Linux-Advocacy Digest #609, Volume #25 Mon, 13 Mar 00 09:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator! (Matt Gaia)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ("LP")
Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator! (Geoff Lane)
Re: What might really help Linux PORT (a developer's perspective) from win 32
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
("Drestin Black")
Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
("Drestin Black")
Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
("Drestin Black")
Re: Why post? (Edward Rosten)
Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for DumbAsses
("Drestin Black")
Re: XFree86 v. 4.0 hits the street. (Edward Rosten)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:30:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (hot_offer) writes:
>Yet, install any distribution of Linux and they put the Netscape
>Navigator icon on the desktop and it is included with the
>installation of the Linux operating system. It is installed by
>DEFAULT. And they give it away for free.
Now, suppose you were MS and were concerned about this. So you go to
Redhat (BTW, my RH6.1 installation doesn't have any browser icon on its
KDE desktop?!?), hand them a CD and say "This is a linux version of IE5.01.
We give it away for free. We would very much like you to include it in
your distribution, and to place an icon for it on the desktop, just like
you do with Netscape". Guess what happens next?
Now guess what happens when Netscape turns up at MS and makes a similar
request....
Bernie
--
Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it
Henry David Thoreau
American writer, 1817-62
------------------------------
From: Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator!
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 07:35:58 -0500
*shakes his head at the WinTroll*
a) Netscape is not owned by any company distributing Linux.
b) You don't have to install Netscape (unlike IE) when you install Linux
c) Netscape wasn't made part of the operating system.
d) Linux does not want to set up a monopoly with Netscape
(do I really need to go on?)
: Hmmm....see the obvious parallel.
If you're a troll, yes.
: Amazing similar isn't it?
No
: And yet every Linux Lacky will claim this is TOTALLY different. No it's
: not.
Yes, actually, it is. (see above)
: Same thing, same reasons, same way. But denial is far easier to
: swallow in the Linux camp apparently.
*has a hunch* I wonder if this is "S" trolling from their hotmail account
again?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: 13 Mar 2000 12:33:34 GMT
In article <89lqkb$oru$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've always had a love/hate relationship with binary RPMs. I love the
> fact that they *usually* work or at least yield sufficiently useful
> clues as to make it possible to make them work. But I hate the idea
> of using binaries. They introduce potential security risks; they may
> have subtle bugs caused by slightly differing library versions; they
> may very well break if I upgrade my kernel, and then I'm stuck going
> out and getting the source anyway. They certainly won't work reliably
> if I change to a very different distribution such as Debian where the
> system files tend to live in different places.
For the number one use of binary RPMs, namely installing an OS and
accompanying applications off CD, they are pretty good indeed. They
just happen to be used for many other things besides.
> The more complex software becomes, the more necessary it is to
> automate the testing process. It's hard for me to understand how any
> robust software could possibly get built without it.
Amen! It seems strange that so many software packages (both OSS and
commercial) come without decent regression test suites. Without that
(and, preferentially, full software verification[*]) how can you even
tell if the software is working?
Donal (who still builds from tarballs preferentially...)
[* OK, so that really *is* rare! But close to my heart too. ]
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
Reply-To: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:14:59 GMT
Jason Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8agv29$dgm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <38cba2e0$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 03/11/2000 at 11:41 PM,
> > Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> >
> >> That's why the Linux/Win98SE dual boot box has only 64 meg - it's an
> >> Intel 430TX chipset MB. It will take more ram but only caches 64 meg.
> >
> >Unless, of course, you are running OS/2. Then all the ram can be used
> >provided you tell the Bios you are smart enough to run OS/2. I have Warp
> >running on a 430TX motherboard with the Award Bios set for using OS/2.
> >When thus set, all 96 megs are available and the swapfile never grows
> >beyond the allocated size.
>
> Unless you are a complete fucking idiot that likes to show that he doesn't
> know dick. The 430TX chipset only caches 64Mb of ram. Anything above
> that won't be cached and you will suffer when the cpu has to hit
> memory.
Um, Dos/Win9598 will cache from the top-down.. so it is not "anything above it".
The real problem stems from the fact that it is top-down caching, so performance will
suffer across the board.
If you have 96megs installed, the first 32megs won't be cached.
Contrast that to OS/2, which will cache from the bottom up.. so that yes, if you are
actively using it beyond
64megs, it'll not be cached.. but for 99% of it's memory usage, it'll be fully cached.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff Lane)
Subject: Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator!
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:28:30 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (hot_offer) writes:
> Yet, install any distribution of Linux and they put the Netscape Navigator icon
> on the desktop and it is included with the installation of the Linux operating
> system. It is installed by DEFAULT. And they give it away for free.
It's free because netscape can't charge because the market is distorted by
M$ giving IE away for free.
The problem is not so much M$ installing IE for "free" but M$'s refusal to
allow others to pre-configure a PC for sale with netscape installed.
I'm sure that if M$ could actually get it's act together and release a Linux
version of IE that worked and didn't require 50Mbytes of runtime memory and
had a license that allowed 3rd parties to distribute it; it too would soon
be discovered within Linux distributions.
--
Geoff. Lane. | Linux has shown the world that Microsoft is only a local
Manchester | maximum; there are many, much higher mountains to be
Computing | climbed in this particular space.
My haystack had no needle!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux PORT (a developer's perspective) from win 32
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:23:34 GMT
In article <Em8y4.690
$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Mark Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> Mark
>
>
hello mark,
here in mainsoft we have a product which is
called mainwin, which is the win-32 environment
on unix and linux.
you can compile your own source code with our
libraries and save 9/10 of the time!!
please check our web site at:
http://www.mainsoft.com or write me!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:36:08 GMT
"Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jason Bowen wrote:
> >
> > You'd have to read Bob's hate filled diatribes on non-OS/2 using people to
> > answer that question.
>
> He doesn't just limit it to non-OS/2 using people. He distributes his hate
> equally to all factions. That's his way of demonstrating that he's not a
> bigot.
Equal-opportunity hate. Wonder what the little symbol is for that?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for
DumbAsses
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:25:51 -0500
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8agrej$23eq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8aeb6p$3oq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3) wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 13:08:59 -0500, "Drestin Black"
> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >>>Yes, it installed, I have no idea if it installed right because I
> > haven't
> >> >>>really done anything with it, there isn't really anything to do with
it
> >> >>>other than type shit at the CLI or fire up a browser in the
> > windows-clone
> >> >>>GUI and be impressed that even if X crashes I can telnet in, kill
the
> > task
> >> >>>and try again!
> >> >>>
> >> >>><click>
> >> >
> >> >> IOW, you did this with a chip on your shoulder. Just like the
> >> >> LinVocates that you complain about who install Windows just
> >> >> to find every problem they can with the install or the OS itself,
> >> >> with no intention of actually using it with an open mind to see if
> >> >> they might actually <gasp> like using it.
> >> >
> >> > There is no chance that Dresden will ever, ever give linux a fair
> > chance.
> >>
> >> It is not a matter of 'ever'. He can't do it. He knows only M$. Unless
> >> he has a button to click the guy is completely lost. Very sad (except
> >> he makes this newsgroup so much fun even though I have him killfiled).
> >>
>
> > I love it when that happens... they can't take it and won't even listen
to
> > the other side. blinded by linvocacy and unwilling to even consider it's
> > possible linux isn't perfect - he slips his blinders on, his rose color
> > glasses and doesn't even see the train coming... :)
>
>
> I understand fully that linux isnt perfect; thats why I choose FreeBSD for
> most "important" tasks, like my workstation at my job. But I also
understand
> that for my applications (various and sundry) NT is much, much worse.
>
> And so is W2K btw. What the fucks up with stuff I stick in the recycle
bin
> coming back after deletion? And what about mysterious disappearing
> directories? I just recreated an MP3 tree for the 4th time and im sick to
> death of doing it man.
>
ok, I dunno. Files coming back and files disappearing? Details and maybe we
can help cause I've honestly never heard of such a thing.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for
DumbAsses
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:29:56 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I _have_ given it a chance but, as I wrote before, there was nothing it
> > could do that I couldn't do in W2K already. I mean, if I could find even
one
> > single thing I need to do with Linux that I cannot do easily with W2K I
> > would install it (in vmware 2) in a heartbeat. right now VMware is
running
> > FreeBSD for me to continue using...
>
> What does FreeBSD do for you that Linux couldn't?
>
> Not that FreeBSD is bad, far from it, but your anti-Linux bias is
> showing again.
>
Several of my clients use FreeBSD so it's useful for me to have it handy.
The only linux in our shop at this time is in the tech room so I leave it
there. My anti-Linux bias, I've discovered recently, is more accurately
discribed as anti-linux-elitism-take-over-the-world-zealots.
I use the best tool for the job - always. Used to be things like 1-2-3,
WordPerfect, PageMaker, Netware, Ulead Paint (forgot the real name, but
adobe bought it to avoid competition with PhotoShop), even LANtastic. Now
names like Quark, PhotoShop, Office 2k, W2K have replaced them - simply
cause ... see first sentence.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for
DumbAsses
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:34:22 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3) writes:
>
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Darren Winsper
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 01:06:08 -0500, Drestin Black
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >> I _have_ given it a chance but, as I wrote before, there was nothing
it
> > >> could do that I couldn't do in W2K already. I mean, if I could find
even one
> > >> single thing I need to do with Linux that I cannot do easily with W2K
I
> > >> would install it (in vmware 2) in a heartbeat. right now VMware is
running
> > >> FreeBSD for me to continue using...
> >
> > > What can FreeBSD do that Linux can't?
> >
> > It loads better and handles very high loads much more easily. Its got a
> > MUCH better tcp/ip stack. Its got a Ports tree and an automated cvsup.
>
> Inside VMWare?
>
> I strongly doubt that running thousands of open sockets is your goal
> if you're running it in a virtual machine...
>
you totally miss the point of a VMWare session... for me, it's to test and
to have the tool isolated but full operational. VMware is not about
performance, as long as you realize that single exception - it's like
putting another machine on your desk without the hassle (although on a 800+
512 meg w2K server, vmware runs friggin' fast!)
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why post?
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:53:50 +0000
Mike wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Anti-Linux:
> >
> > As for the anti-linux camp, I am not sure. What motivates anti-anything?
> > Usually hate of some kind. Hate is usually irrational, and when it comes
> > to inanimate objects like an OS, it must be irrational. The only other
> > alternative, and this is falls into the conspiracy theory, is that it is
> > an effort which is funded by a corporation, like an astroturf movement.
>
> ...
>
> > I have never met a windows user, except for these people, that isn't
> > frustrated with Windows' instability and forced upgrade strategy of
> > Office. Many windows' users would drop Windows the first opportunity
> > they get.
>
> Well, Mark, we've never met, but if we did, I'd tell you that I'm not
> frustrated by Windows instability, or by Office. In fact, I run an NT box at
I am, and know a lot of people who are. I also know a few people who
aren't, but
they tend not to use computers much.
> work and an NT box at home, and the one at work has crashed once in the past
> year (putting it on par with both my HPUX and Sun boxes). The machine at
> home has never crashed.
You're lucky then. There are many people who wish they could claim that.
> I run Office on both. It _never_ crashes. Not only
Likewise.
> would I not trade my NT machine for a Mac, I wouldn't trade it for _any_
> Unix machine.
>
> The problem with Unix isn't its lack of stability.
True, its a problem with windowx :-)
> But we've been down this
> path before, and in the end, it's not a question that's going to be resolved
> here (or anywhere else except a Linux or Windows convention). Suffice it to
> say that in many applications, stability isn't enough. It never has been.
>
> Here's the thing that might surprise you: There _are_ things about Office
> that I don't like, and that are big enough irritations that would make me
> switch to a competing product if it was better. The problem is in that
> definition of 'better'. So far, no other products come close to Office. And,
> NT makes a nice platform for Office suites - nicer than Unix, especially
> since it supports cool things like drag and drop, OLE, and COM. There is
> talk of Linux supporting these things, but it's been _years_ since that
> support was supposed to arrive, and it still isn't here. And when it does
> arrive, it won't be part of Linux, but part of an add-on GUI desktop, so a
> Linux application may support that desktop, or it may support X
X isn't a GUI desktop. If you knew what X was, you would know that.
>, or Lesstif,
> or the other GUI desktop, making CORBA support non-existent or incompatible.
> Ugh. It will likely be years before some GUI finally wins, and software gets
> written for it by default. Until then, welcome to hell.
I don't want a GUI to `win'. If one does, then I will have no choice. I
want
to be able to use a range of GUIs on linux. Hell is where you have no
choice
and are forced to use what other people think is best.
>
> Not a very good scenario if you want to take over the world.
LINUX-DOESN'T-WANT-TO-TAKE-OVER-THE-WORLD.
It's about choice and freedom.
>
> You've argued before that there's no reason that Linux can't do these
> things. I would argue that the only thing stopping Linux from being great is
> the Linux community.
The `linux community' has many different views. This is an over
generalisation.
> You need different users: those who complain when
> things aren't easy to use. And, you need different developers: those who fix
> things when users complain. Maybe someday, but I'm not holding my breath.
You could always fix it yourself, or you could wait for someone to do it
for you.
It's about choice (again). With closed software, you have to wait for
someone to
fix it for you (if indeed they will).
Remember, companies also don't respond to every minor point brought up
by every user.
It's almost impossible to do.
> Despite opinions to the contrary by many of those here, I still maintain
> that Linux needs a better printer model, a more consistent user interface, a
> help system, and all that OLE and COM stuff. Stability is only the first
> step.
What's wrong with the printer model? I don't know much about it except
that all
applications use a standard print system (postscript), which is much
like windows
(windows print system). You can setup a printer driver (using a nice GUI
tool) which
sits between somewhere and the printer that translates ps to printer
codes. So all
reasonable apps can print to any printer in a consistent way. What is
wrong with that?
>
> > Are they threatened by Linux for some reason?
> > What could be threatening about a PC OS?
>
> Indeed. Aside from the number of people I work with who regularly threaten
> to put Linux on my PC, I can't think of a thing that's threatening about it.
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for
DumbAsses
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:32:49 -0500
"Darren Winsper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 01:06:08 -0500, Drestin Black
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I _have_ given it a chance but, as I wrote before, there was nothing it
> > could do that I couldn't do in W2K already. I mean, if I could find even
one
> > single thing I need to do with Linux that I cannot do easily with W2K I
> > would install it (in vmware 2) in a heartbeat. right now VMware is
running
> > FreeBSD for me to continue using...
>
> What can FreeBSD do that Linux can't?
I didn't say that. FreeBSD is used by several of my clients so I like to
keep it handy. Plus, it's users don't have a anti-everyone-else crusade
going...
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XFree86 v. 4.0 hits the street.
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:59:10 +0000
<snip>
>
> Question for those who have tried it: does it *look* any
> different/better?
It should look no different. The GUI on top of X (ie the WM and apps)
gives it it's look. The only difference you should 'see' with the server
is better performance, more drivers, etc...
>
> Joe
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
