Linux-Advocacy Digest #202, Volume #32 Thu, 15 Feb 01 02:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Uptime (Fred K Ollinger)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Dave Martel)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant ("Tom Wilson")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: The Windows guy. ("Mike")
Re: Ethernet card for UNIX/Linux (J Sloan)
Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control) ("Flacco")
Windows ME doesn't BSOD on me (Donn Miller)
Re: Microsoft plans lend further aid to open source OSes ("Flacco")
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? ("Flacco")
I will give MS credit for one thing (Donn Miller)
Re: Interesting article (J Sloan)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux ("Flacco")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Dave Martel)
Re: Ethernet card for UNIX/Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Interesting article (J Sloan)
Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control) (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push. (J Sloan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger)
Subject: Re: Linux Uptime
Date: 15 Feb 2001 05:22:21 GMT
>Ah, so now we get into ideology. I see. You run Linux because it
>enhances your karma.
I run it b/c I'm cool. I like to run an OS where I get to type in obscure
commands. Things like cp are really tough for my co-workers so it makes me
look smart.
To paraphrase Stallman, "what's wrong with ideology?" He says that people just
want to talk about technical merits, they don't wish to talk about philosophy,
but he says we have to talk about philosophy. I agree b/c if you don't then
you will be ruled by someone else's philosophy. If that's how you want to live
then great, but I feel that I'm better off and the others who don't care are
really missing out.
>>Our secretary is using 98 and shuts her machine down
>>every night. She can go for a month or so before we have to put
>>in the compaq restore disk to rebuild the machine. This is a process
>>which takes an hour to do.
>
>Tell her to stop installing every piece of software that some web site offers
>her. It's amazing how stable a machine can be if you don't screw with it. :-)
This is the stupidest way to make a system stable I've ever heard. Windows is
stable if you don't do anything with it. This really pisses me off. It shows
the ultimate in religious zealotry. I admit it; I am religious. I would use
linux if it sucked--it's great for me actually, but this crap. A rock and
chisel are really stable too, never crash, but they might not be the best tool
for the job.
What you want is a tool that's fast, stable, and easy to use (as opposed to
easy to learn without reading anything). The former is linux, the later is all
the oses that need a company to pay people to try to get people to use them.
cheers,
Fred
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:16:55 -0700
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 04:36:06 GMT, "Peter T. Breuer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Agreed. It is after all, very difficult to program a computer using
>religious beliefs as a basis for your programming. I tend to view that
>as evidence that scientific belief is qualitatively different, since
>believing in scientific principles like observation, no-interpretation,
>experiment, hypothesiis formation and refutation, does help you program
>a computer.
Computers were designed using science so it's not surprising you need
science to program them. Try using science to make sense of something
created using religion or philosophy. Say, the Book of Tao? :-)
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 05:51:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> More BS from the troll I see -
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
>> All of what web servers? I see lots of Apache servers -- er virtual
>> hosts (only a fraction of servers)-- but when you look at OS numbers,
>> Linux is at the bottom in the >10% category. Usually, Linux falls into
>> "Other".
>
> Nonsense, every measurement I've seen shows linux has a very healthy
> slice of the pie -
Falling on deaf ears...
>
> Chad's statement is simply unsupportable.
>
>>
>> 1.) Please provide link
>
> You can learn how to use google.com
Wouldn't believe anything he read...
>
>>
>> 2.) Name one company who IBM has invested heavily in that has gone
>> bonkers on the market?
>
> I dunno, who brought "companies IBM has invested in" into the
> discussion?
>
> How about "technologies IBM has invested in"?
He's not about to let go of THAT straw....Not in a million years.
>
>> When IBM invests in you, it means that you're already on your
>> down-stroke.
>
> I think we can come up with an impressive list of technologies that IBM
> has invested in, and are now universally used.
He'd argue that they were unimpressive.
>
>> 3.) $1 Billion? Yeah right. More like "IBM is investing $1 Billion in
>> new
>> development, including Java, Unix and Linux" which means Linux gets
>> a small fraction of it.
>
> Sorry Chad, again you got it all wrong.
>
> Read my lips: $1 billion investment in Linux by IBM this year.
Nice try...
Not gonna' work though
NT's his story and he's gonna' stick to it.
Facts are unwelcome and irrelevant.
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 06:46:29 +0100
In comp.os.linux.misc Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 04:36:06 GMT, "Peter T. Breuer"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Agreed. It is after all, very difficult to program a computer using
>>religious beliefs as a basis for your programming. I tend to view that
>>as evidence that scientific belief is qualitatively different, since
>>believing in scientific principles like observation, no-interpretation,
>>experiment, hypothesiis formation and refutation, does help you program
>>a computer.
> Computers were designed using science so it's not surprising you need
> science to program them. Try using science to make sense of something
I don't really think you disagree. Your point is also that the domains in
which these thinkings take place are different. (not that I agree that
your argument has any bearing :-)
> created using religion or philosophy. Say, the Book of Tao? :-)
... or that talking AI program that imitates a psychologist by taking
the words out of whatever sentences you said last, remodelling and
repeating them back to you in the form of a question?
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 06:04:11 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mike wrote:
>
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > We all download the code and compile it. There is no separate port...
>
> of course there is, you can't simply take the souce
> code and type "make" on a windows pc - that is,
> unless it has been ported, i.e. lots of ifdefs to work
> around or emulate the missing pieces.
Sure I can. The ifdefs are primarily to tell the compiler where the include
files are and what's in them. Configure scripts go off and try to figure
that out in Unix, and they have to, since every Unix sticks them somewhere
different. I have a config.h file that solves the problem very nicely. That
takes care of almost all the problems, and most of the others are pretty
minimal. Many of the Gnu tools compile seamlessly under Cygnus or MingW32
(or lcc, for that matter), not to mention MSC. You should try it some time.
> I'd be curious what "unix" you use, and to what degree
> you use it - if by "unix" you mean these few little utilities
> on your windows pc, that's not unix.
Genuine Unix, from a major vendor. Our current vendor could be called vendor
S. Our previous vendor could be called vendor H. Real live Unix. All day,
every day.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Ethernet card for UNIX/Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 06:17:40 GMT
mmnnoo wrote:
> I think it's ironic that you would suggest the RTL 8139. The linux
> driver is broken! (Or maybe it's the hardware, I don't know).
hmm, I've not seen this, but then again I've been running
the 2.4 kernel since it was called 2.3.36 or so... 2.4 has a
new driver for the 8139, I heard the 2.2 driver had problems.
Anyway, I just upgraded to a couple of eepro100s, which
also work well...
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control)
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 01:17:09 -0500
> I think that'll go for many, many people. Just hastens the day the world
> becomes Microsoft free.
Unfortunately the Linux community thinks this will happen without catering
to current MS addicts' needs.
A targeted "Windows Migration" distro is really needed in order to
capitalize on MS's heavy-handedness here.
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Windows ME doesn't BSOD on me
Date: 15 Feb 2001 00:34:44 -0600
You know, this is pretty funny. I never had a BSOD since I installed Windows
ME. I was thinking "Damn, what did MS do to make this thing more stable
than Win 98?" Then, it occurred to me: what do you want to bet that MS just
removed some or all of the code that causes a BSOD to occur? LOL, this is
the equivalent of removing all the panic() calls in a unix system.
So, I suppose that's one way to prevent an unstable OS from crashing: just
remove all the exception handling, and let the OS screw up your system
naturally or lock up on its own.
Anyone else notice this? And here, I thought NE truly WAS more stable. Like
David Copperfield, MS pulled an illusion. And does anyone else here think
Bill Gates is a lot like P. T. Barnum? Think about that.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft plans lend further aid to open source OSes
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 01:19:22 -0500
> I think they (MS) are flying a kite to gauge public and industry reaction.
>
> They'll drop it like a hot brick if they think it'll adversely affect
their
> bottom line.
Yeah, kind of like that dummy "click-through" copy protection thing they put
in the new Visual Studio. Probably wanted to see if the zombies would stir
or not.
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 01:28:33 -0500
> Hmmm... I wonder how much the consumer version of XP is gonna run? If
they
> charge more than $99, it's gonna be a tough upgrade.
It will probably be cheap. MS is dying to get everyone on a subscription
system. They can take money from your credit card without you having to
lift a finger.
This is their dream. They won't let a high initial price get in the way of
that.
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: I will give MS credit for one thing
Date: 15 Feb 2001 00:48:42 -0600
I am no MS advocate. But, I will admit one thing: Windows Media player is
much better than the video MPEG players I have used on Linux. For video
MPEG, I usually use SMPEG w/ its plaympeg app to play videos. On very large
video mpeg files, like for example a high-quality 50 MB music video, both
plaympeg and xmms w/ the smpeg plugin choke on the video, and the audio and
video both get horrible out of sync. I tried setting the realtime priority
option in xmms' options menu. Unfortunately, the soundtrack, and not the
video, receive realtime priority. This causes audio only to play, and the
video never pops up in its own window, because xmms is locking the audio, not
the video, into a realtime priority.
I tried the same video in Windows ME, and it kind of floundered a little, but
the video and audio never got out of sync. But, I think we all need not be
disappointed, because video mpeg players are somewhat in their infancy on
open source operating systems. I know that with time, this will improve.
One explanation, I guess, is that Windows ME probably has all kinds of hacks
to its scheduler to make it better for playing videos. Also note that with
all these undocumented APIs, WM player probably has all kinds of priority
hacks to the scheduler to make it better. But, I'd like to think of unix as
the best possible ALL-AROUND, general-purpose OS, while Windows, pretty much,
is only good for games and video, and other multimedia crap.
Please don't get me wrong here, I'm a unix lover and MS hater. But, I try to
call the shots as I see them. Windows Media Player may be bloated, but it's
a damn good app for mpeg video. I know that one day Linux and FreeBSD will
be awesome MM platforms, but until that day, Windows ME will remain in a
small, dark corner of my HD for those videos, games, and such. I'll probably
try to get this WM player running in Wine, in the mean time.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 06:49:52 GMT
Mike Byrns wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> > > "Fastest developing UNIX"? That's an oxymoron. :-)
> >
> > Like "strongest giant", or "fastest jet"? Yeah, I see....
> >
> > jjs
>
> From what you wrote, you don't understand at all. :-)
You see, "fastest developing Unix" is about as much
asn oxymoron as "fastest jet" - that was a bit of humor
there, son, but making a valid point.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 01:37:01 -0500
> You'll NEVER be able to get a call from me with that item. I do not play
phone
> tag.
The less phone calls the better :-)
I don't see any problem with answering machines. If you want to establish
contact with me, you call, let me know, then I decide if I want to call you
back. The system breaks down, of course, when you have answering machines
at both ends :-)
But in that case, when you hear a familiar voice on the other end, you pick
up.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:47:21 -0700
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 06:46:29 +0100, "Peter T. Breuer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 04:36:06 GMT, "Peter T. Breuer"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Agreed. It is after all, very difficult to program a computer using
>>>religious beliefs as a basis for your programming. I tend to view that
>>>as evidence that scientific belief is qualitatively different, since
>>>believing in scientific principles like observation, no-interpretation,
>>>experiment, hypothesiis formation and refutation, does help you program
>>>a computer.
>
>> Computers were designed using science so it's not surprising you need
>> science to program them. Try using science to make sense of something
>
>I don't really think you disagree. Your point is also that the domains in
>which these thinkings take place are different. (not that I agree that
>your argument has any bearing :-)
Yep. Just a matter of using the right programming language for the
job. <g>
>
>> created using religion or philosophy. Say, the Book of Tao? :-)
>
> ... or that talking AI program that imitates a psychologist by taking
>the words out of whatever sentences you said last, remodelling and
>repeating them back to you in the form of a question?
>
>Peter
A long long time ago I found a "tech support" website that claimed
there were real people online waiting to help you with your technical
problems totally for free. It sounded too good to be true so I knew
something was up. It still took about about five minutes of never
quite getting anywhere to figure out I was talking a modified version
of Eliza rather than a real human.
Unfortunately the site disappeared one day. Too bad, I used to send
all my friends there. Heh heh!
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Ethernet card for UNIX/Linux
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 06:55:01 +0100
In comp.os.linux.advocacy mmnnoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it's ironic that you would suggest the RTL 8139. The linux
> driver is broken! (Or maybe it's the hardware, I don't know).
It's the hardware. The rtl8139 (c?) has been dead reliable in about 60
boxes here. Uptimes about 40days per box, switched 100BT net.
Kernels 2.2.10 and 2.2.15 (and 2.2.18 and 2.4.0, but fewer of those).
Amd 600MHz durons and QDI KX mobos. Also other (poorer) brands.
OTOH I have some eepro100s that die every few days or so, requiring a
module rmmmod insmod. Other identical machines are fine. QDI brilliant
1 mobos, P2 450MHz, kernels 2.0.36 to 2.2.18. I don't know which combos
particularly have most problems.
> Anyways, it periodically (about every 20 days for me on
> average) completely ceases to function. If it's a module
Peter
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:01:57 GMT
Mike Byrns wrote:
> Such weighty content Aaron ;-) UNIX doesn't really "develop".
What is this I've been imagining the last 8 years then?
The Unix systems I've used - Linux, Solaris, BSD - keep
gaining new features and refinements, and contrary to the
assertions of the misinformed, are still alive and well.
> It's an old
> picture from the 60s that was done developing long ago.
Sounds like you've sat through one too many windows pep
rallies there bubba -
jjs
------------------------------
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control)
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:10:49 +1000
Flacco wrote:
>
> > I think that'll go for many, many people. Just hastens the day the world
> > becomes Microsoft free.
>
> Unfortunately the Linux community thinks this will happen without catering
> to current MS addicts' needs.
>
> A targeted "Windows Migration" distro is really needed in order to
> capitalize on MS's heavy-handedness here.
Yes, there seems to be a huge gap between reality (the 90%+-
stranglehold of M$ on your average non-IT person's household PC) and the
frequent claims of the demise of M$ just around the corner from many
people in this group. Long way to go before that is likely to happen
boys. Sorry just looking at the reality of the situation.
IanP
--
"Dear someone you've never heard of,
how is so-and-so. Blah blah.
Yours truly, some bozo." - Homer Simpson
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler, yet another Windows push.
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:08:50 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 04:37:21 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >chrisv wrote:
> >
> >> Semantics. The point is, the software is not available on Linux.
> >
> >All these things are consequences of microsoft's long
> >monopoly on the desktop - of course there is a lot of
> >windows pc software that hasn't been ported to other
> >platforms - but I'd rather not be part of the problem, so
> >I look for alternatives, and I always ask vendors about a
> >Linux version if I'm interested in their software.
>
> Nice explanation but the bottom line is the software is not available
> on Linux.
Ah, but it is available, haven't you been listening?
It's great to be able to do all my work on a Unix platform.
>
>
> >Slowly, things are changing.
>
> For the worse IMHO.
Sorry to hear of your windows woes!
Back when I started with Linux in 1993, there were no
apps except the simple utilities that came with the system -
but it was a great way to get into Unix.
But then there was mosaic - and a few months later, there
arose unofficial ports of doom and netscape.
Then in late 1996, there was quake.
The next year more apps slowly started appearing
The past year or two, it's been great, and getting better.
There's no putting the genie back in the bottle at this point.
jjs
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
