Linux-Advocacy Digest #703, Volume #25 Sun, 19 Mar 00 22:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work.... (mlw)
Re: Jens! (mlw)
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed (mlw)
LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY (Ilya Grishashvili)
Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: gnome website sabotaged? (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - the latest from work....
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:49:11 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Win2k is very backwards compatible with NT. There are some exceptions
> > > though. Specifically in areas relating to drivers and low-level
> hardware
> > > access. This is most likely where you're running into problems.
> Windows
> > > 2000 has an entirely different device driver model than NT did. The old
> > > device driver model is still present to some degree, but is not fully
> > > backwards compatible. This was a choice between stability and
> > > compatibility. MS chose stability.
> >
> > This is patently false marketing propaganda. Microsoft has never chosen
> > stability of ease of implementing features. Name one feature that was
> > added to NT that "improved" stability.
>
> Did you read what I wrote?
Yes I did, and I think "Entirely Different" is a bit of a stretch, don't
you think?
>
> It's not what they added. It's what they didn't add.
>
> > > > Reason is the Microsoft team didn't thoroughly test their product!
> > >
> > > Not in the slightest. Win2k is the most thoroughly tested product of
> this
> > > magnitude ever developed.
> >
> > More marketing propaganda. End unit testing is useless on an OS. Only
> > component testing, core reviews, and peer review can find the real hard
> > to find bugs.
>
> And how do you know this wasn't done? In any event, it doesn't invalidate
> the statement.
"Thoroughly tested?" define thoroughly. I submit that Linux and FreeBSD
beat that claim easily.
>
> > > > TRUE, Windows 2000 is almost 2 years behind their original lofty
> > > schedules.
> > >
> > > Primarily because MS chose stability as the primary goal of Windows 2000
> > > over ship dates.
> >
> > More marketing propaganda.
>
> You're claiming this is not true?
Yes, this is untrue in that any deadline driven development will balance
bugs vs stability to ship. With Microsoft they have a long and
documented history of going for features over quality. I see no reason
why win2k would be different.
>
> > > > TRUE, they have had 2 years extra to develop and test their product!
> > >
> > > Which they did.
> >
> > badly.
>
> You have examples?
Yes, Win2k.
>
> > > Who cares? The cost of the product is miniscule in it's Total Cost of
> > > Ownership, which includes training, support, maintenance,
> administration,
> > > etc..
> >
> > More marketing propaganda. The latest TCO research seems to indicate
> > that NT is one of the more expensive operating systems. Even more
> > expensive than UNIX.
>
> Reference?
It is hard to document what one reads on a daily basis unless one
carries around a palm pilot and notes where every fact, statistic and
opinion is observed. I suppose any of the independent networking trade
rags will support what I say.
>
> > > > TRUE, all we can do is tell our customers we DON'T KNOW WHEN MICROSOFT
> > > WILL FIX IT!
> > >
> > > Why not tell your customers that YOU will fix it, instead of pointing
> > > fingers?
> >
> > Because NT is closed source and there are something's ISVs can't do.
>
> The problem was not with NT, it was with the end user code.
Bzzt wrong. I could not fix DirectDraw on NT when I needed too. I had to
wait for MS to fix it. I could (and did) write a work around, but it was
not "DirectDraw" until MS fixed a stupid 2048x2048 screen limitation.
>
> > > > Why is it ! Why can't Microsoft make a backwardly compatible
> product????
> > >
> > > That's what Windows 9x is. And that's why it's so unstable.
> >
> > Windows 9x in unstable because of its core design. NT is unstable
> > because of what MS has added to the core design.
>
> And it's core design is to be backwards compatible. Right?
What does this mean?
>
> Please explain why Windows 2000 is more stable than Windows NT 3.51, which
> was before the changes you speak of.
I argue that Win2K does not have enough data available to make that
claim. Talk about it in 1 years time.
>
> > > Linux has the advantage of source code for everything. When you have to
> > > maintain binary compatibility with your old systems, things get much
> harder.
> > > I doubt that binaries from Linux .90 still run in today's Linux.
> >
> > The way in which the product has been distributed is compatible. Binary
> > products (Applix) from RedHat 5.x days still runs, Older netscapes still
> > run.
>
> Were those compiled under the .90 kernel? I don't think so.
Yea, and Windows 9x and NT will runs 2.x code, not. At least Linux will
run .9 code that is recompiled, which neither version of Windows will.
>
> > If a facility is given to you in an API from a vendor. One should be
> > able to rely on that API to remain workable. I do not know what the
> > persons exact problem is, but I have been down this road with MS myself
> > with the magic disappearing API being replaced by something totally
> > different, and not being updated on previous versions of the OS. The WFW
> > networking API is one off the top of my head.
>
> Win16 and Win32 are different API's. They are not simply "new versions" of
> the same API. This would be like expecting the same API to exist in BSD
> versus System V. Many of them do, but not all.
No, I was talking about a "binary" a networking program being written
for WFW 3.11 with a documented "approved" API for Windows networking
would not run on Windows 95 or 98 or NT.
>
> > If a major design strategy was designed around an API set there can be a
> > significant cost associated with changing the design. You must admit
> > that MS offering and documenting a public API, and then changing it such
> > that it no longer works as previously documented, is a very bad thing.
> > Many smaller companies can't afford to redesign a major product with out
> > letting other development slip. This can be a huge problem from some
> > ISVs.
>
> Device drivers are always the most likely to change in any OS. Are you
> telling me that Device drivers from Linux 1.0 are the same as they are
> today?
No, but it is indicative of a poor design to get this crap after a
couple versions. In Linux, yes, you will have to recompile, maybe add a
new header or change a few defines. Of course any OS would be like this.
Yet, the type of behavior the original poster was claiming I would only
expect on the first few betas of an OS.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Jens!
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:57:50 -0500
"HENRIK SJ�DIN" wrote:
>
> Jens S�derberg
> Sweden
>
> Linux Rules!!!
Your enthusiasm, while completely appropriate in this forum, would be
better expressed with some reasons.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 02:00:16 GMT
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:36:15 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:17:42 -0500, Gary Hallock
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Installing an application on
>> >Linux is trivial. I find it quite easy with Redhat.
>> Assuming you have all the dependencies, which is highly unlikely, it is.
>
>If you only use one or two apps, perhaps. But most distributions (certainly
>Redhat) come with most libraries already. I have found it rare that I don't
>already have the dependencies either installed or on the distribution disk.
>When I do have to download a library, it is then available for many other apps
>and it is one less thing to worry about for the next app.
I understand what you are saying but my experience has been different.
Example: I need some Gnome library that I download. i try to install
it and it complains that I need version 1.2 of yet another library. I
happen to have version 1.3 of that library. What do I do?
I have had this exact scenario several times.
>>
>>
>> > But, from what I
>> >understand, Debian is even easier since it will go out to the web and grab
>> >dependencies if you ask it to.
>>
>> Sure it will 3.5 days later on a dialup connection. I can grab the
>> entire Windows update as well and spend an equally wasted amount of
>> time. Difference is I don't NEED the Win update in order to run
>> programs.
>>
>
>This is a totally illogical statement. You seem to want it both ways. If the
>app comes with all dependent libraries then your download time will be huge for
>each and every app. But that is what you are advocating. If the libraries are
>packaged separately then you only have to download them once, not a separate copy
>per app. So the linux way saves on download time.
What I want, along with many others is to go to Matrox and say I want
your latested drivers. Where are they?
Download them and they work.
I want to go the Cheyanne and say: what is the latest version and
download it.
I want to go to MusicMatch Jukebox and say: I like your program, make
it work.
I have absolutely no problems doing this under Windows. Under Linux,
assuming the programs are even availible, I always seem to be missing
something despite the fact I ALWAYS select Install ALL when
installing.
I prefer the Windows method 10:1 over Linux.
Steve
>
>Gary
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:05:36 -0500
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Here you go:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.big.net.au/~silvio/
> > > > >
> > > > > Feel free to spread this everywhere - especially the Linux viruses
> > > there -
> > > > > cause the linvocates (never wrong) have assured us that it's
> impossible
> > > to
> > > > > have a linux virus so I'm sure they won't mind running these
> binaries.
> > > > >
> > > > > Enjoy!
> > > > Riddle: When is a virus not a virus? When it requires the informed
> > > > consent of the user. The virus requires root access to infect the
> > > > system, unlike WIndows, where ANY piece of code can infect your
> system.
> > > > In Windows NT, where most people run as, at least, power user, any
> piece
> > > > of code will infect NT as well.
> > > >
> > > > In UNIX, it is unusual for a user to run as a root without a specific
> > > > task.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ahhh... you live in a programmers dream of what it's really like out
> there.
> > > I have quite a few guys working for me that think like you. they can
> code
> > > like freaks but their user interfaces suck because they think like
> > > programmers and admins but not like users. As linux tries to make itself
> > > into the mainstream more and more will run as root ("why should I use su
> all
> > > the time, why not just run as root?" typically).
> > >
> > > Where in the world to you get the idea that most people run NT as admin
> or
> > > power user?
> >
> > Actually, from Microsoft's own recommendations in the knowledge base for
> > running Microsoft's own apps.
>
> Oh - you found two, a whole two. yipee - besides, as you might know if you
> actually used NT frequently (and recently) - it's not unusual to have a
> particular install require power user just to keep the common users from
> messing the system up and generating those errors most users never see.
Those are the first two. "and recently?" please, give me a break. Still,
you are claiming that people can't use an NT system without someone
being a power user, even after it has been setup. I can use Linux and
NEVER need to su unless I want to change system settings and affect the
system as a whole.
>
> >
> > >I run as power user cause I am. I keep everyone else below that.
> > > the only place I run admin is at the console doing a specific task.
> > > Otherwise I use runas/su where necessary.
> > >
> > > So, i guess we'll agree that crap like BackOriface is not a virus
> either. It
> > > takes running an application to install itself. Running an application
> is
> > > concent to run it right? Oh, it's a trojan attached to the application
> you
> > > thought you were running? uh huh... :)
> >
> > Clue famine.
>
> yes - you could use many clues. Are you prepared to argue that BackOrifice
> is a virus? ha! might as well call pcAnywhere (or any remote control
> software) a virus too.
No, a virus is a program that can propagate on its own in a covert and
independent manner. (There are other definitions)
>
> You really should remove the Windows 95/NT part of your tagline. ( or at
> least update to indicate that Win95 is 6 years old and the NT you refer to
> is obviously 3.50)
Ahh, insults, it is so you.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Ilya Grishashvili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:08:43 -0800
Hi
There was a discossion here that moved me to post this message.
This is my opinion you don't have to agree.
I'm a real Penguinist, but I have to admit:
LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
AND NOT FOR EVERY NEED.
If you're a secretary who only needs email and office tools,
linux is not for you! Same for this cache program. Same for
children who want to play Quake. Same for those who use their
computers mainly for browsing web or for chats.
I feel sorry when I see that Linux more and more looks like
M$ Windoze (understand me right, I mean user interface, all
the fancy buttons and stuff).
Unix (Linux) is an operating system developed by programmers
and for programmers or researchers !!!
If you're doing a real development like file/mail/web/database
servers, or developing some new network protocols, or
calculating some huge amounts (~Tbytes)
of statistics data, or some intelligent pattern
recognitions e.t.c (endless list) then Linux is what you need.
But trying to install Linux with intention to use
it as an mp3 player (substitute here by GnuCach or
whatever) this hurts my feelings.
I myself use WinNT when I need to prepare a presentation in
PowerPoint. But I would never go that low to make my
distributed memory systems project in Visual C++.
I hope you understand my point, and will express your
opinion. Please don't be mad, I didn't try to hurt anybodys
feelings.
--
================================================
Ilya Grishashvili
Computer Systems Group
Ph.D. CS Department
Marlan & Rosemary Bourns College of Engineering
University of California, Riverside
Office: Bourns Hall B246
Phone: (909) 787-2893
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: mirage.cs.ucr.edu/~elias/
================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 02:14:32 GMT
I agree with you completely Ilya and I support Linux completely when
used for the applications you mention.
This is truly where Linux succeeds.
Enjoy!
Steve
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:08:43 -0800, Ilya Grishashvili
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi
>There was a discossion here that moved me to post this message.
>
>This is my opinion you don't have to agree.
>
>I'm a real Penguinist, but I have to admit:
>
>LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
>AND NOT FOR EVERY NEED.
>
>If you're a secretary who only needs email and office tools,
>linux is not for you! Same for this cache program. Same for
>children who want to play Quake. Same for those who use their
>computers mainly for browsing web or for chats.
>
>I feel sorry when I see that Linux more and more looks like
>M$ Windoze (understand me right, I mean user interface, all
>the fancy buttons and stuff).
>
>Unix (Linux) is an operating system developed by programmers
>and for programmers or researchers !!!
>
>If you're doing a real development like file/mail/web/database
>servers, or developing some new network protocols, or
>calculating some huge amounts (~Tbytes)
>of statistics data, or some intelligent pattern
>recognitions e.t.c (endless list) then Linux is what you need.
>But trying to install Linux with intention to use
>it as an mp3 player (substitute here by GnuCach or
>whatever) this hurts my feelings.
>
>I myself use WinNT when I need to prepare a presentation in
>PowerPoint. But I would never go that low to make my
>distributed memory systems project in Visual C++.
>
>
>I hope you understand my point, and will express your
>opinion. Please don't be mad, I didn't try to hurt anybodys
>feelings.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 02:31:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 19 Mar 2000 17:49:45 GMT <8b33vp$gfl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>John Sheehy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: In message <8b33ap$gfl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote :
>
>: >I often wonder why AmigaDOS was never considered for an embedded solution.
>: >I mean, it's tiny, runs on 68000 hardware (which is still a very popular
>: >architecture for some applications, (please, no Z80 vs. 68k arguments :-),
>: >and it's awfully fast.
>
>: Perhaps it offers little or nothing, and is therefore bloat, in an
>: embedded environment.
>
>Could you be more specific? After, one thing I can think of that AmigaDOS
>has is a built-in GUI engine. Would this not be useful in an embedded
>environment? Set-top boxes? Perhaps a control station for a
>robotics-baed assmebly plant? Or are you just baiting with anti-Amiga
>sentiment?
AmigaDOS's GUI-engine was based on heavily proprietary (albeit
fairly-well documented) hardware. Parts of it might be
extractable, but the Intuition display was quite dependent
on the various Coprocessor(s) -- one of which was the Blitter,
a (relatively) fast data mover.
It was a beautiful design, all around, for its time. Sigh. :-)
I'm not sure where the hardware design is now, though. Last I heard,
Gateway had it...or was it a firm in Germany?
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- and then there's, um, Windows....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: gnome website sabotaged?
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 02:38:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
<[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote on Sun, 19 Mar 2000 15:16:02 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>What's a vagina?
>
>Please explain?
Well, the penis is a pointy thing, and the vagina is the nice
wet willing hole into which it is stuck. A little movement
later, and voila! Fireworks. :-)
If you have further difficulties with this concept, ask Heather
to demonstrate. :-) But remember to ask her nicely, else
she may slap you. :-)
>
>Steve
>
>
>On 19 Mar 2000 02:54:08 -0500, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED],net writes:
>>
>>> It's obvious...They have finally seen the light :)
>>> Steve
>>
>>Steve, your name is both Heather and Steve? Don't tell me you have
>>both a penis and a vagina.
>>
>>
>>- Donn
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
