Linux-Advocacy Digest #229, Volume #26 Sun, 23 Apr 00 11:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (The Cat)
Re: MS caught breaking web sites ("Dave Bethke")
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (Richard Watson)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (mlw)
Re: LILO saves the day ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress (Roger)
Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress (Roger)
Re: Sell Me On Linux (Bart Oldeman)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 12:58:11 GMT
On 23 Apr 2000 17:07:10 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
>Oh I enjoy this type of troll :))
You think everyone who doesn't agree with you is a troll Terry.
>On 22 Apr 2000 14:09:25 -0700, test@myhome <test@myhome> wrote:
>>In article <8dsoom$7k9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John says...
>>
>>
>>> My rules of thumb:
>>>
>>> - if you are going to be doing a lot of rpm loading, update your
>>> full OS to at least the current major revision (ex: RH 6.X)
>>>
>>
>>what makes you think I was not using the latest and greates?
>How would *you* know what your using ?
He mentions what he is using below. You just didn't take the time to
read it and preferred to make a cute, totally empty comment instead.
>>I have the latest SUSE 6.3, did FULL and COMPLETE installation,
>>the whole 11 GB I told it to load to the disk, all the packages
>>on the those 6 CDROM are INSTALLED on my disk.
>Size solves all huh ?
Installing 11GB of software via SuSE install everything option should
mean he gets everything. At the very least this should have installed
basic Gnome libs which seems to be what he is missing.
>>
>>Yet, many applications on the net, requires yes more packages
>>that are missing.
>So what, the world is a lot bigger than you realise, obviously.
What does that mean?
>>
>>see, I wanted to install etherape:
>And Xfce the window manager, and others:-
>
>>
>>>rpm -Uhv etherape-0.5.3-1.i386.rpm
>>error: failed dependencies:
>> gnome-libs >= 1.0.0 is needed by etherape-0.5.3-1
>> libglade >= 0.11 is needed by etherape-0.5.3-1
>Excellent, now you know what you need.
But you just told him he didn't know what he needed. You need to make
up your mind here Terry, you can't have it both ways. Now did he know
what he needed? Or did he not know what he needed?
>>
>>>rpm -Uhv gnome-libs-1.0.58-1.i386.rpm
>>error: failed dependencies:
>> gtk+ >= 1.2.1 is needed by gnome-libs-1.0.58-1
>> libjpeg.so.62 is needed by gnome-libs-1.0.58-1
>Ditto.
Seems to me that these are basic libraries that should have been
installed with 11 gig of SuSE "install everything" option .
>>
>>>rpm -Uhv gtk+-1.2.7-1rh61.i386.rpm
>>error: failed dependencies:
>> gtk is needed by gkrellm-0.7.1-1
>> gtk is needed by ginetd-0.99.2-43
>> gtk is needed by libglad-0.7-3
>> gtk is needed by xfce-3.1.1-0
>>
>>Do you want me to go on?
>I imagine you will anyway ?
Why does it bother you so much when someone discusses a problem they
are having with Linux? He went into quite a bit of detail which shows
that he probably did try and do the function.
>> The above chain reaction will
>>go on for ever it seems.
>No nothing last forever, not even your rantings.
How is he ranting?
He presented the facts and an opinion he formed based on the three
legged circle jerk merry-go-round he was on trying to do a simple
operation. It's not HIS fault SuSE's libraries seem to have non
standard names.
>> Each package wants few packages, and
>>each one of those packages wants more few packages.
>Yes thats how Unix works.
No. That's how a broken system does it. See Jim Richardsons reply for
why it didn't work. BTW it didn't work for me either running SuSE 6.3.
If he had used Mandrake, like I am, he would be posting a message
about how great rpm is.
>>
>>and for each of those packages one has to go to the net search
>>for it.
>You should be thankfull you have net access, and that this terrific resource
>exists.
Nebulous argument.......
>>
>>What an absolutly stupied design.
>What a clueless remark.
When the system fails, like it did for him and the Windows system
works, his opinion will be formed by his experience.
He had a bad experience due to a flaw that was not his doing.
How the hell is he supposed to know the libraries have slightly
different names?
Same type of frustration I went through with Corel when their kernel
source was in a non-standard place and compiles would go amok.
>>
>>Who cares that a windows package is 5 or 10 MB instead of the few KB that
>>linux package is.
>I have a 28.8k line, please see above, where I mentioned the world is
>a LOT bigger than you can imagine.
So do I.....He most likely spent just as much time online tracking
down packages for Linux then he spent downloading a 5 meg Windows
file.
snip........
>>
>>disk space is cheap. I have 200 GB of disk space.
>I have 1.2 gig, and it supports 6 users.
That's nice.
>> you can buy a
>>40 GB disk for $200 these days.
>Bullshit. 10 gigs costs $300 Australian dollars.
http://www.pricewatch.com
Hardisks -> first page displayed:
Maxtor 37.5 gig EIDE dma66 for $233.00 USD
Close enough.
>> I care not about large packages,
>>I just need something that just simply works.
>Then you'll be dissapointed, as not even your mind can meet that one
>requirement imho.
Those five other users must be real patient.
>>
>>Linux people need to go back tto the drawing board and fix this
>>utterly broken sw installation system they have managed to create before
>>even think about talking down windows SW installation.
>I think Ms Windows sux bricks thru straws, and I'm able to install it and Linux
>and Bsd, no problem, so perhaps you still have someting to learn ?
Seeing as you haven't used Windows in several years based on your own
claims, you are in no better a position to comment on Windows than
someone who tried a version of Linux 5 years ago.
Many things have changed in both operating systems.
>>
>>Not only that, there seems to be no official home for the packages
>>themselves.
>You need a clue badly, Wintroll.
He's right. Corel's directory tree is not the same as SuSE's nor is
RedHat's the same as Caldera's.
They are close, but not identical. Even Corel despite being based on
Debian, is a customized version on which not everything built for
Debian will work. Most will, but some will not because Corel doesn't
install everything Debian does.
>> same package you see on number of websites, some even work
>>on suse, some on redhat, some on freshmeat, etc.. This only adds
>>another dimension of complexity, to an allready too complex of a system
>>for an end user.
>>
>What a imaginative mind you have.
You're going downhill fast on this one Terry. So tell me how I can
install a package for debian on Redhat? Alien doesn't always work.
Sure I can compile from source, but that assumes the kernel source is
named correctly, is in the right place, all the libraries are there
and are also in the right place, the paths are set up correctly and so
forth.
Caldera 2.2 didn't even include pcmcia support as default when
installing on a laptop!
Surprise!
>90% (guessing) of all tarballs will install on ALL linux, Bsd and Unix boxes.
But it always seems to be that 10 percent that will bite you.
>Linux is not too complex for me, perhaps you should stick with MsWindows,
>as it seems to hold your mind in thrall ?
You're a perfect reason why people get annoyed at Linux.
You didn't make one constructive comment in your entire ranting. Take
a look at Jim Richardsons reply for why this poor soul has had so much
trouble. He explains it quite well and unlike you, offers suggestions.
TheCat
(Steve)
>
>Kind Regards
>Terry
"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
------------------------------
From: "Dave Bethke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 12:58:45 GMT
Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> If its a "NT replacement" is not on the desktop. In the real world, NT is
> not a desktop OS.
I guess I don't work in the real world. My desktop has had NT Workstation
for about a year.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
From: Richard Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 23 Apr 2000 12:16:03 +0100
"William Palfreman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Why is that stupid? The Soviet Union was a Communist county, or at least it
> said it was and all you people went on about how wonderful it was for 80 odd
> years. The fact it, wherever there isn't personal and economic freedom
> people stay really poor and there is loads of oppression, plus the computers
> are crap. And wherever you have freedom & capitalism people are richer and
> much better fed, there is much better technological development, people live
> well and develop things like Linux, instead of, say, having to work in a
> salt mine or being shot for reading the wrong book. You're the stupid one
> for supporting something so bad.
But the point is that they never got as far as communism, Marxism or
probably even capitalism. This has nothing to do with how well or
how badly it was run.
"I am an orange" doesn't make me an orange.
--
Richard Watson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pentagon Web Design Ltd
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 10:00:25 -0400
Fred wrote:
>
> The goal should be to make the computer easy to use. People just want to
> turn it on, and use it to get their work done. Most people don't care how
> it works. They just want to check email, and cruise the web. They don't
> want to dwell on how large to make the /var partition.
This is a classic misconception. "Installation" has nothing to do with
easy to use. The reason Windows is called "easy to install" is because
it is installed on most computers to begin with.
A "pre-installed" Linux box will be as easy to use (if not more so) as a
"pre-installed" Windows box.
>
> > You know about partitions. I know about partitions. The typical
> > Windows user knows C:\windows and that's it.
> >Example of people not knowing what they are doing. They're $.10/dozen
> >anymore thanks to Windows.
>
> >True, but it is the reality of the situation and a point the
> >Linvocates fail to be able to grasp.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LILO saves the day
Date: 23 Apr 2000 14:15:45 GMT
On Sun, 19 Apr 3900 13:40:05, "Clockmeister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> 2:1 wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >
> >
> >Craig Kelley wrote:
> >
> >> It was obvious that the MBR was hosed -- it was an IDE drive, so no
> >> low-level format was available, so I booted up with a Linux floppy and
> >> installed LILO on the MBR with one partition "DOS" to hda1. After
> >> reseting the machine, everything worked.
> >
> >Don't most BIOSs provide an IDE low level format utility. Mine does (its
> >dog slow), but it rescued a disk that got trashed my win95.
>
> None do. The low level formatting utilities found in any PC BIOS is for MFM
> drives and are provided for backward compatability only.
> Modern IDE drives cannot be formatted without the use of the special
> diagnostic connector/equipment or software specifically written to perform
> such a task (and are drive specific).
So go to Seagate, WD, etc and d/l the low-level formatting software.
>
> Some older IDE drives (such as some Conner drives) can be formatted using
> the BIOS routines because those drives didn't have any such protection.
Noted.
> In
> most cases though, if an IDE drive requires a low level format to bring it
> back to life, the drive is unreliable anyway.
Nonsense.
>
> In any case, Win95 couldn't possibly trash a drive to the point where it
> required a LLF, unless the drive itself had a problem to begin with.
Whatever you say. :)
In my experience usually the trouble is caused by EZ-Drive, OnTrack,
LILO,
and/or sequential installs of _OSen (the old 'uppgrade' routine).
Never has a l/l formatter failed to do the job for me, but my db only
includes
a couple dozen hd's of the modern sort ( '93 or newer).
>
> Regards,
>
> Clockmeister.
>
Vacuo
Little-known fact: Dogs love carrots.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 14:46:51 GMT
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 02:43:50 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>Boring.
Yes, when you drop even the pretense of rational discourse, you are.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Corel Linux Office 2000 and Win32 Emulator Making Progress
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 14:54:36 GMT
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 02:42:07 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 23:17:46 GMT
>>On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 15:59:23 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>>Devlin wrote:
>>>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.).
>>This was the copy that they held the gun to your head to make you
>>install on that Gateway notebook which doesn't exist?
>What?
You claim to have been forced to accept the terms of a EULA which you
as good as admit below do not exist (the terms, not the EULA.) I was
making a point regarding your unsupported recollections by juxtaposing
this with another recent example of you being spectacularly,
unrepentantly wrong on a recollection.
My point being to reinforce why it is a Very Good Thing not to take
what Max claims at face value, with support of some sort (which he
almost always declines to supply, preferring instead to launch
personal attacks in an attempt to distract the reader from realizing
he's put his foot in it ... again)
------------------------------
From: Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 14:53:55 GMT
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000, Mike Marion wrote:
> Bart Oldeman wrote:
>
> > budget, it may be that you get more flops/bucks for an x86
> > (esp. Athlon) than for an Alpha or Sparc.
>
> For budget yes, the CPUs are getting there.. but when it comes to the whole
> system including scalable I/O, etc... you can't beat Suns, HPs, etc. Of course
> they cost more. :)
Yep. I was looking more at computational power. We know there are Beowulf
clusters who are doing very well at computational stuff.
> > Just did a test on the fp-intensive research program I run all the time,
> > of course the optimizations were on in the compilations:
> >
> > (compiled with g77 from egcs 1.1.2, which is not the best Fortran compiler
> > around, but good enough for me)
> >
> > Pentium II 400:
> > real 0m34.797s
> > user 0m33.580s
> > sys 0m0.170s
> >
> > (compiled with f77: SC4.0 18 Oct 1995 FORTRAN 77 4.0)
> >
> > Dual (Ultra)Sparcv9 167:
> > real 1:26.6
> > user 1:22.6
> > sys 2.4
>
> Uh, you use one of the latest g77s vs f77 from 10/95?!? That f77s optimisation
> is going to suck comparitively.
Hmm it might be time to ask the sysadmin to get a newer one then.
BTW, I don't know how much better last year's g77 is than Sun's own
FORTRAN compiler. It (Sun's f77) was just the solution offered to me on
the SPARC.
It was basically the following choice for me:
a) Stay with what's supported: running Windows NT workstation on the PC
and doing computations on the Sun (time-shared with about 10 other
persons), accessing it through Exceed.
b) Or do the (as yet) unsupported (but allowed, no less): install Linux on
the PC and do the computations locally.
> > Although we have lies, damned lies and benchmarks, it shows that I'm quite
> > happy running this stuff on the PC instead of the shared Sparc facility
> > :-).
>
> Of course if it works for you, then that's the best solution. Of course I'd be
> interested in seeing how the machines handled about 50000 spawned copies of the
> same programs on each box... after being compiled with similar optimisations
> too.
They would both complain about not having enough memory since these
programs each use data arrays of about 10MB.
Sorry, I have to disappoint you here. But, admittedly, it would be a tough
fight (I think) if
a) I was the only user doing stuff on the Sun box.
b) The FORTRAN compiler in use on the SPARC is more modern.
c) We have (say) 10 spawned copies.
Dual against single processor: it's not fair! ;-)
Bart
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 15:00:12 GMT
On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 02:31:59 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 23:20:40 GMT
>>On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 17:28:55 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>>Devlin wrote:
>>>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 22 Apr 2000 01:45:45 GMT
>>>>On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:44:27 -0400, someone claiming to be Rich C
>>>>wrote:
>>>>Assuming that the first assertion is correct, and I would be
>>>>interested in proof that it is so, this just pushes the premise back
>>>>one step: in what way are they forcing you to use "modern" versions
>>>>of Windows?
>>>Roger, you are so outrageously boring, it is truly amazing.
>>So we'll just add this to the * long * list of "Questions which Max
>>finds it uncomfortable to answer," shall we?
>Why? You didn't ask me the question (this time, though you have a thousand
>and a half times before). Incredible. Pathetic, but incredible.
My assumption, being an optimist, is that if you had been willing to
answer the question you would have done so since you took the trouble
to respond.
Of course, your intention could simply have been engage in a personal
attack without even considering a reasonable response, but I prefer
not believe that given the choice you would take the high road (all
evidence to the contrary, I know...)
>[Five will get you ten that Roger just *can't* resist posting back.
And I should decline to respond, because ... ?
>And if I
>didn't steal his illusion of glory by using it in this statement, he would
>probably say something along the general lines of "I know you are, but what am
>I, nah-nah-nah-nah-nah, neiner-neiner-neiner."]
Nope -- the juvenile stuff I leave to you.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
