Linux-Advocacy Digest #744, Volume #25 Wed, 22 Mar 00 04:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY (Terry Porter)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Richard Steiner)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux sure is coming around... (Terry Porter)
Re: Producing Quality Code (jimmy@free)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
Re: Linux sure is coming around... (Donn Miller)
Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
(Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:17:32 -0600
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [snip about `rm -rf /`]
>
> > > In any case, all the users home directories should be backed up
> > periodically.
> >
> > Doesn't help when you have to tell a user "Sorry about all the files
that
> > you modified today.. better luck next time".
>
> And how would NT fare if the Administrator accedentally `del *` inside
> %SYSTEM_ROOT%? Either way, you're headed for the backup tapes or
> re-installing with downtime.
If you have removed ownership of all those files from Administrator, then
nothing would happen.
> > No.. this has degenerated into an argument about one specific
> > function, but that wasn't the original point. The original point
> > was simply that Root != Administrator. Yes, they have similar
> > functionality in many ways and you can essentially do the same
> > things, but there are differences, and big ones at that.
>
> How about this then:
>
> The NT "System" account is equivalent to the UNIX "root" account.
Since you can't log on as System, that's kind of irrelevant.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 22 Mar 2000 16:22:08 +0800
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 15:28:07 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED],net <[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>On 21 Mar 2000 13:12:35 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
>Porter) wrote:
>
>
>>-20. I *protest*!
>>But I'm still right Steve, you're just going further back in time. Gimme back
>>those 20 points you Windows Troll !
>
>Ok you can have the 20 points back. Just don't tell anyone
>;)
Goodee :-)
>
>>>>They used Banyan email utilising "Streetalk" naming methods, and they loved it
>>>>. Word was just another app.
>>>
>>>-10 points. It's all about app's. OS means nothing to a secretary.
>>Thats my point exactly, so I'll have those 10 points back thanks.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>How many times must we dispell this crap? This is EXACTLY the sort of person
>>>>>linux is perfect for. This is EXACTLY the sort of job windows (and Mac for that
>>>>>matter) is HORRIBLE for.
>>>>I agree 100%.
>>>
>>>Unless you want groupware ala Lotus CLIENT and file formats including
>>>charts and tables that the rest of the office world is using.
>>>*.txt files are long dead. Today's Email for better or worse (I vote
>>>worse) includes video, graphics and so forth. You need to ACCURATELY
>>>be able to reproduce the formats or you are out of the game.
>>>>People who say this have no real world experience, its just the MS propaganda
>>>>line.
>>>
>>>No they are just used to seeing MSOffice in just about every client's
>>>account they have.
>>Yeah I'll go along with that, but it still doesnt mean that its the best.
>>Things are changing, how long will MS Office be the defacto standard ?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll agree that linux is not suited to the typical home user/gamer.
>>>>>Fine. Almost no one here would say that it is.
>>>>Everyone but me that is :))
>>>>My kids loved networked Koules (Windows uses have NEVER have seen it, never
>>>>will), networked Quake, Networked FreeCiv, Adom etc.
>>>
>>>Buy a Sony Playstation. Trust me, you and your kids will love it.
>>They have one, a Nintendo, and Game Boys. Trust me kids LOVE Koules,
>>mine screeched and raved playing that game for weeks.
>
>I can understand that. Tetris is still one of my favorite games and I
>still like Duke Nukem'. I don't have the time nor the patience to
>learn complicated games.
Hmm, now Steve, this cant go on, we have years of disagreement behind us,
you and I ;-)
>
>>Now they're looking at the Linux Game Boy progamming kit, all free of course.
>
>That sounds interesting.
Yes it is, programming examples, ie calculator, dtmf generator, submarine game
and at this rate it could turn the Game Boy into something other than a brain
rot machine for them :)
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unix (Linux) is an operating system developed by programmers
>>>>>> and for programmers or researchers !!!
>>>>Crap.
>>>
>>>-10 points here. No contest. Linux/Unix is for geeks.
>>Nonsense, Linux is as good as Windows at most things, better at many
>>and is Free and Open.
>
>
>
>>I've helped a long time Windows user to move to the Linux desktop :)
>>She has had a Linux server up 97 days, but always used Windows for her
>>own desktop pc.
>
>I never said it couldn't be done.
Well its not easy!
This lady was/is an *entrenched* MS user, and had the mindset to boot.
> Heck one of my favorite programs was
>PFS Write.
Yeah PFS made some good stuff, "First Choice" was another of their products.
> All I want to do is write a letter not have the program try
>and think for me. Unfortunately in my day job Lotus Notes is used and
>i need compatibility.
Vendor lock in.
>
>>After the initial mental adjustment (that Steve has never been able to make)
>>she's settled down to being *way* more productive than she was under Windows
>
>That's great for her and I'm sure she is not alone. Obviously Linux
>has it's place and many will agree with you. I say that replacing an
>already entrenched in Windows market is a tough sell and cost is the
>big reason Linux is being considered, not features. Again desktop, not
>server.
Yeah I agree regarding cost, initally.
After all a dollar you dont have to spend in business, is a dollar you get
to keep :)
As far as features are concerned, the average Windows user has been accepting
lack lustre performance and reliability for so long, they cant concieve
other software (Free Software) can be so much better.
>
>>
>>Another satisfied Linux Desktop user.
>
>Fair enough.
>
>At the end of my distribution evaluation I said Linux is finally a
>competitor for the desktop and I stand by that. It depends on whose
>desktop it is going on though.
Sure, and I say it was a compeditor in Aug97, not just recently.
Why do I say this ? Beause thats when I went to the Linux Desktop full
time, and have never looked back.
>>Kind Regards
>>Terry
>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 1 day 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:13:01 -0600
Here in comp.os.linux.x, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner)
spake unto us, saying:
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: It's also worht mentioning that some great projects ( eg: QT and KDE )
>: originated on Linux.
>
>It is perfect example of low-quality program in my opinion.
Can you elaborate?
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
Cannibal: one who gets fed up with people.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 03:35:58 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> *grin* Okay, let's face it, geeks are as diverse as X toolkits. My point
> was, that people shouldn't have to become technically oriented users, just
> to use an operating system. Especially if their aptitudes, and interests
> diverge away from computers altogether.
[snip]
> My point was, that UNIX is ideal as a workhorse for managing heavy network
> traffic, and very large databases. But it's akward to use on the desktop
> (for the typical end user).
I think you've hit on something there. The fact that Windows has
pretty much only one user interface API makes it more appealing to
developers. For X, you've got lots of toolkits. Then, you've got to
decide: do you want to develop for KDE? If so, you will be using
Qt. But, there is also GNOME, which uses an entirely different
toolkit, Gtk. On top of that, you don't know how long Qt and Gtk will
be popular, if they will have staying power on the unix desktop. A
long time ago, Open Look was all the rage. Yesterday, Motif was
"in". Today, you've got Qt and Gtk.
To make matters worse, you've got people screaming at each other
"Motif rules!!!". "No, Qt is much more modern and easy to use, and
Motif sucks!!" "No, you both suck, because Gtk rules!!!". So, you've
got these GUI toolkit wars going on in the unix world.
I'm primarily a unix guy, and I'm amazed at how much "infighting" goes
on among the X toolkit fanatics. The unix crowd is sort of
hypocritical, because they always tout unix as being about
"flexibility, and freedom of choice". They also speak of "let's band
together, and destroy MS!!!" But don't you see how ironic it is that
the unix guys are infighting over which X toolkit is "best"? I can't
believe how people take sides in the X toolkit arena. This is one
thing that is holding back unix for the desktop, IMO. It seems like
you've got these three X toolkit "gangs", ready to pounce on each
other.
If you talk to any X developer, I think you'd find that a lot of them
are fed up with X toolkit wars. With Windows, you don't have any such
problem. That is one of many reasons why Windows * is booting unix in
the ass on the desktop. I keep telling the unix advocates this, but
they won't have any of it: unix needs a window system with a
predetermined look and feel / widget set, so these toolkit wars may be
eliminated. This is the case on Windows, and you can STILL use your
own GUI toolkit, such as Qt and Gtk, if you wanted. (Someone was
working on porting Gtk to Windows, and I know Qt is available for this
platform.)
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux sure is coming around...
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 22 Mar 2000 16:43:12 +0800
On 21 Mar 2000 22:34:07 GMT, JoeX1029 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Everybody is selling Linux!! My local Wal-mart is selling Linux! I was
>recently in my favorite computer store in the OS section and some guy picked up
>the Winblowme 2000 box. I'm thinking "ahh man another box bites the dust..."
>but no! after seeing the $ he grunted in surprise and put it back and picked up
>the RedHat 6.1 deluxe box. Guess what he ended up buying....
>
>So much for Linux is losing popularity.
To anyone new here, I'm well known as a Linux zealot (ask Steve the Wintroll
;-)
However this commercialization of Linux has me worried, and I'd like to say why.
Firstly the Aus.linux newsgroup was beseiged by Windows users who had
picked up a free copy of Linux, attached to a Windows magazine, which sprouted
about the good and magical properties of Linux, and the army of friendly Linux
users, just waiting to help them should they have any problems.
After the first 200 whiney "please hold my hand, while I cry about lost
expectations" I kill-filed any mention of this magazine, and cut the noise
considerably.
To me this is a BIG problem, the commercial vendors want to SELL Linux, or
a magazine, and will promise all kind of things to do that. The damage they
cause is no concern to them, as they get boosted sales for a time if theyre a
magazine, or just tell people to go to the ng's if theyre a cd seller.
Hell I'd employ Steve to vet the adds on these commercial magazines if I could,
at least he wouldn't promise the moon, then after they purchase the mag and cd
make them go and get the bloody thing themselves.
To me Linux hasnt really changed since 1997, you still NEED to understand it
to use it, and buying on price alone to me, is a BIG mistake.
Especially when you consider you can get Linux for a couple of dollars from
Cheapbytes, instead of in a nice flash, colorfull box with a book, for $100!
Food for thought ?
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: jimmy@free
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: 21 Mar 2000 23:54:25 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw says...
>> How many of you actually write a linked list from scratch any more?
>> how may write hash tables? etc.. if you do, and unless you have a
>> very good reason to do that, then you are wasting the employer
>> time and money, becuase instead you should be simply using a
>> library of those routines.
>
>This is wrong. Many of the generic libraries available are just that,
>generic.
NO it is not wrong. You are wrong.
The point is, 99.9% of applications can use those "generic" routines.
Unless you have very specific reason to write your own hash table
and linked list for 100 time again, use those routines allready written.
It is all a matter of cost/performance. To spend a week debugging
your new code instead of using code allready written to save one
nanosecond do not make sense.
>analyzed a set of log files, over 20 million records in all. I could
>process it in 5-10 minutes. A guy wrote the equivalent program in perl,
>it took over two hours to run. In the end, who is wasting time?
>
You are missing the point. This is not a language issue. It is a
code reuse issue.
...
>sometimes it is better to write your
>own in a product so there are no royalties or legal issues when you
>decide to market your product.
>
Again it depends. If it will $20 to buy the code, and you will
spend a week to write it, which do you think makes more sense to do?
>>
>> A good programmer does not have to know all the detailes, as long
>> as they have the brains to find out about it as needed.
>
>This is totally false. Being a good developer is understanding the
>concepts as you write code.
Being a good programmer is knowing where you need to find the
detailes you need. Actually being a good engineer means that.
No one can know everything and every detail, but a good engineer
is good at doing the needed research to find what they need.
>How many times have you needed to sort 3
>items? How many is the least number of compares required? Can you get it
>under 3? How many data exchanges?
>
>These are classic algorithms that, once learned, affect your thinking
>and cause you to make better choices as you code.
>
This is silly. If I am presented with a sort problem I need to work on,
I have the needed basic skills to look up and research quickly the
topic at hand and to find the best method to do. I do not have to keep
all the detailes in my head all the time.
You see, science is not about collecting data, it is about
the process of finding information.
Jimmy
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[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: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:54:58 GMT
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 00:25:27 -0500, Bob Germer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 03/21/2000 at 03:53 PM,
> George Marengo, a liar of the first order in the grasp of the RICO
>named Microsoft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
>> >> Whatever MS _wanted_ them to do, what IBM did with OS/2 was their
>> >> choosing, not MS's.
>> >
>> >Pure MS sponsored and paid for FUD.
>
>> Are you saying that it wasn't up to IBM to decide what IBM would do?
>>How is that FUD?
>
>It is FUD because IBM had no more choice than a restaurant owner who was
>told by the local Mafiosi that he would install a cigarette machine, use
>XYZ garbage collection company, and pay $100 a week "insurance". And you
>know damn well that is the case.
Oh please... IBM knew darn well the selling their PC's with
OS/2 would be financial suicide for the PSP division -- that's
why they didn't do it. If they really thought that they could sell
their machines in that configuration, they could have told MS
to pack sand concerning Windows licensing.
>> <incredible amounts of babbling snipped>
>
>Only because you cannot argue with the facts that I posted.
I didn't say it was untrue -- but it was babbling nonetheless.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:49:48 GMT
On 22 Mar 2000 06:39:25 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:24:25 -0500, Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: >
>: >
>: >mr_rupert wrote:
>: >>
>: >> Can anyone remind me why the computing world needed a new server
>: >> OS?
>: >
>: >For the same reason we need yet another version of UNIX?
>
>: At the time Linux came about there was no sensibly licenced
>: or supported Unix for the x86 and the BSDs were entangled
>: in a legal quagmire. I would have been more than happy to
>: BUY Solaris or even NeXTstep when I was originally shopping
>: around for a replacement to WinDOS.
>
>So, why didn't you? I would guess price, no?
No actually. I would have been willing to spend the money.
Neither OS supported my hardware.
>
>You were speaking of "sensibly licensed".
While I would have been willing to spend $400 on an AltOS
at one time, the history of microcomputing has shown that
cheap tends to rule over nearly everything. "Sensibly
licenced" would have been the same price or less as what
Microsoft was selling for consumer desktops (and devkits)
at the time.
>
>: SCO, Sun nor NeXT were really interested in my business.
>
>Right. So, in effect, you answered Mr. Rupert's question...
>
>Why? Because none of the other vendors were interested in the end
>consumer. And now, they're paying for it.
>
>: So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
>: make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
>: Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
>
>I don't understand the statement in this .signature. Quicktime is not a
>Windows technology (though it has been ported to Win32). How does
>Quicktime make web-based video a "Windows only" club?
For the x86, the really interesting QT4 files are restricted
to Windows only.
[deletia]
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:56:34 GMT
On 22 Mar 2000 06:23:43 GMT, When in LA wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Mar 3900 15:53:43, George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>|On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 05:16:17 -0500, Bob Germer
>|<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>|
>|>On 03/21/2000 at 01:44 AM,
>|> George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>|>
>|>> No, I don't have my facts wrong. I was using OS/2 2.0 and 2.1 when this
>|>> was occurring and I know the history of the two companies. The point is
>|>> that IBM PSP on one hand was pushing OS/2 while another part of the
>|>> same division was selling Windows.
>|>
>|>You most assuredly DO have your facts wrong. When OS2 2.0 and 2.1
>|>were in development, they were a joint development of MS and IBM.
>|
>|Incorrect -- OS/2 1.3 was a joint development effort. MS worked on
>|some parts of version 2.0 but by 2.1 it was an all IBM development.
>
>Still incorrect. OS/2 1.2 was a joint development effort and so was
>OS/2 2.0 up until the split. IBM revised 1.2 into a 1.3 upgrade on
>their own. OS/2 2.0 was for the most part complete, except that IBM
>had to make a great deal of changes to support Windows and perhaps
>also for the new shell, WPS.
You're right... 1.3 was IBM's development.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 04:04:05 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux sure is coming around...
Terry Porter wrote:
> However this commercialization of Linux has me worried, and I'd like to say why.
>
> Firstly the Aus.linux newsgroup was beseiged by Windows users who had
> picked up a free copy of Linux, attached to a Windows magazine, which sprouted
> about the good and magical properties of Linux, and the army of friendly Linux
> users, just waiting to help them should they have any problems.
>
> After the first 200 whiney "please hold my hand, while I cry about lost
> expectations" I kill-filed any mention of this magazine, and cut the noise
> considerably.
> To me Linux hasnt really changed since 1997, you still NEED to understand it
> to use it, and buying on price alone to me, is a BIG mistake.
Yep - I agree with you here. I first tried Linux in 1995 because it
was a free unix, and I wanted to run unix on my pc. Nowadays, you've
got hordes of people using Linux because they simply think it's a
better version of Windows. Worse yet, you've got RedHat peppering
their distro with lots of GUI tools to make it easy for the Windows
converts. These GUI tools put scripts in strange places and it makes
it hard for us seasoned unix gurus to find the config files.
When I first tried Linux in May 1995, I was expecting a free version
of unix, not a Windows alternative. The fact that Linux can be used
as a "Windows alternative" speaks volumes for the flexibility of Linux
and unix in general. That's why I run FreeBSD instead of Linux -- it
seems as if FreeBSD is trying to stay true to its unix roots without
all the hype and commercialization. Of course, I feel that Linux is
good too, but the hype and commercialization of it has turned me off.
I switched to FreeBSD in Oct. 1996.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 22 Mar 2000 17:07:14 +0800
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 00:21:39 +0100, Daniel O'Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't call a SoundBlaster Live card and a Canon printer circa
>> 1999 odd.
>
>*opens eyes wide in suprise*
>
>DAMN! While I don't know about that particular model printer, I
>could've sworn that Creative Labs made a driver for SB live under Linux,
>and that it even came with my distro (SuSE 6.3)! My mistake.
>
>--Dan O'Nolan
Well don't upset Steve the troll, he doesnt like reality intefering with
his view of the world :)
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
