Linux-Advocacy Digest #220, Volume #26 Sat, 22 Apr 00 17:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Steve Freitas)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective ("Rich C")
Re: Illegal to discount software - Linux is in trouble! (A transfinite number of
monkeys)
Re: which OS is best? (Mark Wilden)
Re: which OS is best? (David Corn)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (2:1)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (2:1)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress (T. Max Devlin)
Re: which OS is best? (mlw)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress (T. Max Devlin)
Re: which OS is best? (David Corn)
Re: which OS is best? (David Corn)
Re: Sell Me On Linux (2:1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Freitas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 19:10:51 GMT
The more I use X, the more impressed I am with it. Why, just last night I
wanted to apply some updates to my webserver that I've colocated
somewhere. Well, if I were running NT, I'd be stuck with some PCAnywhere
kludge to use a graphic update tool, and I'd have plenty of security
worries about everything I'd type during the session! Plus I'd have to
spend money on PCAnywhere, and it'd be yet another third-party piece of
software to clutter up the box, just to do what I've come to expect as
basic functionality under Linux!
Instead, I just opened up a secure ssh connection to my RH 6.1 box, typed
up2date at the prompt, the X display was automagically exported to my
local machine, up2date and the Netscape config screen popped up, and it
worked its magic. Amazing!
So I'm spending yet another day grateful I'm free from the strictures of
Microsoft, and even the Mac OS, if you can believe it. :-)
Steve Freitas
Craig Kelley wrote:
> Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [snip]
>
> > In any case, it's rather nice that X allows such a range of
> > taste across so many systems. Being able to have the
> > argument at all is a triumph of the protocol.
>
> I totally agree. It's sad that people complain about having a choice.
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 15:15:48 -0400
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rich C) wrote in <3901d49c@news>:
>
> >Most of the PNP ISA cards come with basic DOS test and configuration
> >programs that allow you to configure and test your hardware BEFORE you
> >subject it to the operating system's whims. My AHA-1505 came with a
> >program called SCSI Select (or something) that allows me to define the
> >I/O port and Interrupt, then test the SCSI chain (assuming there is a
> >device on it to test with.)
>
> The AHA1520B has SCSI select and it's set to 0x340, 11, 7 (as in aha152x=
> 0x340,11,7). What puzzles me is that it has a BIOS - why then does Linux
> not automatically detect it? I have to enter aha152x=0x340,11,7 as an
> append to LILO.
As I stated, I believe that the SB-16 is stepping on the SCSI card because
even though the SCSI card has more or less fixed settings (that stay from
boot to boot) the SB-16 does not. Did you say that the SCSI card works in
linux by itself? I've never heard of appending hardware setttings to LILO;
is this a substitute for ISAPNP.conf?
>
> >SB-16s come with a program called DIAGNOSE that allows you to test your
> >sound card from a command prompt, and another utility called ICU (Intel
> >Configuration Utility) which allows the use of Plug-n-Play cards in
> >systems that don't support it.
>
> I'll try DIAGNOSE or ICU and see what it reveals. This configuration did
> work with Windows 98 SE.
Which configuration?
>
> >The SB-16 PNP DOESN'T KEEP its settings after you power off; it has to
> >be configured EACH TIME you boot, unlike the SCSI card, which has an
> >EEPROM and will store the configured values indefinitely.
> >
> >There is obviously still a hardware conflict when you try to boot Linux
> >with both cards installed. Are you using ISAPNPTools to configure your
> >cards in Linux? This program will configure your SB-16 PnP on bootup,
> >just like the Intel Configuration manager or Windows would do. It should
> >eliminate the hardware conflict before the drivers are loaded.
>
> I believe what I used modified isapnp.conf, and left an entry in there
that
> caused a problem - then the system refused to boot as it conflicted with
> the SCSI controller (I believe).
Once you use the pnpdump program you still have to carefully edit the file
it generates, because there are several options you can use for each card.
>
> >Plug and Pray with Linux can still be tricky, yes. However, for the
> >first year or so it was also very tricky and unpredictable with Windows
> >too. I still think the whole PnP system is stupid. The BIOS should have
> >had much more control over configuration. It should look for hardware
> >conflicts on bootup, and resolve them either automatically, or with user
> >input if necessary, and simply REPORT the settings to Windows. Windows
> >or any other OS for that matter, would then adjust the driver settings
> >accordingly as they were loaded. This business of having to boot up all
> >the way to the GUI, then go to the device manager and tinker with
> >settings, then REBOOT and start all over again, is just stupid.
>
> Yes I remember how buggy plug and prang was. But then the whole ISA thing
> was problematic until PCI and plug and play started working correctly.
>
> >Do you remember that Volkswagen ad a few years back where the Rabbit was
> >drag racing a turbine car called the "Green Monster"? The Rabbit had the
> >lead for the first 97.1 yards until the turbine car roared past (they
> >had to measure to see at what point the Rabbit was still ahead.) Well,
> >were at about 90 yards right now, and, you're right, Linux IS still
> >playing catchup.
> >:o)
>
> Not an advert I remember here in the UK.
Sorry, I can usually pick up on a post from outside the US. :o) But your
language had no clues and I didn't look at the headers!
>
> Pete.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Subject: Re: Illegal to discount software - Linux is in trouble!
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 19:18:50 GMT
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 08:36:10 GMT, SeaDragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Also, the software giant may have to open its APIs and stop discounting
: Windows to PC makers."
:
: Oh boy. So it's illegal to give a DISCOUNT on software? What is going
: to happen to Linux?
I guess we'll just have to triple the price. Let's see, I'll have to
dust of my mathematics degree for this one, but...
3 x $0.00 == $0.00
Amazing. It's still free. :) People need to realize that when they *pay*
for Linux, they're paying for duplication, packaging, an installer,
manuals, etc. They aren't paying for Linux.
--
Jason Costomiris <><
Technologist, cryptogeek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
From: Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 20:24:00 +0100
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> Likewise: I've never seen anyone right-click on anything without
> knowing they are supposed to. Perhaps a result of earlier
> bad experiences...
Experienced Windows users typically right-click in new applications
without knowing they're 'supposed to', just as most folks on most OSs
left-click on menu items. It's just part of the standard paradigm, that
most apps support.
------------------------------
From: David Corn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 14:26:47 -0500
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > On 21 Apr 2000 18:40:45 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >>Did I say domain controller? No - I said NFS and SMB sharing. And
> > >>for sharing in WinXX, click the device to be shared, click SHARING...,
> > >>and away you go. It's far simpler than Linux.
> > >
> > >OK, try again. Which button did you click on NT to get tha
> > >NFS sharing done and how long did it take to find?
> >
> > NT doesn't come with it. The objective is to get OS-native sharing
> > going - somehow, anyhow, with a minimum of fuss. NT (and 95/98) do
> > that very well. Linux doesn't. Editing /etc/exports for NFS, for
> > example, isn't my idea of fun. ksysv and such make the automation of
> > such things easier, but I don't consider it 'easy' by any stretch.
>
> So use Linuxconf. You can't complain about the lack of tools which
> exist.
>
> [snip more oh-my-god-I-have-to-use-a-text-editor stuff]
The point, which is correct and perfectly valid, is that Linux is far
more difficult to set up for even basic filesharing.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:05:02 +0100
Bart Oldeman wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 2 wrote:
>
> > In terms of many things, it's not playing catchup. I use it for everything I
> > do, except games.
> (the it refers to "Linux")
>
> Um, why does your X-Mailer say: "Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I)"? ;-)
> Try to be kidding?
>
> I still believe you, you're probably reading news from another machine
> than you usually use, aren't you?
I knew someone would look soon!
I'm a student. The machine I use at home (I'm on holiday, but I'm back tomorrow)
is not mine. It also has a winmodem, so I'm kind of buggered on that one :-(
When I get back, you'll see that the mailer will be running on Solaris or Linux
instead.
I should have said that I don't use windows unless I have to.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous Hackenthorpe rock, which
is over three trillion years old?
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:06:50 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2:1) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
<snip>
> I play games for a living 8).
Sadly, the best games don't run on Linux (I'm takling about C&C here), and I
play it aagainst people whan I get the chance, so I still keep a windows 95
disk.
>
> Pete
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous Hackenthorpe rock,
which
is over three trillion years old?
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 15:59:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Mark S. Bilk from alt.destroy.microsoft; 13 Apr 2000 17:16:28 GMT
[...]
>Exactly. Many Windows users are still using Windows95, so
>most Windows software is designed to run on it. Wine may
>not be able to handle a lot of the DirectX multimedia/game
>programs, but it will be able to run the applications that
>are holding many people back from switching to Linux --
>Windows office suites (even the Microsoft one)[...]
This is the thing that interests me. What are the issues and disputes that
could arise from running MS Office on Wine? Wouldn't this be a violation of
the EULA (I seem to recall one of those outrageously excessive clauses I was
forced to agree to saying something about "you can only run this on the os
which we allow you to", that being, of course, Microsoft (c) (tm) (r) (pat.
pend.).
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 16:01:49 -0400
David Corn wrote:
>
> Craig Kelley wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > > On 21 Apr 2000 18:40:45 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >>Did I say domain controller? No - I said NFS and SMB sharing. And
> > > >>for sharing in WinXX, click the device to be shared, click SHARING...,
> > > >>and away you go. It's far simpler than Linux.
> > > >
> > > >OK, try again. Which button did you click on NT to get tha
> > > >NFS sharing done and how long did it take to find?
> > >
> > > NT doesn't come with it. The objective is to get OS-native sharing
> > > going - somehow, anyhow, with a minimum of fuss. NT (and 95/98) do
> > > that very well. Linux doesn't. Editing /etc/exports for NFS, for
> > > example, isn't my idea of fun. ksysv and such make the automation of
> > > such things easier, but I don't consider it 'easy' by any stretch.
> >
> > So use Linuxconf. You can't complain about the lack of tools which
> > exist.
> >
> > [snip more oh-my-god-I-have-to-use-a-text-editor stuff]
>
> The point, which is correct and perfectly valid, is that Linux is far
> more difficult to set up for even basic filesharing.
There is no evidence that supports that pointing and clicking through
several dialogs is any easier to use than a text editor. No scientific
study what so ever. While one can have an opinion, one can not say for
sure. And BTW, there is a huge difference between easy to use and easy
to learn. Something slightly harder to learn but much easier to use
(text files) may, in fact, be better than something that is slightly
easier to learn, but consistently harder to use (levels of dialog
boxes).
--
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"
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 16:12:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Donovan Rebbechi from alt.destroy.microsoft; 13 Apr 2000 17:38:16 GMT
>On 13 Apr 2000 17:16:28 GMT, Mark S. Bilk wrote:
>
>>However, there's no reason why Wine can't adopt a much better
>>way of handling DLLs
>
>There is a fundamental problem with Wine trying to do anything
>better than windows, and that is the very fact that it's goal --
>compatibility -- is in direct opposition to improvement.
Well, its goal is compatibility with the apps, not with Windows. Simply
providing the Windows API on Linux is a major improvement, isn't it? How the
"underside" of wine works with Linux (like being able to improve on 'DLL
hell') is not in opposition to the goals or technical capabilities of Wine, so
long as the "topside" looks just like Windows ("bug for bug compatibility") to
the application.
>>Also, regarding bugs, DLLs, and other sources of incompati-
>>bility, Windows developers will have the source code of
>>their apps and the source code and documentation of Wine.
>>So if their apps have a problem under Wine, they will often
>>be able to tweak their code to eliminate it. Most likely,
>
>Probably. The real problem is that they will be writing to an
>API that is an awkward kludge to begin with. Trying to port one
>operating system to another is not the most elegant solution to
>portability problems, because it amounts to trying to force Linux
>to accept Windows code.
But Wine isn't intended to confront compatibility problems. It confronts
monopoly problems, because it amounts to trying to force Windows applications
to accept the Linux operating system.
>A more elegant solution is that offered by QT, which enables you to write
>code that compiles to native Windows applications and native Linux
>applications.
That seems a hopeless approach in light of the real barriers to portability,
which aren't technical; they're legal and financial. QT would require
developers to develop for something other than Windows. That is not feasible
if you are an application developer who wants to make money developing
proprietary products. That this isn't necessarily noble or viable in the
longest terms (with the concept of open source software provided as a balance
to the argument) also does not entirely confront the very real difficulties of
trying to prosper in a dysfunctional, monopoly-corrupted software industry.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: David Corn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 15:14:01 -0500
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>OK, try again. Which button did you click on NT to get tha
> >>NFS sharing done and how long did it take to find?
> >
> >NT doesn't come with it. The objective is to get OS-native sharing
> >going - somehow, anyhow, with a minimum of fuss. NT (and 95/98) do
> >that very well. Linux doesn't. Editing /etc/exports for NFS, for
> >example, isn't my idea of fun. ksysv and such make the automation of
> >such things easier, but I don't consider it 'easy' by any stretch.
>
> I used text editors many years before mice were around and
> editting text is one of the main reasons for keeping a
> computer around, so I have a hard time understanding that
> changing the text in a file is a complicated process.
> However, for those who agree or haven't found an
> editor program yet, there is linuxconf, webmin, and
> other interfaces. I sometimes used these for the sake
> of having a syntax check done before a service is affected.
That explains a lot. I think a lot of people now expect computers to be
much easier to use than you apparently do. There's certainly nothing
wrong with how you feel, but be aware you're certainly in the minority.
> >>>Some facets of any system require reading. But doing *what I
> >>>specified* requires far more work in Linux. That you can seriously
> >>>debate this suprises me.
> >>
> >>No, it doesn't really require more *work*. It may be harder
> >
> >Yes, it does.
>
> Beg your pardon??? I do this stuff too.
It does require more work. In another post I spelled out what was
required of an NFS setup, for example, and it's quite complicated. And
that's before GIDs and UIDs come into play.
> >>the first time on your first machine. Thereafter you can
> >>just copy the config files around and edit them for incremental
> >>changes over different machines. Besides, samba sharing
> >
> >Which config files? Break out those man pages Jedi claims aren't
> >needed...and start guessing... a new user wouldn't have a -clue-.
>
> The authentication models are as complex as an NT domain system.
> Set up a dozen of those with appropriate user mapping and
> get back to me about which was easier.
I have. Of course, I'm obviously more familiar with NT than I am Linux
(I'm working to fix that now) but NT to me is dead simple - create a PDC
with a mouseclick at setup time, add the machines to Server Manager, on
the clients join the machine to the domain, and bingo - one login for
all domain accesses. NIS works on a similar principle, and I think I
like it. It does away with most of the GID/UID issues I have run across
so far.
> >>used to be drop-dead simple back when you could use the
> >>unix password file for authentication. When samba started
> >>to become a popular alternative to NT servers, Microsoft
> >>issued service packs that made it impossible to use the
> >>existing unix password without registry changes on every
> >>client.
> >
> >Translation: Microsoft encrypted passwords in SP3 by default, so they
> >were no longer sent, by default, in cleartext. The fact that MS
> >allowed clear text passwords in SP0 -> SP2 is a security violation and
> >A Bad Thing. The fact that you'd bless such a thing is also A Bad
> >Thing.
>
> According to the people who understand the smb protocol the
> encrypted token is equivalent to the plain-text in the sense
> that a custom client program could use it to gain access. This
> is non-trivial compared to sniffing plaintext but if the
> data is worth something it could be arranged. So all you
> really get here is a false sense of security. Worse, the
> encrypted password that has to be stored is the same token
> and can be stolen from the disk files. As I recall this
> also applies to the Microsoft files. With unix encryption
> you can't use the file version directly.
You can run attacks against that file, sure. That's certainly not to
say you'll be successful. In short, syskey. At length,
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q143/4/75.asp?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&FR=0
With NT's default security, if I have physical access to the SAM
database (which usually means I'd either A)be an administrator on the
box or B) have physical access to the machine and break into it) the
passwords can be brute-force cracked pretty easily if users choose
simple passwords (ie English words). If syskey is turned on,
forgetaboutit. You won't be able to get 'in'.
> >>So yes, samba is now harder to set up although
> >>linuxconf, webmin, etc. make it easy for those who
> >>prefer point-n-click.
> >
> >Easy isn't the right term. Less difficult is probably a better term.
>
> No, if you make the registry change to allow plain-text passwords
> a one-size-fits-all smb.conf that shares the home directories
> just works out of the box.
Isn't there something inherently wrong with changing all of the clients
when a change to the server is both A) far more secure and B) easier in
the long run?
> >>>...which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, does it?
> >>
> >>You are the one who brought up 'doing common things' and picked
> >>the example where you thought windows had an advantage. Everything
> >>I've tried on Win2k seemed to require having a domain controller
> >>and active directory already working, so I expect setting
> >>those up (and paying for the client licenses) to be the
> >>most common task in a win2k network.
> >
> >You do end up paying, that's for sure, but isn't time worth something
> >too?
>
> Once you know where the files are, it doesn't save any time to
> hide them behind a GUI, and the second setup of a GUI system
> takes just as long as the first, where the file based
> system can just copy or cut and paste the file contents.
Then I suggest, if you are so inclined, that you learn NT's CLI
commands. Most people I know, though, strongly prefer a well thought
out GUI control interface, and NT's is, while not perfect, certainly
acceptable.
------------------------------
From: David Corn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 15:21:50 -0500
mlw wrote:
>
> David Corn wrote:
> >
> > Craig Kelley wrote:
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > >
> > > > On 21 Apr 2000 18:40:45 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>Did I say domain controller? No - I said NFS and SMB sharing. And
> > > > >>for sharing in WinXX, click the device to be shared, click SHARING...,
> > > > >>and away you go. It's far simpler than Linux.
> > > > >
> > > > >OK, try again. Which button did you click on NT to get tha
> > > > >NFS sharing done and how long did it take to find?
> > > >
> > > > NT doesn't come with it. The objective is to get OS-native sharing
> > > > going - somehow, anyhow, with a minimum of fuss. NT (and 95/98) do
> > > > that very well. Linux doesn't. Editing /etc/exports for NFS, for
> > > > example, isn't my idea of fun. ksysv and such make the automation of
> > > > such things easier, but I don't consider it 'easy' by any stretch.
> > >
> > > So use Linuxconf. You can't complain about the lack of tools which
> > > exist.
> > >
> > > [snip more oh-my-god-I-have-to-use-a-text-editor stuff]
> >
> > The point, which is correct and perfectly valid, is that Linux is far
> > more difficult to set up for even basic filesharing.
>
> There is no evidence that supports that pointing and clicking through
> several dialogs is any easier to use than a text editor. No scientific
> study what so ever. While one can have an opinion, one can not say for
> sure. And BTW, there is a huge difference between easy to use and easy
> to learn. Something slightly harder to learn but much easier to use
> (text files) may, in fact, be better than something that is slightly
> easier to learn, but consistently harder to use (levels of dialog
> boxes).
>
I just can't buy it. I can tell someone in about 3 seconds how to get
this going in Win98; can you do the same in Linux (SMB sharing vs NFS
sharing)?
Bear in mind:
The person on the other end probably can't type.
The person .. can easily make a typo.
" " doesn't know anything about IP addresses.
" " doesn't know if he's using DNS or not, so machinename resolution
can't be trusted.
" " may or may not have a NIS server.
For an office setup, sure, with NIS it isn't that bad once you've done
it a few times, but for one-offs, *I* wouldn't want to be the one to set
up someone else's filesharing over the phone.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:37:35 +0100
SeaDragon wrote:
> >Right now they have inched up to a 133 mhz front side bus. That is very
> >slow when compared to other systems.
>
> The EV6 has a 200 MHz FSB. Same as K7! So how is the K7's bus "very slow
> when compared to other systems"? I am extremely interested in hearing
> this, especially which systems you are talking about.
>
> >So, while the CPU may be clocked at 800 mhz, it can only read data from
> >ram at 133mhz.
>
> No shit sherlock? You mean all of those 1 GHz machines should be using
> 1 NS memory? Where do I buy it? Man, get a clue. Have you ever heard of
> a thing known as "cache"?
All the data for large I/O operations can not reside in a 4mb cache. At some
stage it has to come from main memory.
>
> >This means that unless all your processing can take place in cache,
> >your effective CPU clock is 133 mhz.
>
> But in practice all execution is done in cache. The only time bus
> speed matters is for an L2 cache miss. That's why EV6 has 4 MB
> of L2!
> >This problem affects all sorts of processing tasks for which one would
> >use a server. Ripping through a 5 meg buffer of floating point data will
> >be much slower on a PC than on an alpha. So for tasks like image
> >processing, crunching large floating point arrays, and tasks which use a
> >lot of memory, the x86 architecture is very slow.
>
> All good in theory, except for the fact that X86's do indeed have equal
> (and in the future, higher) bus bandwidth than the RISC chips (c.f. K7
> and EV6).
How the hell did you come to that conclusion. RISC / CISC has nothing to do
with it. The bus is slow. A RISC with a slow bus would be equally crap. An 800
MHZ 32bit bus would only be as good as 400MHZ 64 bit bus. X86s should be made
64 bit now!
> >The next thing is the PCI bus. Most x86 system are still only using 32
> >bit PCI at 33mhz. Suns have 64 bit PCI running at 66mhz. A Sun can get
> >4x more data from its PCI cards than can an x86. This means that a
> >ULTRA SPARC running at 450 MHZ using gigabit 64bit ethernet cards will
> >out perform a 800 mhz x86 using 32 bit ethernet cards because of the PCI
> >bus width and the I/O design of the system.
>
> ??? What the fuck does PCI have to do with the CPU? This is all handled
> by the chipset and has absolutely nothing to do with the CPU. Are you
> arguing systems, or CPU's?
Both. The x86 has a broken CPU and system design. A fast PCI bus is needed as
well. It is no use having an ultra fast processor, if your only I/O is via a
300baus serila port.
> >I have no idea what you are ranting about. Configuration files are read
> >at startup, and are not typically read during operation.
>
> You are also extrememly ignorant of how Linux works. Whever you do an
> ls -l, it reads /etc/passwd, patietntly parsing through this gigantic
> text file one byte at a time, looking for info. If you delete /etc/passwd,
> you when you do ls -l, you will see GIDs and UIDs instead of user names.
You have no clue. You deleted /etc/passwd ???
Besides, it is not normally huge.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous Hackenthorpe rock, which
is over three trillion years old?
-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
******************************
