Linux-Advocacy Digest #204, Volume #26 Fri, 21 Apr 00 08:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: at the risk of ignorance...a little too late for that (Raisse the Thaumaturge)
Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linus Torvalds (Cihl)
KDE is better than Gnome ("Jerry Wong")
Re: Sell Me On Linux (Daniel Tryba)
Re: Be & Linux & Microsoft... ("jesse james")
Re: Unix is dead? (Loren Petrich)
Re: Linus Torvalds ("Johnathan Talley")
Re: Sell Me On Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Sell Me On Linux (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Raisse the Thaumaturge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.games.roguelike.nethack
Subject: Re: at the risk of ignorance...a little too late for that
Date: 21 Apr 2000 06:22:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In rec.games.roguelike.nethack Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you don't have multiple users, there's not much (any?) overhead. But
> one should not do everything as root (I've got to stop!), as it is
> preferable to download email to an expendable account.
Also, it's sometimes nice to have one account for personal things,
one for business things, one for mailing lists, etcetera, so (a)
everything doesn't fall into one mailbox so important mail doesn't
get snowed under, and (b) one can use a different name for a
different purpose. I don't answer business mail as "Raisse the
Thaumaturge"!
There are five people in our family; the kids have one account each
(though when they get older they can have more if they like) and the
parents three each, as well as a common one that mailing lists that
we both subscribe to get sent to.
Raisse, killed by a system shock
--
@ a human or elf (peaceful thaumaturge called Raisse)
===========< Ascended (3.3.0): W, trying: PVA >============
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (myself) http://www.valdyas.org/irina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...)
Date: 21 Apr 2000 15:26:44 +0900
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think it's silly that some people use an operating system just to "get
> away from Microsoft" or other such nonsense. Use of an operating system
> should be dictated by one's tasks, tastes, and lifestyle, and not the
> other way around. Any other reasoning beyond that is simply mental
> illness, AFAIC.
One more consideration that is not "mental illness" is to consider the
future and the preservation of the choice that we have now. Indeed, I
do have a very strong distaste for everything Micro$oft, however not
so much because it sucks (which it does, but that's another story) but
because I am afraid that if one does not actively oppose it, then it
will become so prevalent that there suddenly is no other choice
anymore. If things stay the way they are now, I have no complaints
about the existence of NT or other abominations -- I simply wouldn't
use them. But it is already the case that many hardware and software
vendors ignore other systems, and if that trend becomes overwhelming,
then things begin to look bleak for anyone who has different priority
or taste than the boys in Redmond.
m
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linus Torvalds
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 06:46:29 GMT
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>
> I believe that the operation system create by Linus Torvalds, Linux, is the downfall
>of the software industry. People who use such a dreaful program should be shot. How
>dare they take money from hardworking companies like microsoft and driving down my
>shares.
>
> ==================================
> Posted via http://nodevice.com
> Linux Programmer's Site
Crossposted to the proper usenet-group. Let's see the
reactions, shall we?
(What an asshole!)
--
% make fire
Don't know how to make fire
% Why not?
No match
------------------------------
From: "Jerry Wong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 14:47:07 +0800
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
=======_NextPart_000_0057_01BFABA0.777C11C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="big5"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I feel Gnome + Enlightment will consume more system resource than KDE, =
so I choose KDE.
However, the default window manager in Red Hat 6.0 is Gnome.=20
--=20
http://members.hknet.com/~wong63124
(In Chinese Big 5)
http://members.hknet.com/~wong63124/linux.htm
(In English)
=======_NextPart_000_0057_01BFABA0.777C11C0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="big5"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Dbig5 http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3612.1706"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#c0c0c0>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>I feel Gnome + Enlightment will consume more system =
resource=20
than KDE, so I choose KDE.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>However, the default window manager in Red Hat 6.0 =
is Gnome.=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2><BR>-- <BR><A=20
href=3D"http://members.hknet.com/~wong63124">http://members.hknet.com/~wo=
ng63124</A><BR>(In=20
Chinese Big 5)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://members.hknet.com/~wong63124/linux.htm">http://members.hkn=
et.com/~wong63124/linux.htm</A><BR>(In=20
English)</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
=======_NextPart_000_0057_01BFABA0.777C11C0==
------------------------------
From: Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Date: 21 Apr 2000 07:28:15 GMT
SeaDragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Runs on more hardware (IBM mainframes, Dec Alphas-64bit, apple hardware,
>>Sun hardware...)
> Buying an IBM or an Alpha to run Linux is about as smart as buying
> a Porsche to drive around in first gear.
Howso? When one buys Alpha or an IBM mainframe one has a purpose for it
that will benefit from the architecture. If linux supports that benefit
also why nog run it (eg. Compaq released CCC for Linux, so why should I
by Tru64?).
BTW I presume a Porsche in 1st gear can still make the speedlimit with
citylimits. When you get to an area where you can make use of the
Porsche "power" one can go to the next gear and up.
>>MS is limited to Intel x86 -- MacOS to apple.
> Incorrect.
No it's not. MS only supports x86 for their current OS.
> Don't like Intel? Then support a vendor who sells AMD, Cyrix, IDT, Rise,
> or one of the multitude of the IA-32 clones available.
With the same drwabacks or worse than the original Intel.
>>Stable command structure (minimal retraining every time a new version is
>>released).
> 2. Linux commands, especially with respect to administrative tools,
> vary drastically from version-to-version, and especially from
> Linux distribution-to-distribution.
The administrative tool that will always works in "$EDITOR filename".
> 4. Linux training locks you into Linux; I have met many a person
> who learned Linux and was mystified when using a Sun or HP machine
> (so moving from Unix flavor to Linux to Unix flavor costs mega-bucks
> in retraining).
Then the training for those people where very limit. If they were
trained to use commonsense and things like the universal editors on
unixflavours (eg. vi)
eg. If I want to config SomeThing, I't first start looking in /etc of
/usr/local/etc for a file called SomeThing*. 2nd a "locate SomeThing",
3ed "man -k SomeThing", find .....
>>Runs the most common Internet apps (sendmail, Apache...).
> Yes - sendmail - the application which singlehandedly brought down
> the internet in 1987. A program which I REALLY want running on
> my servers. I am so jealous...
What other MTA where there at that time? But what about OutLook today?
Al kind of "viruses" are floating around for it.....
>>Proven remote management.
> Proven to suck. When you disconnect from your remote session, and
> then reconnect to it, does Linux even bring you back to your previous
> session or does it restart, losing your old work? It does the latter,
> even though almost every OS built since 1970 (including Windows) does the
> former. Another example of Linux slipping further and further behind the
> technology curve.
What do you mean with this? Desktops like KDE "remember" open
applications on you're previous logout and will restart them. An other
usefull tool is probably screen. You can detach you're screen-session
on logout and reattach it on login. All programs running in it will
continue to run between logins.
>>Large number of file systems supported.
> Ah yes. Exactly which filesystem do you need to read on Windows that
> you can't? This would improve your daily productivity in what way?
NFS (yeah it's available, but it will cost you extras). Productivity is
inproved in the fact there is one FS shared among allkind of machines
across a network.
>>Multiple User interfaces, you can pick the on
>>the fits YOUR needs. Can run with OUT a GUI to save resources.
> Ah, yes. Today everybody is running 1 BIPS machines with 1 GB RAM,
> and you are concerned about the entire 1 MIPS and 2 MB RAM of overhead
> that the GUI costs? Come back and play when you solve the more
> fundamental speedpaths in Linux (like using a textfile for large
> databases), which Windows solved about 10 years ago.
BS.
--
Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
From: "jesse james" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Be & Linux & Microsoft...
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:32:58 +0200
a x windows like system that are a mix of beos kde and next and maybe asis
(or what the <<desktop>> for plan9 are called) would be cool
Stefan Ohlsson wrote in message ...
>Davorin Mestric wrote:
>>Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Anyway you want to cut it, Linux is growing at a steady rate every year.
>>windows has 95% desktop share, so it has nowhere to grow.
>>
>So that's what the 95 in Windows95 means. MS got more ambitious with
>Windows98, but I can't see how they can fulfill their goal with
>Windows2000...
>
>;-)
>
>/Stefan
>--
>[ Stefan Ohlsson ] � http://www.mds.mdh.se/~dal95son/ � [ ICQ# 17519554 ]
======
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: Unix is dead?
Date: 21 Apr 2000 08:25:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote on Thu, 20 Apr 2000 03:54:48 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>I keep hearing "Unix is dead or will die soon."
>>What can replace it?
>>Linux?
>>Linux is Unix.
[...]
>QNX is still out there.
>Mach is out there, somewhere.
>MacOS is out there.
Still one of the biggest non-Unix-like OSes; however, Apple is
joining the Unix club with MacOS X, which is a revival of NextStep.
One of Apple's design goals is to hide its "Unixness" even more
than NeXT had done; the idea is to make the use of it as optional as
possible.
I wonder if that's a reasonable goal for Linux; I propose that it
is, because if it is to compete with well-known GUIfied OSes, it ought to
be at least as good at this feature than they are. This will help get it
more market share, meaning that it will get more app support.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: "Johnathan Talley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linus Torvalds
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 04:05:16 -0500
This guy is lost and programmed by hype. He's a pitiful example of a
misguided human being. But I don't take kindly to people saying others
should be physically harmed because they excerise their freedom of choice.
Dude sucks ass with a crazy-straw.
Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
> >
> > I believe that the operation system create by Linus Torvalds, Linux, is
the downfall of the software industry. People who use such a dreaful program
should be shot. How dare they take money from hardworking companies like
microsoft and driving down my shares.
> >
> > ==================================
> > Posted via http://nodevice.com
> > Linux Programmer's Site
>
> Crossposted to the proper usenet-group. Let's see the
> reactions, shall we?
> (What an asshole!)
>
> --
> % make fire
> Don't know how to make fire
> % Why not?
> No match
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:10:11 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SeaDragon) writes:
>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:39:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>Runs on more hardware (IBM mainframes, Dec Alphas-64bit, apple hardware,
>>Sun hardware...)
>Buying an IBM or an Alpha to run Linux is about as smart as buying
>a Porsche to drive around in first gear.
Why would you say this about the Alpha? What else would you suggest
running on it?
Bernie
--
Truth is beautiful, without doubt; but so are lies
Ralph Waldo Emerson
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 07:50:21 -0400
SeaDragon wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:39:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Runs on more hardware (IBM mainframes, Dec Alphas-64bit, apple hardware,
> >Sun hardware...)
>
> Buying an IBM or an Alpha to run Linux is about as smart as buying
> a Porsche to drive around in first gear.
Actually using Linux on an Alpha is a very efficient configuration.
Alpha's are smoking fast. Why would you say this is a bad configuration?
>
> >MS is limited to Intel x86 -- MacOS to apple.
>
> Incorrect.
Actually no it isn't. While MS claims NT to be portable, they have
proven that they will not "go the distance" with a configuration which
may prove to be unpopular. So, this year choose hardware which works,
and works well, next year or the year after, MS pulls support for your
hardware because it did not sell well. One can argue that this is
business, that's fine, but it proves, historically, MS is only committed
to x86 hardware and that any other port is a probably an unwise
decision.
>
> If you want to talk about hardware vendor support, Microsoft has _many_
> more hardware vendors supporting it, and you have _much_ more choice in
> choosing a vendor for an MS system than you do for a Linux system. There
> are literally thousands of PC clone vendors, who support Microsoft. A
> tiny portion of them support Linux.
>
> Linux runs on more _architectures_ than Windows, but that is irrelevant:
> people are interested in what more vendors offer solutions, and clearly,
> Windows users have a _much_ bigger choice for hardware vendor.
>
> Don't like Intel? Then support a vendor who sells AMD, Cyrix, IDT, Rise,
> or one of the multitude of the IA-32 clones available.
I find this interesting. One chooses x86/AMD/etc for cost. Once chooses
Alpha, Sun, etc. for performance. If you go to the seti@home page, and
look at statistics, the fastest damn machines are alphas. If I wanted to
deploy a solution using Alpha then I would not choose Microsoft. Period.
The argument about "vendors" and "architectures" is silly. How many x86
vendors does one need. That's like saying buy a yugo instead of a BMW
because there are 20 Yugo dealers in your state, as opposed to 1 BMW
dealer. The x86 vendors are largely selling the same hardware. Who cares
where one buys that crap?
>
> >Stable command structure (minimal retraining every time a new version is
> >released).
>
> 1. A new Windows version is not released frequently. It appears that the
> flagship version is released every four years, and this does not warrant
> frequent expensive retraining as you suggest.
Speaking as a software engineer that has been working on Windows since
version 1.x, this is irrelevant. MS changes the OS on a regular basis
with service packs and IE upgrades. Core OS components are changed, and
new APIs are added regularly. Just look at the poor Windows 95 users
that upgraded to new IE. Many did not know it would change their desktop
dramatically.
>
> 2. Linux commands, especially with respect to administrative tools,
> vary drastically from version-to-version, and especially from
> Linux distribution-to-distribution.
OK, you say this as a fact, but I see no example and I don't know what
you are writing about. Linux (and UNIX) have a good deal of consistency,
I need to see at least one example before I will accept this one.
>
> 3. The documentation for this "stable command structure" is less than
> stable and wildly out-dated in some cases. On more than one occasion
> I have followed instructions in what were purported to be up-to-date
> HOWTO files on up-to-date distributions, and have been greeted with
> all kinds of errors since the tools have changed since the HOWTO was
> written (two or three weeks ago).
As with any system, Windows included, help text varies wildly. Try
getting a "Windows 3.1 for dummies" book and try to use it for Windows
98SE. Anyone can make an example about out of date help text for any OS,
so this really is not an issue unless we can audit how you came under
the impression that the "HOWTO" documentation was up to date.
>
> 4. Linux training locks you into Linux; I have met many a person
> who learned Linux and was mystified when using a Sun or HP machine
> (so moving from Unix flavor to Linux to Unix flavor costs mega-bucks
> in retraining).
This is flat out incorrect. I can switch from Sun to Linux to FreeBSD
easily. I have used HP-UX with no problems. The same applications run
the same way on all systems. Bash on Sun is the same as Bash on Linux.
All the basic "core" unix commands are there.
>
> >Runs the most common Internet apps (sendmail, Apache...).
>
> Yes - sendmail - the application which singlehandedly brought down
> the internet in 1987. A program which I REALLY want running on
> my servers. I am so jealous...
Ahh, yes, back when sendmail was so flawed, what was Microsoft's version
like? Oh! that's right they didn't have one. How many people were using
the internet? Back then security was not as big a concern as it is
today. Today, after a good number of years more development than
anything that MS can produce, sendmail is very good. So yes, the ability
to run sendmail is a good feature.
>
> >Proven remote management.
>
> Proven to suck. When you disconnect from your remote session, and
> then reconnect to it, does Linux even bring you back to your previous
> session or does it restart, losing your old work? It does the latter,
> even though almost every OS built since 1970 (including Windows) does the
> former. Another example of Linux slipping further and further behind the
> technology curve.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. "losing old work" in
what sense? In what way? What work? I can ssh into any system and work
just fine. As with any system, as long as I save, I won't lose work. A
lot of applications "autosave" so I don't lose work too. What are you
referring too?
>
> >Large number of file systems supported.
>
> Ah yes. Exactly which filesystem do you need to read on Windows that
> you can't? This would improve your daily productivity in what way?
> Do you really find that sneakernet is faster than 1 GB ethernet?
Well, I need to read/write NTFS on Windows or FAT32 on NT, or ext2 fs on
either.
>
> >Multiple User interfaces, you can pick the on
> >the fits YOUR needs. Can run with OUT a GUI to save resources.
>
> Ah, yes. Today everybody is running 1 BIPS machines with 1 GB RAM,
> and you are concerned about the entire 1 MIPS and 2 MB RAM of overhead
> that the GUI costs? Come back and play when you solve the more
> fundamental speedpaths in Linux (like using a textfile for large
> databases), which Windows solved about 10 years ago.
OK, now what, "speedpaths" "textfile for large databases?" What are you
talking about? If you are referring to using small < 2k text files for
system configuration you are confused. The only reason one would use a
database for configuration over file system directories and text files
would be to save machine cycles and (if your file system were poorly
designed) disk space. You can't argue that efficiency is not important,
so the Windows GUI does not matter, and then say something else is bad
because it is inefficient. That is contradictory.
The settings in text files makes configurations much easier to fix.
Allows "power users" more control. How the configuration data is created
is independent of how it is stored. MS using a registry database is just
silly. Arguing that a registry database is better than a structured
directory paradigm with text files shows you've never had a corrupt
registry and had to reinstall.
Overall, the text file configuration allows a much better error recovery
and does not allow "hidden" settings. The inefficiency is quite small as
well. A registry database, which can render a system unbootable, can
only be fixed by a running system. Think about it.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
