Linux-Advocacy Digest #371, Volume #32 Wed, 21 Feb 01 07:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux ("Karel Jansens")
Re: Into the abyss... (Bloody Viking)
Re: How much do you *NEED*? (Bloody Viking)
Re: Red Hat Fisher Beta ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: How much do you *NEED*? ("Angel Iglesias")
Re: MS seeks Gov't help to stop blacks from using computersRe: Microsoft (Bloody
Viking)
Re: MS seeks Gov't help to stop blacks from using computersRe: Microsoft (Bloody
Viking)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Shane Phelps)
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American Activities
Committee (Nick Condon)
Re: MS seeks Gov't help to stop blacks from using computersRe: Microsoft (Roberto
Selbach Teixeira)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Ian Davey)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Ian Davey)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Ian Davey)
Re: How much do you *NEED*? (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Allchin backtracks, now likes open source (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:53:39 -0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 19 Feb 2001
>
>>MS made Win32 programs work with existing DOS and windows drivers,
>>something that OS/2 didn't do. This was important to consumers, as was
>>the solid look and feel.[...]
>
> Blah blah blah. OS/2's only failing was it was competitive; Windows
> only value was Microsoft's anti-competitive control of the market.
>
> Everything else is pointless second-guessing. If MS *hadn't* broken the
> law by monopolizing and thereby prevented the market from making
> choices, it is possible that the market would have agreed with your
> ingenuous and cursory analysis. Based on what happened subsequent to
> MS's anti-competitive strategies, however, it seems highly unlikely.
>
There is a strangely persistent rumour in OS/2 circles that IBM had full
Win32 support as good as ready for the launch of Warp 4, but that they
"chose" to leave it out of the finished product, after considerable
"persuasion" from Microsoft.
It couldn't have been that difficult (*), given that the ODIN project (an open
source initiative of the OS/2 NetLabs) is pretty much achieving that goal
right now (It's pretty nifty: instead of going for the WinOS/2 emulation,
ODIN translates Win32 executables into OS/2 exes, so you end up with Word
2000 for OS/2(**)!).
(*) Not putting down the ODIN crowd, of course!
(**) Assuming anyone would really _want_ that...
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================
"Go go gadget linux." Zoomm!
==============================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Into the abyss...
Date: 21 Feb 2001 11:04:50 GMT
Masha Ku'Inanna ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I am not expert with UNIX or Linux, but had a few things to offer. I,
: myself, constantly get frustrated with Linux/UNIX but I keep coming back to
: the environment.
I've had my frustrating times too, but kept persisting too. It gets better
over time as you develop "pet policies", such as selection of hardware based
on your expierences. For example, with CD drives, I don't bother with CD
burners as I had bad luck with one in both Linux and Winblows. But generic IDE
CD drives are fine. I own a SCSI CD changer, but I never got it to fully work
on Linux.
: The whole point is that for all of its inherent difficulties and flaws, and
: incredibly overwhelming set of features and its formidable learning curve,
: the UNIX environment is stable, fast, and elegant in that it gives complete
: and total control to the user. It is a tool for YOU to use, and it is only
: as effective as the user/admin who claims to wield it. It runs on most
: hardware platforms, and does not have "minimum hardware/software"
: requirements used as marketting tools (well, schmucko, you cannot run the
: latest version of Office because it requires the latest version of windows,
: and you cannot run THAT version of windows because you have a 486 processor,
: 16 megs of ram, and a 2 meg video card. (I am exaggerating, I think these
: off the wall requirements run Office just fine under Win95, but you get my
: point)).
The bit with Windows "system requirements" (I swear, they add time-waste
routines) is a big reason I got fed up with Windows. Meanwhile, UNIX, like
booze, is definitely an acquired taste.
Nice litany of Winblows woes.
--
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: How much do you *NEED*?
Date: 21 Feb 2001 11:13:18 GMT
Jim Broughton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: This really would be a good piece of advocacy if you had not used all the foul
: language. Clean it up and repost it. Include more facts. The best advocacy is
: a smart advocacy not an obscene one.
If you want "mouth like a sailor" advocacy, check out Aaron Kulkus.
--
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: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Red Hat Fisher Beta
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 05:04:29 +0600
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
> Also, it appears that XF4 still doesn't support DPMS for terminal
> shutdown. It blanks the screen on cue, but never puts the monitor in
> standby or shutdown mode. (I think I noticed that in a release note a
> few weeks back, so I was warned. Still, I look forward to having it
> again.)
For the record, I was wrong about that. About an hour after posting I used
a search engine and easily found out how to set up DPMS under XF4, and now
it works just like it always did.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Angel Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How much do you *NEED*?
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:54:16 +0100
> > #1. You have to pay for your software.
> > The price of your software is going up all the time.
You have to pay for your software be it directly or
by paying your IT department.
> > #2. Your Windows OS is unreliable.
> > You can break Windows by installing a driver which
> > isn't ready for prime time. Or how about just
> > running your favorite app for too long a period of time.
Kernel unstable drivers do freeze your Linux as well. Recent
tests have proved that unlike BSD's, Linux can't even respond
to console requests after hours of intensive serving. There are
lots of X11 applications (KDE, GNOME and X11 ones) that
just crash or suddenly disappear.
> > #3. If your a developer for Windows, you end up having to join
> > the Microsoft Slave trade. You have to certify and then
> > re-certify for your certificate every time Windows comes
> > out with a new OS or new application. Microsoft can
> > DEEM your re-certification at *THEIR* whim! And *YOU* have
> > to *PAY* or loose your certification. And even if you *PAY*
> > and you *PASS* you can still be denyed your certification
> > as Microsoft has the final right to revoke it without reason
> > or cause.
How about the GNU/Linux, Unix, X11 mess ... which toolkit do
you want to use ? Have all of required dependencies ? Acceptable
versions ? GNU/Linux DOES need a lot of updating.
> > #4. Viruses in the form of VB scripts non-the-less! Isn't it
> > amazing that Microsoft Windows has been sucessfully attacked
> > by over 100 different types of VB script viruses sent in thru
> > E-mails and *YET TODAY* Microsoft Corp has yet to admit a fix
> > needs to be installed to help prevent the damage. They haven't
> > even admitted it's a problem! How incredible. And your the
> > stupid shit who's forking out the bucks for *THEIR* system...
A badly designed application does not mean anything about the underlaying
OS; anyway, as GNU/Linux becomes more popular, more virus, troyans and
exploits do appear ... very recently the Ramen worm as an example. More
features do mean more holes, be it Windows, Unix or whichever.
> > #6. Your OS is totally insecure. If communist Chineese can
> > steal all the source code from Microsoft HQ in Redmond,
> > right under their fucking noses, then why on earth do
> > you think your checkbook is safe? I mean, they stole
> > code from Microsoft for 4-6 weeks and were never discovered.
> > This is because Microsoft Windows Security is so lame, hacking
> > it is like stealing candy from a baby. I hear people boast
> > about how secure Windows products are every day. I'd like
> > to say that they are all dumbasses and don't know their asshole
> > from a hole in the ground.
> > Explain Why Redmond got ripped off for over a month and nobody
> > heard a single alarm bell go off? Microsoft HQ in Redmond...
> > Why.... Do you think your better then they are? If you are
> > why aren't you writing a fucking OS?
All of us do know Unix is bullet proof hehehe :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS seeks Gov't help to stop blacks from using computersRe: Microsoft
Date: 21 Feb 2001 11:18:32 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I don't think it's going to be that easy to market Linux to the working
: class. Most users are still techno-geeks, and most of these are middle
: class (or filthy rich) college kids.
I have to agree, but the effective death of warez would make non-Linux
computers useless to the working class. I'm one of the few working class Linux
users to be found ANYWHERE.
--
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: MS seeks Gov't help to stop blacks from using computersRe: Microsoft
Date: 21 Feb 2001 11:23:04 GMT
Aaron Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Which is why Gates doesn't like it.
Not to mention Intel. Only reason for a Linux user to upgrade gear is to get
all the better performance.
: I don't think he was being racist. He was saying that, like so many
: other who pretend to be "protecting the public" oftentimes have racial
: motives in mind.
Yeah, I know too well. This is a hazard of a culture with more than one ethnic
group. People get sensitive.
: Ever notice how the majority of the strictest gun-control laws are
: in those localities with a high proportion of black residents...
: and that these same gun laws ALWAYS allow exceptions for the very
: same people who claim that nobody "needs" a gun.
Of course. What else is new?
--
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: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:28:59 +1100
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> Bloody Viking wrote:
> >
> > . ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > : > Actually, a recent independent study (again, quoted by Microsoft Press Corp,
> > : > but still independently proven) has indicated that Microsoft's Win2k servers
> > : > can regularly incur up-time in the '5 9's' range. 99.999%.
> >
>
> This man is lying.
>
> That's 5 9's for a CLUSTER of 5 Lose2k machines.
>
> which is pretty pathetic...it means that with 4 or fewer Lose2k
> machines, it's almost certain that ALL FOUR MACHINES WILL BE
> DOWN SIMULTANEOUSLY for at least 5 minutes per year.
>
> Solaris can accomplish this with ONE machine.
> Linux too.
>
It really depends on your hardware (and it might be difficult in 3rd-world
areas like California ;-)
Given a good power supply and no need for an OS upgrade you could expect
a low-end SPARC box to stay up for about the first 3 years; then you
might
start to see hardware failures. You'd probably expect another 6-12 months
after the first disk failure if you're using mirrored disk. It can be a
bummer if you reboot without checking the md status and sd3 has failed :-(
Higher-end systems tend to be subject to data centre operations regimes,
so get taken down for hardware maintenance, adding disks, CPUs, RAM, etc
more frequently, but the site usually stays up because the users get shifted
to the hot spare. Starfires and SAN devices have changed the rules a bit,
but they've only been around a few years so it's hard to say just how
reliable they are yet :-)
Linux probably isn't quite as stable as Solaris, and Intel boxes tend not
to be built down to a price more than SPARC. There really aren't any Intel
boxes in the same league as the high-end Suns.
You probably need to cluster Solaris or Linux boxes to guarantee 5 nines
as well, though you'd usually load-share while both boxes are up.
To be fair to NT (and I haven't read the article) the reason for using
5-node clusters may be to improve the probability of the voting going
the right way. Apparently (and this might be computer folklore) there
was a reasonably high incidence of the majority being wrong in the old
3-way voting systems used by NASA and the military.
I almost forgot. A client had a HA Sequent box acting as an FTP gateway.
I think they installed it in 1994 or 1995, and eventually retired it
in 1999 because it wasn't Y2K-compliant (nary a reboot between going
live and switching off at the end of it's useful life) It probably stayed
up well into 2000. I guess some Intel boxes *can* be reliable after all.
[ snip ]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Activities Committee
Date: 21 Feb 2001 11:25:51 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> At the cost of a few human lives. (if you don't see the connection,
> look harder. If the Chinese government uses Linux for their primary
> OS, and changes are contributed to support the Chinese government,
> then clearly Linux is actively being used to assist human rights
> violations)
>
> If that doesn't matter to you, no big deal. If it does, you'd be a
> hypocrite to use Linux.
Will you be boycotting the written word then, since the Chinese invented
the printing press? How about gunpowder?
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: Roberto Selbach Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS seeks Gov't help to stop blacks from using computersRe: Microsoft
Date: 21 Feb 2001 08:50:57 -0300
On 21 Feb 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Aaron Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>: Which is why Gates doesn't like it.
>
> Not to mention Intel. Only reason for a Linux user to upgrade gear
> is to get all the better performance.
>
Actually, Intel is supporting (financing) Linux development.
--
Roberto Selbach Teixeira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Conectiva, S.A. http://www.conectiva.com
When bored with life, try Vi and experiment suffering.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:52:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> True, but the fewer weapons in circulation the lower your chances of getting
> shot.
>
>Actually not.
>It merely emboldens criminals to use guns without fear of retaliation.
Okay prove it then, list the number of UK (non-criminal) citizens shot by
criminals with handguns since the ban. How do the vast majority of police
officers manage to walk the streets without a gun of any kind?
The fact is there never has been a gun culture in the UK. Even when handguns
were legal people didn't carry them around to defend themselves. Amongst
civilians and non-criminals they were only used for sport.
I'm twenty six and have never seen a handgun in my entire life, outside of a
movie screen. Mainly because I don't visit shooting ranges.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:55:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No. We live in a democracy and we are free to not have guns if we wish. I
>
>And what about those who...decide they don't like that law.
>
>News reports I've been reading indicate that they have kept their guns,
>and are using them MORE often against law-abiding citizens.
So you're saying that gun owners are minded to use their weapons against law
abiding citizens? That's exactly why they were banned.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:59:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Guns are specifically designed to kill, alcohol isn't. You could
>> also put an end to DUI's by banning cars, but they're not designed
>> to kill either.
>
>Hmmm, nobody I know bought a gun to kill people with. They buy them
>for sport, defense and hunting (admittedly, hand guns are not used
>much in hunting -- although they are used occasionally).
That's not what I said. Guns are designed to kill, they can be used for
hunting (isn't that killing), or sport, but killing is what they're designed
to do.
Shotguns, rifles, etc. that are used for hunting aren't banned here.
>I wouldn't be against banning hand guns, but there has to be
>consensous by 2/3 majority (at least here in the US).
I doubt if even that would work in your case, the US gun lobby is extremely
powerful.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How much do you *NEED*?
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:06:53 +1000
Angel Iglesias wrote:
>
>
> How about the GNU/Linux, Unix, X11 mess ... which toolkit do
> you want to use ? Have all of required dependencies ? Acceptable
> versions ? GNU/Linux DOES need a lot of updating.
>
I have to partly agree here, fewer toolkits would probably lead to a
more concentrated development effort on good X11 apps and the toolkits
themselves. Until then I will have to install one toolkit library per
X11 app?
IanP
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Allchin backtracks, now likes open source
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:08:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Hanson wrote:
>Adam Warner wrote:
>>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> > "Allchin's concerns, eWEEK was told, stem fromGPL paragraph (2B), which
>> > states, "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
>> > whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
>> > thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties
>> > under the terms of this License."
>> >
>> > so he doesn't hate all open source, just the type M$ can't hijack.
>>
>> This is a much more useful and transparent response. Microsoft have
>> admitted that Allchin was not misquoted.
>>
>> It is also transparent that Microsoft wants to embrace and extend free
>> software. Taking over free software and making it proprietary is much
>> harder with the GPL. We can all understand why Microsoft feels threatened
>> in this respect.
>>
Good. And there's nothing they can do about it.
>> I found it amusing that Microsoft representatives still couldn't stop
>> themselves from spouting nonsense. We are now supposed to believe that the
>> GPL will constrain innovation stemming from taxpayer funded software
>> development.
>>
Yes. We will admit it. We held a gun to Nasa and the NSA's head to
use Linux. We forced all those universities to use Linux also.
It's the old use it or we'll kill you philosophy.
>> And this is the underlying motivation for Microsoft's continuing assault
>> against open source software: Microsoft wants to poison any initiatives for
>> government to spend money on open source software development.
>>
They may want to, but they can't.
All those government organizations need to accomplish a task, and
they chose Linux to do this with as it's easier to work with and
easier to re-distribute. No license hassles.
They will never choose closed source software for major projects.
And Microsoft is right, Linux is like a gigantic mushroom dustcloud
and Microsoft is inside the storm. Every direction they look, even
UP is closed off for them now.
Linux has not taken over their market, it has fully encompassed
Microsofts Market. And there's nothing they can do about it.
If the Government *WERE TO PASS LEGISLATION* which banned government
contributions of code to Linux, private vendors would be using Linux
anyway. There is nothing to stop those private vendors from using Linux.
They are selling Linux to the Navy right now to replace Microsoft, Airforce
too! There was an article about it in the Linux Journal this month.
Don't forget about embedded Linux chips taking on Cisco! Cisco is very
worried about this as now they have over 100 competitors when before they
had none.
Even if the Government were stupid enought to ban contributions of code
from NASA or the NSA or whoever, the vendors would just haul it in anyway.
Microsoft has to face the facts that it has died.
It just has to face those facts.
And if your a manager who's proposed Microsoft for your business,
I think you should retire. You've just become useless to our
organization. Retire.
>> Also notice how we:
>>
>> (a) Now have "Microsoft representatives" instead of a real person being
>> quoted making the comments.
>>
This just means their serious.
>> (b) Microsoft uses the term "taxpayer-funded" software development,
>> instead of government funded. They want to make out that government has no
>> business spending taxpayer money on software development. This of course
>> ignores the present government spending upon proprietary software. If this
>> dependence could be reduced then taxpayers would likely save money,
>> especially in the longer term.
>>
They will have zero chance of stopping "taxpayer-funded" software development.
Just look at that line. "Microsoft uses the term "taxpayer-funded" software
development, instead of government funded. Well, taxpayers pay taxes, and
governments run from the money taxpayers pay, so what is the difference
between government funded and taxpayer funded? Are they saying we can
only be payed off with crisp new $20's from the mint? What are they saying
here? From what I've seen of Microsoft infiltration of the Federal
Government, State Government and Local Government, I believe they should
be permanently banned from contracts. We should ban all proprietary software
and pass an ammendment that only free/open source software can be used.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
