Linux-Advocacy Digest #119, Volume #33 Mon, 26 Mar 01 21:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux dying ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Too expensive, too invasive (was: Re: uh oh, redhat is gonna do it) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP. (Rex Ballard)
Re: gates messiah (Matt Kennel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dying
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 20:57:45 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >>
> > >> MS wants out of the operating system business, hence we see .NET.
> > >
> > >No, MS wants to make the OS irrelevant. They want the decision
> > >in buying an OS not really matter. That way, people will by
> > >Windows just because it runs .NET better, but their main motivation
> > >will be in buying the best .NET Server for their services.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Of course, none of Microsoft's HailStorm and .NET strategies have anything
> > at all to do with providing users with better products or computing power
> > and use, it's all about getting more control to Microsoft.
>
> WATCH OUT! HERE COME THE BLACK HELIOCOPTERS!
>
> > Will .NET benefit users: no.
>
> Let's see, getting real time flight information, being able to notify
> my loved ones 30 minutes before I land so that they can come pick me up,
> being instant messaged when I'm outbid on an auction, getting real-time
> customer support chat with an American Express customer support
> representative...
> nah, that doesn't benefit the consumers at all!
And this requires .NET to get functionality that doesn't already
exist today how, exactly?
Accuracy counts, so be precise, Chad.
>
> -c
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,soc.singles,alt.os.linux.redhat,comp.os.linux.redhat,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Too expensive, too invasive (was: Re: uh oh, redhat is gonna do it)
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 20:58:53 -0500
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> Jim Dandie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : It appears RH is trying to old B. Gates routine...mapping the config
> : and using it to their advantage...What else are they grabbing from
> : your box?
>
> This does sound suspicious. It seems like a law of economics that a company
> will always use lock-in with software. Microshit is the obvious classic of
> course, but every app maker fucks with file formats, Netscape singlehandedly
> fucked up the web, and now Red Hat is trying it.
>
Netscape singlehandedly made the Web a household term.
> Proceed with caution!
>
> --
> 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.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP.
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 01:59:18 GMT
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============7051FD57F7AED84B44E15EFF
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Brian Rourke wrote:
>
> First, a disclaimer. I am not a programmer or an IT professional of
> any kind. I am just an amateur, but a fairly competent user. I have
> never had much trouble getting Windows and Windows programs to do what
> I want them to do (and I *hate* Windows).
>From you comments, I'm going to assume that you are at least 20 years
old,
that you have been using windows since at least Windows 3.1 (10
years), and
that you have probably never used anything BUT Windows in the last 5
years.
During that time, you probably took some time to ask questions of
fellow
users, to get support from IT support people (by phone or in person),
that
you've been to CompUSA to test-drive the latest versions of Windows
such
as Windows 98 and Windows ME. You may even have a copy of Windows
2000
at work.
I will stretch a bit farther and assume that you average at least 40
hours/week
or roughly 2000 hours/year for the last 10 years. I realize this
could be
a flawed assumption, but from your writing style, you seem to be a bit
more
mature than many.
In addition, you have probably seen many Microsoft ads in magazines,
on
television, and on the Internet.
> It may be that Linux is
> fine for experts and professionals, in which case my only mistake is
> to have ever bothered. But, if so, why are Linux companies trying to
> market their product to non-experts?
Apparently they are more "expert" than you. No offense intended.
How many times did you go to the computer store, say Best-Buy,
CompUSA,
Circuit City, or even WalMart and test drive Linux? How many hours
did
you spend on your friend's Linux workstation or laptop?
> My hunch is that Linux is just a
> bad product and the companies involved in trying to market this snake
> oil are second-raters, cultists and imbeciles.
Or perhaps you really aren't yet qualified to make such a
determination.
About once a week, we get some poster who is rather upset because he
has been unsuccessful in performing an unassisted configuration of
Linux.
This would be like deciding that Spanish was a terrible language
because
you spent three hours in Mexico, with no prior study of Spanish, and
couldn't
understand a word of the dialogue.
It's not that you are stupid, you simply haven't had the chance to
create
a background of knowledge that approaches your current knowledge of
English,
or Windows.
> One clownish outfit, whose name begins with "M," is
> also highly dishonest, having both lied
> to me on an important matter and failed to
> provide any promised support.
> I have reached this conclusion based upon my personal experience only.
Let's review the extent of this experience.
> In my opinion, any operating system that will NOT INSTALL is by
> definition crap.
Perhaps. It may be something very simple. Which distribution did you
install? Which hardware did you have trouble installing? Which
programs
did you try to install? Was your hardware actually supported?
> A good PC operating system should be easily
> installable by a moderately informed layperson on any common
> equipment.
That isn't necessarily true. Installing Windows 2000 on a 486/SX with
VLB and ST-506 hard drive controllers is likely to be unpleasant, to
say
the least. Windows 95 First Edition had a very difficult time with
EISA
and VLB.
> Though it is a terrible OS, Windows can be installed in
> less than an hour, which means that it beats Linux hands down right
> there.
True, the OS can be installed in about an hour, but if you want a full
suite of applications, system management tools, server capabilities,
games,
and utility programs, this installation process generally takes quite
a bit
longer. If you are using manual installation using InstallShield, on
a
Windows NT machine, you will have to reboot the machine numerous
times,
will have to be physically located in front of the machine for several
hours,
and mistakes can render certain applications inoperable. DLL
conflicts,
faulty uninstalls, and conflicts between service packs.
> I have tried to install three different Linux distributions on my PC,
> and each attempt has failed in exactly the same way. Though my hard
> drive is partitioned in exactly the way the manuals instruct, the
> installation software always fails to detect my hard drive and
> reboots. Now, I do not own any obscure hardware. My computer a
> recent Gateway E-4200. Of course, Gateway is one of the most common
> brands out there. In my opinion anyone marketing a piece of software
> that cannot run with 100% compatibility on common equipment is at
> least an idiot, at worst a crook.
Gateway makes a number of computers that are Linux compatible. If you
were planning on installing Linux, you might have found the sales
staff
quite supportive in helping you select the options most suited to that
use.
Microsoft and Linux often leap-frog each other. Keep in mind that
Gateway
creates a custom CD-ROM designed to install Windows ME (or whatever)
on your
machine. Try using a Hewlett-Packard CD-ROM to install Windows on
your
Gateway machine. It doesn't work very well. Even a "stock" Windows
ME
CD-ROM may require custom drivers (usually included on the CD included
with your computer).
Someone has gotten Linux to run on a similar machine.
http://www.pubs.gmu.edu/tools.html
http://www-oss.fnal.gov/fss/hypermail/archives/hyp-linux/0106.html
In fact, a simple search of Google indicates that there this is a
pretty popular Linux machine.
There does seem to be reference to a Problem with Red Hat 6.2, a
configuration problem.
You do have more memory and larger disk drives than the "default"
system configurations support. No problem though. you can still
install Mandrake, Caldera, and SuSE with some moderate support.
> The first time this failure happened it may have been my fault, as the
> developers may not have had time to make their distributions
> compatible with my newish computer.
Keep in mind that many OEMs have machines that are deliberately
designed
to exploit the best features of Linux. They run Windows pretty well
as well.
Many will run Linux with no difficulty at all.
> But I have waited for new
> versions of popular distributions, again with no success. These
> cretins aren't even trying to make their product work with common
> hardware types.
A quick look ad google shows that several recent releases support
the Gateway E-4200.
It's not that you are somehow deficient. It took you some time to
learn Windows tricks, it will take you some time to learn Linux
tricks.
It's a very good idea to start with a release that targets newcomers
(Mandrake 7.2 specializes in this market). You should also pay for
the software, and don't be bashful about calling the support number.
These companies know that new Linux users have trouble with
installations
and often know some very simple techniques to make that first install
much easier. If you can get a friend who uses Linux to help you,
that's
even better. Usually, they've been through it a time or two and will
sidestep some of the nastier problems.
> Why not test? It only takes a minute to see that the
> product DOES NOT WORK. Why is it that even the awful Microsoft stuff
> never has this problem?
Actually, Linux gets some very exhaustive testing, and when problems
are
found, bug reports -- AND -- fixes, usually follow quite quickly.
There
are hundreds of video cards, lan cards, motherboards, and sound cards,
and
the permutations can be staggering. Generally, however, Linux does a
pretty good job of configuring itself once you get beyond some simple
problems.
> If your product won't install with great ease on common equipment,
> then it sucks. If someone tried to market some great new tire that
> didn't work on GM, Nissan or Ford cars, that person would immediately
> be dismissed as a lunatic.
Yes, but if you tried to put Suburban tires on your Honda Civic, and
you
fished the tires out of a dumpster, and tried to mount them yourself,
you'd
be displaying your lack of knowledge of tires if you tried to claim
that
Suburban tires were really bad because they were the wrong size for
your
Civic.
> I am also struck by how difficult it is to get even basic information
> about hardware compatibility on these companies' websites.
A quick search of Google gave me over 700 listings. I used
+Linux +Gateway "E 4200"
as a search target. There are a few unusual things about your system,
and the work-arounds are pretty simple.
> My hard drive and controller are not even mentioned,
> though they are very common models.
Most IDE drives are supported. Some SCSI controllers require special
handling (typing different answers during the configuration dialogue).
Unless you special ordered some really esoteric drives, you shouldn't
have
too much problem. You will have to specify your transfer speed for
systems
over 33 mhz. Both Mandrake and SuSE provide a way to specify these
options
in the dialogue.
> How hard is it to say, "We don't support these."?
Call the distributor. It's very likely that they do support them.
As I said, you have a faster Ultra-IDE controller, a larger disk
drive,
and more RAM than is found by default. Often, Linux assumes that you
will be using the rest for something else such as WINE, VMWare, or
Lin4Win.
> Again, incompetence and arrogance are the rule with these Linux
> developers, IMO. Even worse, there's nothing mentioned in the Red Hat
> or Mandrake FAQs about this very simple problem. I know from browsing
> the USENET archives that I'm not the only person to have this problem.
But did you call the maker? I've had a few situations where I have
had to
call Red Hat, Mandrake (LinuxCare actually), and Caldera. Each gave
me
immediate answers to problems that I hadn't solved in nearly 2 hours.
In one case, there was a known problem in some of the CD-Printings.
I typed in a one line command and everything was working normally.
> Why not try to help people, even if only to say "We can't help you.
> Stick with your old OS until we can."? The reason is obvious: they
> don't want to admit their product has such a basic, fundamental flaw.
Actually, Comp.os.linux.advocacy is not the best place to get help.
We discuss issues like yours, but more with regard to having the legal
barriers created by Microsoft's illegal lock-out contracts nullified.
The reality is that you really haven't even tried Linux yet. You have
had to suffer through repeated unsuccessful installations because you
weren't able to get the system preinstalled by the manufacturer, you
weren't
able to get a distribution configured for your machine customized by
the
manufacturer, and you weren't able to take Linux for a test-drive at
your
local Circuit City, Best-Buy, CompUSA, or Gateway dealership. Keep in
mind that Microsoft has used intense legal leverage to make sure that
you didn't.
> When I first decided to give Linux a try, it was with great
> enthusiasm. I have never liked Windows, and have often wanted a more
> stable and flexible alternative.
I'm very sorry that you weren't able to find anyone willing to help
you get Linux properly configured and working. Many Linux users are
quite happy to help others get Linux running. The first installation
is a bit challenging. It takes some time, you need to read the
directions
carefully, and you need to ask for help if your aren't sure. But once
everything is working correctly, you may be quite happy with Linux.
> But I have been forced to conclude,
> after many hours of frustrating and fruitless labor over several
> months, that Linux is not it and never will be.
I have always suggested to new Linux users that they need to start
with
a fully functional, properly installed Linux system, spend at least 20
hours per week for 13 weeks USING Linux, trying out the different
features,
before they can really make any reccomendations to others. You have
20,000 hours worth of Windows experience, it's really not unreasonable
to ask for 130 hours (not including installation and configuration)
to learn a bit about Linux before you begin pontificating in a public
forum.
> For those of you out there who are, like me,
> amateur computer users, my advice is to avoid
> Linux like the plague.
More importantly, don't make the same mistake Brian made. Don't
expect
to be able to download some assorted packages off your cable modem,
install them on hardware that is known to require special
configuration
terms, refuse to ask for help from anybody, and then publish your
"Expert Opinion" on a group read by over 35,000 of the most militant
Linux supporters in the industry (comp.os.linux.advocacy).
If you MUST attempt to install Linux entirely on your own, start with
a fairly standard machine (Pentium, IDE, S3 video, SoundBlaster sound,
and no USB).
If you are thinking about installing Linux in the future and you are
buying
a new machine, ask very pointed questions. Ask for a machine that has
been
certified to run Linux. If the sales clerk can't help you, leave the
store,
hang up, or go to another site. There are dozens of computer makers
who would be happy to help you get a Linux compatible system. Why
purchase
from a Linux-hostile or Linux-ignorant clerk whose only interest is
the
commission he get if he can sell you the most expensive Microsoft-only
hardware and tons of software at $100-$400/package.
> This is just my opinion, but it is based on
> lots of experience that, believe me, you don't want to repeat.
I feel bad for you. It's very unfortunate that you had so much
difficulty.
> In short, Linux will be remembered before too long as just another
> bump on Microsoft's road to industry domination. And its failure will
> be in part the fault of inept companies out to make a fast buck.
Much the way UNIX will be remembered as just another bump in the road
on DEC's road to industry domination of the Minicomputer market. :-)
> Brian
>
--
Rex Ballard
It Architect
http://www.open4success.com
==============7051FD57F7AED84B44E15EFF
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="rballard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Rex Ballard
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="rballard.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Ballard;Rex
tel;cell:908-723-4008
tel;work:973-723-4008
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fn:Rex Ballard
end:vcard
==============7051FD57F7AED84B44E15EFF==
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Kennel)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: gates messiah
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 02:01:14 +0000 (UTC)
Reply-To: mbkennel@<REMOVE THE BAD DOMAIN>yahoo.spam-B-gone.com
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 01:36:24 GMT, BrendaLee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
:
:Matt Kennel wrote:
:> May attempt 'kill -SOUL' on any PID at any time, even the
:> calling process. (in that event see 'anakin 666')
:
:I'd much rather see
:'anakin' (kiss kiss kiss)
That signal is not used by the alliance.
--
* Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
*
* "To chill, or to pop a cap in my dome, whoomp! there it is."
* Hamlet, Fresh Prince of Denmark.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
