Linux-Advocacy Digest #442, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Ed is the standard editor (TTK here..)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: One case where Linux has the edge ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (J Sloan)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Windows Stability (J Sloan)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Craig Kelley)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (Craig Kelley)
Re: you dumb. and lazy. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Windows Stability (Craig Kelley)
OS-X GUI on Linux? (mlw)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: The real truth about NT ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Windows 2000 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Two Thumbs up for the AntiTrust Movie and Open Source (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: TTK here..
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip,alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ed is the standard editor
Date: 13 Jan 2001 23:42:12 GMT
>> just how much
>> of my hardware and software was really "clones" of other hardware or
>> software .. the Z80 was an 8080 clone, VDE was a WordStar clone, DOS
>> was a CP/M clone, my AMD is an Intel clone, and Linux is a Unix clone.
>
>Wasn't Linux originally a MINIX clone? Hence its compatibility with
>Unix, while still retaining its unique qualities.
Not exactly .. Linux was inspired by Minix. Linus wanted to enhance
Minix into a "real" OS, but the author/owner of Minix didn't like that
idea, so Linus wrote a Unix-alike from scratch. He didn't specifically
target Minix compatability (except inasmuch that the first versions of
Linux used the Minix filesystem), but rather POSIX and SysV
compatability.
-- TTK
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:23:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Matt Soltysiak
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 09 Jan 2001 05:00:46 GMT
<2Ww66.114530$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I've noticed that a lot of Windows advocates/users/kids are spreading
>enormous bullshit regarding Windows 2000's stability. Here's my tests on
>Win2k and true _FACT_ about this nice, bloated operating system.
>
>
>Windows 2000 has failed me more times in 3 to 7 months than any other
>operating system I've used, including Windows NT server, for 4 years. It's
>amazing.
>Here are some of the common failures:
[failures snipped -- most of them lockups]
Have you checked your power supply? :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random dodgy hardware here
EAC code #191 2d:08h:47m actually running Linux.
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:21:47 -0000
>
>I can hardly compare Linux (no X or GUI) with Windows now can I?
>
if your linux has no gui then how are you running that kde desktop shown
in your sig?
>--
>Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: 14 Jan 2001 00:31:19 GMT
Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The real truth is that Excel for the PC is so tied to the PC that MS
: couldn't port it. So they wrote another product that had a UI similar to
: Excel and called it Excel even though it isn't.
Actually, Excel for the Mac predated Excel for Windows, and for that
matter Windows itself.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:33:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kyle Jacobs
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:24:31 GMT
<3uR66.27155$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>That's because Windows 2000 users shut their computers down at night, and
>actually sleep.
>
>Why? Because their human.
So am I, and I leave my two machines on 24/7. I've had very
few problems with them after I did that.
Of course, it helps that they're in an adjacent room :-).
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random fan whirr here
EAC code #191 2d:09h:57m actually running Linux.
All hail the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh)!
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:32:29 -0000
>There is also more than enough for him to give to his boss when he
>tells him how the entire corporate network is down and not functioning
>because he decided to convert to Linsux.
>
Don't you mean when the Corporate network is down because he forgot
to give the NT server it's weekly reboot - linux has uptimes measured in
years, NT resets it's counters after 49 days but it took until recently for
anyone to manage to keep an NT server running long enough to find
the problem.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:46:48 -0000
>I removed the 2GByte disk as a museum piece. The 30GByte disk has a 4GByte
>partition for the system now, as well as a humungous /home partition, which
>is what I wanted.
>
And you couldn't just copy your existing install to the new drive?
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:54:01 -0000
>That explains why the lights flash on the hub. You did READ what I posted
>didn't you?
>
Did you try using ping on each machine to first try pinging itself (tests IP
configuration) and then pinging other machine (tests network connection).
If and machine is unable to ping itself (which doesn't need working netcard)
then check ip address (ping 127.0.0.1 should work whatever the ip setting
as an extra test as is internal address of local machine - works on windows
too).
Also check subnet mask and dns settings.
If machine pings itself but not other machine then make sure correct netcard
driver is installed.
If both of these tests work then the basic connection is good and you need
to
look at configuration of whatever protocol you are using to connect the
machines
(nfs, samba, etc).
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 01:01:08 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> > > I just rebuilt my 166MHz server with a 30GByte ATA66 drive and an ATA100
> > > controller. I reinstalled Linux Mandrake 7.2, chose some options and
> >
> > Why the fuck did you reinstall, shit-for-brains?
>
> Because, oh dweeb, the original boot disk was removed.
>
> What I'm finding is that Linux Mandrake installer has a few funnies in it -
> meaning things get installed differently or don't work at all.
I have to say, as nice as mandrake looks, I've seen some
flakiness in it in different areas that caused me to not trust it.
For instance, gimp on mandrake would always segfault and
die during a certain operations, but the same actions on a
genuine Red Hat (TM) system worked perfectly. I also saw
a box crash during a Mandrake install 4 months ago, so I
decided to install Red Hat instead, and the box has been solid
as a rock ever since:
bronze: /home/jjs
(tty/dev/pts/1): bash: 36 > uptime
4:58pm up 121 days, 7:35, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
I like the user friendliness mandrake has brought to the
table, and I truly hope they get it together technically, but I
just don't trust it 100% at this point - if it has to be reliable,
I install Red Hat.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 01:07:58 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> > Ah... so the falacy comes to light.
and what fallacy would that be?
> > > ReiserFS itself isn't shipping. It's still in beta, and it's
> > > still not stable.
What part of "ships with SuSE Linux" don't you understand?
> > > Suse, however, has been including the beta version in its
> > > distributions for people to mess with, but it's, in no way,
> > > the default FS because, of course, it's not stable.
It is being used in production systems with no problems.
> > > Why don't you just tell the truth, J Sloan?
(?)
>
> >
> > Perhaps your time would be better spent finding cases in which
> > ReiserFS fell over in the last 9 months (if you can).
I'm not aware of any such cases in production environments, but
it is entirely likely that the folks who are debugging development
kernels and experimental versions of reiserfs, as well as xfs, jfs,
veritas and ext3 would report all sorts of bugs,since that is part of
the open source development process.
> Why isn't it the default OS on all distributions if it is
> so much superior to ext2fs, and it's stable, as you claim?
I never made the claim that it was superior, but others may.
I've used reiserfs and had no problem, but I like to stick with a
pretty generic mainstream approach on my servers, so I'm using
ext2 and logical volume manager for now.
I'll wait and see which of xfs, jfs, reiser etc shakes out as the
Linux standard before standardizing on one of them.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 01:12:15 -0000
>Perhaps the complete lack of anyone reporting any interbase cracking is a
>clue here...
The lack of anyone reporting anyone looking at their data may have something
to do with the fact that the secrecy made it impossible to know what to look
for.
How do you know if anyone is accessing things through a backdoor if you
don't
even know there is a backdoor?
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 01:16:28 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Andres Soolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93ppe9$1b7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >> they made a stable OS. How can it be stable if "service packs"
> > >> can cause a system instability?
> > > Service packs replace parts of the OS, of course they can cause instability,
> > > only a fool would think otherwise.
> > If so, the service pack *are* parts of the OS. Are you saying that
> > parts of MSW are instable?
>
> Is Linux perfectly stable?
No OS is perfect, and they all have bugs, even Linux.
I've administered macs, win 3.x, win9x, nt/2000), FreeBSD,
NetBSD, SGI Irix, HP-UX 10.20 &11.0, Solaris, and Linux.
Unix is much less crash prone than either mac or windows,
and on the whole, Linux has given me the least grief of all.
jjs
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: 13 Jan 2001 18:23:02 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >DOS boot disk with network stack. Download files, run setup.
> > >Alternatively, install LAN-Manager redirector and run setup off the
> server.
> >
> > how does it deal with licencing?
>
> Licensing is a paper issue, not a software one. If you have a legitimate
> license, you can install it from any source, including over the internet.
Cool! Where do I get DOS or Lan-Manager, and where do I get drivers
for my 3c59x?
[snip]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: 13 Jan 2001 18:24:49 -0700
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Wager failed.
> > >
> > > All of Windows 98's 3D functionality is in Windows 2000 as built in
> support
> > > through the Windows protected archive.
> >
> > What do you know, Google gave this as the first link:
> >
> > http://www.computing.net/windows2000/wwwboard/forum/6348.html
>
> That is a driver problem, not win2k problem.
That is exactly what we were talking about. Someone was complaining
that they couldn't get their old video card to do 3D under XFree86 4.
I'm just pointing out that Windows has the same "problem".
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: 13 Jan 2001 18:26:41 -0700
"ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And what's the difference between 'not statically' linked libraries and
> dll's?
UNIX shared libraries have established/custom search paths and
versioning. Win32 DLLs do not.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: 13 Jan 2001 18:28:25 -0700
Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> >
> > "Andres Soolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:93ppe9$1b7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> they made a stable OS. How can it be stable if "service packs"
> > > >> can cause a system instability?
> > > > Service packs replace parts of the OS, of course they can cause
> > > > instability, only a fool would think otherwise.
> > > If so, the service pack *are* parts of the OS. Are you saying that
> > > parts of MSW are instable?
> >
> > Is Linux perfectly stable?
>
> Yes
No.
(But it is much more stable than Windows NT, in my experience)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:33:31 -0500
Here is a question for all us Linux people.
If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
consider it?
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 01:32:21 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > > Doesn't seem to be an issue, as NT has regularly beaten linux in all sorts
> > > of performance tests.
> >
> > Wrong again, wintroll -
> >
> > Check out the specweb 99 results for a heads up.
>
> Kernel based web server.
Wrong again, wintroll -
You are confusing khttpd with tux.
> Not realistic. Who cares.
Funny, I have this feeling that if it windows came out
on top, you'd be singing a different tune.
Say, weren't you one of those who were gloating so
obnoxiously back in the days of the mindcraft fiasco?
I mean really spiking the ball hard, and doing that little
victory dance that you do, over and over?
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 01:32:25 -0000
> If you cant get Netscrape to look halfway decent then you
> likely don't possess the ability (or willingness) to select
> options from a menu.
>
Personally, when I install linux the first program I remove from
the list of programs which will be installed is netscape - with
modern linux desktops it seems to be one of the most pointless
programs in the distro (konqueror and the previous kfm seem
to be a lot more useful with none of the regular crashing).
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 01:41:15 -0000
>> >You're insane. even as early as 1988, Exabyte drives were getting
>> >over 500 passes out of off-the-shell 8mm video tape.
>>
>> You certainly don't get around much.
>
>Actually, I know one of the beta-testers for early Exabyte products.
>
You are both correct - most tape backup systems are crap because most
of them seem to use DAT tape which has problems with tape creasing due
to the combination of narrow tape width and thickness. The exabyte machines
you mention use a far-better 8mm tape system which has none of these
problems ( scaling down vcr type mechanism's too far like 4mm dat is not
a good idea for reliability). At work we have a DAT machine and an exabyte
and the DAT machine lasted about 4 years before mechanism failed and
chews every tape put into the machine yet our 6 or 7 year old exabyte still
works perfectly (curiously our 7 year old CDR drive still works too but I
now
have this at home as it was scrapped due to lack of support in modern
software).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 02:52:54 +0100
In article <o0V76.1247$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Word has traditionally stored binary data structures in it's file format.
> This means that, unless you always convert endianness when loading and
> unloading documents, the file formats (even if otherwise identical) will not
> be the same for data content. More likely, Word only does endianness
> conversion when using filters for a non-native file format.
Yet more crap. 'endianness' has been solved years ago on other OS's.
Microsoft just go out of their way to make it harder to use even
their own applications on non Microsoft OS's. It's about time you
grew up and stopped your blind support for them.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Two Thumbs up for the AntiTrust Movie and Open Source
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 21:05:43 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> David Steinberg wrote:
> >
> > Brian Craft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > : I just came from the first showing of the Antitrust movie,
> > : http://www.antitrustthemovie.com , and give it a 2 thumbs up for support
> > : for the Open Source Community. It very clearly shows what Microsoft has
> > : and is doing and in the end, Open Source prevails!
> >
> > Did you notice that they have banner adds up at ./ today?
> >
> > I wouldn't have thought that "open source geek" was a large enough
> > demographic at which to target a movie. Nonetheless, I will be seeing it
> > this evening! :)
> >
>
> Nobody ever went broke targeting those with the money.
I think the term was "dollars with little sense."
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
