Linux-Advocacy Digest #447, Volume #25 Tue, 29 Feb 00 20:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (petilon)
Re: prepare Income Tax under Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid?? (5X3)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (Nick Manka)
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian (5X3)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("Robert Moir")
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian (Bill)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Mike Marion)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Nick Manka)
Re: Last Reminder: Comments on Copyright Protection due TODAY! (DVD (Tom Mitchell)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto ("Christopher Smith")
Re: prepare Income Tax under Linux? (Mike Marion)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (Mike Marion)
Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid?? (Donovan
Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
From: petilon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:35:57 -0800
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Because pcAnywhere installs just like any other application.
>>
>
>Which is how, exactly?
pcAnywhere uses InstallShield. When you install pcAnywhere
there is no indication that you are modifying the operating
system. pcAnywhere doesn't warn you, neither does Windows.
In other words, Windows 2000 allows any random application
off the street to trash the OS without your knowledge. So
much for the much touted "System File Protection".
>>
>>What happened to the much touted "System File Protection"?
>>
>
>What system files were lost?
The device drivers, apparently. Windows 2000 apparently allows
any random application off the street to install its own
device drivers without your knowledge or consent.
This means Windows 2000 can only be as stable and reliable as
the last application you installed.
pcAnywhere is only one example. In fact, pcAnywhere apparently
causes an immediate OS crash. Relatively speaking, this is good
because the problem immediately comes to your attention, and
you are able to take corrective action immediately. But what if
the problem had been more subtle? What if pcAnywhere caused
occassional data corruption?
>
>Are you seriously suggesting that Win2K should never allow the
>installation of device drivers?
Of course not! All I am saying is that Win2K should not allow
applications to install device drivers in a clandestine manner.
Win2K should put the end-user in control, not some random
application installer. That's all I am saying. Installing a
device driver can affect the integrity of the OS. Device drivers
are critical components of the OS, and poorly written device
drivers can bring down the OS. Win2K must therefore require
explicit action from the end-user to modify device drivers
and other critical OS components. This will let the end-user
abort installation of the application if he/she is unsure of
the quality of the application.
>>
>>If any application requires modification of operating system
>>files, device drivers etc then that should not be done in a
>>clandestine manner. That's the key point. Instead, Windows 2000
>>should require the end-user to explicitly launch an "OS
>>Updater" utility to modify the system files.
>>
>
>Again, what system files were modified?
Are you saying device drivers don't qualify as "system files"?
Aren't device drivers a critical piece of the operating system?
>
>By the way, no version of Unix can stop a user with sufficient
>privilege from trashing the OS completely. Does that mean Unix
>is fundamentally flawed?
Unix culture is completely different. In Windows applications
routinely copy their files into C:\WINDOWS. Unix applications
don't do that.
Take Oracle installation on Unix, for example. Oracle installer
will not let you install the product if you are logged in as
root. You have to log in as a regular user to install Oracle.
(Windows applications do the exact opposite thing.) Of course
Oracle installation requires some actions to be performed with
root privileges. So what Oracle does is to create a very small
shell script to do the minimal things that need root privileges.
Then it asks you to run that shell script manually before
continuing installation. If you like, you can now inspect the
shell script and decide if you want to run it. If that script
does stupid things like installing a device driver, you can
abort the installation.
Why can't Microsoft be this smart?
Why can't Windows 2000 let the end-user decide if he/she wants
to let an application installer do potentially destabilizing
things such as installing a device driver? When will Microsoft
ever do these things intelligently? Do we have to wait for
Windows 3000?
>>
>>I was previously under the impression that "System File
>>Protection" allows me to install and try out applications of
>>unknown quality, without fear of corrupting the OS.
>>
>
>How did you get this impression? A link would be nice.
"System File Protection" is three English words. I took those
words to mean that system files will be protected. To me a
device driver is a system file.
>>Now I know better.
>>
>>"System File Protection" is a sham.
>>
>
>Again, what system files were lost?
See above.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: prepare Income Tax under Linux?
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 23:40:34 GMT
you're kidding right?
On 29 Feb 2000 22:27:39 GMT, Jon Claerbout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>How can I prepare my income taxes with nothing but Linux and Netscape?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid??
Date: 29 Feb 2000 23:59:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:27:42 -0600, Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> >They (Linux/OSS) need to get more feedback from the average joe.
>>
>> This is already done somewhat informally through mailing lists. KDE and
>> GNOME have mailing lists where end users can talk about their concerns.
> You're not getting it. The people that need the most help are not
> going to be on mailing lists or newsgroups or anywhere but in person
> or over the phone. These people are intimidated by computers and
> only use them for their job requirements.
You're not getting it. Linux is not FOR people who are intimidated
by computers and only use them for their job requirements; Linux is
for intelligent, thinking people who are not afraid of computers at all.
Apparantly you are not one of these people.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Manka)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: 29 Feb 2000 23:57:56 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <89gvjq$859$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> NT is a multiuser OS in the same sense that DOS is an OS at all.
>> Technically it's multiuser, but single-user assumptions are buried
>> throughout the code, and they have caused problems in multiuser
>> environments and they will continue to do so.
>
> Which of these single-user assumptions can you list ?
Only one active login per machine which is completely tied to the
GUI console's context
No support for multiple instances of user data and applications in the
Registry
A single flat event namespace in the kernel (they had to do major
hacking on TSE to get around this, and still haven't, really)
More-or-less complete trust of the currently logged in user
Expectations by programs that they are priviledged (more policy
than than design, but still a factor if you actually
want to run anything on your NT box)
Heavy use of needlessly exclusive locks coupled with minimal COW behaviour
No user accessible global namespace and lots of indeterminable mappings
of resources to namespaces within a user context
(ie, network drives and printers)
Reliance on the GUI code event handling -- if there is a problem on the
machine you get a dialogue box for the currrently
logged in user, and there are a few cases in which random
unrelated services will hang waiting for event completion
based on these. The infamous "16 open critical error dialogue
boxes will completely hang a machine" being a good example.
--
Network Samurai http://www.syncronym.org/~nick/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Date: 1 Mar 2000 00:02:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In <88cchm$m3v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>writes:
>>
>>5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message:
>>> Com objects?
>>>
>>> Show me a programmer who undersands com objects and ill show you a soul
>>sold
>>> to the devil for cash money.
>>
>>
>>take a look at 3 million VB programmers, and you will see programers that
>>create COM object every time they create an object.
>>
> <point>. . . <click>. . ."Look mommy! I made an object!"
And besides that, I said "UNDERSTANDS" COM objects. I didnt say VB "programmer"
anywhere at all, because there is no such thing.
p0ok
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 00:12:34 -0000
Bob Lyday <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[snip]
> Not sure if I understand what you mean. Can't you just write a driver
> for it? Actually a worse problem now is M$ pressuring HW makers to
> support only their platform -- this will get worse with Lose2K. Of
> course it's illegal but what do they care?
Source for this accusation? Where have you found evidence of this pressure?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill)
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:11:57 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(George Richard Russell) writes:
>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 23:53:43 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>You really can tell emacs was written by someone who used computers in the
>>>1970's.
>>
>> Use they menus if you don't like the keybindings.
>
>Point me to them. In the console version.
Oh! I guess you have a point there! Didn't realise that you meant using it in text
mode! Just to see how Word compared, I plugged my trusty Wyse terminal into
the NT machine at work and fired it up. . . I must say that I am a little
disappointed.
>
>Menus should not be mouse accessible only, nor nested 10+ deep. The UI is a
>shambles.
If you want to use a mouse, there are the menus, if you want to use the keyboard
there are the ->user configurable<- keybindings. Your argument has problems.
>
>George Russell
>(at least gvim has a decent GUI)
>--
>One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
> Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
>Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
> The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
Bill Henry.
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=======================================
"All logical arguments can be defeated by
the simple refusal to reason logically"
-Steven Weinberg
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:14:18 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> I agree. However, this application doesn't run entirely in User Mode, it,
> for some damned stupid reason, hooks itself into the Kernel mode somewhere
> and mucks with the video drivers and just about everything else.
Ahhh.. run away! :)
> Symantec/Norton is/are notorious for this type of rediculous, outrageously
> stupid behavior/coding style, which is why I refuse to use any of their
> products.
Now I remember why I removed the norton 95 utilities so fast after I'd gotten
it. I remember nothing but horror stories of how it bogged down machines,
caused crashes.. etc. After getting no real use out of it, and then noticing a
speedup after I removed it, I never installed that piece of crap again.
> It's not the OS. If a kernel mode app/driver is written poorly and pukes
> all over the kernel memory space, there's not much the OS can do.
No argument there. Didn't realize that pcA is basically a kernel module.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"640k memory is enough for anyone."
-- Bill Gates
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Manka)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: 1 Mar 2000 00:02:59 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> They have a 64 bit OS *in development*. You can't buy it, I can't buy it.
>> When making purchase decisions, 64 bit NT does not come into it.
>
> Well... let's think about this. it's the same OS with some parameters
> "stretched" and expanded and runs on particular hardware. Is there that much
> difference that you can't base a part of your evaluation on shipping
> versions of W2K right now?
Yes. Your naivete is pathetically charming, sort of like the first
guy that dies in horror flicks right after saying something to the
effect of "Oh, what could go wrong? We're perfectly safe here! I'll
just go wander off alone in the wine cellar."
Moving to a completely different operating paradigm is not "stretching
some parameters". A working 32-bit operating environment is in no
way a gaurantee of any property of a 64 bit one with the same name.
The changes to the addressing model alone will probably play hell
given the packed pointer approach Microsoft seems to love using
(ie, stuffing extra information in the high bits of pointers since
no program would ever legally use those ... right ... ), and vetting
old interfaces that still expect 32 and 16 bit arguments is just
scratching the surface of what needs to be done.
This isn't like Unix where going from 32 bit to 64 bit is just a
recompile. Win64 is a completely different API than Win32, albeit
designed to look like it.
--
Network Samurai http://www.syncronym.org/~nick/
------------------------------
From: Tom Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Last Reminder: Comments on Copyright Protection due TODAY! (DVD
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 16:17:56 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Alen Peacock wrote:
> Subject: Last Reminder: Comments on Copyright Protection due TODAY! (DVD
If I think about this US centric thing:
"Amendment I
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I begin to wonder about the necessary complement "freedom to
listen and read." Consider a broadcast of news and opinion
when it is transmitted on a scrambled channel.
If the Copyright and content process restricts "freedom to
listen and read" then I wonder if free speech issues apply
and censorship and commerce regulation begin to apply.
Tossing money into such things is for sure confusing.
Listener side censorship and censorship by commerce comes to
mind.
> Details can be found at
> http://pel.cs.byu.edu/~alen/computers/DVDAction/
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 10:27:31 +1000
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89hjmb$8su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Lets bang the drums instead for AMD because theyre better chips than
pentiums:
>
> AMDK7--->bogomips=2*mhz
> pentiumIII--->bogomips=1*mhz
>
> An AMD K7 850 would then rate 1700 bogomips while a PIII 850 would be 850
bogomips.
>
> While "bogomips" is not a very useful benchmark for nearly any kind of
> real world application, a chip architecture which offers double that of
its
> competitor obviously has alot going for it.
BogoMIPS isn't a useful benchmark for comparing *anything* except identical
CPUs at different clock speeds. IIRC it's simply a measure of how many
noops a CPU can execute in a given time (or something similar - slightly
dependant on CPU I think). So an Athlon is better because it can do
absolutely nothing twice as fast a pII ;).
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: prepare Income Tax under Linux?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:33:55 GMT
Jon Claerbout wrote:
> I tried Intuit,
> but they tell me to make pdf work as as a Netscape plug-in.
> I did not succeed with that.
If all you need to do is view a pdf after clicking the link, netscape works
fine.
Go to Edit->Preferences->Navigator->applications
New...
desc: PDF file
MIMEType: application/pdf
Suffixes: pdf
Application: <pathtoacroread> %s
You should then be able to click a pdf link, and it'll fire off acroread to read
it.
Note: an example application line would be:
/usr/local/bin/acrocread %s
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
answering machine message : "hi. e-mail me."
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 00:38:08 GMT
Christopher Smith wrote:
> BogoMIPS isn't a useful benchmark for comparing *anything* except identical
> CPUs at different clock speeds. IIRC it's simply a measure of how many
> noops a CPU can execute in a given time (or something similar - slightly
> dependant on CPU I think). So an Athlon is better because it can do
> absolutely nothing twice as fast a pII ;).
Yep, it's complete bogus (hence Bogo). For those that really want to know, read
the mini-HOWTO:
http://metalab.unc.edu/mdw/HOWTO/mini/BogoMips.html
especially the FAQ section... there're a few chuckles in there.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Newspaper Editor: "We're looking for a new food critic, someone who doesn't
immediately 'poo-poo' everything he eats."
Homer: "Nah it usually takes a few hours." -- The Simpsons
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid??
Date: 1 Mar 2000 00:41:07 GMT
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:22:26 -0600, Chad Myers wrote:
>She doesn't use mailing lists. How is this person being served by
>the linux/oss community?
Linux isn't really ready for these people yet. The reasons are much deeper
than a structural problem with the feedback mechanism. The current system
servers current and new users quite well. The system will obviously
need to evolve as the user base broadens.
>Relatively new to the OSS approach.
That's what I meant.
>Unfortunately, I haven't. Which NG is it in? COLA? I don't hang out there
>much.
COLA. If you want to browse it, the thread is something like
"How does the free OS business model work ?".
>They're a giant leap in usability over other Linux-type applications,
>but, if they're not written for the developers, then who are they
>written for? They're not written for the average end user.
>
>KDE and GNOME seem more geared toward the mildly computer literate
>wanting to make a leap from Windows to Linux, but is too scared of
>the command line.
Quite frankly, people who aren't "mildly computer literate" are not even
going to think of changing their OS.
>It serves this demographic quite well, actually.
Exactly. Linux has been consistently serving its demographic quite well
which is why the user base is broadening. There's something of a feedback
loop - the less geeky users push for less geeky stuff, and the less geeky
stuff attracts more of the less geeky users.
>However, the computer illiterate is not served well at all by these interface.
They're not meant to be ( and they probably wont be for some time )
>But you're still dealing with a limited demographic. These people that
>are on mailing lists are still pretty computer literate, and therefore
>aren't demanding the same things that an average joe user would require.
The current model works quite well for the type of user that currently
goes and buys a Linux box. The model will obviously evolve as the user
base does.
>I'm not sure how Linux/OSS is going to catch up in this respect,
>as it has a long way to go to gain the knowledge and understanding
>that these companies have obtained over many years.
I'd guess that KDE and GNOME will need some sponsorship so they can
do some serious usability testing. Just one possibility.
>Perhaps a usability Guru from one of these companies will defect
>and join The Cause.
Not sufficient in itself.
>Keep in mind, I'm not bashing Linux.
Sure. One of your more reasonable posts actually.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
