Linux-Advocacy Digest #179, Volume #27 Mon, 19 Jun 00 05:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: democracy? (mmnnoo)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone (Ian Pulsford)
Re: M$ is evil - WAS: Re: So where ARE all of these Linux users? (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (void)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (John Allen)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (void)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Christopher Smith")
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Linux+JBuilder vs Win2K+JBuilder (Martijn Bruns)
Re: Linux+JBuilder vs Win2K+JBuilder (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (2:1)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (2:1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 19 Jun 2000 00:52:26 -0500
In article <W1S25.10264$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> They did make it more difficult to use samba servers
>> on unix systems instead of NT. This wasn't an accident.
>
>Well, if you are going to rely on the internal inplementation
>details of NT, you can't be too shocked when this happens.
Yes, this is precisely why wire protocols are the correct
level of interoperability.
>[snip]
>> >MS is very gung ho about interoperability.
>>
>> How then do you explain their attempt to destroy java as a portable
>> language?
>
>They made no such attempt. They merely trying to make Java
>a useful Windows-development tool *as well* as as
>cross-platform boondoggle.
Right... It was just accidental that if you built something
in J++ it wouldn't run even under Windows as an applet
under Netscape. Sure it was.
>> You can't use your stock argument that all of the
>> interoperability problems they cause are just accidental with this
>> one where they went to court to show that they know what they are
>> doing and demand the right to continue it. And it is just like
>> the cheap-imitation-posix case. They want to force you to write
>> programs the only run under windows, and if they can't force you
>> by supplying an unusable portable API, they will trick you into it
>> even if you try to use a portable language.
>
>I think you underestimate the intelligence of Windows programmers;
>we're clever enough to know the different between portable
>stuff and Windows specific stuff.
No, I've seen it firsthand. The guy in the next office spent
weeks building a java applet under J++ that for no obvious reason
would not work under Netscape. Then days finding out how he had been
tricked.
>[snip]
>> That is not the argument. They first supplied a client that required
>> special non-standard services on the server side.
>
>So they did.
>
>> This would be bad by itself,
>
>No, that's how progress happens. It's *good*.
No, it is the end of progress if you accept the non-interoperable
version. Which is *bad*.
>> But then they supplied
>> extensions to some of the existing servers that were broken and
>> insecure. If you can't beat your competitors product, break it...
>
>The frontpage extensions are not their competitors product;
>it is *Microsoft's* product, broken or no.
Yes, but the unix servers that were compromised by these extensions
were forced to install them only for compatibility.
>> Isn't the law pretty specific about this?
>
>No, the law is unfortunately quite vague and prone
>to abuse. But it's *quite* absurd to think the intent of
>the Sherman Act was the *prohibit* MS's competing
>with Netscape in a market where Netscape, not
>Microsoft, has a monopoly.
The law doesn't prohibit competing. It just prohibits
leveraging the desktop monopoly as the mechanism for
competition. I have seen no claims that MS should not
be allowed to make a browser, or even give it away.
>[snip]
>> >Yes, that's what makes this so scary. The DoJ really seems to think
>> >they should be micromanaging software design in general.
>>
>> No, just enforcing the law in general. It would be much scarier
>> if they didn't do that.
>
>Apparently you feel the law details what features belong in an OS.
No, just how competition is allowed to work.
>Does that not frighten you just a little?
Not even close to the alternative.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 19 Jun 2000 01:07:50 -0500
In article <R1S25.10261$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>But seriously, folks, Unix security is kinda weak. It's a smidge of
>identification
>and a bit of filesystem security, but not too much of either. When you are
>doing a server, you really want security that an application can tie into
>effectively.
Doesn't mesh well with the number of NT vulnerabilities documented
on bugtraq...
>It's also nice to have a bit more subtlety than the Unix
>owner/group/world/superuser
>system.
Rarely.
>These aren't insurmountable problems in Unix, but there *is* a case to be
>made
>for doing a better job rather than kludging Unix some more.
But there isn't a case for letting only one vendor do it in a way
that locks you into paying client licenses just for authentication.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: mmnnoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:23:16 -0600
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<snip>
> > > Yes it is. It's a representative democracy. The people do rule,
> through
> > > their elected officials (in theory, at least).
> >
> > Isn't ignorance bliss? The only thing that counts in America is money.
> > Your politics are incredibly corrupt. Of course so is the politics of
> most
> > 1st world countries. The third world is worse for sure. But the USA
> should
> > set an example and it fails woefully. It appears that in the USA you
> can
> > fool most of the people most of the time. Very sad.
<snip>
The US is very democratic. If a clear majority of people
agreed on an issue there isn't a official or corporation that could
stop them from making it law. There are limits to what commercials
can convince people to do, and to want.
Your kind of comment always comes from somebody upset because they
can't get their personal agenda put into law. They want something,
claim that 'the American People' want it, yet somehow the 'special
interest
groups' block 'progress.' But really it is the activists own failure
to convince other citizens just like themselves that they are right.
Sure it's frustrating that other people don't want what you do, but
it beats the alternative of accepting a dictator in hopes of getting
one that agrees with you.
It is so easy to get along very well in the US. Just get up each
morning, do a job competently, and you will be basically fine. You
can get by with little or no initiative. Or you can do more and get
more.
The whiners never clearly articulate their vision, only that they don't
like this and they don't like that. Of course they cannot point to
an actual example of a role model state. How could they ever be so
negative if they read about what life was like in the past. Just like
the hippies, hating society yet surviving as parasites on its back
all the while.
Yes there are horrible problems but you are throwing out the baby with
the bath water. It is not all bad.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 19 Jun 2000 01:24:36 -0500
In article <Q1S25.10260$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I suppose you think there is
>> no demand for a standards-conforming web browser or
>> JVM either.
>
>That's right.
Amusing...
>BTW, is there a standards-body for Java yet? Or is that
>still a proprietary Sun thing?
As far as I know all versions are licensed from Sun at
no cost but with the requirement that the implementations
meet certain standards and update to new releases within
a specified time.
>If not, should Java be avoided until there is?
The situation is less than ideal. But better than having
windows-java and everything-else-java.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:47:55 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone
"whistler@ twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, No-Spam wrote:
> Really, you can get printed, specifically bound into a hard or soft covered
> book, copies of Linux manuals for free, from where? The same printed Linux
> manuals could be cheaper, or they could be more expensive in the aggregate.
>
> Paul
Books are still my prefered method of info even though I am always on
the net downloading info. I bought "Linux complete" for $30 australian
which is really just a collection of about a dozen faqs available from
the LDP projects but I can read them without a computer on, or in bed
just before I go to sleep, or on the road somewhere, or without flipping
between screens, doing less damage to my eyes I'll bet, etc.
Why not write windows books and charge ridiculous prices, what a neat
way to encourage the use of a free operating system and make some money
at the same time!
IanP
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ is evil - WAS: Re: So where ARE all of these Linux users?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 02:50:54 -0400
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 04:19:54 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball)
wrote:
>>
>>: Is Microsoft an important business?
>>
>>I guess it depends how you define "business," but assuming Microsoft
>>can be considered at least in part a business, not merely a criminal
>>organization, its market capitalization and the prominence of several
>>of its products do qualified it as being quite important.
I think you people have finally lost touch of reality.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: 19 Jun 2000 06:40:07 GMT
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:04:25 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:nU835.5498$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> That's mighty nice for those able to run NT. :)
>
>Well, it's hardware requirements are hardly what you'd describe as extreme
>today.
Speak for yourself. I would and do describe NT's hardware requirements
as extreme.
This is especially true of NT Terminal Server and it also applies to
many third-party applications.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: John Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:01:11 +0100
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
[snipped]
Jeez, poor guy got stuck in vi, but unlike millions
before him he blames Linux.
Hell this happened to me in Xenix from the fabulous world class
software company that produces Windows.
>
> :
> :post
> The post command is unknown.
> :exit
> The exit command is unknown.
> :close
> The close command is unknown.
> :quit
> File modified since last complete write; write or use ! to override.
> :save
> The save command is unknown.
> :s
> No previous regular expression.
> :Oh darnit!
> The Oh command is unknown.
> :?
> No previous regular expression.
> :quit
> File modified since last complete write; write or use ! to override.
> :!
> Usage: [line [,line]] ! command.
> :! quit
> File modified since last write.
> bash: quit: command not found
> quit: exited with status 127
> :?
> No previous regular expression.
> :DIE YOU PIECE OF LINSHIT!!!!!!
> The DIE command is unknown.
--
=====================================================================
John Allen, Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Orbiscom Ltd, Web: http://www.orbiscom.com
3 Sandyford Park, Phone: +353-1-2945111
Sandyford Industrial Estate, Mobile: +353-86-2315986
Dublin 18. Fax: +353-1-2945119
=====================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 07:17:57 GMT
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:08:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Linux IS trying to compete with Windows and is doing quite a poor job
>of it. The rash of poorly thought out and inconsistent Windows
>imitation gui's proves that point.
>
>Linux should have stayed a CLI operating system IMHO because it is
>extremely powerful in that application and quite frankly Linux is
>embarrassing itself by trying to graft a slow and obviously inferior
>GUI on top of a stable system.
The "Windows imitation gui's" that you speak of are indeed inferior.
That's because there's more to Windows than its look. Certain of MS's
competitors understand this. Apple, for example, provides quite a lot
of useful APIs with MacOS. BeOS is apparently more than just an OS,
too.
MacOS and Windows were both originally written for systems considered too
small to support "real OS" features, and this still affects them both
negatively, IMHO. Windows NT has one foot in that world and one foot in
the present -- though some parts are quite modern, others are contaminated
by an archaic mindset. NeXTStep and BeOS were both designed in the age of
desktop machines big enough for real OSs.
Unix, too, was written before anyone put full-featured OSs on anyone's
desktop. Before desktops, even. And while unix has had GUIs for some
time, what's been missing is a rich, standardized desktop environment
with wide adoption and confidence.
NeXTStep put such an environment on top of a kernel which, though
certainly somewhat different from traditional unix, does present a
very unix-like interface. So it can be done, coding-wise. But
NeXTStep was too expensive to be very popular, I think.
I freely admit that I haven't used GNOME or KDE extensively, but from
what I've read, it sounds to me like they're on the right track to
creating something similar. It's my hope that their free and open-source
nature will help them get more momentum than previous efforts in this
direction.
I don't like to use Linux, because Linux's design goal is to "take over
the world" and I prefer a system with the more focussed goal of being a
stable, fast internet platform. But I do think the Linux people are
approaching their particular goal in a good way. Don't dismiss their
efforts to create a good open desktop platform just because the results
haven't been immediate. Of course, I can afford to be ecumenical,
because I expect GNOME and KDE to work on my FreeBSD machines when and
if I get around to playing with them again -- that's a nice thing about
open software.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:31:19 +1000
"void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:04:25 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:nU835.5498$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> That's mighty nice for those able to run NT. :)
> >
> >Well, it's hardware requirements are hardly what you'd describe as
extreme
> >today.
>
> Speak for yourself. I would and do describe NT's hardware requirements
> as extreme.
You can name some other system offering as much with significantly lower
requirements ?
> This is especially true of NT Terminal Server and it also applies to
> many third-party applications.
We _are_ concentrating on a workstation context here.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:52:20 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:23:11 -0500, "Bobby D. Bryant"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Oh, yeah. You still haven't pointed out the lie.
>
> I think I have. Linux runs about as well on a 386 as DOS does. The lie
> is that Linux is going to somehow bring your old machines back to
> life.
Well I first tried out linux on a 386sx-16 with 2M ram, 40M HD. An old
slackware. Can't say I did anything fancy with it except learn a bit of
unix but it gave me multiple virtual terminals (which dos didn't),
smooth multitasking (dos didn't do that) and Xwindows. However, even my
amd5x86-133(486) with 48M ram struggles with windows98 sometimes and
crashes frequently, yet makes an excellent Xterminal/kernel compiler.
IanP
------------------------------
From: Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux+JBuilder vs Win2K+JBuilder
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:59:56 +0200
Flacco schreef:
>
> I am new to Linux. I just noticed that JBuilder on Linux on my P133/64MB
> runs as well as JBuilder on Win2K on my P500/256MB.
>
> Just thought I'd share that.
That's probably because Linux doesn't try to sabotage Java. Java
is platformindepentent, you know. That very principle goes
anything Microsoft has ever believed in.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:14:56 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux+JBuilder vs Win2K+JBuilder
Martijn Bruns wrote:
>
> Flacco schreef:
> >
> > I am new to Linux. I just noticed that JBuilder on Linux on my P133/64MB
> > runs as well as JBuilder on Win2K on my P500/256MB.
> >
> > Just thought I'd share that.
>
> That's probably because Linux doesn't try to sabotage Java. Java
> is platformindepentent, you know. That very principle goes
> anything Microsoft has ever believed in.
Borland hasn't tried to sabotage Java like microsoft has. Jbuilder is
100% java.
IanP
--
"Dear someone you've never heard of,
how is so-and-so. Blah blah.
Yours truly, some bozo." - Homer Simpson
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:23:20 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
mlw wrote:
>
> The only people who seem to dislike X, are those that don't know X. Yes,
> it is not as fast as it could be, but it is pretty fast. Accelerated
> versions of X are quite fast.
>
Actually XFree86 is quite fast as an X terminal on my 486 with modern 4M
pci vid card. In fact there is no noticable difference to a monitor
connected to the server.
IanP
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: 19 Jun 2000 08:31:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
void <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You folks should look into the meaning of the "IFS" environment
> variable.
But that doesn't affect pathnames, where the use of / as a directory
separator is hard-coded into the kernel. (The only other hard-coded
character interpretation in Linux filenames that I'm aware of is of
NUL as end of filename; guess I'll have to base64-encode those PNGs
used as filenames... :^)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:56:13 +0100
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
>
> Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:50:49 -0400, Gary Hallock
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Especially when it took me all of about 3 minutes to install true-type
> > >fonts and now KDE can use them.
> >
> > They looked just as ugly for me.
>
> So now you're the great art critic, huh?
>
> Colin Day
No, he didn't bother. He's just assuming for the purposes of trolling.
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:58:07 +0100
> Fonts are the most basic and most universal problem of Linux window
> managers. I mention it fist because it's one of the most annoying
> issues. KDE is a Windows 9x UI clone and not a very good one at that.
> The BeOS UI and the Mac OS UI are both much better.
>
> The other problems with windows managers is their lack of integrated
> tools. KDE seems to have tried to clone the Win9x UI in this respect
> but again, not very well. I expect a UI to be more than just a window
> manager. It should be the graphical representation of the OS itself.
> Maybe KDE is though... an ugly clone of a sub par UI with almost no
> attention paid to usability and little (if any) consistency.
>
> The UI IS the OS for desktop users. Command line or GUI, it doesn't
> matter. An ugly mess of a UI makes the OS an ugly mess to use. Sums up
> Linux as a consumer grade OS almost perfectly.
Simple. If you don't like KDE use something else. The chioce is yours,
no on is forcing KDE on to you...
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
