Linux-Advocacy Digest #439, Volume #25 Tue, 29 Feb 00 08:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Busy sites Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (nick nelissen)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Wolfram Gloger)
Re: Mandrake as bad or worse than MS? (Pan)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Hobbyist)
Re: Busy sites Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Michael C. Vergallen)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (=?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Mandrake as bad or worse than MS? (Dave C.)
Re: IE on UNIX ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
WEBHOSTING: 150 MB, POP3, CGI-BIN, Shopping Cart, SSL,... and more all for $7.95/mo.
NO SETUP FEE !!! ("PolHosting")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 15:44:23 +0800
From: nick nelissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Busy sites Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Mig Mig wrote:
>
> Boris wrote:
>
> > I was downloading Winzip recently and I noticed that it was from cdrom.com (I
>didn't go to
> > cdrom.com; I just searched Yahoo for Winzip and clicked on url returned by the
>search).
> > One interesting observation: download speed was ~3KB per second. Our corporate
>pipe at
> > work provides speeds >100 KB per second, so it looked like the bottleneck was on
>cdrom.com
> > site. This speed was ok for Winzip (which is only 2-3MB in size) but I cannot
>imagine
> > anybody being patient enough to download smthg > 10 MB at such low speed.
> >
> > Boris
>
> So when i try to access www.microsoft.com/technet and i download the page
> with less than 1 KB/s (after decompression), on a 500 KB/s pipe then
> microsoft are slow as hell?? It couldnt be a router somewhere in between?
Once I downloaded the 98 device driver kit. I started at 3 KB/s and
ended at 25 Bytes! per second.
I never got the whole lot, but when I tried again (after arriving in the
morning to find it still no all there) I ended up with a steady 3 KB/s
till I got it.
Very strange.
Nick
------------------------------
From: Wolfram Gloger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: 29 Feb 2000 11:36:27 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch) writes:
> I can run them at the same tine, too, but when the dynamic linker
> schoeses the set of X11 libs linked against libc5 for a program using
> libc6, I usually get errors about missing symbols. Here is one example:
>
> ./xisdnload: error in loading shared libraries: /usr/libc5/lib/libX11.so.6:
>undefined symbol: _xstat
>
> The shared library libX11 does have the same name (libX11.so.6), no
> matter wether it requires libc5 or libc6. So I have to files called
> libX11.so.6 on my system. I even observed situations, were an
> application loaded both libcs, libc5 and libc6. :-(
RTFM: man ldconfig, less .../ld.so-1.9.8/README.
A lot of work has gone into making the transition from libc5 to libc6
as painless as possible, although admittedly no one that I know of
still works on improving that support.
Regards,
Wolfram.
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mandrake as bad or worse than MS?
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 03:19:33 -0800
For what I tend to use Linux for, Mandrake 6.1 is fine. KDE is fine as
a development environment. The advanced text editor is good for perl
and html development. It's nice if you want to test perl scripts on a
local machine.
For news and web, I tend to use lynx and slrn when I'm on Linux because
I don't like any of the the gui newsreaders I've tried. If I want a gui
browser, I tend to use KFM rather than Netscape. For gui newsreaders,
Pan was pretty close the last time I gave it a whirl. It must have
improved in the last 4-6 months.
Two of my friends had installation problems with Mandrake 7.0.0. I have
the 7.0.2 CD, but haven't felt a pressing need to upgrade despite some
of the neat security applications that come bundled with the new
release. Mandrake 7.0.2 seems to have fairly stable install.
John wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 22:20:51 GMT, Darryl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >This frustrated linux user hasn't given up and has no plans to, but it
> >was good to see this as well. From my experience in the last month
> >with Linux, I've come to like both Linux AND Win95 more, oddly enough.
> >
>
> Can't say I like Win95 any more, its okay. I do enjoy getting around
> in Linux. The thing I like in Win95 is that most apps are mostly
> stable vs. some of the ones I've used under Linux. Though under
> Linux, I haven't found any problems yet with command line stuff I have
> used.
>
> >And it's made me much more humble when it comes to explaining how to do
> >things in W95 to users where I work.
>
> I like this observation, it does remind you how hard it is to be a
> stranger in a strange land.
------------------------------
From: Hobbyist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 06:11:27 -0500
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> > Microsoft is a corporation, they have to make money. If there was money
> > to be made in Alpha, they would've kept it.
>
> Really?
>
> Then perhaps you can explain why they gave MSIE away when their costs
> were very, very real. They obviously didn't care whether they made money
> on MSIE or not.
Usership. Give MSIE away free and many will take it and use it.
Give Alpha support away or at a loss means that not many will use it
and this is evidenced by the lack of 3rd party support. Third party
support is always good where the user flock.
--
-=Ali M.=-
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael C. Vergallen)
Subject: Re: Busy sites Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: 29 Feb 2000 11:41:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, nick nelissen wrote:
>Once I downloaded the 98 device driver kit. I started at 3 KB/s and
>ended at 25 Bytes! per second.
>I never got the whole lot, but when I tried again (after arriving in the
>morning to find it still no all there) I ended up with a steady 3 KB/s
>till I got it.
>Very strange.
Nope it is not strange at all ... you must be a morron to find that
strange... namely the first time was slow becuase either the route taken
was long and slow or the proxy you use didn't have the file cached...
So normally the second time you tried to download the file the file was
allready available on a cache in your vicinity..or the route taken was
either shorter or less congested.
Michael
---
Michael C. Vergallen A.k.A. Mad Mike,
Sportstraat 28 http://www.double-barrel.be/mvergall/
B 9000 Gent ftp://ftp.double-barrel.be/pub/linux/
Belgium tel : 32-9-2227764 Fax : 32-9-2224976
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 05:45:32 -0600
Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Well for myself and everyone I know, the experience has been the opposite.
Then
> again, I usually end up buying more RAM or upgrade some other bottleneck
(Vid
> card, CPU, etc) fairly regularly so the slowdown wasn't there for long.
Newer versions of windows require more memory. If you upgrade your memory
at the same time as installing the new OS, then you will notice a speed
difference. Additionally, Win98 was signifcantly faster than Win95 with
IE4.
------------------------------
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:44:11 +0100
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
89f4rc$k2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Paul 'Z' Ewande? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> : Frankly, it probably depicts any big business company I can think of,
but
> : apparently it's okay to bash just Microsoft, after all, they are the
evil
> : empire.
>
>
> Are you trying to say that all large businesses commit fraud, or that
> it is OK because, supposedly, everyone else is doing it?
>
No, Joe, I wrote "apparently it's okay to bash _just_ microsoft" meaning
that if you are to bash a company for that practice, you should bash'em all.
Is it clearer now ?
>
> Joe
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 05:50:22 -0600
Bob Lyday <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]....
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Why is it crap?
> > >
> > > It's single-platform, it's not an implementation of an open standard,
> > > it locks you into the products of a single vendor; it's got security
> > > holes as big as a barndoor. To me, that means ActiveX certifies as
> > > crap.
> >
> > You mean you don't consider the Open Group to be an Open Standards
group?
> >
> > http://www.opengroup.org/comsource/techref2/TITLE.HTM
> >
> > ActiveX is a published open standard.
>
> Oh yeah, then how come it only runs on Internet Exploder and
> LoseDoze????? Doesn't sound like an open standard to me...
It doesn't. There's ActiveX for Macintosh, Solaris and HP/UX.
Just because an implementation doesn't exist on multiple platforms doesn't
mean it's not an open standard.
Fact is, ActiveX is an open standard that is controlled by an open standards
group (the same that controls the standards for X Windows).
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 05:53:23 -0600
Bob Lyday <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]....
> Darren Winsper wrote:
> >
> > "Microsoft is estimating that 28,000 of these [bugs] are likely to be
'real'
> > problems [in Windows2000]."
> >
> I guess the other 35,000 bugs are "fake" problems, or "no big deal"
> problems, or "hey, it M$, what did you expect" problems, huh?
Many of them *ARE* fake problems. Problems such as inaccurate bug reports,
feature requests, not-a-bug's (things where people think it's a bug because
it's not working the way they want it to, but it's working exactly as it was
designed), bugs in test harnesses (which is not Win2000 code, it's code that
tests Win2000), and false positives from automated code review tools are not
real Win2000 problems, therefore they are "fake".
------------------------------
From: Dave C. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mandrake as bad or worse than MS?
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 12:10:16 GMT
Try KNode and Kexpress for GUI newsreaders. Both are almost as good as
Outlook Express version 4. KNode has very basic filters, KExpress has
support for -more than one- news server at a time (the one feature I wish
KNode had). Neither is outstanding, but they are more refined than Pan. At
least, they are more refined than when I last tried Pan a few months ago.
I'm using KNode right now as my primary news client. -Dave
Pan wrote:
> For what I tend to use Linux for, Mandrake 6.1 is fine. KDE is fine as
> a development environment. The advanced text editor is good for perl
> and html development. It's nice if you want to test perl scripts on a
> local machine.
>
> For news and web, I tend to use lynx and slrn when I'm on Linux because
> I don't like any of the the gui newsreaders I've tried. If I want a gui
> browser, I tend to use KFM rather than Netscape. For gui newsreaders,
> Pan was pretty close the last time I gave it a whirl. It must have
> improved in the last 4-6 months.
(snip)
--
On hotmail dot com, I am user "ucefilter".
It is not the 21st Century yet.
It is not the 3rd Millennium yet.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 06:19:36 -0600
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Remember Win32s?
> > > >
> > > > What about it? It didn't work particularly well.
> > >
> > > It shows that Win32 was in Windows 3.1; they didn't *need* to release
> > > Windows 95 in order to facilitate it.
> >
> > Win32s was a tiny subset of Win32. It supported only a fraction of what
> > Win95 did.
>
> The word fraction in this sentence is ambiguous. Win32s supported much
> of what Windows 95 did. The only thing a windows 3.1 and a Win32s
> environment did not have was preemptive threads within the Windows
> virtual machine. So, by fraction, one could use 99/100.
Not true at all. Win32s had less than 1/2 of the API that Win95 had. And
of the functions that it did support, it only supported 16 bit values in 32
bit fields. For instance, you only had 16 bit scroll bar values, so you
couldn't have more than 32k scroll positions. Also, many of the supported
functions had many unsupported subfunctions (such as various flags that did
not work, or various limitations).
Win32s did not support any of the console API's (you couldn't write a Win32s
console application), Almost all of the new memory features of Win32 do not
work under Win32s (memory mapped files, structured exception handling, named
pipes, named shared memory, sparse memory, etc...
The printing subsystem of Win32s doesn't support any of the Win32 GDI
functions such as Beziers, paths or transforms. The event mechanism (such
as ncb_event) are completely unsupported, it doesn't support mutliple
language resources, or string resources longer than 255 characters, many of
the common control API's are unsupported.
>
> >
> > > > Then explain the existance of WDM, if not to get hardware vendors
> > writing
> > > > drivers that will work in NT?
> > >
> > > They were already doing that anyway. 99% of the drivers available for
> > > Windows 95 were also available for NT...(discounting USB, for obvious
> > > reasons).
> >
> > 99%? What world do you live in? I would rate it more like 40%, and
then
> > mostly video, network and storage drivers. How many Video Capture cards
> > work in NT? only a handful. How many Winmodems? How many Windows
> > Printers/scanners? How many TV Tuner cards? How many Sound cards?
> >
> > And with the exception of Network and storage drivers, most of the NT
> > drivers lacked a great deal of functionality that their windows 9x
> > counterparts had if they existed at all.
>
> This is true, and oddly enough, I find better support on Linux for
> esoteric devices than I do for NT. However, it is true that storage,
> network, and video display devices are usually better supported under
> NT.
>
> --
> Mohawk Software
> Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
> Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 06:30:29 -0600
Marada C. Shradrakaii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Let's see you do streaming video in HTML.
>
> Two options:
>
> -Use an external app-- provide a link to the file which the browser can
hand
> off to a viewer, or a line of text that says "Point Acme
StreamingVideoViewer
> at dracolisk400.example.net:4040"
No different than using a plug-in.
> -Use a single image, and a page that refreshes itself.
Wow. Talk about massively slow. I doubt you could get more than 1-2 frames
per second this way, on a T1! Remember, streaming video uses compression
and delta imaging (only transmitting the changed portions of the image).
You simply have to have client code executing to decode the video unless you
build streaming video into the HTML spec.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: 29 Feb 2000 12:31:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Paul 'Z' Ewande? <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Are you trying to say that all large businesses commit fraud, or that
:> it is OK because, supposedly, everyone else is doing it?
:>
: No, Joe, I wrote "apparently it's okay to bash _just_ microsoft" meaning
: that if you are to bash a company for that practice, you should bash'em all.
: Is it clearer now ?
Yes. Thank you for clarifying.
I will reiterate what I've often said in the past, that it is wrong
for *any* company to practice fraud or to break valid and just laws.
Microsoft is not the only offender. It may be one of the more
significant and damaging ones due to its size, the dominance it exerts
in several critical markets, and its power to set or to subvert _de
facto_ standards. But other companies similarly situated have done
extremely similar things, and we should not turn a blind eye to those
things just because someone other than Microsoft is to blame.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Date: 29 Feb 2000 12:35:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 14:06:27 GMT,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "George Richard Russell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Menus should not be mouse accessible only, nor nested 10+ deep. The UI is a
> > shambles.
> Like most things in UN*X. Usability? What's that? We don't need no stinking
> consistence or usability!
What's the old saying? UN*X _is_ user friendly. It's just
selective who its friends are. Looks like you are not happy with
it, luckily for you are not forced to use it. No vendor lock-in,
you know?
For me, windows is *not* a good working environment.
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: "PolHosting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: WEBHOSTING: 150 MB, POP3, CGI-BIN, Shopping Cart, SSL,... and more all for
$7.95/mo. NO SETUP FEE !!!
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 13:03:46 GMT
Hello,
Our Web Hosting Service is your best choice for a personal or business web
site. We are dedicated to serving all your needs at a very affordable price.
CHeck IT: http://www.polhosting.com
Hosting Features:
www.yourownname.com
Free Domain Registration*
International Domains Okay
150 MB Disk Space
POP3 Email Account
Shopping Cart
Unlimited Email Forwarding
Email Autoresponder
Catch-all Email Address
Unlimited 24/7 FTP
Personal CGI Directory
Form to Email CGI
Counter CGI
Password Protect Directories
Graphical Web Site Statistics
Log File Access
Free Technical Support Via Email
99.5% + Server Uptime
Free Bandwidth
OC3 Connection (155Mbs)
Take It:
http://www.polhosting.com
Sincerely,
Tom Hackett
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
