Linux-Advocacy Digest #694, Volume #34 Tue, 22 May 01 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Dell Meets Estimates ("Mike")
Re: RIP the Linux desktop (Donn Miller)
Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form ("Michael Snyder")
Re: Dell Meets Estimates ("2 + 2")
Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed (Jeff Cochran)
Re: Microsoft to Linux ("Flacco")
Re: Microsoft to Linux (Richard Thrippleton)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Stephen Cornell)
Re: Microsoft to Linux (Sean)
Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed (David Mohring)
Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed ("Flacco")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Robert W Lawrence)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Mart van de Wege")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Dell Meets Estimates
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 14:55:24 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9eb1ir$rrr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > If you're looking for a scalable system, that's the
> > ultimate: you can scale from a basic single processor server all the way
> > up to the high end machine, without much more work than putting in a new
> > machine. There is no equivalent to that in the Linux or Windows worlds,
> > and it gives Sun an important selling point: they scale further.
>
> That is in no way true. Linux scales from far lowre than solaris to
> nearly as high. Both will run on anything from a single processor machine
> (linux goes to lower ones) through mainframes up to supercomputers (where
> solaris goes slghtly higher).
>
> Linux is one of the most scalable OSs on the planet, along with solaris.
Sure, it runs on all those machines, but my point was that with Sun, I can
buy low end single processor servers to start, and as needs increase, I can
step up to a single machine that runs 32 processors, and all I have to
change is the hardware (and you may be able to go further than that - I'm
not really familiar with their top of the line systems).
In contrast, with a Linux solution I'm stuck switching hardware vendors
somewhere along the way. That means selling off my old hardware (Sun will
let me trade up at favorable rates), recompiling applications, and dealing
with hardware issues that arise. All in all, it's a more protracted process
than just unplugging the old box and plugging in a new one.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 10:57:45 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RIP the Linux desktop
"~¿~" wrote:
> Unix was born in a scientific environment. Not everyone wants to play
> scientist. I don't have a need \ time to know how my appliances work.
> (embedded concepts aside!).
Actually, I take a different view of the "majority" of Windows users.
See, most Win users don't really care to know their operating system
works, or how dynamic linking works, etc. But coming from a unix
background, I like to find out all kinds of things about loadable
modules in Windows, and I also find it interesting that Windows has
PID's as well. So, yes, even on Windows, I like to find out as much as
possible about the technical processes "under the hood". Also, dammit,
why doesn't Cygwin have an ldd script? It's pretty easy to find out the
shared libs just by doing strings program.exe | grep -i '\.dll'. You
would think it'd be fairly easy to construct your own version of ldd
with a perl script, parsing the output of strings, nm, or maybe both.
Coming from a nix background, I really like Cygwin! (Command-line freak
here.)
So, there are some Windows users that like to know what's going on
"under the hood" so to speak. (Must carry over from my unix
experience.)
> Logical. Why the need to convert the masses? I've never quite understood it.
> It seems almost religious in nature. Like Frank Zappa sang "just shuttup and
> play your guitar"
> <no offense intended>
OS choice pretty much is religious. Also, there's other factos, such as
with open source software and OSes, you don't have to worry about
violating software licenses as with Windows and MS software. I've seen
companies get hit for violating MS license agreements, and it's not
pretty. With FreeBSD and Linux, you're pretty much free of that
burden. But then, application availability and support are concerns.
But then, it depends on how competent your in-house support people are.
Open source is most likely to benefit those companies who have people
in-huse who know how the software works and how to fix potential
problems should a problem arise.
====== 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: "Michael Snyder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,soc.men,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 08:05:07 -0700
Danielle wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 22 May 2001 00:23:38 -0700, "jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Aaron R. Kakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> jackie wrote:
>>> > amusingly enough if homosexuality is genetic the genes promoting
it may
>>> > well be more numerous today because homophobia is so universal.
that is
>>> > to say, by forcing men who would prefer the only the company of
men to
>>> > marry a beard society has generated more of the very thing that
might
>>> ^^^^^
>>> is this a typo?
>>
>>LOL! Aaron you have reached levels of ignorance that are shocking
even for
>>you!
>>
>>A beard is a member of the opposite sex a homosexual person gets
married to,
>>or has a similar kind of relationship with, in order to look
straight.
>>
>>J
>
>
>I didn't know that either.
Nor did I -- and I live 20 miles from San Francisco, the gay capitol
of the world.
And yes, I do mix socially with gays, bi's and transvestites (among
others).
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Dell Meets Estimates
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 11:11:49 -0400
People don't realize the forces at play. The National Center for
Supercomputing Applications was created by federal funding so researchers
could get time on computers to process their work.
To do this, NCSA helped develop machines that were affordable, ie ran with
off-the-shelf hardware components. Both Windows NT/2000 and Linux met these
needs. And of course Linux is practically free.
One result was Beowulf, quite an impressive machine.
And computing power increasingly comes available for researchers who are
then able to get machine time to run their work.
Is this difficult to understand?
2 + 2
Edward Rosten wrote in message <9ec77t$lrr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>> Linux is one of the most scalable OSs on the planet, along with
>>> solaris.
>>
>> No, it isn't. Once you got to high end, Solaris kicks Linux to the
>> ground without even trying.
>
>They both go up the top of the high end very well, though solaris is
>currently higher, but that might change soon.
>
>If you drop down quite a bit from the high end to big mainframes, don't
>forget that Linux runs on S/390's which are formidibale bits of kit.
>
>Still, Linux scales from far lower to almost as high. I think linux just
>tops solaris as the most scalable OS.
>
>-Ed
>
>
>
>
>--
>(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.)
(u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
>
>/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f
5 -1
>r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0
rmoveto}for/s{15
>}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: (Jeff Cochran)
Subject: Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:13:24 GMT
>> You mentioned several times that you were looking for exact
>> feature-matches between the Linux stuff and your Windows stuff. In my
>> mind, that's kind of a dumb approach because all you're really saying is
>> that you don't want to change at all -- you want everything to look and
>> act exactly the same. If that's the case, why switch at all?
>
>You're being obtuse here - there are LOTS of good reasons to want to get
>rid of MS-License-ware while keeping the same functionality.
>
>I think the original poster is asking for a little too much at this point.
> While you can set up a good office environment with Linux-based software,
>you're simply not going to get a drop-in replacement for Windows desktops,
>servers and applications.
This is what I was afraid of. Over the years I've been through a
number of large-scale migrations, the last was from Netware to NT and
WordPerfect Office to Microsoft Office about 5-6 years ago. There has
to be an overwhelming need for the move to justify the changes, and
currently Microsoft's licensing changes are starting to scare us into
exploring Linux on the desktop. unfortunately, I need to provide
functionality similar to what users are actually using, and in the
Linux world the functionality isn't ready for prime time. If it were,
I think more companies would switch. It seems Linux is still waiting
for a killer app.
The cost savings and licensing issues are a big incentive, several
hundred grand worth. But the support and retraining costs dwarf the
savings when I run the numbers, and unless I can get those support and
training costs down there's no future for Linux on our desktops.
For those posters that suggested I not do calendaring or give up file
compatibility, those aren't real-world options. I can't take
functionality from users, and I can't sacrifice work that has been
done in the past just to get away from Microsoft, or any company.
Those are the services and tools my users need, and unless I can
replace them and even expand on them, I can't consider switching.
Looks like, outside of internet functions, Linux is still a bust in
our environment. And frankly, there's not much of an advantage even
there compared to Microsoft-based solutions.
Jeff
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft to Linux
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:29:20 GMT
> Not sure if you are serious or not, but you can loot at SAMBA and NFS
> for Linux/UNIX systems.
(Why wouldn't he be serious...?)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Thrippleton)
Subject: Re: Microsoft to Linux
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:25:53 +0000
In article <XotO6.1651$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kistner wrote:
>I have set up a Linux workstation and exploring the possibilities to migrate
>from Microsoft to Linux. One issue I'm curious about is that my Microsoft
>world is a peer-to-peer network (netbui) where I share folders and devices
>across this simple network. I'm running Windows 98 in the Microsoft world
>and Redhat Linux 7.0 in the Linux world. I'm not in a position to
>immediately convert my legacy systems to Linux. But in the transition time
>it would be nice to be able to share folders/devices across both worlds.
>
>1. Is there a way to have my Linux machine share folders and/or devices
>with the Microsoft world?
The simplest way is with an ftp server. This will of course allow
user/password based login and/or anonymous login. Of course it won't be
sharing as in mounted drives, but it will be two way whole file transfer.
If you really need to have files edited in situ on the drive, then
you need to look into Samba.
Richard
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: 22 May 2001 16:43:51 +0100
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Stephen Cornell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 21 May 2001 14:27:14
> >> "Dr S.J. Cornell" wrote:
> >
> >> > Electrons are quite happy moving at (near enough) c when they are
> >> > moving in normal, even very small, cables; they have very little
> >> > choice, because at some point the propagating EM field has to satisfy
> >> > boundary conditions with the outside world - not an issue when you're
> >> > _inside_ a waveguide.
> >
> >You know, I really can't believe I wrote that. This is total bollocks
> >- electrons' speeds in conductors are typically very slow. [...]
>
> But electrons aren't the issue; photons are the carrier particle for
> electromagnetic force, not electrons.
Absolutely. That's my entire point (elucidated later int he post);
the motion of charge density waves is tied to the dynamics of the EM
field, and the the propagation of a pulse down a transmission line has
nothing to do with the size (!) of electrons, as an original poster
stated.
> And photons have only one speed:
> c; the speed of light in a vacuum.
This is true, in the strictest sense. However, when light is
propagating through a *material* the EM field can be described as a
spatially mesoscopic level by equations where photons travel at a
different speed. This is because the electrons in the material don't
oscillate in phase with the driving field field; this makes the phase
of the EM field near that point lag behind the driving force, and
hence the phase of the wave travels more slowly through the material.
> This potential nonsensical (total bollocks, in fact) attempt to
> represent counter-intuitive truth in language may well be doomed to
> fail, since I honestly don't know a damn thing about the math involved.
I do know about the math involved, since I took a course in quantum
field theory when studying for my PhD (in theoretical physics).
Anyway, your heuristic description of the propagation of photons
through a material in terms of photons sounds broadly correct to me.
> Still, the math for a relativistic explanation of light is incompatible
> with the math for a quantum explanation of light
No, quantum electrodynamics describes both the quantum and
relativistic nature or light. It still stands as the most accurate
and best-tested scientific theory in existance. I think you may be
confusing this with the problems with quantum gravity, which are, to
my knowledge, still not resolved.
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft to Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:41:32 +0100
On Tue, 22 May 2001 07:57:02 -0500, "David Kistner"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have set up a Linux workstation and exploring the possibilities to migrate
>from Microsoft to Linux. One issue I'm curious about is that my Microsoft
>world is a peer-to-peer network (netbui) where I share folders and devices
>across this simple network. I'm running Windows 98 in the Microsoft world
>and Redhat Linux 7.0 in the Linux world. I'm not in a position to
>immediately convert my legacy systems to Linux. But in the transition time
>it would be nice to be able to share folders/devices across both worlds.
>
>1. Is there a way to have my Linux machine share folders and/or devices
>with the Microsoft world?
>
>
>
>
Check out Samba (www.samba.org). Does exactly what you want.
Sean.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Mohring)
Subject: Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:54:29 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 22 May 2001 10:21:00 +1200,
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Adam & Jeff
>Hi Jeff,
>
>Microsoft has not released Office 2000 for Linux!
>
>StarOffice is still at 5.2. OpenOffice is not ready.
>
SUN has said that StarOffice6 ( Openoffice LGPL + SUN's proprietary code )
will be released by start of the forth quarter. This could be one of
the reasons for Microsoft's push to re-license it's Select/Open license
users by October 1st.
SUN StarOffice
Pros
If the existing OpenOffice code is anything to go by, this is going
to be one *solid* product;
Will read and write all MS Office ( Word Excel PP ) formats;
Uses *human* readable XML formats for document storage ( fantastic
for coding flexable enterprise environment frontends and glue ) ;
Cons
The current memory requirements of the OpenOffice suggest that
128meg will be a minimum - simliar to that of win2k+MS Office;
Will not be free ( I do not expect it will be that expensive either ).
>Evolution doesn't have groupware functionality yet:
>http://www.ximian.com/apps/evolution-faq.php3
But the current release is still more stable than MS outlook on win9X/winME.
( still missing message threading - dammit )
>
>Your review is over. Frankly it sounds like you should stay with Microsoft
>Office because expecting "full file compatibility" is unrealistic when
>Microsoft uses closed file formats.
Microsoft does publish details of the document formats, but do not fully
explain some of the "magic" strings & numbers ( what is this field
with the "NSA" string in for? ). It is difficult but not impossible to
create a close translation/representation. Anyway , each new version
of MS Office tends to view older formats of office documents slightly
differently ( hence a few problems using it for some legal and
US insurance forms ). If you want a exact printable representation
of documents convert them to ADOBE's PDF format.
>
>GUIs are ready though. KDE and GNOME have evolved rapidly.
Having just done a live presentation for managment using Redhat7.1 +
Ximian Gnome1.4, ( even after them twidding about with it - it did
not crash - unlike the WinXP-Beta live demo ;) I can say that GNOME
is _almost_ ready. The nautilus browser does need a couple of tweaks,
but everything should be ready once Mozilla 1.x rolls around.
>
>Check back in six months to a year's time.
IMO, in about three to four months time. Then see the rise of new
Open Source System Integrators. The ability to *totally*
customize the enviroment for an enterprise is a big plus.
The transition from a Microsoft environment to anything else is going
to be a bitch, you are *NOT* going to come in over a three day weekend
and install Linux+x on everybodies desktop and hope for the best.
One strategy is to lease some extra servers running Linux+GNOME
for multiple users, who connect to the servers via VNC ( virtual
network consoles, see http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/ )
running on the existing win98 desktops.
This is an excellent way to provide trials, training, transition
and support for users, without bringing the organization to a
grinding halt.
>
>Regards,
>Adam
>
David Mohring - Downunder, I may be a Kiwi, but will soon also be
an OSSI.
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:58:40 GMT
> Many of your suggestions involve making Linux more similar to Windows
> both in compatibility and in functionality. Such suggestions are not
> uncommon, but I don't feel that such an approach is desirable. If one
> wants to "win over" people from Windows, making Linux just like Windows
> isn't going to accomplish that, since people will just stick with the
> genuine article.
I strongly disagree. The typical office worker (general staff and
executives alike) will stick with the genuine article *unless* you can
give them a reasonable replacement and a fairly painless transition. It's
not a technical issue, it's a tactical one.
> I feel that Linux should differentiate itself from Windows while
> improving itself beyond Windows at the same time. For example, if we
> want to get people to stop using Word and its annoying proprietary
> formats, let's work on building a word processor that looks different
> from Word, functions easier than Word in every way, uses open file
> formats and is open source.
No, you need a word processor that works like word, saves files in word
format, AND also provides open file formats. If you had a product like
this that was essentially free, and did not require "activiation", you'd
have a winner. If you impose unwanted changes on the user, they'll pay up
and stick with word.
If there were even a semblance of competition in the office and OS
markets, then you could get away with competing on the basis of product
differentiation. However, huge segments of the consumer market has
absolutely no need for any office features beyond those in Word97 (hell,
4.x for that matter). You can get them to try Linux by offering them
something very similar for free, though.
This is one reason why I suggested an upgrade freeze in the organization -
the primary obstacle is user resistance to change. Most users would be
indifferent to not having Windows / Office upgrades, and this would give
competing Linux products a chance to catch up. A year from now it will be
a lot easier to move someone from Office 2000 to the nearest Linux
equivalent than it would be to move them from XP / .NET stuff.
> In short, I don't want Linux to settle for being a Windows substitute.
> I'd rather it was something so much better that people will *want* to
> switch rather than be oblivious to the difference between the two.
The thing is that we KNOW and APPRECIATE the advantages of Linux - but
that makes absolutely no difference to a department full of staff and
execs who don't really care about how cool Linux is. What's needed is a
Windows / Office Clone distribution that will not irritate end-users,
while still allowing us to get rid of the fetid MS underbelly.
And, that doesn't mean that knowledgeable users have to use the MS-Clone
distribution. God knows I wouldn't use it.
For all of Linux's technical superiority, if the community does not learn
how to sell to the end user, we have a problem. You can't dismiss the
desktop market out of hand. Even in the server space, having a
hatchet-fight with someone who outright owns the desktop is risky business
in the long run.
Some people believe that Linux is destined to overcome and dominate
Windows, almost like it's a bilbical prophecy or something. Ithink it's a
little early to get cocky. "Eternal vigilance" and all that.
------------------------------
From: Robert W Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 09:58:49 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<> Also, using myself as an
<>example: I'm heterosexual and have *no* choice in the matter.
But you do have a choice in your behavior.
Robert W Lawrence
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1Peter 5:7
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:09:20 +0200
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
In article <VwhO6.3165$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> I don't have my reference guide anymore :( I was pleasantly surprised
>> that I still knew a lot about 6502 programming. I read this before
>> going to work, and I had snippets of old code playing through my head
>> all the time. I think I am going to scour the flea markets for a real
>> C64. (yeah yeah, I know I could run VICE, but a *real* C64 is a lot
>> cooler). If your assertion is correct, then the majority of 6502
>> instructions would take 3 cycles: fetch instruction, fetch data,
>> execute. This sounds corect to me and of course would demolish Erik's
>> point even more.
>
> Indeed. My 6502 knowledge is 20 years old, and I think what I learned
> back then was probably using a different definition of "execute"
> Instruction loading was not included in the timing, but rather the
> amount of time for the instruction itself to execute.
>
> In any event, eve at its worst, the 6502 was a vastly superior CPU in
> terms of efficiency than the 68000 who's average instruction cycle was
> something like 7-10 cycles (IIRC).
>
>
>
Just curious Erik, what did you do on 6502's? I was just hacking on a C64
as a teenager, but I imagine you are a bit older than me :)
Of course superiority in clock cycles doesn't say much when the M68k can
do so much more with it's wasteful cycles (ie the instructions used more
cycles, but they did more as well). Remember that the Motorola 680x0
series was widely seen as a prime example of CISC design.
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
