Linux-Advocacy Digest #597, Volume #25 Sat, 11 Mar 00 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: In the middle of it all... (Kool Breeze)
Re: In the middle of it all... (Kool Breeze)
Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Mandrake=Poison? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Giving up on NT (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (JEDIDIAH)
3CF996AC Technology stocks to buy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Giving up on NT (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (dbt)
Re: A little advocacy.. (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Kool Breeze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: In the middle of it all...
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 21:11:30 GMT
>
>i find this strange. what was this install program doing? how many lines
>of code?
>
The install program is huge since it's used to configure EACH server
type + each CLIENT.
In linux, we have different servers, but they happen to be all on the
same box (as inetd.conf services).
I believe the environment is VC++ same as the one we used for the
client side of our system.
I must admit that after close review of the clustering products out
there (including MS's), our NT people decided to roll their own.
Hence, more man-years.
------------------------------
From: Kool Breeze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: In the middle of it all...
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 21:28:42 GMT
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 14:44:27 -0600, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Drestin Black wrote:
>
>> You do know that what you write has absolutely no supporting evidence and
>> sounds exactly like what someone could just sit down and write.
>
>Yeah. If it was contrary to any of our real world experiences, we'd all be
>shocked and outraged at his claims.
>
>
>Bobby Bryant
>Austin, Texas
>
I do not have any other experiences that would allow me to compare
Linux vs NT objectively. Hmmm....
For those who give a damn, I have been programming Windows and UNIX
since about 1987. I DID start on UNIX so maybe, no for sure, I am
biased. I never did any REAL programming in windows until Win32 came
around in 1995.
I may have left out something.
Oh, there is one thing that the NT system has over the *NIX: It's much
easier to sell. There is kinda a blind faith in NT. Our sales staff
dosen't mention the word *NIX unles he is specifically asked (as the
users have no idea what they are connecting to).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next?
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 21:16:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Night of the living dead?
>
> No, it's more of an "Army of Darkness" :)
.. that would explain the "zombies" I see from time to time.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mandrake=Poison?
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 21:22:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> I'm on no crusade against Mandrake. If my experience was an uncanny
fluke,
> so be it. But I'm no psychic, so the only way I can find out is by
> alerting other people to my experience.
Your experiance does not match mine. You seem to put a lot of time in
CONVENCING people of problems with Mandrake. You are NOT asking if
others have had the same experiance. Thus, IMHO, you are on some sort of
crusade.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 11 Mar 2000 21:32:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 07 Mar 2000 19:32:05 +0100,
Michael Wand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why? An OS with lots of features will require more RAM. If you want to be
> > stuck in the 1990's, run a IBM PC with 640K of RAM... DOS didn't take much
> > memory at all and booted quite fast... of course, with very limited
> > capabilities.
Well, compare the features and the speed of say, word processors.
Between 1990 and 2000, the speed's almost the same and the useful
feature range has not increased that much, either. However the
compting power has been increased very much. Kinda makes you
think ...
> Linux proves that this is wrong. For the core OS features (multitasking,
> hardware drivers, TCP/IP), you need ~8 MB, for the GUI, 16 MB.
4 MB, though you can get by with 2 ... if you don't want the
machine to do much. For a comfortable GUI --- especially if you
run Netscape --- you'll want 32+ MB with a normal, more with a
'bloated' WM.
> BTW, I can boot a working Linux, offering quite the same capabilities as
> DOS, in the same time I boot DOS.
One company chief:
"Our boxes can boot in 2 seconds flat!"
The other:
"Well, I have admit that I don't know how fast our OS
boots, because I can't remember when I last booted it."
> > > Linux and BeOS can run in 16mb of ram and comfortably in 32mb.
> > So what! My HP calculator runs with much less RAM that that! And the
> > commodore 64 only required 20K!!
And GEOworks still worked as good on it as say MS-Works 2.0 on a
386-20, 4MB, under DOS. With the latter being newer. And not
faster ... and having essentially the same feature set.
(And I still regard MS-Works 2.0 a very good and usable program.)
> > Does that mean they have better OSes?
It probably means that GEOworks knew how to code a nice GUI, word
processor, picture program et al in 64k, running from the 1541
floppy drive. (The tape drive (which was basically a normal
cassette recorder) when used with 'accellerated' routines, was
faster reading data than the normal 1541.) And yes, GEOworks was
aviable on DOS, too, and even a bit nicer there.
> If the OSs have the same features...
... does not matter. What matters are the features *you* need.
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 21:29:54 GMT
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 15:27:47 -0500, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>>
>> Jim Ross wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Either way Linux doesn't provide a way for those AOL users to use AOL in
>> > Linux.
>> > Score: Subtract many possible users. Extra bonus if you own a
>winmodem.
>> >
>>
>> I thought there was a way to use AOL with Linux. Can someone confirm
>this?
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > First example, I would like to be able to copy a URL in KEDIT and paste
>that
>> > URL in
>> > the Netscape Location Bar. Doesn't work. Well that says it.
>>
>> It works for me. I'm using using KDE 1.1.2
>
>I guess I'm saying that for me the Netscape Location Bar doesn't accept a
>paste at all.
>I commonly under Windows copy URLs from text files and often paste into IE
>Address Bar.
>This is very convenience and hurts when not available in Linux.
This feature works just fine and dandy on my freshly installed
Redhat 6.2 actually...
[deletia]
>> Here we get into personal preferences. I would prefer all GUI apps to
>install
>> a program entry but leave my desktop alone.
>
>Sorry that's what I meant. I want new GUI apps to all install into the DE's
>launcher, not the desktop/root window.
>Many apps still don't.
Then take it up with the 'intern writing the installer'.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 21:39:50 GMT
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:36:15 +0100, Davorin Mestric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> really true that we're resting on our laurels, why is it that so mouch
>> effort over the last two years has gone into development tools ( KDE,
>> GNOME, QT and GTK ) ?
>
>it looks like there is some big progress, but this is because it starts from
>a small base. going from zero to some tools and libraries might look like a
>big progress, but still linux isn't even close to the support developers
>have on windows.
A serious developer should be dissuaded so easily by the lack
of eye candy and hand holding interfaces.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 21:37:47 GMT
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 15:40:26 -0500, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 02:23:41 -0500, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >JoeX1029 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> You're just a stupidass thats all. It's really quite simple to use
>Linux.
>> >> Have you ever read any books on it?? Not everything is as simple as
>Win
>> >(or as
>> >> shitty). The next project you try keep in mind you might need to use a
>> >little
>> >> more mental elbow grease.
>> >
>> >If something were "easy to use" you wouldn't HAVE to buy a book on it.
>>
>> No, if something were functionally trivial you would neither
>> need any references (bought or installed in the form of man
>> or hlp files) and you wouldn't ever need to expend mental
>> effort on using it.
>
>I disagree. A car is quite complex, but yet quite easy to drive.
The AAA and my state registrar will surely get a hoot
out of both of those clueless comments.
>
>>
>> This kind of laziness and acceptance of one's own inadequacies
>> is why we have game consoles. They function like toasters.
>> General purpose computers are a bit different, really meant for
>> people who need tools more complex than a hammer.
>>
>
>It isn't laziness. It's a highier standard one expects in the ease of use
>department.
Sure it's laziness. If you object to the terminolgy then
that's a problem with your own self image. Quit deluding
yourself.
>
>> >
>> >I can jump right in and starting using a telephone, a tv, microwave,
>coffee
>> >maker, etc
>> >Buy a book, please.
>>
>> All of those are relatively simple single function devices.
>>
>> Microcomputers aren't.
>
>Depending on what you are trying to do with it.
>Who saying that installing software must require 7 or 8 steps???
I usually just execute the associated application marked
something like 'install' or 'setup'. The lack of an auto-
mounter is less of an issue than you make it out to be.
Most of the destops work around that at this point.
>Windows and MacOS are in fact proof that Linux can be easier and I believe
>should be.
You're forgetting Solaris.
Although, there are philisophical reasons for non running
an automounter which is why I don't run one despite having
the option.
>
>>
>> >
>> >Here's easy to use.
>> >
>> >Install MS Office 98 in MacOS.
>> >Insert CD. Wait. You are done.
>>
>> That sounds like a StarOffice install.
>
>You forget the steps necessary in mounting and unmounting.
It depends on your desktop actually. Mind you,
MacOS itself has an explicit unmount procedure
and a pretty whacked up one at that too.
>
>>
>> >
>> >Under Linux.
>> >Since MS Office 98 doesn't exist for Linux or Windows, I'll use
>Wordperfect
>> >for an example.
>> >
>> >Download this big file.
>>
>> Or buy a CDROM.
>>
>> >Rename the file because Netscape screwed up the filename. Underscores,
>etc.
>>
>> I didn't have to do that. What are you on?
>
>It's a known issue. Maybe it's been fixed recently.
I never had problem with that known issue. Where's the bug
report ticket?
>
>>
>> >
>> >Or put in your cd with Wordperfect on it.
>> >Figure out how to mount the cd and how to access the file. Better copy
>it
>> >to your harddisk because of the next point.
>> >Rename the file again. Corel screwed up the filename. (It's not a gz,
>but
>> >actually a tar file).
>> >Untar it somehow.
>> >Know enough to run ./setup instead of setup.
>> >Wait.
>> >Now unmount your Wordperfect cd.
>>
>> Except for the cultural issue of 'mounting' media, I had
>> none of these problems installing my commercial copy of
>> Word Perfect 8 on Redhat 6.1.
>
>I don't have a problem either.
>But I would not consider it easy.
It's not so much 'easy' or 'difficult' as it is DIFFERENT.
"mount foo" or "umount foo" aren't exactly braintwisters
as arcane computing syntax go. They rank right up there
with "setup" and "reboot" and "mail".
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 3CF996AC Technology stocks to buy
Date: Sat,11 Mar 2000 16:12:02+2000
Embrace the new Standard in Computer Aided design - LinuxCAD !
LinuxCAD is an original independently designed program runs on new
advanced Linux Operating system.
Complex design and graphics are created with ease and elegance.
LinuxCAD erases difficulties of Microsoft Visio and goes head to
head with AutoCAD.
Our improved introductory packageis only $99.00 and we provide
and custom design symbol libraries appropriate for your projects.
www.linuxcad.com
www.softwareforge.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 11 Mar 2000 22:37:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 8 Mar 2000 20:20:14 -0600,
Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I sure as hell wouldn't want to run Linux in 16 megs these days. Just
> because it *can* run in limited memory doesn't mean you *should* run
> it that way.
I agree. If you have the HW, it makes no sense not to use it.
> Here's a cut & paste from a telnet session from this
> laptop into my Linux box in the main "computer room" that has 64 megs
> ram on a Pentium 233:
> [root@system2 /]# free
Irrelevant. Linux uses all the memory it gets for buffers and
cache, no matter if you have 8 or 2048 MB. You ought to know
that.
> total used free shared buffers cached
> 63064 57668 5396 34740 5356 30564
> -/+ buffers/cache: 21748 41316
> Swap: 113864 0 113864
> Then we have this Win2000 laptop. It is currently showing 60 meg of
> ram usage (same as Linux). It has 210 threads running, 21 processes,
> between 1 and 3 percent CPU usage (PII 366), 66 megs available ram
> (it has 128 megs total) and 81 megs of "System Cache". So, like
> Linux, a good chunk of the "used memory" is cache.
So ... let's see ... if it had only 64 MB, it would still be
using 50-60 MB for programs (Linux with a rather bloat-WM: ~30
MB) and ~10 MB (Linux ~30 MB) for cache & buffers. Or are you
reading the data differently?
> Seems pretty reasonable to me. In fact it's pretty much identical to
> Linux. So much for Win2000 "bloat" and "lean and mean" Linux!
In percentiles, both use about 50% for programs. Having half
the memory in the Linux machine does not count. Yep, so much
for bloat and leanness. :-)
> Then we have my Win2000 Advanced Server box. Connecting to it via
> Terminal Services from this laptop (I'm in the living room in my chair
> - ethernet in the house is nice!) it shows 402 threads running, 34
> processes, 1 - 3 percent CPU usage (PII 400), 115 meg ram used (192
> meg total) and 93 meg of "system cache".
So it uses just less than 50% for cache (93 MB) and just over
50% (99 MB) for programs. Ye-Haw! Hereby we know that Linux,
W2K and W2K-AS use about the same memory!
> Keep in mind that each
> Terminal Service user adds around 8 - 10 meg to the ram usage.
Uh? HOW MUCH? What's it doing, running NT all over again?
in.telnetd needs about 600 *k*B.
> The bottom line is: modern OSes want as much ram as possible for best
> performance.
True.
> Memory is cheap enough these days that this shouldn't
> be an issue for the vast majority of people.
... building a server. Still, you cannot upgrade everything
(older MBs did only cache 64 MB, for example, or try laptops).
And by that argument wasting 512 MB even would not be too bad, you
can always buy 1 GB or two more.
An OS should not be bloated. That slows it down and tends to
introduce bugs.
> Other things
> being equal, more memory gives a better performance boost than faster
> CPU.
So ... by that measure, on the same hardware, an OS that uses
less memory has more left for programs and cache and should be
faster. :-)
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: 11 Mar 2000 22:43:08 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11 Mar 2000 20:53:57 GMT,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2000 15:19:03 GMT, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> >e is not part of gnome, e is the enlightenment WM, unless I am
> >very mistaken.
> A Window manager is needed if you want to run the GNOME desktop
> components, and the sample implementation to date has e.
"Sample implementation"? Hmmm.
What I tried and failed to say was: KDE has a WM, Gnome has none,
even if it ships with e.
> > So it makes sense to install a WM like kwm (and
> >all the rest?) so you can use gnome.
> I'm not clear on what you mean. All you need to install if you want
> to use KDE or GNOME are the shared libraries, then all the applications
> written for those libraries will run.
Yep, but I understood that installing KDE (as a complete desktop)
included installing the KDE-WM, while Gnome does not contain a
Gnome-WM. (e being used as a good WM for Gnome does not make it a
part of Gnome.)
I might be wrong.
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: 11 Mar 2000 22:45:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:22:10 GMT,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Not to defend RH, but you know that KDE and Gnome are related in
> > the same way as X and a window manager? Gnome != WM. KDE == WM.
> Do you know that what you said is totally wrong? ;-)
Foot-im-mouth-disease. :-) see other posts.
> KDE is not a WM. KDE has a WM. KDE's Wm (kwm) has no support
> whatsoever for GNOME (unlike E or Window Maker).
And here I was, thinking that kwm was (going to) work nice
alongside Gnome ... Thanks for pointing that out to me.
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
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: 11 Mar 2000 15:02:12 -0800
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dbt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>% 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
vi MYCONFIG here.
>>% config MYCONFIG
>>% cd ../compile/MYCONFIG ; make depend bsd
>
>Can you run that by again a little slower? I missed the place
>where you inspected the list of new features and decided
>which to activate.
Look above.
>>This whole idea of getting prompted "yes/no/module" seems silly to me,
>>but that's a personal preference.
>
>What's the point of building a kernel at all if you don't want
>to specify how it should be configured? Linux distributions supply
>perfectly usable binaries so the only reason to build your oneself
>is to choose the compiled-in and module components.
And there's a GENERIC kernel that contains everything, so you don't
need to worry about modules, or initrd, or anything like that. That's
why MYCONFIG is separate -- I comment out the things I don't want, and
fix a few things like more ptys.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: 11 Mar 2000 23:08:16 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 21:05:09 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
That means no games. That means stable apps for whatever they
are doing. Sounds like Linux may be a good choice.
> 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.
Well, you are implying that Linux is 2-10 times the work compared
to W9x or NT. Such implication is of course no proof. "Why is it
that Windows users wrongly assume that anything but Windows must
be very complicated" is another example of this technique ...
So, I would like you to supply facts.
> That's because it's different for every card.
Give one example. Choose your card. XFree86 version 3.3.6.
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
