Linux-Advocacy Digest #973, Volume #34 Tue, 5 Jun 01 02:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Kernel comparisions ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft ("Dean Kent")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Glitch")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Monolithic arch's SMP, and licenses... we're all over the place today! (Ray
Chason)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Opera (Leigh Wedding)
Re: UI Importance (Dave Martel)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Dave Martel)
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Opera ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Larry Elmore)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("JS \\
PL")
Re: Linux on Itanium ("J Perrimato Fectuzo")
Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Michael Vester)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (Stephen Edwards)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft ("Dean Kent")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel comparisions
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 06:49:27 +0200
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > By extendible I mean that if I want to have a compressed encrypted file
> > (can't do that on NT, at least not via the UI), I can build my own
driver,
> > and attach it to this chain.
> > This mean that I can encrypt it after the uncompressor is done, after
the FS
> > driver was done, and even before the FS driver gets the data.
>
> So, I assume that you're application will use the 'dll and the 'dll will
> in turn process the data and call the raw IO subsystem.
No, it doesn't.
As I said, the whole proccess is user & application trasperent.
You can use fopen(), an it will happen.
> What then is the
> difference in an application using a Linux module that provides the same
> function?
That I've to make a special case for opening some files.
> Would you refer to that as "layered" ?
Think of bucket chains.
You ask for a file, and it's passed to you by a lot of drivers.
On Linux, you ask for a file, and the kernel goes and fetch it for you.
> If so then could you
> not take the SAME argument and apply it to Linux ?
No. I don't think that Linux has layered i/o.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Dean Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Dean Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:10:36 -0700
WARNING - shameless plugs follow!!!
Bill Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fh843$7qm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "cjt & trefoil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Have you ever actually tried to do that? It's not as easy as you seem
to
> think.
>
> I've used both XCOPY and Partition Magic to replicate a (bootable)
partition
> onto a new disk on the *same* machine: it's easy with the former, and
> completely painless with the latter.
I think you might want to reconsider the XCOPY method - see here for a
starter, and follow the links for more details:
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT121498000000
>
> I've booted vanilla (no special drivers) versions of Win9x with no problem
> as well.
>
> My belief is thus that if I took a copied partition to a new machine, it
> would indeed boot as Stephen describes - albeit quite possibly in 'safe
> mode'. For that matter, if I didn't want to continue using the old
machine,
> I could have just moved the disk to the new machine and booted from it
> directly if I was happy to use the new machine's native (and usually
> significantly larger) disk as a second disk rather than to boot from it.
>
> At that point, I should be able to re-install my existing system onto
> itself, and update the necessary drivers at that time: last I knew
(though
> a while ago now), MS's installations would do this without trashing the
> other data on the disk - guess they figured they'd better, given how
> frequently reinstallation seems to be required in some cases.
If you are fortunate, the registry doesn't get trashed by your first boot on
new hardware. Windows keeps all hardware, software and user options in a
single relational data base file (as far as I can tell), and when it gets
corrupted... well, you could be completely screwed and need to reformat and
reinstall..
It has happened to me, and a lot of time can be wasted if things don't go
well. I don't know what the percentage would be of successful vs.
unsuccessful ports... but I would rather be sure it will work than waste
several hours and have to go through a full install anyway...
>
> If you got a newer OS version with your new system it may get messier,
> unless the Windows distribution included with your new machine will accept
> being installed as an upgrade to the existing system it sees on the disk
(my
> somewhat out-of-date experience is that OEM distributions object to being
> installed as upgrades rather than over themselves). If so, it should
> happily incorporate all your existing Microsoft and other applications
into
> the new system transparently; if not, it's messy-move-everything time.
Well, this is probably not in the spirit of the original point of this
thread - but there actually is a fairly simple method of organizing the
Windows system that lends itself to relatively simple reinstallations. It
isn't for the 'average' end user - but few things are ;-). This was
written with Win98 in mind, but with a few modifications it should work for
almost any Windows installation:
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT041801110309
Regards,
Dean
>
> - bill
>
> >
------------------------------
From: "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 00:33:54 -0400
>
>
>> Now what if they actually did provide support for the ext2 filesystem?
>> Not only would their product be more usable, the company as a whole
>> would, if not gain more acceptance, at least receive less criticism
>> from the community of users who may use a Microsoft platform in
>> addition to other platforms.
>
> Microsoft's back is broad. I don't think that they care. After all X
> provides remote display while M$ also relies on third party applications
> to fill in this corner. They don't care because they don't have to.
>
If MS has admitted Linux is a threat isn't that a sign that they *should*
begin to care?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 07:24:11 +0200
"Dean Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:L_YS6.6256$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If you are fortunate, the registry doesn't get trashed by your first boot
on
> new hardware. Windows keeps all hardware, software and user options in a
> single relational data base file (as far as I can tell), and when it gets
> corrupted... well, you could be completely screwed and need to reformat
and
> reinstall..
No, the registry is a hirercial database, not a relational.
The difference is that in a relational database you ask:
"give me all the people with brown hair"
In hirercial database you ask:
"give me all the people stored in the \brown_hair."
Hirercial database are *really* fast.
BTW, about shortnames in NT, you can disable those, solving the problem.
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Monolithic arch's SMP, and licenses... we're all over the place today!
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 04:26:44 -0000
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> I cannot name even a single development tool that brings your work
>> under the GPL simply because you used the tool to process your work.
>> This used to be true of Bison, but Bison now carries an exception to
>> the GPL so that this is no longer true.
>
>I see. So "based on" doesn't necessarily mean "originating
>from" or "derived from" in the context of manufacture or
>processing, yes (note: genuniely asking, not smartmouthing :-)?
Exactly.
Bison (a parser generator for context-free languages such as C)
places a piece of predefined C code in its output, using it as a
template and filling in stuff determined by its input. In early
Bisons, the template was GPL'd and so the output of Bison was also
GPL'd. The template is now offered under something more BSDish,
and so Bison no longer auto-GPLs its output.
GCC doesn't work in this manner, and so its output has never been
auto-GPLd.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 04:29:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Glitch wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Now what if they actually did provide support for the ext2 filesystem?
>>> Not only would their product be more usable, the company as a whole
>>> would, if not gain more acceptance, at least receive less criticism
>>> from the community of users who may use a Microsoft platform in
>>> addition to other platforms.
>>
>> Microsoft's back is broad. I don't think that they care. After all X
>> provides remote display while M$ also relies on third party applications
>> to fill in this corner. They don't care because they don't have to.
>>
>
>If MS has admitted Linux is a threat isn't that a sign that they *should*
>begin to care?
What they are mainly concerned with is expanding their
server and IIS roles.
Without domination in those markets and the small business
MS will be less valueable to the consumer.
In my area, MS has lost over 50% of the smaller business
with less than 100 people to Linux, mainly RedHat.
Since this is how MS got it's start after being accepted
in the residencial sector, it's reason for concern for
them.
But MS's price structure is what's started to drive
them away. The 2nd reason is performance related
as almost any Linux distro with a 2.4 version kernel
is 2-4 times faster than the equivalent MS server
product.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leigh Wedding)
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: 5 Jun 2001 04:38:17 GMT
In article <9eu937$d72$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
>
>"Matthew Gardiner (BOFH)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9esgcv$749$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Is there a phobia held amongst Wintrols that they are more than happy to
>pay $1300 for a bloated office suite from Microsoft,
>> however, they are not willing to shell out a few dollars to buy a piece of
>software and help support a small software company, in
>> this case, Opera. Sounds like double standards to me.
>>
>When you can get a better browser for free, why pay?
>
>
>
I assume you refer to Internet Explorer (IE).
The way I see it IE is not really free as MS claims, it is
actually included in the price of MS Windows. Can you
grasp this concept?
Leigh.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 22:44:43 -0600
On 4 Jun 2001 22:10:02 -0500, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>To you perhaps but not to most people. In fact, using a mouse is proven to
>be much faster and much more accurate than typing.
Depends. For example:
mkdir \progra~1\irfanview
cd \progra~1\irfanview
pkunzip \download\iview336.zip
dir
iview
I can type all that and have it done while you're still clicking your
way to the Windows Explorer button and waiting for Explorer to get its
ponderous ass launched. On the other hand, I can sort out a messy HD
much faster in GUI file manager than on the CLI. The point isn't which
is better, but that users need both to use their systems most
efficiently.
You seem to think that the CLI is more than the average user can deal
with. Don't forget that MS got their start selling a CLI operating
system (DOS) to people who had never used a computer before. These
newbies learned to format and partition HD's, install and configure
drivers, juggle TSR's and applications in limited RAM, write batch
files, and deal with umpteen different text-based programs each with
its own UI and quirks (and printer drivers).
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 22:49:47 -0600
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:10:36 -0700, "Dean Kent"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think you might want to reconsider the XCOPY method - see here for a
>starter, and follow the links for more details:
>http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT121498000000
>
>>
There's a DOS program out there that expands on XCOPY's features. It
claims to be able to do a full backup of Windows including system and
hidden files. The URL is <http://www.xxcopy.com/xxcopy.htm>
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 07:57:18 +0200
"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You seem to think that the CLI is more than the average user can deal
> with. Don't forget that MS got their start selling a CLI operating
> system (DOS) to people who had never used a computer before. These
> newbies learned to format and partition HD's, install and configure
> drivers, juggle TSR's and applications in limited RAM, write batch
> files, and deal with umpteen different text-based programs each with
> its own UI and quirks (and printer drivers).
People will learn only just as much as they absolutely have to. In DOS'
days, they had to learn all of that in order to use a computer.
Today, they don't.
A programmer must assume that his users will *always* take the path of least
resistance.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 07:58:12 +0200
"Leigh Wedding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fhnnp$eki$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The way I see it IE is not really free as MS claims, it is
> actually included in the price of MS Windows. Can you
> grasp this concept?
No, I can download updates for free.
I don't have to buy something to get IE5 on Win95.
------------------------------
From: Larry Elmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 04:58:52 GMT
Peter da Silva wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Larry Elmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Peter da Silva wrote:
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Larry Elmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > If you want a custom car, you go to a custom car dealer. If you want a
> > > > mass market car, but _without_ a transmission because you want to
> > > > install your own special one, do you honestly expect to be able to go to
> > > > a mass market auto dealer and pay _less_ for that car?
>
> > > AOOOGAH AOOOOGAH! BAD ANALOGY WARNING! BAD ANALOGY WARNING!
>
> > Only for the too literal-minded. What manufactered commodity item would
> > make a better analogy, and why?
>
> A modular one, of course. Removing the transmission from a car is expensive,
> and they're unlikely to sell it to someone else. Software can be erased with
> a moment's work, and licenses are fungible.
Who said anything about _removing_ a transmission?
> Bass boat and outboard motor would be about right.
I don't think so. Sure, it's easy to format a hard drive and "remove"
the OS, but what does the dealer gain from it? It's not like a hardware
investment like the outboard motor where he still has possession of the
hardware. Sure, he can cut the cost of the OS license from his final
price for the computer, but then how much does he lose in extra time and
paperwork recovering that cost, since he already paid for it from the
manufacturer? From the mass manufacturer's point of view, if there isn't
sufficient demand for machines without an OS, they're probably going to
decide not to spend any time catering to a tiny, niche market. Which
leaves that field open for small manufacturers. Which it seems to be,
although like I said earlier, you'll save precious little money building
an equivalent machine yourself without the OS, so I don't really see
what the fuss is about. It's been a good thing for PC's to have a
single, dominant OS up till recently -- too bad it was Windows that came
out on top, but Apple deliberately made the decision to maximize profit
margins at the expense of market share, IBM was almost unbelievably
incompetent in its marketing of OS/2, and the Unix world was hopelessly
fragmented at the relevant time period.
Larry
------------------------------
From: "JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 01:17:08 -0400
"The Queen of Cans and Jars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bryan C wrote:
> >
> I wonder what kind of hardware requirements are
> > necessary to successfully support this feature if nothing is being
> > saved to non-volatile memory as you suggest.
> >
> Reportedly, the hardware requirements for XP, at least in terms of
> memory, are double those of Win 2K. I assume the HD and CPU
> requirements are also doubled.
I don't think you can even find a new hard drive as small as what Window XP
would require (1.5gb). I don't think you can even find a new processor as
small as what Windows XP will require (233mhz). The minimum requirement is
basicly an old computer with (maybe) a $30 memory boost.
------------------------------
From: "J Perrimato Fectuzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Linux on Itanium
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 00:22:35 -0400
at least we agree on linux
--
J Perry Fecteau
Voted Number One Man on the Internet
http://perry.fecteau.com/
"2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fhfs5$v5d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Sun is the high end market.
>
> Linux is a mass market phenomenon with a very widespread following.
>
> For instance, Linux is popular among researchers and scientists where
> Itanium's fabulous floating point benchmark, which is competitive or beats
> the Alpha as leader on the SPECfp2000.
>
> 2 + 2
>
>
> ca wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >New hardware, new instruction set, new compilers, newly compiled OS,
> >re-compile all your apps, shake out stability bugs.
> >
> >versus Sun
> >
> >same architecture, everything runs "as is" even Solaris 1 applications,
> >excellent servers, no recompilations, etc...
> >
> >2 + 2 wrote:
> >>
> >> "Intel has teamed with Linux vendors to bring the open source OS to the
> new
> >> chip. And those vendors are eager to raise Linux to a high-performance
> >> platform. "We now have a chance to offer Linux as a first-class
operating
> >> system across the whole spectrum, from embedded applications to the
> >> enterprise," said Michael Tiemann, chief technical officer at Red Hat.
> Intel
> >> was one of the first equity investors in Red Hat in 1998.
> >> http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2768445,00.html
> >>
> >> Intel knows a mass market when they see one.
> >>
> >> 2 + 2
>
>
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 22:57:18 -0700
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, flatfish+++ wrote:
> >On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 00:02:55 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 17:33:10 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> >> (flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:51:40 -0700, Michael Vester
> >>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Most people can drive a car after it is already built, but give them a
> >>>pile of parts and a stack of How-To's and ask them to build it, or add
> >>>an air conditioning unit after the car is already built (by someone
> >>>else) and they will be in trouble.
> >>
> >>Your point?
> >
> >An end user put in front of an already set up Linux system will not
> >have too much difficulty in performing ordinary tasks (WP, web
> >browsing, playing CD's etc).
> >
> >It is when that person decides he wants to add new programs, features,
> >upgrades, hardware etc that the entire thing falls apart.
> >
>
> Ah now wait a minute Flatfish.
>
> You've been telling people for months now that Linux is
> a peice of shit and won't even install on your machine.
>
> Now you've decided it's okay to say it works?
> What?
>
> --
> Charlie
> -------
Is Flatfish really a Linux advocate? Perhaps, the overwhelming evidence is
finally making an impression with our cute and lovable Flatfish. Flatfish
has even posted a recommendation to a newbie when it came to which
distrubution is the best. SuSE, way to go Flatfish. That is my favourite
distribution too.
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Edwards)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 05:41:25 GMT
Seven rabid koala bears with eucalyptus spittle dribbling from their
mouths told me that [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Köhlmann) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
8<SNIP>8
>Sure, when MS ships totally insecure products, it is irrelevant.
>Well, Chaddy boy, little wintroll, it was already explained to you
>several times, but you refuse to listen. I will nonetheless try again.
>SSH1 is *not* insecure at all. The /flaw/ is only exploitable in a
>direkt LAN-Connection, if at all. This means of course, that using SSH1
I'm confused. First you say that it isn't
insecure at all. Then you say that it might
be possible to exploit it over a LAN connection.
Call me crazy, but last I checked, even an exploit
limited to a local net is still an exploit.
And another thing confuses me. I don't pretend to
be a networking expert, but what makes a LAN connection
different from a connection to the internet. I'm under
the impression that they both use the same kinds of
protocols... they just differ in location/topology.
Could you clarify what you're saying here, please?
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Dean Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Dean Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:41:39 -0700
Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fhn16$6i3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> No, the registry is a hirercial database, not a relational.
> The difference is that in a relational database you ask:
> "give me all the people with brown hair"
> In hirercial database you ask:
> "give me all the people stored in the \brown_hair."
>
> Hirercial database are *really* fast.
Oops, I guess you are right. I've poked around with registry editor, but
not much else - but I should have recognized it as a hierarchical db. I
used to be a DBA for IMS many years ago, before DB2 was even a product, so I
understand the difference (but didn't apply the understanding here!).
Regards,
Dean
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
