 Warp that was available at the time.[...]
>
>IBM did stand against MS; that's why OS/2 is still available. They
>didn't make any foolish decisions trying to "compete" with the
>anti-competitive. Monopolization isn't simply having large market
>share, you know; you don't make a calculation and consider how large
>your potential market is in deciding whether or not you can "stand up"
>to a monopolist. Well, not unless you don't want to stay in business.
>You cannot out-compete a monopoly, and what makes the 'market happy' is
>just as meaningless in determining how monopolization works.
>
>--
>T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: IDE v. SCSI: Long-Term Review. (WAS: Crappy CDROM?)
Date: 13 Feb 2001 10:33:49 GMT
Aaron Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I just make a boot-floppy with Lilo on it and leave it (write protected,
: of course) in the floppy drive....and use dd to make a couple copies,
: which I store in other places around the house.
: Then I spend an extra $15 (how painful!) and put a 2nd floppy drive in
: (also serves as a backup device in case the first floppy dies).
A variation of that theme is to dd a rawcopy of a kernel to a floppy, and use
that instead of a LILO boot disk. The alternative is to hack a Slackware
install boot disk after rawriting it on the floppy. (mount it then tamper with
its workings) A third method is convoluted; a Loadlin boot floppy.
When I experimented with floppy booting variations, I decided to devise a way
to boot from a hard drive becuse floppies are notorious for premature wear.
Here is an interesting conjecture. In DOS, if the IO.SYS (the kernel) is
misplaced on the disk, there's a util to nestle it back into the exact right
spot. Forgot what the util was, but there is one. So, what you do is take a
small DOS partition made by mkfs in Linux on a hard drive, then name your
Linux kernel "IO.SYS" and use the util. The util, noting the filename, will be
stupid enough to nestle the kernel into the exact right spot as though it's a
DOS kernel, rendering a bootable DOS filesystem on that partition but with the
Linux kernel.
The implication here is that you get around all the copyright bullshit by
replicating exactly how that works. It might even be possible to get a util
(though not the DOS one obviously) to move the kernel to the right spot on an
ext2 filesystem. This would however have the limitations of boot options like
a kernel rawcopy floppy. (or small partition)
Nice thing about Linux. There's more than one way to boot it. LILO is the most
common, but there are other ways if you have a flaky BIOS.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: 13 Feb 2001 10:40:33 GMT
Tom Wilson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: It's www.bsatruce.com and its an interesting link. Thanks.
Pretty crazy, eh?
: The strongest assertions of control generally happen right before its'
: lost.
And pay-per-view-ware should put it over the top. And with the BSA
stormtroopers going around, it'll either cause Linux to take off in ballistic
mode or crash the whole industry in one massive BSOD. If Linux takes over,
Microsoft itself will BSOD on Bill Gates!
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Microsoft vs Reality
Date: 13 Feb 2001 10:50:41 GMT
mmnnoo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Microsoft's help and troubleshooting services are based on these two
: premises. Unfortunately, all companies have these tendencies because
: avoiding blame and appealing to the lowest common denominator are
: usually good for the company.
It's called sleaze. This is an inherent flaw of a capitalist system, though we
know communism is even more flawed. In every transaction there is always a
scam.
: By contrast, the honesty and openness of open-source software sharply
: reveal the phony veneer so carefully applied to commercial software (and
: all other commercial products). It may never be the case that all
: software is free, but there is enough out there to whet one's appetite
: for reality.
Again, corporatised anything is a scam of some kind. I started drifting toward
Linux-to-exclusion a long time ago becuse of how lame commercial software is,
with the licencing crap, the exhorbitant prices, the file corruption from new
versions (yep, a scam), and its general sleazeball nature.
Another anti-commercialism thingy is the near-universal loathing of spam. I
expanded on that theme for myself with paying cash, rigging a fax to the phone
line to get telespammers to killfile my number, etc.
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
