Linux-Advocacy Digest #183, Volume #33 Thu, 29 Mar 01 22:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (mlw)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Barry Manilow)
Microsoft Refunds?? (GreyCloud)
Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP. (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP. (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Some OS security thoughts (GreyCloud)
Re: Windows, Linux and evolutionary models ("JLI")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux dying ("Chad Myers")
Fun With Parallel Ports. (Bloody Viking)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 21:36:38 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure what you are saying, but I think Darwin was right, I mean really
right, EVERYTHING works by survival of the fittest.
The problem is when we try to understand what "fittest" is. The "fittest"
entity is very hard to predict, even when one is down does not mean it is out.
Sometimes, a small detraction is seen in a creature, but a resurgence often
follows. Think of the Wolf and Coyote in the U.S. Once thought to be all but
gone, are well on their way back. They are natural survivors.
If you want to get real into the whole darwin thing, the idea of unregulated
everyone for themselves capitalism is very new and unproved. Typically, tribes
or communities would work as a group and trade as a group, this anything for a
buck mentality has always been frowned upon in the past.
Open source is more like successful human behavior than is the closed source
model. Open Source works on a community level. We as a community share what we
do, and trade on the output of the whole. The Microsoft's of the world can't
hope to compete in the long run. Sooner or later, the sheer number of open
source developers will be able to out produce every software company. Since we
share our results we slowly build a mass of reusable code, where as companies
that come and go never accumulate.
Will Linux win? Who knows? Linux is getting a bit long in the teeth, and 2.4
was a big effort. Will 2.6 be harder? What about 2.8? 3.0? Can Linux expand and
deal with the advances in technology? Who knows. Can anyone else?
My bet is on the UNIX/Open Source model.
> One says (Chad Everett), there is no connection with Darwin. What he
> says is quite right, but I think there is one.
>
> Because no one knows which is going to happen in future!! So, the method
> of developing software could be labeled as "intelligent", but if I ask
> you; do you think the person which designed your body is intelligent??
>
> I am sure you would say "yes", independent of the fact, according to
> Darwin's theory, no "person" developed you. I think you can say that
> developing software is going the same way as the evolution process, but
> going *much* faster!
>
> But I am still thinking all day about this, and can not solve this
> question. So, please react if you have an other argument.
>
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:33:55 -0800
"T. Mx Devlin" wrote:
NT is
> certainly faster, and better able to handle I/O and multi-tasking.
I believe it has been shown over and over that NT is about 20% slower
than Win 98, which was 20% slower to Win95. WinME has been shown to
be 10% slower than Win98. Win2K is the slowest of all. A friend has
it on a 700 MHZ and it is so slow it is depressing. I just got thru
using NT on a 600 MHZ with 128 MB and it was quite slow. Like a
lumbering beast.
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Other (describe)
[ ] None of the above
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Microsoft Refunds??
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:39:29 -0800
http://www.linuxmall.com/refund/
This site seems to have a lot of interesting web sites in reference to
Microsoft refunds. Still looking into the others. Zork.net doesn't
seem to exist from this end.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP.
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:52:31 +1200
One person I would really hate to see in charge of the US is Steve Jobs.
Could you imagine the havoc that would be unlessed! some finds out a
secret, and Steve (who is renound for is "quick to fire" response, esp.
the case of the ATI Randeon debarkle) would nuke the person. Personally,
I would like to see Magarate Thature in charge of the US, balls of
steel, ruling with an iron fist.
Matthew Gardiner
Brian Rourke wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 20:38:18 +1200, Matthew Gardiner
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> In New Zealand, we hate large, bossy corporates that dictate what should happen,
>hence the
>> reason why it never happen in New Zealand, it would be political suicide. Most tax
>cuts of the
>> last 9 years have been for Jane and Joe average, not large corporates that produce
>nothing.
>> With that being said, three companies come to mind, The Warehouse, Hubbards Foods
>and
>> Mainfreight are three companies that pay their taxes, treat there employees with
>respect, and
>> still turn over a bloody reasonable profit. Those are examples of companies that
>New Zealanders
>> like. Unfortunately, there is a bottom-kissing-cultural inbred in the Yankee brain
>that makes
>> them put large corporates on pedestals (for those who don't know, its a small
>chair), claiming
>> how great they are, an example of this idiocy would be Microsoft, how many,
>uneducated idiots
>> still put Microsoft on a soap box claiming how great they are?
>>
>
>
> I'm just outraged that you would say that bottom-kissing of
> corporations is an inbred Yankee trait. Why, look at our current
> President and our previous President. They would never kiss corporate
> butt.
>
> In the US some people are no doubt wondering right now why we don't
> just get it overwith and make Gates President. After all, he's a
> "winner" and a "leader." We like those.
>
> ;)
>
>
>> A couple of days ago, a brewer (DB Brewers), which is a multi-billion dollar
>company, tried to
>> close down one of its manufacturing plants in the West Coast (in the South Island,
>> http://search.nzoom.com:9999/?NZoom+NZoomHTML+start0+quant10+search=Monteith for
>the full
>> story), simply put, they were going to close down a very profitable plant just to
>save 20%, and
>> move the production of the "boutique" beer up to Auckland, the locals got pissed
>off, and what
>> do you know, a nation wide boycott of DB Products, after 3 days, they (DB) changed
>their tune,
>> and have agreed to keep the plant open.
>>
>
>
> Very cool. Thanks for injecting a happy story into the thread.
>
> Brian
>
>
> The late spring sunshine flooded,
> like a bursted tepid star,
> the pink Boulevard. The people
> beneath crawled like wounded insects
> of cloth.
>
> Wyndham Lewis
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP.
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:03:16 +1200
The problem you experienced is not unique in that Windows NT and 2000
are very picky about the quality of your hardware. I tried to install
Windows 2000 on my parents computer and it failed to load (I hung at the
"Windows 2000 Setup" screen, where it is loading and detecting your hard
disk and cdrom etc). I later found it was my whole motherboard and
memory dimm (as I tried to install it on my computer with the memory
module in my "problem free computer" and it failed to load, however,
when I took it out, it loaded perfectly). I'm quite surprised that
Linux failed, as on my parents "faulty" computer it loaded perfectly.
Mind you, I was probably one of the lucky ones who got the last of the
linux BX based Intel Motherboards, which supposidly are meant to be one
of Intels best chips sets.
Matthew Gardiner
Eugenio Mastroviti wrote:
> Brian Rourke wrote:
>
> [huge snip]
>
> I'm intrigued - I have recently had a comparable experience with a Dell
> system we have had to send back to the manifacturer.
>
> We have never been able to find out why, but NO version of Linux would
> install on it. Nor would NT 4.0, which is the only other OS it's
> possible to use in my company (software compatibility problems, some
> pieces of software won't work on 95/98/ME). The only OS that would
> install - without a problem - was, in fact, the crappiest: we didn't try
> 95, but 98 and ME worked without a hitch. Win 2000 install didn't even
> boot.
>
> Could you send me some more details about your system?
>
> Thanks
>
> Eugenio
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some OS security thoughts
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 18:59:32 -0800
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : ...
> :> No e-mail package should run programs without serious user feedback. It
> : should
> :> be almost impossible to "accidentally" run a program sent via Email, even
> : then,
> :> if at all possible, the program should be run in a protected environment.
>
> : While my Unix mail prevents me from running scripts that are sent to me, the
> : way it achieves this is just to make things difficult. I'd gladly switch to
> : the first email program that let me run a script that's sent to me just by
> : clicking on it. A warning message before executing is okay, but saving it to
> : a file and running chmod before I can do anything with it isn't.
>
> Ummm . . . .
>
> How do you know it wasn't altered in transit?
>
> Are you going to inspect it first?
>
> Will it have root privileges?
>
> Are you willing to essentially trade the integrity of your system in
> order to gain a very small amount of convenience?
>
> Is it really that hard to save, chmod, inspect, and run if all looks
> OK?
>
> If it is hard, then do you really have any business running the script?
>
> : For me, that's a fine solution, but an even better solution would be to have
> : that protected environment you mention. When I want to run a script, I
> : almost always know who it's from, and what it should be doing. Still, even a
> : source I trust might send an infected file, and a protected environment
> : would prevent serious problems.
>
> But you have a protected environment now. You have all the
> protections I alluded to above. It's tedious to undo those
> protections, but if you do, then you make your system much less
> secure. They exist for a reason.
>
> : As far as I know, W2k has no protected environment to execute programs or
> : scripts. But, as far as I know, my Sun Unix environment doesn't either. Is
> : there such an environment in Linux? And, let's be inclusive here. I don't
> : often receive executables, but I might receive script files as various shell
> : scripts, perl, python, and so on. What I really want is something that runs
> : any shell script in a protected environment, not just Java scripts in a
> : protected Java VM. Does that exist in Linux?
>
> You could run the script under a different user account with very
> limited privileges and maybe a chroot environment.
>
> But I wouldn't even do that without at least looking at it.
>
> Joe
Out of curiosity, what is JTAE??
--
V
------------------------------
From: "JLI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows, Linux and evolutionary models
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:55:55 GMT
===== Original Message =====
From: Andy Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: Windows, Linux and evolutionary models
> Natural selection partly relies on the ability to adapt to the future. As
> the future almost certainly involves multiuser, multitasking and
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> multiplatform not to mention stability,...
There is no evidence for this claim. On the contrary, techenically UNIX has
been on the
market for over 20 years, and has lost ground to newcomes like Windows
which focuse on a single platform. If the Darwinian hypothesis holds true
for
OS as a whole, UNIX is more likely lacking something what Windows offers.
Linux's challenge for commercial software is not its technical
"superiority", but from
the momentum of the free software movement. I do think this challenge is
REAL for
the whole software industry. It make at first OS free, then Office software,
then
database, then everything that makes real money. As a hoppyist i would
probably like that, but not as one who lives from software!
> >
> >Note that I'm NOT trying to defend Windows here. In fact, my fondest
> >memories are of the days when I had a PDP2 at home (home built), a PDP3
at
> >work, ran RT11 on both, and could use PIP for anything!! But I gotta
tell
> >you: I say that to any of our 200 users at the hospital where I manage
the
> >IS dept, or even to my younger, Windows-only employees, and I get nothing
> >but blank looks and/or pitying stares. To them, GUI is everything.
More,
> >in fact. GUI _that_looks_ and_behaves_just_like_Windows_ is everything!!
> >
Why not defending Windows? Because they make too much money and we don't
make so much? I don't think it is a shame do make software development a
good money making business.
> >Finally, there is the whole issue of time. It is easy to forget how
> >_long_ real evolution--even just individual
> >natural-selection-events--take. Perhaps our time-constants for the
> >removal of an eggregious OS are simply wrong. It won't happen in a few
> >months, but will in a few years. Still, this doesn't give me as much
hope
> >as it would. If it is gonna take years to displace Windows, that's
alotta
> >BSODs I still have to look forward to.
My guess is that Darvinian hypothesis holds only more low lever features
like
ASCII and hierarchical data structure, e.g. file system, XML, etc..
J. X. Li
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:04:48 -0800
Barry Manilow wrote:
>
> "T. Mx Devlin" wrote:
>
> NT is
> > certainly faster, and better able to handle I/O and multi-tasking.
>
> I believe it has been shown over and over that NT is about 20% slower
> than Win 98, which was 20% slower to Win95. WinME has been shown to
> be 10% slower than Win98. Win2K is the slowest of all. A friend has
> it on a 700 MHZ and it is so slow it is depressing. I just got thru
> using NT on a 600 MHZ with 128 MB and it was quite slow. Like a
> lumbering beast.
> --
> Bob
> Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
> today!
> Why do you think you are being flamed?
> [ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
> [ ] You started an off-topic thread
> [ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
> [ ] People don't like your tone of voice
> [ ] Other (describe)
> [ ] None of the above
Hello Barry. Thats about what I've read in the microsoft performance
ng.
It just keeps getting slower by each release. Some say Solaris is slow,
but on my machine as compared to win98, its a lot faster than win98.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dying
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:53:04 GMT
"WesTralia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "WesTralia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "WesTralia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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!
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Psssssssst... Mr Myers... all that technology is already in place and
> > > > > available, today!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, you have sort of reworded your original, but here goes.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Psst: no it isn't.
> > > >
> > > > Please show me where I can have my relatives instant messaged when my
> > > > plane is nearing landing.
> > > >
> > >
> > > telephone
> >
> > LOL, right. This is an automatic service? Where can I sign up for this
> > so that the airline notifies them via telephone?
> >
> > Ok, now back to the real world, where can I have this done through
> > an instant messenging service or otherwise through the computer?
> >
>
> It's easier than that! You call them or text message them on your...
> <drum roll, please.....> CELL PHONE!
>
> Chad, here's the schematics for this new fangled technology:
>
> [cell phone] ------ message ------> [cell phone]
> <----- message -------
>
> In fact, I did exactly that returning from London this past month.
But still, it's manually initiated. Not to mention the fact that
the FCC won't allow you to use your cell phone in-flight.
-c
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Fun With Parallel Ports.
Date: 30 Mar 2001 03:09:19 GMT
I'm currently building a light show machine to hook to a parallel port. The
idea is the ol' cable/transistors/relays type device to be controlled by
poking a byte into the port's memory address. (using C, of course!)
I have an old add-a-parallel-port card which I pulled out. I put it in the
computer to use it as my light show card, as it can add two parallel ports.
(imagine 16 relays chattering like mad!)
Now, for the fun part. The lame BIOS sets the card as LPT1 and the original as
LPT2. That last port is disabled. I tried setting it in the BIOS to make the
original LPT1and have the ISA card with the parallel ports (the "light show
card") as LPT2.
I would like the computer's original parallel port be LPT1 so the light show
relays can be attached to an ISA card instead of the mainboard in case a
disaster happens.
An alternative is to set the printer driver to use the computer's original
port instead of the ISA card port, leaving it open to mess with. Which file
would I have to edit so as to switch the printer to the LPT2 port?
--
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
******************************
