Linux-Advocacy Digest #631, Volume #31 Sun, 21 Jan 01 06:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (Lewis Miller)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (J Sloan)
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows curses fast computers (J Sloan)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows curses fast computers ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Linux/390: Industrial-scale computing (longish) (Marten Kemp)
Please tell me your motherboard name if it works properly in Linux (Jerry Wong)
Re: Windows Has Lost ("Adam Warner")
Re: Windows Has Lost (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Edward Rosten)
FYI: Linux Software Encyclopedia ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (Edward Rosten)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. (Ed Allen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: 21 Jan 2001 08:06:02 GMT
was heard ranting about <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
alt.linux.sux on 20 Jan 2001
>On 20 Jan 2001 20:37:52 GMT, Lewis Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>Aaron R. Kulkis was heard ranting about <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>in alt.linux.sux on 19 Jan 2001
>>
>>>Lewis Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis was heard ranting about
>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in alt.linux.sux on 16 Jan 2001
>>>>
>>>> >Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >Translation...
>>>> >the $200 product [Lose9x] crashes every couple of hours
>>>> >the $1000 product [LoseNT] crashes only once/week.
>>>> >The $25 product [Linux] will stay up for months.
>>>> ^^^
>>>> $25?!?! Damn you're gettin ripped off.. last I checked Linux was
>>>> free. :) I've never paid for it. Even my CD versions.
>>>
>>>It's nice having the manuals around, for distribution quirks/features
>>>so that you can loan it to a friend with some degree of confidence
>>>that they will return your linux disks within a reasonable amount of
>>>time.
>>
>>Manuals? Last I checked they were on the CD.
>>
>>>> Besides forget NT get 2000 if you're going to run a Windows box.
>>>
>>>Why would i want to do something as stupid as that?
>>
>>Um, because 2000 supports a hell of a lot more hardware than NT. 2000
>>is a lot more stable than NT. 2000 has more tools than NT.
>
> It also supports less hardware than Win9x.
2000? Um.. no check again. The 2000 newer compile of the kernel has plenty
of base hardware support.So far I haven't run into a piece of hardware that
hasn' worked on my NT box. At least not that Did work on 9x.
> It also supports less software than Win9x.
Again, no I don't think so. Although I have heard this from some ppl. When
they name programs that don't work a few have been ones that I've never
tried, and others are ones that I run under 2000 fine. Turns out they just
didn't config it right. I've gotten enough stuff to run under 2000 that I
couldn't get to work under 9x .
> I've had desktop applications choke during Win2k installs.
> Some older and newer hardware is not supported by Win2k
> (voodoo rush, logitech quickcam).
Eh. Again not for me. Also for the stability I get from 2000, it's much
better than 9x. Also more secure, more network options. etc. I now have
both 2000 and ME, and for my home machine. I'm still going to be using
2000. I might try ME sometime again.. but prolly won't stick with it. I
would soonet install Wistler than 9x.
--
l8r
-LJM
a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
a.k.a. MrBobaFett
"Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
-- Eric Draven, The Crow
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 08:08:45 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> You have at least three different toolkits for widgets - now that's fair
> enough in itself, but take file open/save dialogs. Gtk and MOTIF are
> similar, KDE is similar to Windows. They work differently, enough to be
> confusing and distracting when you try to use the desktop on Linux.
hmm, methinks you are far too easily confused then.
> That's the "mess" I mean and the one I think Kyle is referring to.
That's hardly "a mess" - possibly a minor nit, if even that,
and most users would never even notice.
Really, how often do you use gnome-linuxconf, and are
you seriously that confused by it?
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 02:20:45 -0600
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Utter crap! In the mainframe world this kind of move is done all
> >the time. And before there were Windows and PC's people did things
> >the old manual way with pen and paper.
>
> If I remember the mainframe world correctly -- and I can't say I
> have an awful lot of experience in the field -- there were two
> makers, IBM and Amdahl, and one was doing copies of the other's
> hardware. This makes a swap almost trivial. :-)
Actually, there were quite a few players. IBM, Burroughs, Univac (Burroughs
was bought by Sperry, then Sperry and Univac merged to form Unisys. Both
lines lived on at Unisys, though there was plenty of partisanship), Amdahl,
and Tandem. Fujitsu and Hitachi also tried to enter the Mainframe market,
not to mention the Venerable Control Data Cyber systems (and their short
lived Supercomput branch ETA systems). It should be noted that Cray
Research's Seymore Cray was one of the original founding members of Control
Data.
> Mind you, Data General's in there somewhere, too -- and I have no
> idea what they do, machinewise. Presumably they're a little
> different, which means a recompile and/or reinstall. And then
> there was Cray....
DG is more like DEC, and was more in the Mini market.
> >Your talking about a man who claims that GCC is the compiler
> >of choice for Windows developers.
>
> E.F. likes GCC on Windows? Somebody's confused. :-)
> (I certainly am, at the moment.)
Yes, Charlie is confused. I never said it was the compiler of choice.
Somewhere in Charlies deep dark halucinagenic mindstate he believes people
say what he wants them to say, simply because they disagree with him.
He has yet to provide a single quote of me claiming that Linux can't scale,
despite the fact he claims he could.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 08:20:33 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> I had never used that feature and wasn't aware of it.
And yet you proclaimed that Linux and FreeBSD lack the
feature - you didn't say you didn't know, or you weren't sure,
you stated flatly neither Linux nor FreeBSD are capable of
powering off a system -
Can we assume that other affirmations of yours have a
similar basis in ignorance?
> Strange, that for so
> many people that claim to never shut their machines off, they know how their
> machines act when they do.
That is absurd, please produce a posting where anyone at all has
made the claim that they have never powered down a Linux system.
You won't find it, of course. I think you're confusing the meaning of
Linux users, indeed Unix users in general, who are surprised
at how often windows users are forced to do a "therapeutic reboot"
in order to cope with various windows bugs.
That doesn't mean Linux users never power down their systems -
For instance, they power them down to move them, to replace or
upgrade hardware, etc.
It takes only once to notice that the power shuts off when you
do a system halt.
is any of this making sense to you?
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 02:35:12 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Hmm, you know, it's ironic. When the 65K number came out for Win2K,
> >it was a.) grossly inflated, b.) included feature requests and feature
> >change requests c.) included other products and projects related to
Win2K.
>
> Hmm, you know, that's interesting. Because all three of those are
> baseless suppositions that have already been refuted here. It was MS's
> own number, it did not include feature requests (but "real issues"), and
> it was exclusively the OS.
No, it's not. You are entirely baseless here Max.
>From the original article:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2436920,00.html
"According to the Microsoft memo, the Windows 2000 source-code base
contains:
More than 21,000 "postponed" bugs, an indeterminate number of which
Microsoft is characterizing as "real problems." Others are requests for new
functionality, and others reflect "plain confusion as to how something is
supposed to work." "
Note the words "Others are request for new functionality" and the words
"Others reflect "plain confusion as to how something is supposed to work""
Another 27,000 were simply internal notes about making parts of the code
better or more efficient.
Stop distorting the truth. It *DID* in fact include feature requests, and
it did include issues such as problems with existing programs. For
instance, shortly after WIndows 2000 was released, MS released a
"compatibility update", which addresses compatiblity issues with software.
You know damn well that software was listed in the bug database.
> >But basically, what we've learned here today, according to Jim is:
> >a.) It's ok to lie about Win2K and completely misrepresent facts
>
> No, that's what we've been trying to tell you. Its *not* OK to lie
> about W2K and completely misrepresent facts, and we'd appreciate it if
> you'd stop doing it.
You're lying about it (as I just proved), so why the dual standard?
> >b.) It's not ok to take a concrete number from Debian's site and repeat
> > it as fact
>
> Again, you seem to have inverted the message. The number on Debian's
> site is known to include all software shipped with the distribution.
And MS's bug list includes all software shipped with it as well.
> >c.) Linux has no bugs and its absurd to assert that notion.
>
> You are batting .000 here, Chad. One baldfaced lie after another. What
> is wrong with you?
That's sarcasm. Look it up.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 02:38:33 -0600
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9Awa6.49709$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > > Shouldn't the OS wait until the drive signals it's written it's cache?
> >
> > Drives don't do this. There is no documented way for the OS to know.
>
> Someone has already posted details from the spec you mentioned indicating
a
> way around this.
No, it's not from the spec. This was simply apples solution, which seems to
work for them. Nobody else seems to be doing it that way, at least not
FreeBSD and probably not Linux, which leads me to believe it's not quite as
foolproof as Apple suggests.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 05:10:20 +0100
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
> So what's 1597 about?
>
Network Working Group Y. Rekhter
Request for Comments: 1597 T.J. Watson Research Center, IBM Corp.
Category: Informational B. Moskowitz
Chrysler Corp.
D. Karrenberg
RIPE NCC
G. de Groot
RIPE NCC
March 1994
Address Allocation for Private Internets
<snip>
I think jedi meant this part here:
========================================
3. Private Address Space
The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has reserved the
following three blocks of the IP address space for private networks:
10.0.0.0 - 10.255.255.255
172.16.0.0 - 172.31.255.255
192.168.0.0 - 192.168.255.255
<snip>
Because private addresses have no global meaning, routing information
about private networks shall not be propagated on inter-enterprise
links, and packets with private source or destination addresses
should not be forwarded across such links. Routers in networks not
using private address space, especially those of Internet service
providers, are expected to be configured to reject (filter out)
routing information about private networks. If such a router
receives such information the rejection shall not be treated as a
routing protocol error.
======================================
------------------------------
From: Marten Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux/390: Industrial-scale computing (longish)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 09:29:25 GMT
Here's another place where Linux is making itself felt (and putting
additional pressure on M$ in the process): *real* servers - IBM's 390
mainframes. When IBM announced Linux/VM and Linux/390 it brought Linux
into the big leagues. I've been a mainframe person since somewhere in
the 1970s and, while I've never dismissed PCs as being useless, I've
never thought of them as serious players (to continue the analogy). I
found it ridiculous that companies would use farms of hundreds of
servers, each with a few hundred megabytes of memory, a couple of CPUs
and few tens of gigabytes of disk space to perform major portions of
their corporate processing. The current 390 processors can have
gigabytes of memory, ten or so CPUs, terabytes of disk space, hundreds
of high-speed data links of all types plus backup hardware ranging from
individual tape drives to many-thousand-tape automated libraries. In one
test over 14,000 Linux images were started up on a single processor.
This was only a test but with the combination of Linux and the mainframe
we have something which can graze on the server farms. One recent
announcement was that a mainframe was ordered to run hundreds of Linux
images to replace hundreds of NT print servers (I don't remember how
many hundreds of each). Using Linux in conjunction with the VM operating
system also allows a data center to use the industrial-scale system
software that already exists. The software is proprietary and
390-specific and is *not* free, but the support is correspondingly
industrial-scale.
Microsoft has got to be scared blind because not only are they under
pressure right now both at the top and the bottom of the server arena
but they are also looking at the cresting wave in the workstation arena.
Historical note: The VM operating system has been around since about the
middle 1970s when the IBM System/370 processors were announced. VM
stands for "virtual machine" and simulates multiple processors in
approximately the same way as the Intel CPUs have "virtual 8086 mode".
It was originally created to run multiple operating systems concurrently
on a single processor (an old one and a new one for conversions, a test
one and a production one for maintenance, etc). An early operating
environment (command-line interface, of course) very much like PC DOS
was added to facilitate the process and the combination of the two
became IBM's main interactive operating system. It has been almost a
counterculture phenomenon - a smaller interactive operating system in
environment dominated by big batch-processing OSes. The story has almost
always been "VM is going away" but that hasn't happened because it is
too useful for doing things that up until the advent of the
internet/intranet couldn't easily be done any other way. I've been
involved with VM since the early 1980s and I'm happy with Linux because
it is an interesting operating system in its own right *and* it's a
highly visible reason for the continuation of support for VM.
--Marten (VM Wizard) Kemp
------------------------------
From: Jerry Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Please tell me your motherboard name if it works properly in Linux
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:26:07 +0800
I want to gather information on the compatibility of Motherboards on
Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Has Lost
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 09:57:21 GMT
Hi Craig,
That perspective is fascinating. I have checked up and the XBox does NOT
have firewire (http://www.xbox.com/xbox/flash/specs.asp). It only has 100Mb
Ethernet. Even so that speed would enable Microsoft to expand the XBox later
on: keyboards, extra storage space, printers, etc. It may be in Microsoft's
interests to make special XBox-only hardware.
But you have to also realise that under all that plastic is essentially a
PC. If Microsoft subsidises the hardware to encourage the sale of high
priced
games then some awesomely performing servers might just become available to
the open source community :-)
Over at www.xbox.com Microsoft states: "Time is precious...Play more games."
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Date: 21 Jan 2001 09:57:33 GMT
Subject: Re: Windows Has Lost
>Dont forget that the vast majority of computer users DO NOT NEED a pc. They
>need a device to surf the web, read and send mail, play games and watch
>movies
I would throw on a basic productivity package, so you can write letters and
spreadsheets.
I think as users enumerate what they want, it approaches a PC quickly. Perhaps
a PC with a TV for a monitor, but a PC nonetheless.
"I want to do something" -> Internet device
"If I'm spending $300, I want to also do XYZ" -> multipurpose device
"I want to print out mail, or attach a scanner, or get a faster connection if
they're available" -> expandability
"I want to save and share my bookmarks/whatever with my friends" ->
removable/mass storage.
"I want a decent keyboard to type my mail on" -> standard I/O (perhaps
wireless)
"I want to get an IM while I'm browsing" ->some crude form of multitasking and
windowing or screen flipping.
The end result is a low-end 'Book PC', with a pretty BIOS splash screen, an
infrared jack, and perhaps booting into neatly packaged filesystem.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
This post is No. 54 056 in a limited edition of 700 000 000. Certificate of
Authenticity attached.
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:13:48 +0000
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Edward Rosten in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:23:06
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...]
> >Reread the post, but this time carefully. How could it takt 8 months to
> >get your keyborrd to work? Hell, you couldn't fix it if the keyboard
> >wouldn't work (I didn't consider USB ones). I thought if I made such
> >wild claims such as a *keyboard* taking 8 months to work, and coupled it
> >with an NT spontaneous BSOD, people would realise the first bit was a
> >joke.
>
> I had presumed that you *were*, in fact, talking about USB keyboards.
> Well, the second time, at least. Overall, the idea seems to have gotten
> muddled. Perhaps you could rephrase it.
I was talking about ordinary keyboards. If the idea of USB keyboards
doesn't enter your mind (like it didn't in mine) then it sounds totally
ridiculous. Unfortunately, the world ruined it by producing USB
keyboards for PCs.
> >For the record I have never had any problems with keyboards under any OS
> >and it took me a total of about 2 hours first time to get Linux running
> >and I've never looked back.
> >
> >You were probably up too late posting like me :-)
>
> For the record, both Jedi and I got confused, so perhaps it was more
> your being up to late, rather than ours. ;-)
Yeah, OK. It was a bad attempt to take the piss out of some wintrolls.
Looks like it failed fairly miserably.
Oh, well.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: FYI: Linux Software Encyclopedia
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:32:51 -0600
I just stumbled across this, and thought Linuxers might find it useful:
Linux Software Encyclopedia
http://www.math.tu-dresden.de/~schuetze/linuxlist/
It currently has 5672 entries, from AAFID to Zyacc.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:41:56 +0000
> Look, the 2GB limit in Linux is retarded, no matter how you
> try to defend it. 32-bit, 64-bit, it's retarded. Many other
> OSes have overcome this problem with relative ease, and
> Linux still doesn't have a shipping solution.
>
> It's retarded, plain and simple. Admit it, acknowledge there's
And it doesn't exist any more. It never did exist on poper computers and
now it doesn't exist on crappy ones either. Get 2.4.0 if you want to use
Linux. Any how, stop bitching about a problem that has now passed.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:00:48 GMT
In article <Dota6.136079$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:94bvv0$cq7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> One of the reasons we have laws and governments to enforce them is
>> to prevent abuse by those who will not behave decently without being
>> forced.
>
>And this is hindering Linux in what way? Microsoft doesn't OWN The PC
>platform, they just run it. Linux can also run it, but people don't like
>Linux as much.
>
They have indicated that they *believe* they own it and they have
threatened to bankrupt any OEM not acting according to their wishes.
Until the DOJ got them into court M$ was threatening any OEM if
they made *any* change before the Windows desktop finished loading.
That included such forbidden things as adding a Netscape icon to the
desktop, installing a boot manager, or providing any other access to
another OS even if those were requested by the customer.
>Is ANYONE putting the burn on to remedy this?
>
Have you got any *specific* suggestions ?
Whining "It aint perty enuf!!" is not exactly helpful.
>> That is because what most people refer to as "the network effect"
>> is just the monopoly refusing to interoperate.
>
>Really? StarOffice is 90% Microsoft Office format compatible, yet no one is
>using it. Why? Well, the horrible interface, the overcomplicated
>documentation and the amazing lack of performance is seems to have acquired
>on all platforms.
>
>I don't see Microsoft FORCING StarOffice a shitty product.
>
First cuts often are bloated and slow.
The company who wrote that first version was bought by Sun and now
Sun has released the code under GPL.
The rewrite is proceeding fine but it will not be ready any time
soon.
>> Interoperation would lead to comparison and choice. M$ cannot allow
>> that.
>
>Except there is more interoperability NOW then there ever has been in
>computing.
>
No there are more desktops now than ever before and they are
interacting in M$ approved ways and being fenced in by code to
prevent unauthorized interactions.
That is not interoperability. Interoperation only happens between
different systems passing information both ways.
M$ designs information black holes. Information in standard formats
goes in and is converted to their proprietary format so that only if
the "foreign" system converts to Windows can interaction, as opposed
to interoperating, proceed.
M$ has locked me and many other Linux users out of a significant
percentage of the Web already with their FrontPage crapware and they
are intent on capturing the rest with .NET
--
"Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventually 'invent' Unix."
- George Bonser
"No chance. they only have a finite number of monkeys."
- Thomas Lakofski
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
