Linux-Advocacy Digest #374, Volume #35 Mon, 18 Jun 01 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Mark)
Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64? (Mark)
Re: linux will never be popular. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: More on MS's war of words.... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Here we go again! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: New BSD Advocacy site! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64? (Mark)
Re: New BSD Advocacy site! (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:43:00 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <9ggfst$ib$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> > How are we supposed to use them?
>> >
>> > After all, Linux is essentially a large, distributed development effort;
>> > not everyone is going to have the same version of everything.
>> >
>> > The only way to solve that problem is to rebuild everything from
>> > scratch -- an idea which I for one would love to do someday on
>> > my own personal system -- so that everything refers to the same version
>> > of everything else, and everything is consistent. More or less.
>>
>> Well that sounds like a good idea to me (yes I know hear me out). Make
>> sure that we can start from a good base point standard with a good clean
>> interface and dump the rest. Yes, programs will break and the
>> maintainers will just have to update them. Radical ? Well, the carrot
>> and stick approach may work :) Of course the problem is that no
>> distribution will do this because they are concerned with making things
>> "work", so that plan is out. Oh well, if I get annoyed I have only a few
>> thousand apps to make changes to :)
>
>There is a really big problem doing stuff like that.
>This alienate people from your platform.
>
>Exmale: (Regardless of the quality of binary only drivers.) One of the
>reason that some hardware makers don't makes drivers for Linux is that the
>driver model isn't stable. It changes with kernel revisions.
>
>Of course, MS took the other approach regarding backward compatability.
>
Windows drivers are not compatible with different kernels either!
--
Mark Kent
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark)
Subject: Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64?
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:48:03 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <Qi0X6.17342$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Well, I'll stand up out of my prairie dog hole and say this: More and
>> more UNIX companies and other computer company vendors like IBM, HP,
>> SGI, SUN, and then SCO it seems that all of these companies are starting
>> to adopt and use linux. It seems that it is now Microsoft against the
>> rest of the world.
>
>Sure, IBM is standing behind Linux, mainly because they're a hardware
>company and always have been. Software is only there to sell hardware, and
>they'll sell you anything to get you buy the big iron.
>
>However, I truly believe that SGI, Sun and SCO are simply making a show of
>supporting Linux, since each of these companies have their own brand of
>Unix, they will support Linux to an extent, but they won't allow it to
>eclipse their primary OS on their own hardware.
>
I can see how hard it must be for Microsoft to have to face the grand
un-forking of Unix. I suppose if you keep saying it isn't happening,l
then someone might believe you.
--
Mark Kent
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: linux will never be popular.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 22:56:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, blackpike wrote:
>Linux comes from an age of IT Profesional walking around great hulking boxes
>in specially built air conditioned rooms.
>
>Linux is for 2 groups of people :-
>
>1) Full time fully employed IT professionals who are highly IT literate
> and can spend HOURS every day figuring out how to get it working.
>
I don't spend hours a day figuring out how to get it working?
>2) Computer Nerds who want to be in the above group
>
I think there are computer nerds using Windows also.
To read this you would think the man really believed
that only the intellegent can use Linux.
The fact of the matter is if you are intelligent your
already using Linux.
>
>Linux isn't cheap because :-
>
>1) You have to employ IT proffesional to make it work properly
>
You have to employ a proffesional['s] to keep Windows working.
It's a super pile of shit.
> or
>
>2) You have to become an IT proffesional yourself which takes years
> thats years you could spend earning money doing the job you already do.
>
Well, a high school education would be a good start anyway.
I know many IT administrators who have no college credits at
all.
>linux is cheap in the same way as going round reclaiming bits of cars
>and building your own car would be cheap in terms of money
>(but what about the time)
>
I wouldn't call installing an OS like Debian - running around
and collecting bits and peices.
That's why they make distributions so you don't have to do
that.
But it's still beautiful to be able to run around and collect
bit's and peices if you want to.
>Most online tutorials don't work
>I have tried to follow over 15 different tutorials on compiling apache on linux
>to no avail. You would have thought that one of the most popular applications
>that Redhat linux is used to run would be easy to compile. Imageine windows not
>installing office.
>
Son,
If it weren't for info and man pages I wouldn't be running this
debian box right now. I don't think you've ever read a man page.
>Now that Apple computers OS X is basically a Userfriendly version of unix
>linux will be left to full time IT proffesionals. Your average person will
>rather use OS X than Linux.
>
Depends on what your definition of user-freindly is?
If it costs me $1,800 to get a package I can get for free,
I consider that USER UNFREINDLY.
If it costs my company nearly $3 million to upgrade to use,
then I'd consider that USER UNFREINDLY!
If it's like Windows XP which monitors what you install and
stops you when your bad like your mommie would when you stole
cookies from the kitchen jar, then that's rediculous and
unfreindly.
>Most newbies to linux get put off when the tutorials they follow don't work.
>The only newbies that eventually make it up the near vertical learning
>curve have had to pay in many hours scouring usenet news group for cures
>for the problems linux has.
>
Well, I remember a day when nobody know how to install dos.
This day will change also. It's all in how much your willing to
put into the LEARNING.
>If I'd spent the time over the last 6 months doing real paid work instead
>of wasting time trying to get a linux box working with apache, Mysql, php4
>I could have bought a fully configured $6000 system form VA Linux.
>
Considering how Debian installs all these software packages you mentioned
and makes them run automatically, I'd call you an idiot.
Redhat, Mandrake, Suse, all do the same.
They are all set up and running on the system after you've finished
installing. There IS NO setup involved. Just start using it.
>Linux will only become popular if people can buy fully configured systems
>of the shelf. So that Joe Bloggs Average doesn't have to start compiling code.
>dealing with 10000's of parameters held in 100's of files scattered around
>the system. It's nearly as bad as Microsoft registry
>
They already can. Have you been living in a moon crater face down for
the last 12 years sir? Where have you been?
>Windows is for Idiots who are only fit for clicking buttons all day long.
>Linux is for nerds who've forgotten that computers are meant to be their slaves.
I've reloaded Windows for Idiots enough times I know
what it's like to be a slave.
>From reading this I don't think you really like Windows either.
>I want something thats designed for some one with a modicum of inteligence
>but who isn't prepared to spend years becoming a computer GURU.
Well, after reading this reply I'm sure you'll decide
to run out there and try Debian.
You'll notice the quality, the performance, the ease of setup.
Then you'll wonder where this has been all your life?
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 01:44:20 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:6NoX6.5666$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Tim Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > I know a person who would find it very useful. He would, and has, taken
> > source code, modified it and returned it to the original author. In one
> case
> > several years ago he de-compiled a small (~18K) screen print program,
and,
> > while keeping all of the functions intact, returned a 4k program to the
> > author.
>
> Viewing it as a web page would not be useful; you'd
> want to bring the thing over into your IDE, not view
> it in a browser!
>
> But the impossible bit is decompiling the original
> code from an executable. You can, with great effort,
> get *some* sort of code out, but not the original-
> information is lost.
>
> What your friend did is extremely difficult.
He could've done it in assembly, I guess.
If it's a small program, that wouldn't be too bad, and the compiler (and the
author) might have not been too keen on keeping the exe's size down.
Of course, keeping the exe's size down is just one parameter of efficency,
keeping it *fast* is usually a better one.
> No, that's not what I mean. Word includes a plug
> in that allow you to browse right into word documents,
> just as you do with HTML or PDF. It's neat, actually;
> links to .doc files work just like .html files.
As a note, it's pretty easy to create such a thing with MFC.
Of course, if you wanted to do something serious, you wouldn't be using MFC
:-)
> And I suspect that you could put links into
> Word documents too, though it might take
> a gruesome hack to manage it. :D
No need to hack anything.
It has it since at least Word97.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 01:47:17 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ZMoX6.5661$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What copyright restricts is distribution-
> you can mangle my post all you want,
> but send it back out over Usenet
> is questionable.
That is debatable, I think.
I just edited your post and sent it back out over Usenet.
There are two arguments that can hold here:
A> I violated your copyright and you can sue me.
B> You've given your permission to snip your post and include quotes from it
when you posted to usenet.
AFAIK, it's never been tested. Don't try it on me, though :-)
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 01:49:19 +0200
"Tim Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So please point me to a web page or pdf file that tells me what html
source
> code I need to add to my web pages to keep IS 6 from viewing it.
> I'm sure I'm not the only person interested in adding it.
>
> I do however want something that works, unlike the code little nattie
added
> that was supposed to keep Mac users from viewing some of his web pages.
You can't do that.
If you are using java-script, then I can get in by disabling it, if you are
using server-side authentication, then I can get around it by using some
other downloader, which doesn't proclaim itself as IE6.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 01:55:50 +0200
"JamesW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<9gadjj$1gg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > "JamesW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Hmmm, I have a 200MHz machine that came with a 1.2GB HD and would have
> > > come with 16MB of RAM too but I ordered it with a mighty 32! It's been
> > > upgraded over time so I no longer have the original configuration but
> > > such machines did exist - BTW it wasn't an x86/Doze box - maybe that
> > > explains drsquare's machine too?
> >
> > What system is that?
> >
> > There may be a lot of systems like that, but they are old. I don't think
> > that a standard level computer bought in the last 3 - 4 years wouldn't
be
> > able to handle XP.
>
> It's a cheap and nasty PPC Mac clone. Somewhere in the about 4 years
> old - it was bottom of the range when I bought it. Anyway I doubt
> it'll run WinXP :) - runs LinuxPPC ok though.
I was talking about x86 hardware, naturally.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: More on MS's war of words....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 22:58:19 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Linux Man wrote:
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-6291224.html
>
>"Behind the war of words, analysts said, is evidence that Microsoft is
>increasingly concerned about Linux and its growing popularity. The
>Unix-like operating system "has clearly emerged as the spoiler that
>will prevent Microsoft from achieving a dominant position" in the
>worldwide server operating-system market, concludes IDC analyst
>Al Gillen in a forthcoming report."
Well they should be. Linux will eventually completely eat their
ass as it has our companies manframe.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 01:59:15 +0200
"Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9ggfst$ib$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >Of course, MS took the other approach regarding backward compatability.
> >
>
> Windows drivers are not compatible with different kernels either!
I was referring to a more general attidue toward backward compatability.
But they *are* compatabile across kernels, at least some of them does.
WDM drivers will work on 9x (98 and above), and Nt5+(2000, XP, and Win2K2 as
well).
ME is still capable of using 95 drivers. 98 SE could use *DOS* drivers, for
crying out load.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Here we go again!
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 02:01:10 +0200
"Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9g379r$st8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Battle brews over Linux server share
> >> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2772060,00.html
> >>
> >> A study shows linux actually has only 10% of the server market, in
> >> contrast to IDC's figures which show it with 27%.
> >>
> >> Surprise! Microsoft just happens to be one of the study's sponsors!
> >
> >Like the last one, which pointed at a real weak point on the kernel?
> >You've to understand that MS can't just lie outright.
>
> That's an amazing statement. Why suddenly can't they? they've
> been doing it court for god-knows how long.
Outright? I doubt it.
You'll be amazed how much you can twist the truth without lying if you
really want to.
Wheel Of Time Aes Sedai (And Mat on WH) as well as Clinton prove it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 02:01:50 +0200
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9gm087$sro$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "What's Related" shows up *differently* than a link. It's obvious that
> it's NOT a part of the page. SmartTags look like HTML links, and
> therefore anmount to lying about what the author was writing.
>
No, they don't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: New BSD Advocacy site!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:04:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bracy wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ed Cogburn"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Its a difference of opinion, some people aren't bothered by that
>> possibility, some are.
>
>It would seem that even the FreeBSD developers are bothered by that:
>
>"But Microsoft's statements Friday suggest the company has itself been
>taking advantage of the very technology it has insisted would bring dire
>consequences to others. "I am appalled at the way Microsoft bashes
>open source on the one hand, while depending on it for its business on
>the other," said Marshall Kirk McKusick, a leader of the FreeBSD
>development team."
>
>http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2776342,00.html?chkpt=zdnn_tp_
>
>Bracy
Oh they should be Bracy. I have a high respect for the people at
the BSD's, especially FreeBSD and these guy's have been fucked out
of recognition for years. MS has stole them blind in my opinion
and never even contributed one thin dime back for the BILLIONS AND
BILLIONS of DOLLARS THEY HAVE MADE FROM FREEBSD CODE THEY USED.
And they don't even fucking get the credit for doing so.
Not even one mention.
The BSD's should be GPL'd so they can force these yo-yo's to
CONTRIBUTE BACK!
You know the people at the BSD's would give you the heart out
of their chests, they are so nice. When I used FreeBSD they
were always there to help me. They had great pride and confidence
in their OS and great spirit.
And I'm ever more convinced that the BSD license is obsolete and
the wrong way to go. That's why I left for Linux.
It's not ethical nor right that OTHERS use the code without returning
some kind of benefit back to the organization they took it from.
It's just not RIGHT! NO WAY!
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark)
Subject: Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64?
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:50:46 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>In article <9gfd3e$2rt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> > What for? The Linux desktop is _way_ behind Windows.
>>
>> Aaah, a classic PG argument: non trolling, well thought out and plenty of
>> good points backed up by facts.
>
>Just take a look at the numbers. Need I say more?
>
All the desktops I see bar 2 are Linux. That's > 80% linux desktops
where I am. Those are the numbers.
--
Mark Kent
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: New BSD Advocacy site!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:05:42 GMT
In article <9glh0l$d82$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian Langenberger wrote:
>Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: http://www.linuxsucks.org/
>
>: Interesting why they didn't take BSD-FANS or
>: BSD-ROCKS or something like that.
>
>: I guess they wanted to be found.
>
>I can't decide which aspect I enjoy most: the semi-annual article
>postings or the fact that they've used Slashcode to set up their
>site. If they wanted to be found, it appears they've failed.
>
What blows me away is the reaction I'm getting from the community
over this bulletin! I can't believe that nobody's heard of this
site before? That's just amazing!
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
