Linux-Advocacy Digest #543, Volume #30 Wed, 29 Nov 00 22:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: OK, so let me get this straight, was Re: Whistler review. (Peter Ammon)
Re: Linux for nitwits ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Les Mikesell")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: Linux for nitwits ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is awful ("the_blur")
Re: Statistic about this bigot group (Bob Hauck)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Bob Hauck)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Les Mikesell")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Curtis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: OK, so let me get this straight, was Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:16:58 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JS/PL wrote:
>
> "Peter Ammon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS/PL wrote:
> > >
> > > "Peter Ammon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > JS/PL wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And give me an example of a .dll file or .exe I can't open for
> reading.
> > > I
> > > > > just dropped msimn.exe (outlook express) into notepad for viewing
> while
> > > it
> > > > > is running, I then proceeded to RENAME it while it is running
> without so
> > > > > much as a warning prompt without any problems. Windows simply kept
> > > msimn.exe
> > > > > and added the newly named duplicate msimn1.exe to the folder.
> > > >
> > > > Wait, are you saying that you can't rename an open file under Windows
> > > > without making a copy?
> > > >
> > > > I've got a file open in AppleWorks right now, and I rename it as I
> would
> > > > any file, in the Finder. Not only do I not get "so much as a warning
> > > > prompt," the name change is immediately reflected in the title bar of
> > > > the window where I edit the file.
> > > >
> > > > -Peter
> > >
> > > That's not what I said. Kulkis made reference to .exe files not "any
> file" I
> > > too have an open file and can rename it. If I have file.txt open, it can
> be
> > > renamed file1.txt without having to make a copy because there's no
> > > dependency elsewhere which gets broken, such as shortcuts or
> associations.
> >
> > Ok, so let me get this straight. You're saying that you can't rename an
> > open application in Windows without first making a copy of it?
> >
> > I can rename open apps in the Mac OS without any trouble or having to
> > make a copy, although the change is not reflected in the application menu.
> >
> > -Peter
>
> I can see this is falling into the typical 1st grade mac advocate mentality
> which I avoid at all costs. ("So let me get this straight...the tool bar is
> at THE BOTTOM! and menu selections are 16 pixels in height!!!" -- type
> argument)
>
> Other typical mac advocate arguments I try to avoid:
> "OK, so let me get this straight, your computer is just WHITE!!!"
> "OK, so let me get this straight, your FORCED to use a COOLING FAN!!!!"
> "OK, so let me get this straight, your OS CEO doesn't throw temper tantrums
> monthly!!!"
> "OK, so let me get this straight, your mouse NEEDS more than one button!!!"
> "OK, so let me get this straight, you claim your 2.6ghz dual is faster than
> my 400mhz MAC!!!"
> "OK, so let me get this straight, your MS newsreader has the INCREDIBLE GALL
> to render clickable hyperlinks out of partially typed urls!!!
> "OK, so let me get this straight, you PREFER THE COMPATIBILTY of a platform
> in use by 97% of the earth instead of 2%.
>
> You must be insane.
Err...what?
Believe it or not, I was only trying to understand the way that Windows
handles attempts to rename open files or apps.
Looks like I struck a nerve, though.
-Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux for nitwits
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:14:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The trouble with migrating to other window managers is that,
> > as a new convert to Linux, I don't automagically know how
> > to switch to the new window manager after having installed
> > it, and the documentation seems to think you should already
> > know how to do this so they don't tell you. Slackware's
> > xap1 "disk series" automagically sets everything so that
> > the FVWM95 hack is used in place of the default FVWM2, and
> > I haven't managed to do anything in changing window managers
> > other than require a complete re-install of Slackware.
>
> It's not that hard ... I use kdm (KDE2), and adding another
> window manager is as simple as installing it and adding it
> to the list of available sessions in the kdm configuration
> dialog. Then just choose at login. I use debian BTW.
So, how do you do it if you don't have KDE installed?
The laptop on which size and space are an issue, does not
have GNOME or KDE installed on it (not strictly true: I
did install the GTK library and GNumeric, but nothing more
than was needed for that). I really didn't need anything
KDE had to offer, so I didn't bother installing anything
from KDE (Slackware 7.1 requires an additional 88MB of
hard drive space for the KDE packages).
So your "solution" won't work for me.
Again I cry unto the heavens, "why is there no HOWTO that
explains changing window managers, if everyone is so hot
to get Linux on the desktop?"
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:33:17 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:901091$6664c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > > I didn't say the entire system isn't good. I said its a piece of
crap.
> >
> > I'm getting tried of talking to fanatic.
> > Bye.
>
> So has everyone else, which is why you see so few responses to Devlins
> posts. Every now and a again the troll gets lucky and gets a bite though.
No, that's not the only reason. His original posts never make it here
and I only see them if someone else responds. It happens too often
to be accidental.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:38:13 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:903jsp$568q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > No, actually the comparison is with a box running our in-house app
> > that memory maps a gig and uses it as a database for fast changing
> > data from commodity exchanges. Before NT's sp6a it used to crash
> > fairly often (maybe every two weeks) and about half of the time it
> > would take the whole machine with it. Win2k doesn't crash anymore
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Nice to know that we agrees on something. :)
It doesn't make me feel a bit better about the years of trouble we had
before sp6a fixed the particular brokenness that affected this application
or a bit hopeful that they fixed all the rest of the problems in there.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:39:39 -0500
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
| Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:10:23 -0500;
| >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
| >
| >| Sure, you can. You'd be wrong, but you can say it.
| >
| >You are wrong on that.
|
| Now, doesn't is it seem just a *tad* stupid to snip the remarks we're
| referring to in this exchange?
| ------------------------------
| >> But since in many people's opinion W2K is not at all superior to OS/2,
| ------------------------------
|
| Now, am I still wrong? Or are you presuming that every user of W2K
| agrees with that it is superior to OS/2, presuming they used OS/2?
Not at all.
Uhm, you say that many in the know that are in your acquaintance prefer
OS/2 to Win2k.
I said the opposite and you said that I'm wrong. I'm saying that you are
wrong in saying that I'm wrong. I'm not saying that your initial
statement was wrong.
| Using a "free market" argument that if they didn't think it was
| superior, they wouldn't use it, possibly?
| >| [...]There's little chance at all that it could be
| >| considered superior to OS/2 by any one who knew what they were talking
| >| about. Maybe MacOS.
| >
| >On technical merit I agree. In terms of usefulness to the user, no. OS/2
| >is not very useful to most now.
|
| Again, you confuse the application barrier with the usefulness of an OS,
I am incapable of seeing OS/2 on simple technical terms ignoring it's
largely uselessness to most, just as how you're unable to look at Win2k
and ignore the fact that it's a MS product.
| in an discussion of OSes, rather than computers. This is not a
| religious argument, easily convoluted by empty points, like whether a
| lot of people already use the system.
All these are interrelated and it's probably my signal to move on. Why
discuss OS/2 anyway ..... etc.
| It is a realistic argument,
| intended to discuss, at this point, technical merits of OSes. And other
| than Win32 lock-in, Windows has nothing to show for it on technical
| merits.
>From a plain user perspective, I can't agree when using Win2k and having
used OS/2. I'm not a software/OS developer or producer. I've never been
involved with that sort of thing. I'm just a plain user and reader. If I
stick my nose into arguments on development please take that into
perspective and shoot me down as you like since it's they are opinions
formulated from reading and speaking with developers/ software
producers. I did a lot of that in my OS/2 days since it's not unusual to
have long conversations with OS/2 software developers or have
discussions with them on newsgroups. Not advocacy ones. :=)
Anyway, I can only assess both systems from a usability perspective. A
usability perspective not confined to one OS. I've seen and used other
approaches from the MS way.
I do hear a lot of complaints by developers about the nightmares
developing Win32 apps as opposed to OS/2 apps but that doesn't concern
me really. If PMView works the same and has all the features in OS/2 as
in Win2k, I feel the same about both versions.
Good design only matters to me as far as it impacts on my use of the OS.
I may be blind to some design problems with Win2k but I have to
experience the problems before I'll concede to them. Many say that OS/2
is more stable than WinNT/2k. But after 2 years using each, ie, OS/2 and
WinNT/2k, I cannot agree. This is just NOT my experience. In fact my
experience is the opposite and I'm not alone on this.
Many complain that the Windows registry is prone to corruption and is
fragile. I'm the town geek and help many with their machines. I help all
my colleagues and family with their machines. I've personally never seen
a corrupted registry. Why should I believe then that this registry
corruption issue is as common as it's made out to be? OTOH, in OS/2, I
had an application called Unimaint which was integral to my maintaining
my OS/2 system's smooth functioning. What this application did was to
remove redundant entries from the OS/2 ini files. When I used a zip
drive in OS/2, unimaint was even more important. OS/2 seemed to log all
file paths in the ini files. You can imagine what will happen when you
use a lot of zip disks and change their contents frequently. The system
suddenly starts behaving funny, you run unimaint ini repair and you're
back on track. Interestingly, I have never had to use any such registry
maintenance software while using NT or Win2k yet they just work and work
and work when I use them. <shrug> Be that as it may, it is also true
that many OS/2 users had no such problems with their ini files. But not
to worry, Unimaint was a smashing best seller in the OS/2 community and
many found it indispensable for the same reasons I did.
In my line of work, medicine, our practice is evidence based, simply
because of the dangers of arm chair thinking and evaluating. We may look
at a particular mode of therapy, examine the facts as we know it and
come to the conclusion that it will not work, despite someone claiming
success with it. We therefore do studies, and very often, much to our
amazement, the results are totally contrary to our armchair predictions.
Now, I know that medical issues are not the same as with computers, or
let's say I think not, because the variables involved are more well
known and elucidated. One can then better predict a potential problem.
But isn't it possible that what seems like a questionable design may
turn out to be a real world solution that works in the majority of
situations? What's the point of saying that my OS uses a vulnerable
registry when in fact it's extremely rare for this vulnerability to
cause my system harm. Is this rare problem of concern in a user context
as mine considering that I'm not running a mission critical server and
that I do my backups?
Someone makes the point that when X goes down, the whole Linux system
doesn't. This quality doesn't really help me. I run a stand alone
machine and if my entire machine locks up, it's just as annoying as if I
were to be working and the entire GUI fails on me with me losing all my
work in the apps that were open. If Win2k crashes less often than the
X-server in Linux, then in my user context I prefer Win2k's stability.
I could go on making similar points with other aspects of computer use
and Windows problems but I think you should be getting my general point
which is really what I want to bring across and not the specific issues
which I merely gave as examples.
| It occurs to me that your hopping back-and-forth between "not very
| useful to most now" application barrier issues to technical merits of
| the OS is not merely coincidence. But I don't mean to impugn your
| integrity. Much.
I don't take these discussions as seriously as you do. If I wish to
change the angle to suit me, as most, including *you* do, then I'm sorry
if that get's in your way. :=)
| >No, it hasn't escaped me that they were involved in *illegal*, not
| >*criminal* activity at the time.
|
| Pardon, but you seem to be trying to draw some sort of distinction, as
| between "unlawful" versus "illegal" behavior.
No. I'm drawing your attention to the fact that not all illegal acts are
deemed criminal acts. This is why there are civil matters and criminal
matters dealt with in courts. Monopoly abuse is illegal but not
considered a crime. Criminal acts are punishable by doing time or the
death penalty. AFAIK, Gates and his lackies are not up for doing time.
| It turns out that both
| are "criminal", when executed knowingly, so your point is moot. Wake up
| and smell the Java: Microsoft ripped you (and me) off, on purpose.
Just an issue of terminology. Knowingly committing an illegal act
doesn't always make you a criminal. It depends on the nature of the act.
If I'm caught in a speed trap and given a ticket .. am I a criminal?
| [...]
| >| Actually, I would say the only reason you ever used OS/2 is because you
| >| weren't in the US.
| >
| >This is not true.
|
| And you know this because....
Your argument in support of your presumption was that OS/2 is more
popular in countries outside the US. This is simply not the case in my
country.
| >| It was much more widely supported outside the
| >| states, back before MS re-applied themselves to preventing competition
| >| in foreign markets.
| >
| >This is true but doesn't make your initial presumption true.
|
| Nor does it make it false, oddly enough.
You don't know enough to make that initial presumption. It was really a
stab in the dark.
| >| >The algorithm I use to chose my OS is:
| >| >
| >| >1) First the OS must be stable and reliable. [...]
| >|
| >| In your experience, or in reality.
| >
| >In my experience. In a setting where experience with a particular OS
| >seems to be in conflict, I make my own decision based on my own
| >experience.
|
| "Reality" would be a better choice. If you limit your consideration to
| your personal experience, you frankly are fucked. You haven't the time
| or the knowledge to examine every alternative. Nobody does.
To what degree do you have to examine three choices to make a reasonable
decision. In fact, at this stage, I'm only interested in Linux as a
potential alternative. I've already used OS/2 and it's not even an issue
anymore. I have no urge to be locked into Apple's proprietary hardware.
BeOS is just not in the equation.
| >| Because while your experience might
| >| be that you had problems with OS/2,
| >
| >My problems with OS/2 were not unique to me.
|
| AFAIK, your "problems" with OS/2 were that it was excluded from the
| market by a monopolist engaging in illegal, unlawful activity.
Before meeting Win2k, yes. :=)
| >| and that you haven't with W2K,
| >
| >This absence of OS/2 problems when using Win2k is not unique to my
| >experience either. Not by a long shot.
|
| Well, maybe I'm wrong. Just what were these "OS/2 problems" you are
| referring to?
Well, I mentioned the ini file problems. The SIQ limitation was an
annoyance that way too frequently led to unrecoverable lockups. I'd say
it happened about once every 2-3weeks. At times, these lockups could be
quite devastating. Process Commander, a third party app designed to deal
with this problem, helped at times but not always. That's two third
party applications I had to fork over to help make some OS/2 problems
more bearable. And yet this was Nirvana compared to Win9x because the
OS/2 applications were better and the OS/2 WPS was nice to use.
If I create or delete a partition while running OS/2, I have to be
careful or else I'll get that 'can't find country.sys' error on bootup.
No such problem with Win2k.
OS/2's strengths which I never really used much was it's Win-OS/2 and
DOS support. I did look into them a lot and was pretty amazed. The
Win-OS/2 and DOS support is pretty useless to most nowadays.
| [...remainder snipped, so I'll get an answer to my question, and
| cause it's late...]
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux for nitwits
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:30:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:07:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
>
> >> For a very lightweight window manager that has a clock
> >> at the bottom of the screen, multiple workspaces, and
> >> kde compatibility, you might want to look at Blackbox.
>
> >The trouble with migrating to other window managers is that,
> >as a new convert to Linux, I don't automagically know how
> >to switch to the new window manager after having installed
>
> Ok, that's reasonable. You might want to look at the
> XWindow-User HOWTO. Find it on your hard disk or via
> <http://www.linuxdoc.org/>. It explains how to set up
> a custom window manager, and a lot of other stuff about
> X.
But not, apparently, how to edit the "Start" menus, hence
my original question...
> >In fact, actually doing more than changing the pretty
> >colors or altering the theme is not something the Linux
> >community feels the need to write documentation for.
>
> KDE and Gnome offer a lot more customization than that.
> The start menu equivalents are just as customizable as
> in Windows as far as I can tell. You can make desktop
> shortcuts. You can drag and drop between folders.
> And so on.
As seen below (I started from the bottom when replying),
KDE and GNOME are not suitable for the install, hence
they are not "options".
> FVWM is just a window manager, not a complete desktop.
> Same with blackbox. Which I thought it what you wanted,
> but now you seem to be lamenting that fvwm doesn't do
> desktop-like things. Oh well. Something about cake
> and eating it too would probably fit here.
What I want is a desktop clock and a few other buttons.
What I don't have is the recommended system requirements
to run KDE or GNOME.
> Anyway, fvwm is actually one of the more complex of
> the manually configured window managers in terms of
> it's config files. So the good news is it doesn't
> get any uglier.
Good to know.
> >I think that there needs to be a standard--sigh--like
> >Windoze--double sigh--
>
> It is indeed quite unremarkable that Windows refugees
> think that Linux needs many more Windows-like features.
> It is a different OS. You'll have to get used to that.
> Macs aren't exactly like Windows either. Hopefully the
> benefits outweigh the need to change.
All right, not a "windows-like" feature, just an EASIER
feature for changing the menus!
I mention the Windoze "Start Menu" directory structure
since it was the first one to come out of the mind of
this "Windoze refugee". Ease of use is the first
priority; being exactly like Windoze can be somewhere
at the bottom, or not on the list at all.
> If you want something more like Windows, then you
> ought to use one of the more Windows-like desktops,
> such as KDE or Gnome.
On a laptop with less than 1GB of hard drive space and
16MB of RAM? You may have the patience of a saint when
it comes to waiting for bootup, waiting for X to start,
waiting for applications to load, waiting, waiting,
waiting...but I really don't want to overload my
laptop's tiny physical memory with KDE or GNOME.
All I'm saying is that it should be easier to update
the menus on FVWM2/95, Blackbox, or whatever non-KDE
or non-GNOME X Window Manager you HAVE TO USE thanks
to low memory and/or low disk space restrictions.
> If you don't want to learn how to install them,
> get a distribution that does it for you.
Installation is not the problem. I know how to
install pretty much anything on Linux, from a
no-brainer RPM to a Slackware installpkg to plain
tar.gz files to pure source code. Space and
memory requirements have always been the problem,
not "knowing how to install KDE or GNOME".
> FVWM doesn't even pretend to be a complete desktop.
> It looks a lot like Windows, and that's about it.
FVWM has extremely low memory and hard drive
requirements, making it largely ideal for a laptop
with <1GB hard drive space and 16MB of physical RAM.
> If you want minimal, you can have that with Linux.
> If you want easy point and click customization, you
> can have that. I don't know how to do both.
It should be possible to have easy point and click
in any window manager. Something like a PERL script
with a Tk interface would even provide the basis
for a FVWM menu manager.
> >This standard Window Manager menu structure would
> >then be the defacto standard method for all Window
> >Managers
>
> The big problem with this idea is that the existing
> window managers already exist, have existed for many
> years (some predate Linux) and already have their own
> mechanisms. I don't know how you are going to get
> them all to rewrite their configuration interface to
> this new standard.
I'm not really asking for anything other than an option
on their install menu or config file for an external menu
system. Besides, standards in this case mean not having
to do more than interpret a directory structure, rather
than having an entire chunk of config file to interpret.
Its adding code to expand the audience of the window
manager. While not extremely important to free
software, open source models, one would think that
expanding Linux faster onto the desktop would appeal
to the makers of window manager Linux ports.
Lets face it, Micro$oft is already using portions of
Linux to make Windoze more stable. Why not use portions
of Windoze to make Linux easier to use?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "the_blur" <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:43:10 -0500
So why exactly do WE need to hear about this?
If you're not willing to make things better, don't bitch. You didn't pay for
the OS. And certainly no one made you buy it. If you're not contributing
anything to Linux, it doesn't need you.
I installed the same version of Mandrake you did. I couldn't figure out how
to set up a network card (I'm a TOTAL newbie). I booted up windows, logged
on to #linuxnewbies and someone there was nice enough to tell me what to do.
I had an answer from a Linux user (who seemed very knowledgeable) in less
than an hour.
If you want help, it's there. You just have to look.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Statistic about this bigot group
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:43:42 GMT
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:49:30 +0500, BcB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I simply wrote a program that would grab the uptime and put it into
>something readable.
Cool. Here's a quick and dirty version in Python. It is probably
Linux specific:
#!/usr/bin/python
import string
# /proc/uptime has the uptime and idle time as "seconds.frac seconds.frac"
# We only care about the integer part of the uptime.
fd = open ("/proc/uptime")
tm_int, tm_frac = string.split (fd.read (), ".", 1)
fd.close ()
# Integer math
uptime = int (tm_int)
days = uptime / 86400
uptime = uptime - days * 86400
hours = uptime / 3600
uptime = uptime - hours * 3600
minutes = uptime / 60
seconds = uptime - minutes * 60
print days, "days", hours, "hours", minutes, "minutes", seconds, "seconds"
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:43:45 GMT
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000 07:48:38 GMT, PLZI
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> So, MS wanted to be sure that this would be as unix unfriendly as
>> possible then? Looks like monopoly action to me.
>
>Now, very slowly, please explain to me, what is MS supposed to do with NT
>group information? Provide a NT Group support for all *nix platforms?
Well, they could have made getting the group information a separate
request. That way, an NT server could provide that, while an existing
Unix server could still authenticate users. This method would avoid
the need to either replace existing Kerberos servers or have separate
authentication for NT and Unix. It would have taken a few milliseconds
longer to log in though.
I don't know that much about Kerberos, but my meager understanding is
that supporting this kind of thing is the purpose of ticket-granting
tickets. User authenticates and gets a ticket, which he then uses to
obtain other services. Joining an NT domain and getting group rights
can be viewed as one of those other services.
Was that slow enough for you?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:48:07 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:903jtn$568q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Those reasons being directly related to the monopoly of desktop
> > OS space by microsoft. Says nothing about stability or quality,
> > just monopoly.
>
> You haven't answered Mike's question.
> Why is Netscape's versions on Unix are widely regarded as unstable?
It is a symptom of being designed for the odd MS threading model instead
of using multiple processes as programs do when designed for systems
that handle them well. If a thread blocks doing a DNS lookup, all windows
are blocked, even the nearly unrelated ones doing email or other things. If
java written badly for some other platform crashes a browser window, all
of the other windows go too. You only see that design on unix when the
program was ported in a hurry from Windows.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:52:03 -0500
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
| <*snicker*> I just can't help but chuckle when I think of all you
| people using IE and OE, and thinking you can keep up with people who
| actually know how to use desktop computers on a decent operating system.
Why do you think we necessarily want to keep up with anyone? I use a
computer to get my work done and for entertainment. I never have the
feeling that I'm trying to keep up with anyone.
I joined this newsgroup for some light advocacy discussion.
You say I use crap. I disagree. That's the only issue I'm ready to
discuss. What's this got to do with keeping up with anyone?
Your example had me wondering though.
What practical real world task are you doing with you real world
operating system in the context of browsing that I can't achieve with
IE? I use Netcaptor to be exact that uses the IE engine. I don't use OE.
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
