Linux-Advocacy Digest #977, Volume #34 Tue, 5 Jun 01 06:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows advocate of the year. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: UI Importance (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Jaakko Lintula)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows advocate of the year.
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:56:07 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fi5n6$89j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Not all windows advocates are bad.
>
> They are capable of reasoned, rational arguments (though you might not
> believe it with the amount of drivel coming out of people like Chad
> Myers).
>
> I think we should have a Wincvocate of the year nominated (it makes a
> change from nominating trolls).
>
> I would like to nominate Ayende Rahien. If all windows advocates were
> like this, this group would be a much better place. Heck, if all Linux
> advocates were like this, he group would be a better place.
Thanks.
------------------------------
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 12:07:43 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fi42g$6gn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9fhc7r$qne$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9fh607$lm0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >>You still have to select the individual pictures though, which is a
> >> >>long and tedious process. Basically, selecting some pictures based on
> >> >>content out of 100s is a long tedious process.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > CTR-F type in the parameters (*.jpg,*.gif) hit enter. I fail to see
> >> > what the problem is.
> >>
> >> That doesn't sort them by content.
> >
> > You can tell it to do so.
>
> Content ?!
>
> But that involves knowing what is in the images. I don't think computers
> are powerful enough to sort 1000 images by content yet.
It can sort them by size (demintions of the picture).
Explorer crash on my computer trying to do it for 1000s of images, but it is
still beta.
To get it to sort it by anything more than that (all the pictures with a dog
in it), you will have to do a *lot* of research, both into AI and image
recogniztion.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:09:20 +0200
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> One can try to compute an estimated MTTF (MTBF?) for Windows by observing
> a number of nodes. For example, if one has a 100-server webfarm,
> identically configured and perfectly load-balanced, and one has
> a node failure every 18 days on average [*], then one can compute that
> the MTBF of Windows is 1800 days.
But this isn't how it works.
The chance to node's failure isn't a constant, it increase with time.
Beside, by your method, if I take 10,000 identical configured nodes, and one
of them crash every day, I have a 27 years MTBF.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:10:17 +0200
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:oI%S6.7225$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9fhjt5$49d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > If you read "Inside Windows 2000", it thoroughly debunks the myth that
> > it's
> > > bad for stability (from a guy with access to the source, and a guy
with
> > > um... SoftICE)
> >
> > I don't have this book, and orderring it will take a month.
> > Can you give a list of the reasons?
>
> Basically, the reason is that the way NT is designed, if the GUI subsystem
> faults, then the OS blue screens anyways, whether or not it runs in kernel
> space. The OS's main thread drops to a blue screen when the GUI subsystem
> dies.
>
Okay, why I don't like this?
Why would the kernel BSOD just because the GUI crash? It should restart it,
not stop.
This doesn't sound right, and it's certainly not an excuse.
It would crash *anyway* ?
Beside, I understand that Win2K2 can boot without GUI.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:12:45 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fi4cc$6gn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> You can copy the functionality of the spec without copying the code. If
> >> the binary code was 100% the smae, it would look a bit odd, but it is
> >> perfectly possible to create a compatible implementation that produces
> >> rather different binary code. You could even do it in another language.
> >
> > But the end result (the protocol, aka binary) would still be the same.
>
> I don't follow. I thought the binary was the executable program, which
> would be utterly different. Also, protocols can be plain text.
I gave an example, of two source codes that produce the same binary.
And I said that in this case, you can be pretty sure that they look very
much alike.
If you've a client/server that can participate in the GPL protocol, then
they implement the GPL protocol.
Therefor, you have a good chance that they would fall under the GPL.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:15:46 +0200
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> There is a difference. Speed. You can exploit the SSH1 /flaw/ only
> if you´ve got a fast enough connection to the machine. It *may* be
> enough to be on a 10MBit-Connection, but then *only* if the
> administrator is real dumb, otherwise it can be detected.
I avoided the discussion, can you give me a two line explanation how this
exploit work?
And why it would take a dumb administrator for it?
> --
> Microsoft's Product Strategy: "It compiles, let's ship it!"
MS practice daily builts, you know. ;-D
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 09:39:40 GMT
Joe Keane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>In short, expect AIX, HP-UX, IRIX and other niche Unices to gradually
>>find their way to whatever pastures aging OSes go to,
> They've been there a few years now.
Matter of definition, I suppose, but HP is still churning out new
hardware, with HP-UX as the only OS. They still have a bunch of
software solutions (clustering etc) that depend on HP-UX as their
platform. So I wouldn't say HP-UX is retired just yet.
It's also a long way off for SGI to replace IRIX on their high end
stuff. I'm not familiar enough with IBM to say, but I expect the
situation to be similar.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 11:46:18 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> "Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > >
> > > Are you suggesting that, no matter if it sucks or not, once a UI is
> created
> > > it should forever be locked that way so that idiot users can't get
> confused
> > > when something changes or moves slightly?
> > >
> >
> > No, not like you put it. I hope that there is more consistancy. Some
> > changes (like the example I mentioned) are just plain stupid. If it does
> > change, perhaps a "user friendly" environment will take the time to
> > explain the new changes to a user. Strange how Linux apps always comes
> > with a change log that is very visual (usually you would read it before
> > downloading/upgrading/installing) and to the point, whereas M$ just
> > always fire away with marketing hype concerning "productivity" and
> > "lowering TCO" etc, but when you read the fine print you see you have to
> > get a Super Computer to run the damn thing.
>
> Sure - ok... whatever.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > You left off the fact that you can still just type "copy *.jpg a:" in
> the
> > > Run... box or at a command prompt, if you feel like it.
> > > I thought a good OS was one that offered a choice?
> >
> > That is using a form of CLI... You basically just confirmed that using a
> > CLI is in fact better in some cases than a GUI ;)
>
> Of course I can confirm that. i can think of _some_ scenarios where it might
> be faster to use the CLI. If you are fortunately enough to have such a
> simple command as the above then perhaps the CLI works fine and quick. But,
> the MAJORITY of the time I find the GUI file manager MUCH faster and more
> accurate and definately more functional.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Or just double click on My Computer on your desktop or the little my
> > > computer shortcut you probably have in your quick launch tray or even
> better
> > > (see below)
> >
> > I hate icons on a desktop. I delete them all as soon as they pop up. If
> > you let all the apps create their little Desktop Shortcuts, you end up
> > waisting more time searching for icons. Anyway, the NT4 WS Taskbar (mine
> > at least) does not have a launch tray - and no, I'm not interested in
> > installing it.
>
> If you intentionally destroy the devices given you to help you - then how
> can we have any pity on you when you complain how inadequate your system is?
> That's like taking a toolbox, throwing away all the screwdrivers and then
> bitching cause it take much longer using a drill to drill out screws then
> just unscrewing them.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Or just double click on the My Documents shortcut already on your
> desktop or
> > > any of any number of shortcuts already on your desktop cause you figured
> > > you'd want them conviently nearby so you put them there.
> > >
> >
> > You must have a very cluttered desktop...
>
> Nope, I can even see the picture I put there now and again. If you have a
> lot of documents on your computer - does it automatically follow that your
> computer is cluttered? Obviously not - so your conclusion is poorly drawn
> and inaccurate.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > You COULD do that or you could just click on the "Type" column heading
> and
> > > they'll all sort up nice and neat for you.
> > >
> >
> > BUT, you must first be in DETAILS view (one more click if you aren't).
>
> My system defaults to being in details view for all windows and in explorer
> mode because I set it up that way (a few clicks in folder options and it's
> done).
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > or drag them with a single click to your floppy drive in the same window
> > > that's already open (explorer view).
> > >
> >
> > Which sometimes does the wrong thing, like moving instead of copying OR
> > creating shortcuts instead of copying. Happened again to me just last
> > week - dragged a couple of files to the floppy icon (HTML files). Came
> > to the other PC, and what do I find? SHORTCUTS !
>
> If you drag files from your hard drive to the flopppy (just using the left
> button) then they will ALWAYS be copied. The ONLY way to make them show up
> as shortcuts is to hold the Alt key while copying with the left or using the
> right and then selecting create shortcut. It can't happy by a simple drag
> and drop.
>
NOPE! I have many examples, using just normal drag without any buttons -
and it still screws up. The main problem is that it doesn't do it all
the time, which make it difficult to figure out:
a) am I doing something wrong, OR
b) is the OS doing something wrong
> Then again, how can you fault the OS when the user makes a mistake? I mean,
> if I use the CLI and mistype something and accidently delete these files
> instead of those files cause I put a * where a ? should have been - is that
> the OS's fault or the users? I think we know the answer.
That can also happen in a GUI - especially new users not yet that
comfortable using the mouse. Last week a lady called my because she
accidebtly moved the Program Files folder. A smart system should not
have allowed her that in the first place...
Secondly, by using aliases, I have created a "safe" way of deleting
files (with the rm command in Linux). It now moves files to a trash
directory, from where all files older then 3 months gets permenantly
deleted, using a cron job.
>
> >
> > >
> > > I can do that in much less BUT you also have to consider something else:
> > >
> > > Lets say you have a set of JPG and BMP files in a particular directory.
> This
> > > directory is called:
> > >
> > > /usr/files/project/x_34LB/evenlongerthanthepreviousname/causeIcan
> > >
> > > And you don't want all of them, you only want, oh, this one and that one
> and
> > > perhaps that other one over there and then you also need this .exe file
> as
> > > well as a couple of quick TXT files you forgot about and none of them
> start
> > > or end with the same letters or even contain ANY common letter groups
> within
> > > them. OH, and many of these files have MiXeD case file names too.
> > >
> > > Now, funny man, how quickly can you do that at the CLI? And with how
> many
> > > errors?
> > >
> > > How long did it take you to get to that directory? Did you type it right
> and
> > > get the case correct too?
> > >
> > > So, you got there with some directory completion key help eh? Now -
> start
> > > selecting file names. No * is gonna help this time, even ? is going to
> be of
> > > limited use. Meanwhile, I'm just holding down the Ctrl key as I click
> and
> > > choose as I need to, unclicking them if I make a mistake without any
> regard
> > > for case... and then just drag the entire batch to my destination
> icon...
> > >
> > > So - which is more likely day to day? The ever so convient example of
> > > copying a *.ext set of files from the directory you happen to be logged
> into
> > > or having to copy dissimilar files from a directory you are not in??? I
> know
> > > the later is much more likely to me
> >
> > When working in a CUI environment, you tend to orginise your work
> > better. In fact, you know where stuff is, and you keep directory and
> > file names short, yet descriptive. I also try to limit the levels a bit.
>
> Just like we do in the GUI.
>
> >
> > In Linux we luckily have environment vars, like $HOME. So if I need to
> > get to somewhere deep, it ussualy starts like: cp $HOME/a/b/c/files
> > /mnt/floppy [ as an example ]. Of course the a/b/c part is a bit more
> > descriptive, but I RARELY have that many levels in a directory tree.
>
> Just like in the GUI. AND our GUI learns. If you visit a certain network
> share twice it appears at the top level automatically for you so you can
> pick it again quickly, this survives reboots too. You can set environment
> variables in Windows and use them too. Shortcuts in the GUI are like
> environment variables (in your example) in a CLI. Same thing. If I want to
> get to the OS root directly I just use %windir% - but I rarely need that.
A learning system eats up system resources. I prefer having total
control on the system, thank you.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > wating period? <1 second?
> > >
> >
> > If you re-open it directly after you closed it perhaps. On my system,
> > after a fresh boot, it takes about 4 to 5 seconds.
>
> My system takes uniformly under a second unless the first hard drive is
> working hard.
Your lucky. Mine is only fast if I re-open directly after I closed
Explorer (I sometimes want to maximize the window, but accidently click
the x - my mistake, but that IS the only time Explorer loads fast).
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Then I suggest you stop taking drugs, sniffing glue is hazardous cause I
> do
> > > not know of any version of Windows that made you wait for a copy to
> finish
> > > before continuing. what a joke.
> > >
> >
> > You have very limited experience using various brands of the M$ Windows
> > OS.
>
> Untrue. I've used (and still have a copy of) Windows 1.01 and have used it
> since the 80s
Win 1,2 and 3x were 16bit systems running on DOS. You could not have
copied something to or from the hard drive and still carry on work as if
nothing is happening. That is the actual argument, not if you used other
systems...
>
> >
> > >
> > > yes, in the basements of script kiddies everywhere...
> >
> > Don't they prefer GUI's ? ? ?
>
> I'm sure they would but they are stuck with using unix to spoof their IPs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jaakko Lintula)
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:47:48 +0300
On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 19:50:39 +0100, drsquare wrote:
> what's the difference? Does apt-get give you a clear list of what's
> missing?
Yes, and after user's given permission, it goes and fetchs those
missing packages automagically, and then installs them. And it
works. Wonderful, right?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:40:48 +0200
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yes with its new Linux O/S no less. But I know that there are a lot of
> new IBM imaging systems that reduce the claustrophobic effects on some
> people.
> I worked with IBM in military systems and they were no slouches in
> getting the best designs out to the field. Very good hardware.
> Microsoft doesn't have that kind of organization yet that has to deal
> with other than software goods.
I disagree here.
MS already sells a lot more than just software.
They sell books.
Okay, they sell books *about* software, but they sell books.
The also sell some of the best periperials that I've seen.
Be aware that if MS wanted to start selling hardware, they could do one of
the following:
A> Buy a couple of OEMs.
B> Buy AMD.
C> Develop its own chip. (That would be really cool.)[*]
(I think that Intel is too big for even MS to buy, they could merge with it,
though, making it a true Wintel solution ;-d )
I think that one of the main reasons why MS don't touch hardware is that if
it would try, the DOJ would be all over it faster than the speed of light.
Can you *imagine* the response to MS if it tried to act like Apple?
Can someone direct me to where I can find the net-worth of companies, I
can't seem to be able to find a place on the net that gives this
information. I could make this post a lot more interesting if I had this
information
[*] From past experiance, MS would go to Intel, AMD, Sun, Trasema and every
other company that deals with chips, and offer some tempting-as-sin salaries
& benefits to them. Think about it, Linus may end up in MS in this scenario.
:-D Then they would invest a fortune in giving those people whatever they
want in terms of R&D. It might turn out to be a really good chip, too. [**]
[**] Of course, it would also be the only one who will have the mysterious &
cryptic command BSOD.
------------------------------
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 12:44:26 +0200
"Jan Vorbrueggen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Maynard Handley) writes:
>
> > However, and I mean this as a real point, not an advocacy rant:
> > It would be my guess that some substantial fraction of home users delay
> > upgrading their hardware (and thus hurting both MS and Intel) because
the
> > thought of moving over one's entire world from one machine to another is
> > just too painful.
>
> More precisely, given that the OS does not come with a tool similar to VMS
> BACKUP that allows you to re-create the status quo ante, it is inherently
of
> very high risk to attempt an upgrade in-place, and it seems almost
impossible
> to extricate all of user state from a Windows-family OS to transport (or
> transplant) to a newly installed system. The time and effort needed to get
> back to a state similar to what you have now is incalculable, and if
you're
> unlucky, you know you can loose things in the process.
Win2K and upward fix it somewhat, putting all the user's infromation in
\Documents And Settings\<UserName>
An annoying thing is the GUID that Windows like to gerenate, though.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:51:58 +0200
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:a_%S6.7272$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You act as if this is stolen work. The authors VOLUNTARILY sold their
> software and/or companies to MS. MS did not do a hostile takeover.
> Further, MS likes to buy software to get themselves into the market right
> away, then enhance the software over time. MS-DOS 6.22 is virtually
> indisquishable from QDOS which was bought in 1980 for instance.
IIRC, DOS 1.0 didn't have directories, it didn't have memory management,
etc.
There has been changes, but not very much.
> No, he called the GPL a cancer. Get your facts straight.
Afraid not, he called "Linux" a cancer, he probably meant the GPL, but he
said Linux.
Then again, MS is trying to blur the limits between Open Source, GPL, &
Linux.
> The LGPL is not the GPL. They are incompatible and the FSF discourages
it's
> use. Further, there are very few LGPL'd libraries.
The LGPL & GPL are compatible.
The FSF most certainly try to discourage the use of any non-GPL license.
And there are 1393 projects on SourceForge alone that are under the LGPL.
I would say that this is a lot of LGPL libraries.
> Bullshit. The Linux camp has been targeting MS for much longer than MS
has
> even acknowledge Linux's existance.
That I've to agree to.
------------------------------
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 12:57:03 +0200
"Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> NOPE! I have many examples, using just normal drag without any buttons -
> and it still screws up. The main problem is that it doesn't do it all
> the time, which make it difficult to figure out:
>
> a) am I doing something wrong, OR
> b) is the OS doing something wrong
There are some special cases, such as trying to copy the icons of the
Control Panel, trying to copy to the start menu, etc.
> Secondly, by using aliases, I have created a "safe" way of deleting
> files (with the rm command in Linux). It now moves files to a trash
> directory, from where all files older then 3 months gets permenantly
> deleted, using a cron job.
In other works, you've re-created the Recycle Bin. :-D
What do you mean, though, using aliases?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
