Linux-Advocacy Digest #108, Volume #35 Sun, 10 Jun 01 12:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Redhat video problems. (mlw)
Re: Desktop Linux (Tuomo Takkula)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Redhat video problems. (flatfish+++)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Bob Hauck)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Redhat video problems.
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 11:23:45 -0400
"William J. Giffen" wrote:
>
> I have just installed redhat on my backup computer system (I am a newbie,
> but working hard to end that). However, when I first did it, it probed the
> video card (a Diamond MM Monster Fusion) and got 3dfx's Voodoo Banshee
> (right chipset, wrong card). I never found another way of changing this
> short of wiping the whole system and rerunning the installer from scratch.
> If anyone knows a workaround, I would appreciate it. As to the major
> problem: under BOTH driver sets (which I assume are similar) I have been
> geeting screen flickers on boot and lots of visual problems under Gnome. Is
> this likely that it is a bad card (as a friend has suggested) or is there
> something else I have overlooked. Like I said, i am a newbie and I am sure
> there is all sorts of relevant info I've left out.
>
> Thanks for the time.
> Bill
One of the great things about Linux is that one can almost always get something
working. I hope Linux vendors simplify the mainstream installs, but not at the
expense at the, almost, total control that one has now.
RedHat uses "Xconfigurator" which does an OK job. You can use xf86config. You
can download a readme and edit /etc/X11/XF86Config.
Typically, however, right chipset, wrong card, does not cause many problems.
The chipsets usually provide enough information about capabilities that knowing
about the card is less important. Sometimes, of course, card OEMs muck with the
way the chipset is supposed to work, and this information is nessisary, but
this is not as common.
------------------------------
From: Tuomo Takkula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.text.tex
Subject: Re: Desktop Linux
Date: 10 Jun 2001 17:19:43 +0200
"Robert Morelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been using LaTeX daily for well over 10 years. I can pretty easily
> visualize what it's going to do most of the time, but including graphics
> is definitely one of the weakest points. In fact, the TeX system on
> which LaTeX is based doesn't have even a single graphics primitive.
Eps and pdf work fine. What other format would offer any advantages
(and would still be scalable)?
> The only way you can include graphics is by using driver specific
> extensions or using one of a variety of bizarre kluges (like converting
> an image into a character of a gigantic bitmapped font).
In which century do you live? Again, eps and pdf are your friends. The
graphicx package handles them (and others) fine.
> TeX was conceived in the 1970's and retains most of the limitations
> that 1970's computing placed on it. One of those was lack of a
> common graphics standard, but there are lots of others.
You seemed to have missed the development since then. I wouldn't say
that handling graphics with LaTeX is a trivial task, but for almost
every task there is a package that does it for you, and the tools
which are available are usually very flexible and powerful, and
reasonably documented. Granted, the package designers are not known to
care much for standard interfaces and such, but if you are in doubt
about something ore want to 'fix' something, use the _source_.
> On the
> whole, TeX is a hopelessly primitive and wacky typesetting system.
which, after 30 years, still outperforms almost everything on the
market in that task, namely typesetting. Did Word finally get the
kerning and ligatures right or are they still trying to 'standardize'
the rest of the world into not using them?
> Unfortunately, TeX is one of the standards for document
> publishing under UNIX, but its development was basically abandoned
> in the 1980's. Development of LaTeX has continued, but at an almost
> imperceptible pace. The LaTeX of today is only marginally better
> than the original LaTeX of 20 years ago. That slow rate of progress
> is mostly because the TeX foundation on which it's built is such a
> poor technology.
Well, if you know how to improve the Tex base significantly, then make
a proposal... I guess your contribution will be highly welcomed.
Most, if not all development of TeX/LaTeX is done by volunteers. They
sacrifice their sparetime and they try to avoid stupid mistakes. Sure,
everybody would like to see the LateX3 version now, but I'm pretty
sure, everybody would prefer to see LateX3 without major glitches as
opposed to the common beta state that you encounter with software some
people even pay for. Unfortunately there is no big funding agency
pumping money into TeX/LaTeX, but funnily enough, all those companies
which do spent a lot of money in the development of word processors
and typesetters failed to produce a viable alternative to TeX/LaTeX
for the scientific community.
> What's really pathetic is that a lot of UNIX folks still think TeX is
> an "advanced" and "powerful" system.
Propose a better one and I'll check it out. My requirements:
- proper typesetting (kerning, ligatures, footnotes at right places...).
- handling of complex mathematical formulas.
- bibliographical database.
- compliance to journal standards via style-file.
- huge documents.
- correct and flexible number of any kind of objects in a document.
- does not crash.
- no undocumented changes that renders old documents unusable.
- printed as typeset.
- multilanguage support, even in a single document.
- postscript output that obeys the postscript standard.
...
Does Word offer _any_ of these? Does any word-processor offer any of
these? Framemaker can handle some of them, pagemaker others. But for
scientific documents (and many others) there is nothing better
available to my knowledge.
My 50 Öre
Tuomo Takkula
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:23:57 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 10 Jun 2001
[snip]
> >> I never claimed you could right a program to do "anything". Don't be a
> >> such a putz.
> >
> >Er, to quote you back to yourself, "One could write
> >any program to do anything."
> >
> >Which is indeed not so, but you did claim it.
>
> No, I did not. Believe it or not, you are just playing games with
> context. It is obvious, if you read the original context, that the
> phrase 'to do anything' was meant as "to do anything specific that any
> program can do." It is just a matter of your being dishonest again,
> Dan.
Well, if you say so- but this amended claim is no
more true.
[snip]
> >>What is it with you? Do you think
> >> any computer is a "turing machine"?
> >
> >No. They are stictly speaking deterministic
> >finite automata- if you want to be picky.
> >Finite memory will do that to you.
>
> "Strictly speaking" my left tit. Computers "are" many things, including
> finite state automata (theoretically), but that has nothing to do with
> the question.
They have the computational power of a finite state
automate, which is strictly less than that of a turing
machine.
> Since I want to be picky, as a proper spanking for a
> dishonest person should be, they are "not turing machines", and it is
> because they do not pass the turing test, not because they have finite
> memory. (That the latter is the 'cause' of the former is pointless
> speculation at this point, though common.)
No. The turing test is not about computational power
or turing-completeness. It is a (proposed) test
for intelligence- or at least apparent intelligence.
There is no particular reason to believe that
this is in any way related to computational
power at all.
> >But our programming languages (like
> >Java) model them as if they *were*
> >Turing machines.
>
> So I was right; you don't know what a 'turing machine' is. The
> vernacular, not some silly mathematics theory idea of infinite paper
> tapes.
The term "turing machine" is not part of the vernacular
at all; it is comp-sci jargon. You may have a special
magic Max meaning, but in the field the meaning of the
term "turing machine" is very precise, and I am not
going to go along with your efforts to redefine this one.
> It means artificial intelligence, Dan. And you can be sure no
> programming language does that.
It certainly does not. A turing complete formalism
can express any computation that a turing machine
can perform.
That's it. That's exactly what it means. We simply
do not know whether this implies "can do AI";
we don't know if a turing machine can do AI.
> >Except they have extra features turing
> >machines don't, like I/O support.
>
> Oh, so you mean to say "my metaphysical idea of some abstract imaginary
> thing a college professor once explained to me is a 'turing machine'."
> Again, your ignorance precedes you. You are thinking of "a computer";
> something that Turing modeled, but it is not "a turing machine". Not
> until you can make it intelligent.
I don't know if Turing even models computers, in the
modern sense of that term. He was trying to model
algorithms. It's not clear that he succeeded in this.
It is provable that finite-memory computers are
less computationally powerful than turing machines,
though.
[snip]
> >I am saying that the ability to emit DB/2 databases
> >does not follow, even if a language is turing complete.
>
> That makes no sense. What makes it impossible for a turing complete
> language to perform a computational process?
Emitting a DB/2 database is not wholly computational;
it is partly I/O. The format *counts*; you can't just
emit an equivalent structure to your own tape.
[snip]
> >As I said, the notion that the bulk of MS-labeled
> >software was written outside of MS is unique
> >to yourself, Max.
>
> I'm afraid the fact that every major component in Office were purchased
> falsifies your argument without a backwards glance.
Word was not, for one.
[snip]
> >Microsoft is extraordinarily aggressive; they don't
> >turn down any chance to promote their stuff, as far
> >as I can see.
>
> Well, perhaps John Dillinger was merely an aggressive bank customer, who
> didn't turn down an opportunity to withdraw funds.
:D
[snip]
> Well, consider, Dan, that I know and can explain why they did what
> they've done that doesn't leave me vexed to discern why they felt they
> needed to do it. Having to compete is not a "disadvantage"; it is
> merely the only legal option.
You cannot explain, however, why, in your opinion,
MS never ever completes in a Max-approved manner-
even when this would be effective.
It seems like you feel tha the Max-approved forms of
competition are all inferior and ineffective.
I honestly have to wonder why you are so hot
to trot on those methods, if tey are so lousy.
If, say, the only thing consumers care about
is distribution, then perhaps it *is* right
and proper to compete on the basis of who
can get what bundled with what.
[snip]
> >I think they could have overcome that disadvantage,
> >but Bill Gates got where he is today through
> >paranoia- he wasn't going to assume they overcome
> >it.
>
> Why do you speak as if Bill Gates was somehow separate from Microsoft?
Well, he is. MS is not a one-man operation, ya know.
> Obviously, if he could not overcome the "disadvantage" of being unable
> to compete, then his company could not.
I don't follow. The "disadvantage of being unable to complete"?
[snip]
> >Yes, the federal government does seem to believe
> >they have laws against competition.
>
> It doesn't help your case to so flagrantly mis-state the facts. The
> government has laws against monopolization, engaging in
> *anti-competitive* actions.
Which, I observe, includes competing in markets
you do not already dominate.
[snip]
> >More seriously- Microsoft's journey to
> >32-bit protected mode was greatly simplified
> >by their early decisions that OS data structures
> >would be accessed through opaque handles,
> >using only APIs.
>
> That was the journey. Doh!
Well, part of it.
> They declared "this is the only way anyone
> will be able to do it on the PC, because we own DOS, and are prepared to
> break the law to ensure that the Windows API is the only PC platform
> available."
They didn't. There were and there are other
platforms available. I'm pointing out areas
where MS's platform was better, and why
those areas mattered.
You just willfully ignore the things MS does *right*
on a technical level- even when I point them out to
you specifically, and compare them to their competition.
[snip- technical discussion]
> As if I cared.
I do realize, Max, that you do not actually care
whether Windows is better or worse than this
or that other OS, on a technical level. Thus, my
technical comparisons are of no interest to you.
But I think others might read these postings,
possibly. :D
------------------------------
From: flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Redhat video problems.
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:26:03 GMT
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 11:23:45 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>One of the great things about Linux is that one can almost always get something
>working. I hope Linux vendors simplify the mainstream installs, but not at the
>expense at the, almost, total control that one has now.
Assuming one has the time to dedicate to it.
>RedHat uses "Xconfigurator" which does an OK job. You can use xf86config. You
>can download a readme and edit /etc/X11/XF86Config.
Chances are the guy can't even see his display so how is he supposed
to accomplish that?
>Typically, however, right chipset, wrong card, does not cause many problems.
>The chipsets usually provide enough information about capabilities that knowing
>about the card is less important. Sometimes, of course, card OEMs muck with the
>way the chipset is supposed to work, and this information is nessisary, but
>this is not as common.
Tell that to my Thinkpad with a Trident 9385 chipset that keeps
getting mis-identified buy every known distribution except RedHat 6.1
and some ancient version of SuSE (5.3 I think).
All I get is a fade to white screen with all pixals turned on.
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:44:10 GMT
On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 21:01:48 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why are you against the left? And why are being so vague? What "left"
> ideals do you not like? And why do you describe yourself as liberal
> when you're clearly not.
I'm sure you know this but...
You have to decode Aaron-speak. To him, "left" and "liberal" are
merely bins where he puts all the ideas he doesn't like, regardless of
where they actually are on the political spectrum. To regular people,
these words denote particular political philosopies, but to Aaron they
are more like cuss words, devoid of any real meaning.
So when Aaron calls someone a "liberal" or a "communist", it doesn't
mean he thinks that they are on the political left, it just means he
doesn't like them. A normal person would say "so and so is an
asshole", but Aaron would say "so and so is a communist". HTH
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Proud to have been called a "communist" by Kulkis.
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:50:21 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001
[snip]
> >Not directly; WFC wouldn't magically work in
> >Sun or Netscape JVMs, just because it didn't use
> >delegates.
>
> Why do you bring up magic?
Just to add some entertainment to by
posts. You have complained that they are
uninteresting. :D
> >But MS needed an edge- some way for their
> >product to be *better* than Suns.
>
> What a naive attitude to have when examining anti-competitive actions,
> to assume without even casual examination that they are competitive.
I am saying what MS needed; it's not clear to me that delegates
*do* deliver what they needed.
> Rather counter-productive, don't you think? But, then, that is the
> point, isn't it, to fail to actually examine any claim that MS
> monopolizes?
To my knowledge, nobody has claimed that
adding the delegates feature is "anti-competitive";
Sun's case was that it was a violation of the
agreement MS signed to use the Java trademark,
and so an abuse of that trademark.
I won't be surprised if you do claim that it
was anti-competitive, but I won't take it
seriously either. You think everything is
anti-competitve, if MS does it.
> >Otherwise
> >nobody would use it; why sacrifice what portability
> >Sun can give you if you gain nothing thereby?
>
> People will use it if it is the only suitable alternative.
This can happen only if it is somehow better- or if
the other alternatives go away. I doubt MS would
presume would just wander off...
> The
> difference between a 'superior product' and the lack of a 'suitable
> alternative' is abstract, to some extent, I'll admit. That is why
> judges consider opinions other than the accused when considering whether
> a product has a large market share due to anti-competitive action,
> rather than competitive merit.
The difference, then, is whether you like the company
that makes it, right?
> Again, simply assuming competitive merit is counter-productive.
You have in the past ignored my attempts to demonstrate
technical merit in MS's produts.
You clearly are not moved my such merit.
> If all
> the edge that MS needs is control of prices or the ability to exclude
> competition, then why do you presume that anything more of an 'edge' by
> way of competitive merits would be necessary, or even attractive, to
> them?
They need some *means* by which to drive the
competition out, and dominate the market. They
can't just send Bill's horde of flying monkeys.
> >For WFC and J++ to take off they needed to be
> >better than Sun's offerings, and delegates offered
> >a chance to do that.
>
> Why? Why would they have to be "better" just to take off? Are you
> under the impression that having two competing products in the same
> market is somehow an impossibility?
Certainly not. But to *dominate* a market, you need
some edge, some way to differentiate your product.
MS needed users of the JDK to switch to J++-
and they needed them to do it even though the
JDK is free. (You know, like Internet Explorer).
> >Just re-implementing Java exactly like
> >Sun's Java is a ticket to nowhere.
>
> Funny; one would think that if the market desired Java support, then
> Java support itself would be a competitive advantage. Changing Java, as
> a matter of fact, would then be a competitive disadvantage.
Well, Java compatibility is an advantage, sure, but
not a greater advantage than Sun posses.
MS had to differentiate their product because
otherwise they would compete on price- and
Sun's toolchain is free.
> >It can
> >never have any advantage over Sun's
> >Java, since at best it is identical- and
> >more likely it has some flaws.
>
> More than likely, so does Sun's. You mistake the specification with the
> implementation.
Sun controls both, and can make them coincide as
necessary. As long as MS is following behind Sun,
they are at a disadvantage.
> This is the kind of abstraction error that make your
> statements apparently dishonest. If you were forced to stick to talking
> only about the code, or only about the "idea" of Java, then your
> position would be logically self-contradicting.
I'm really talking about a number of things,
but actual code isn't one of them- and neither is
the "idea of Java".
I see no error in my argument. Perhaps you
should point it out to me.
[snip]
> >> To make money? If they're supposed to be so good at making tools, why
> >> would they want to avoid turning a profit wherever they can?
> >
> >Building development tools for other platforms
> >is high-cost,
>
> This would indicate it can support high profits. You mistake the need
> for capitalization with the need for production. Another one of your
> supposedly invisible points of dishonesty.
No, it does not indicate that. It's very hard to turn
a large profit of development tools. MS's greatest
'innovation' was to find a way to beat the problem-
by selling part of the tool in their OS, so end-users
paid for it.
> >and you are at a permanent disadvantage
> >against the platform vendor, because they can
> >add any feature or address any problem and
> >the most appropriate level- even if that is
> >inside the OS. You can only change your
> >IDE, compiler, and so on.
> >This works in MS's favor on Windows, but
> >against them everywhere else.
>
> Indeed. So reverse the positions, recognizing that Windows, not Java,
> is the platform under consideration, and explain to me how Microsoft's
> actions in ensuring that all would-be competitors are at a permanent
> disadvantage, using just the mechanisms you describe, are somehow
> competitive?
It's just the reality of the business. You can complain
about it, but it won't go away. MS's development tools
have an edge on Windows, Apples on the Mac,
IBM's on OS/2, and so on.
> Hell, they're not even legal!
It's unfortunate that these basic facts are
illegal; but they do not change because of that.
> A platform vendor does not
> "own" the platform; confusion on that matter was laid to rest by court
> decisions years ago.
Oh?
> Any action they take to prevent competition *on*
> the platform, or even *for* the platform, are unlawful,
> anti-competitive.
That is your opinion, Max. Need I say more?
[snip]
> >> Well, if so, it failed pretty badly. OCX controls don't seem much
> >> better than VBX controls.
> >
> >Well, OCX controls *are* language-neutral, and
> >they *do* work on 32-bit Windows.
>
> Theoretically, perhaps. "Works" is a rather questionable concept when
> dealing with monopoly crapware.
Well, it's good stuff, even though you dislike it. You've
shown considerable distain for even discussing
the technical merits of MS products.
[snip]
> >Odd way to do it. Switching to OCX controls
> >made it feasible for *other* development tools
> >to use the same controls.
>
> Meaning it made it rather unlikely they will use anything but
> Microsoft's controls, enabling MS to monopolize with churn from that
> point on.
No, that isn't what it means. And it isn't
what happened, either.
> >Making it possible for Borland to support
> >OCX controls seems like a strange thing
> >to do, if blocking competition is the aim.
>
> I don't understand your logic. Excluding competition is a strategy, not
> a tactic. Do you understand the difference?
It's irrelevant. It *still* seems strange to take
a VB technology and modify it so Delphi
(or anything else) can incorporate it, if
excluding competition is the aim.
IMHO, the aim is not that, but rather to implement
this stuff at the most appropriate level- in this
case, as part of Windows. Doing so makes it
more flexible; all development tools can
use the same custom controls.
This is good for MS because it means
that Visual C++ can use these tools.
And if Borland uses them, that's good for
MS too- because you need Windows to
get them. MS isn't giving away this
technology. They are just placing it
where it can be most effective.
[snip]
> >MS owns Windows,
>
> No, they don't. They own the copyright to the code, they own the
> trademark to the brand, they do not own Windows as a platform. They
> merely monopolize it.
What an odd statement. Does it mean anything?
> >and if their development tools
> >are available for Windows only, that is another reason
> >why a developer might choose to target Windows
> >only.
>
> Indeed, and another reason they could be (and have been) convicted of
> monopolizing.
I suppose Apple should be convicted too, since
MPW runs only on Macs.
> >Which is, of course, exactly what MS wants.
>
> Indeed, and another reason they could be (and have been) convicted of
> monopolizing.
Not a big fan of competition, are you?
[snip]
> >> No, they thought it would maintain their illegal monopoly; the only
> >> reason they need to do anything.
> >
> >Collaborating with Symantec, IBM and so on seems
> >like a strange way to do that.
>
> To you, certainly, but you believe the idea that MS monopolizes is
> ludicrous to begin with.
Actually, I just think the term "monopolizes" is so vague and
ill-defined as to be near-useless.
> So one suspects the problem is really just
> that you are not thinking hard enough. Or simply pretending to think at
> all. Sock puppets, trolls, children; these people don't need to think
> very much. I will leave the category you belong to self-assigning.
Troll! :D
[snip]
> >I don't see how ignorance of the law can explain
> >Microsoft's actions.
>
> Ignorance of the fact that the actions are illegal explains why you and
> MS defend the actions, Dan. It also explains Microsoft taking these
> actions, unless you believe that they would knowingly act illegally.
I do. And I think *you* think so, too.
[snip]
> >Well, they don;t make the hardware, but
> >they *do* make everything that an applications
> >sits on.
>
> They specify the hardware; they have published a hardware standard for
> the PC platform for years. The "sitting on" that you ascribe to
> software components is a pointless abstraction, unless you are assuming
> that all platforms are the basis of monopolization. They monopolize
> what the applications sit on, that is the whole reason they have been
> convicted in federal court of monopolizing.
No, I think that their business is to make the stuff
that applications sit on. Whether they "monopolize"
is a separate question.
> I believe you are making that assumption, or at least pretending to do
> so, that any and all 'platforms' are simply attempts to monopolize,
> because your statements indicate that you do not realize that a) MS
> monopolizes, and b) monopolization is illegal.
No, I'm saying that all *competition* is an attempt to
monopolize, and that it does not cease to be competition
as it nears success in its aims- nor does it cease
to be beneficial.
An effort to split a market is *not* competition, it is
a cartel.
I grant that it may be that competition is illegal,
or illegal for some companies, but it does not
cease to be competition because of this.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
