Linux-Advocacy Digest #588, Volume #25 Fri, 10 Mar 00 22:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (dbt)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: (Aaron J Reichow)
Re: A little advocacy.. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (Peter da Silva)
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (Peter da Silva)
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (Peter da Silva)
Re: Steve/Keymaster/etc. is violating AT&T usage policy (was: As Linux Dies a Slow
Death.....Who's next? (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) (Robert Morelli)
Re: A little advocacy.. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (dbt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux)
Date: 10 Mar 2000 17:27:42 -0800
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>In article <8abrmp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> So.... don't use it.
>>> Use vi or joe or ed or pico or NOTEPAD.EXE under Wine. You could even
>>> be a Real BSD Man(tm) and pipe together some head and tail.
>>
>>Use it on what file? The dotfile the makefile creates? Is that guaranteed
>>to be even semi-sane when you upgrade the kernel?
>
>Yes, but then you should 'make oldconfig' which will let you
>select 'yes/no/module' for only the new features that have been
>added to the kernel since you created the old .config. How do
>you do that with a bsd build?
% head -1 MYCONFIG
# $OpenBSD: GENERIC,v 1.62 2000/03/02 10:50:29 art Exp $
% cvs diff -u -r1.62 GENERIC | tee patch
.. unified diff output ..
% patch MYCONFIG < patch
% config MYCONFIG
% cd ../compile/MYCONFIG ; make depend bsd
This whole idea of getting prompted "yes/no/module" seems silly to me,
but that's a personal preference.
--
David Terrell | "Instead of plodding through the equivalent of
Prime Minister, NebCorp | literary Xanax, the pregeeks go for sci-fi and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | fantasy: LSD in book form." - Benjy Feen,
http://wwn.nebcorp.com | http://www.monkeybagel.com/ "Origins of Sysadmins"
------------------------------
From: Aaron J Reichow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:47:45 -0600
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000, Charles W. Swiger wrote:
> > John Carmack?
[...]
> > Did I miss something? This sounds very interesting; please elaborate.
>
> John decided he wanted to get X working under Darwin, so he's been working on
> the port. The earlier versions of ID's products were developed and written
> under NEXTSTEP, so perhaps John had some fond memories of the platform and
> the technology.
Indeed. From what I've read, Carmack has said that he really dislikes
developing for Mac OS (traditional Mac OS), and the only reason he (don't
know if he meant himself, or id as a whole) continue(s/d) to do so is in
anticipation of Mac OS X, he states that "I think highly of the NEXTSTEP
heritage."
Another quote comes to mind: "...if the 3D acceleration issue was
properly addressed on Rhapsody, I think that I could be happy using it as
my primary development platform." He also went on to say that Quake 2
took longer ot developer because it was done under NT and not NeXTSTEP
(like Doom and Quake).
After coming across all that good stuff whilst looking through the
Stepwise site, I finally found the link I was looking for.
<http://www.stepwise.com/Articles/Workbench/2000-02-14.01.html>
Aaron
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:50:00 GMT
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:20:54 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 04:31:38 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >situations. But even so, they were still hobyist systems, which is what
>> >Linux primarily is in the home today. If you use your computer to get
>work
>> >done, rather than as a fun experiment, you'll find Linux to be not worth
>the
>> >effort.
>>
>> That would depend on what kind of "work" you want to get done. For my
>> "work", mostly academic and web publishing, Linux is no more effort
>> than Windows.
>
>Because you already know linux. Someone that uses computers in a
>non-technology field won't feel the same way.
There's a first time for everything. Even Windows, hell even
Finder has to be LEARNED. That's not a very useful counterpoint.
It's even less useful considering the likelihood that anyone
disgruntled enough by WinDOS to switch to something else has likely
already been exposed to the nasty guts of the PC architecture
already by that 'easy OS'.
Windows is no MacOS.
>
>> >Linux advocates say it's intended purpose is to replace windows. You
>seem
>> >to be saying otherwise. Perhaps you should get together with the others
>and
>> >get your stories straight.
>>
>> You are confused. "Linux advocates" is not one person. We are not some
>> kind of Borg collective. Just because one nut says "Linux's purpose is
>> to replace windows" doesn't mean that this is the general
>> consensus of the community.
>
>My point was that the author was making ludicrous claims about "the intended
>purpose of Linux".
It is absurd in general to speak of intent of something created
by a collection of individuals, many of whom have arguments
among themselves that make the flamefests in here look positively
tame.
>
>> >I can guarantee that I can configure your Linux system to run only for a
>few
>> >minutes and lock up.
>>
>> How ? Give some concrete details.
>
>Having done this several times, it's quite easy. Fiddle a few settings in
>your X config, causing the video card to fault the bus.
That sounds rather vague actually.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next?
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:54:47 GMT
On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:49:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What will be the new kid on the block challenger to MS Windows?
>
>Beos? Multimedia is it's game.. Could very well be a challenger.
>FreeBSD? Incorporating some obvious server security features that
>Linux seems to miss...Great choice.
>
>Linux?
>
>Dead at the starting gate..Horse fell over...Don't bother...
>
>Not convinced?
No. Be is in the same EXACT position when it comes to
multimedia that Linux or FreeBSD is. It's actually a
little bit behind in some areas due to lack of adoption.
[deletia]
BeOS could make Linux blow big bloody chunks if Be were
really on top of things. As things are, most of the
alleged potential of this single user mode system is
WASTED.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux)
Date: 11 Mar 2000 01:51:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Use it on what file? The dotfile the makefile creates?
> cp arch/$MY_ARCH/defconfig .config
> $EDITOR .config
> make dep && make clean && make bzImage && make modules && make modules_install
> Of course, `make menuconfig` is nice and quick, but if you are a
> masochist...
Remembering or writing down (on paper or electronically) a set of answers
to a bunch of questions is how we used to do "kernel configuration management"
under RSX-11.
(peeks at files)
I don't think .config is necessarily that desirable an alternative.
> > Is that guaranteed to be even semi-sane when you upgrade the kernel?
> I would qualify it as almost-always-sane, as long as you aren't
> jumping major kernel versions.
I've gone from 2.0.5 through 3.4 by merging config files, often just applying
diff and patch. No modules, either.
I don't like interactive config tools for firewalls either, which has made
me rather unhappy with recent Gauntlets.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
`-_-' Ar rug t� barr�g ar do mhact�re inniu?
'U` "The Windows Perl motto: It's just as well there's more than one
way to do it because most of them don't work." -- Simon Cozens.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux)
Date: 11 Mar 2000 01:57:28 GMT
In article <8ac2hd$b0t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, but then you should 'make oldconfig' which will let you
> select 'yes/no/module' for only the new features that have been
> added to the kernel since you created the old .config. How do
> you do that with a bsd build?
You read the release notes and decide what you want to add. I don't *want*
to be presented with a "here's something new, decide to add it or not now".
Incidentally, how do you go about specifying things like default IRQs in the
Linux config file? That's part of your configuration documentation as well.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
`-_-' Ar rug t� barr�g ar do mhact�re inniu?
'U` "The Windows Perl motto: It's just as well there's more than one
way to do it because most of them don't work." -- Simon Cozens.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux)
Date: 11 Mar 2000 01:58:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An aside - what kind of kernel config utility do you think Microsoft
> used to configure the Windows 2000 kernel, huh?
I don't know, but their Xenix stuff was interesting. You designed your
disk partitions at kernel config time.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
`-_-' Ar rug t� barr�g ar do mhact�re inniu?
'U` "The Windows Perl motto: It's just as well there's more than one
way to do it because most of them don't work." -- Simon Cozens.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: Steve/Keymaster/etc. is violating AT&T usage policy (was: As Linux Dies a
Slow Death.....Who's next?
Date: 11 Mar 2000 02:22:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The email account is real...you're welcome to try it if you like.
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>On 10 Mar 2000 02:21:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
>> http://www.att.net/general-info/terms.html
>>
>> Welcome to AT&T WorldNet Service -- Terms and Conditions
>> ...
>>
>> Be honest
>
3. Unless you're participating in an area of the Service
that requires or encourages anonymity, use your real name
in online communications.
Well, whatever-the-hell-your-name-is, if you'd like me to
send copies of articles, with full headers, that you've
posted to c.o.l.a using maybe a dozen different fake names,
plus one or two in which you swear that you've only posted
under the name "keymaster", and let them decide (keeping in
mind that they already told me it was a major violation of
their TOS), then you just give me the word. The paragraph
above says "real name", not "valid mail address"; besides,
plenty of your fake names were obviously *not* valid mail
addresses.
Also, the purpose of your using multiple fake names was
clearly to create a false impression of numerous people hav-
ing problems with Linux, and that in itself is a violation
of the above directive "Be honest". In fact, it potentially
opens you and AT&T (unless they immediately stop you when
informed about your activities) to being sued for damages
from loss of sales by the various commercial Linux vendors
whose products you've lied about. I think AT&T would take
immediate action.
Since a number of c.o.l.a posters use a *single* fake name,
it would be reasonable for you to pick one and stick with
it, permanently, since the TOS says you can and should
follow the standards of the "area of the Service" -- that
means, in this case, this newsgroup -- regarding anonymity.
As far as I'm concerned, you've carried on your obnoxious
game long enough -- about a year -- and through thousands
of posts. You have several choices:
o You can keep lying and stick with one ID (which means
that your lies and contradictions can easily be exposed),
o You could, Gates forbid, *stop lying* and be honest for
a change (as you did as "keymaster" for a few posts),
o Find yourself another hobby and just go away (and this
does *not* mean doing the same thing elsewhere in Usenet),
o Or have every account, present and future, that you use
to spread your lies under multiple fake names, taken away
from you.
Incidentally, the place to send reports of violations of
AT&T terms of service is [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Message-ID and as
much other header info as possible should be included to
enable identification of the abuser. But I'm in favor of
giving him one -- and only one -- more chance to clean up
his act.
So, Steve/Mike/whatever, either stay with "z_was_s_now_z"
(not very attractive, if you ask me), or choose a name that
you want to use *permanently*, and stick with it from now
on -- even when you post from other accounts, or go away,
or get ready to face the music.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 20:02:52 -0500
From: Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Mark Hamstra wrote:
>
> "Mark Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I'm partner in a contract software development company. We do virtually all
> > of our work for Win32, but we've done a bit of Linux and Solaris work as
> > well. The most recent *nix work was a port of the server half of a client
> > server package from NT to Linux and Solaris. But on the client side (except
> > for one Java-based app) we've done no Linux at all. This is not by our
> > choice (we're kind of agnostic) but because that's what our customers pay us
> > to develop. For them, Linux client apps aren't even on the radar screen
> > yet.
> >
> > That may change, of course, as the popularity of Linux grows, but I think
> > that's going to be a slow process. One thing that could accelerate it
> > greatly, I think, is this. What if the best-of-breed tools available for
> > building client GUI apps were:
> >
> > 1. Free.
> > 2. Open-source.
> > 3. Generated both Linux and Windows apps from the same source code.
> >
> > Yes, there's Qt, but it ain't free or open source for generating Win32 apps
> > (or commercial Linux apps either). And there's WxWindows which I guess is
> > supposed to be pretty decent, but AFAIK not exactly the best-in-breed of GUI
> > libraries/development tools.
>
> It's not completely there yet, but take a close look at Gtk--
> (http://gtkmm.sourceforge.net/). It works very well for
> Linux GTK+ (and Gnome) development in C++, and there's work
> ongoing with a Win32 version of at least the GTK+ stuff.
> Team that up with glade/libglade, and you've got a very nice
> development environment.
>
> > Wouldn't it make sense for the open source community to focus on producing a
> > better VisualBasic-than-VisualBasic and a better VisualC-than-VisualC that
> > produced both Win and Linux apps, so that as developers chose to use these
> > tools, the Linux versions would fall out for free?
>
> Helix Code is busily working on a VisualBasic killer....
This a particularly poorly chosen point. To the best of my knowlege, Helix
Code has no plans for a VisualBasic killer. There is ongoing work in fact to
create a VisualBasic parser and interpreter, but no IDE. If anything, this
will have the effect of bolstering VisualBasic use, while at the same time
forcing people who want a good IDE to develop on Win32. The rationale of the
plan is that VisualBasic is so widely used that to woo users away from Windows
VisualBasic support is necessary on Linux. It may well succede in that respect
without ever producing what might be called a VisualBasic killer.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:05:09 -0600
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Because you already know linux. Someone that uses computers in a
> >non-technology field won't feel the same way.
>
> There's a first time for everything. Even Windows, hell even
> Finder has to be LEARNED. That's not a very useful counterpoint.
> It's even less useful considering the likelihood that anyone
> disgruntled enough by WinDOS to switch to something else has likely
> already been exposed to the nasty guts of the PC architecture
> already by that 'easy OS'.
We're not talking about "people disgruntled enough" with windows. We're
talking about Linux replacing Windows on the desktops of people that just
use computers and are not computer hobbyists.
Yes, everything has to be learned, but at this stage of the game, most
people that need computers are using them and they have already learned
something. They don't want to have to learn another something that is
perhaps 2-10x more work than the thing they already know.
> Windows is no MacOS.
Nor is MacOS Windows.
> >My point was that the author was making ludicrous claims about "the
intended
> >purpose of Linux".
>
> It is absurd in general to speak of intent of something created
> by a collection of individuals, many of whom have arguments
> among themselves that make the flamefests in here look positively
> tame.
Which was my point.
> >Having done this several times, it's quite easy. Fiddle a few settings
in
> >your X config, causing the video card to fault the bus.
>
> That sounds rather vague actually.
That's because it's different for every card. I can't tell you specifically
how to cause this, but give me 5 minutes on your system and I guarantee you
i'll configure something wrong enough to cause lockups or crashes. These
tend to be things of the "Why would you do that?" variety, and the answer
would be "because I don't know any better", or more accurately, because a
user without detailed knowledge of a specific item doesn't know any better.
Which is the same reasons that Windows becomes unstable. Because the user
doesn't know any better.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
