Linux-Advocacy Digest #243, Volume #26 Tue, 25 Apr 00 11:14:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: which OS is best? (Craig Kelley)
Re: MS caught breaking web sites (Robin)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (John Hasler)
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (Cihl)
Re: Where is PostScript support?? (Bart Oldeman)
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (Chris Kelly)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (abraxas)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ("William Palfreman")
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ("William Palfreman")
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Craig
Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24 Apr 2000 12:44:54 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On 23 Apr 2000 15:07:02 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >> Except for one thing - Win98's sharing is far, far easier.
> >
> >Ever try accessing shares on two different servers with two different
> >account names?
> >Easy is not the word I'd choose; Impossible comes to mind though.
>
> Tell me how it's impossible - describe the networking method used and
> why it's impossible.
Department A has an NT machine with some files you need on it. Your
user name is FRED.
Department B has an NT machine with some files you need on it. Your
user name is FREDSMITH.
Get ready to play the logout/login game if you're running Windows 9x;
you cannot be connected to two different computers with two different
usernames without installing (and paying for) something like Dave.
> >I very much doubt my grandmother would just happen across Windows
> >networking code... Oh, and Windows browsing across subnets? Let's
>
> I don't think so either. MS doesn't share their code.
Wha-wha-wha
> >talk about ridiculous now. Face it, Windows is hard to use other than
> >the default setup: A bunch of machines on the same segment in the
> >same workgroup. Anything else is neigh on impossible to figure out
> >wihtout intimate knowledge of protocol-level designs in NetBEUI.
>
> Anything with a subnet is probably big enough to use DHCP, and the
> problem is immediately resolved (aka WINS). NetBEUI configuration
> doesn't need to enter the picture. And given that without DHCP a
> Linux box is stuck with straight IP addresses, whereas in Windows I
> get a (broadcast) ability to automatically find other machines (in the
> same subnet) ... well, I think we both know Windows is easier for a
> novice.
Thanks for illustrating my point for me.
You are drawing from a large pool of knowledge in your response. This
knowledge is not intuative to the user of the computer. They must
have competent system administrators which setup the basic
infrastructure for your network to function. This is not an easy task
no matter which operating system you choose to use.
Your average "grandmother" user has no idea what DHCP, WINS or NetBEUI
mean. She doesn't know how to install them, doesn't know how to
configure them, doesn't know what they are used for. To claim that
Windows makes setting up network filesharing easy, when compared to
Linux, draws on these dubious assumptions.
> >> >The simpleminded way to make UID/GID's the same is to copy one password
> >> >and group file over to the other machines. NIS becomes better at
> >> >some number of machines.
> >>
> >> And how do you sync them once things start changing again? You can't
> >> guarantee, sans NIS, that any two machines will have the same logins,
> >> passwords, etc. That's minor, though, for just a few machines, and
> >> doesn't interest me much. The real problem is GUI/UID syncronization.
> >
> >NIS, Kerberos (gee, I wonder who else uses that....), LDAP, NT-DOM.
> >You have your choice.
>
> I said sans NIS. Are you reading the comments (not just mine, but
> others' comments as well) prior to replying here?
>
> Anyhow, thanks for the info - how does, say, LDAP security work?
Take your pick:
http://www.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/libs/pam/modules.htm
> >Windows is more difficult in this arena as well; replicating SAM
> >databases and the network registry? Hmmm.
>
> SAM database replication among the PDC and BDCs is no big deal; it can
> be set (or done) at will.
Again, this is much more difficult than an NIS setup. Your argument
that Windows is easy is not holding much water.
> Why would I replicate the "network" registry?
You haven't used 2000, I see.
> >> So much for the contention (not yours) that no reading is
> >> required...The /etc/exports setup alone would stump many people.
> >
> >Enter linuxconf. Enter an allowed host and a path and you're done.
>
> Yeah - as if anyone would just happen upon that. You need to
> configure the server, too. And make a directory where you want the
> share to go. It's far more complicated than you make it out to be.
So we're damned if do, and damned if we don't.
I give up. Windows is obviously easier because you have to do things
the Windows way in order to be easy. It's all so much clearer now...
> >About your question on allowing the root user access to login directly
> >using telnet; the simple answer is: don't. It's a very very bad idea.
>
> Why? Anyone can SU to root anyway. It's a private network, so I
> don't worry about sniffing, so... why not?
Because there are oodles of tools out there that are custom-built to
sniff telnet logins (just like appletalk and smb sniffers). Even if
your machine is private, if it were ever connected to the internet
you'd be allowing for root attacks on the machine via telnet.
Requiring someone to su to root puts at least 2 barriers in their way.
> >If you really want to, then erase the pam_securetty.so line from
> >/etc/pam.d/login (or change it from "required" to "optional").
>
> Thanks.
No problem.
--
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: Robin <[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
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 14:53:41 -0400
Gary Connors wrote:
> Corporate Workstation is NOT a desktop.
> Second I NEVER once claimed NT is "not fit to be a workstation". There is
> a difference between workstation and desktop. Workstations you get work
> done on, desktops are for solitare, web browsing, and balancing your
> checkbook.
REALLY? I guess I've really been screwing up these last couple years, what with all
that checkbook balancing I've done on my NT desktop (although it sits *under* my
desk, not on the *top*... does it still count?) As the "computer geek friend
everybody calls when they can't get their machine to work right" I'd recommend NT
over 9x (no 2000 experience yet) to a home user in a heartbeat.
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 17:44:55 GMT
JEDIDIAH writes:
> Such laws are typically justified ONLY by notions of public interest.
Governments that purport to be democratic always justify all their laws by
notions of public interest. In this case "public interest" is a euphemism
for "We're going to force our religious dogma on everyone".
> That's very much a minority viewpoint.
That is not at all clear.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 19:10:27 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8e1q5m$n8l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > If, like me, you are concerned about the fact Microsoft has frozen
> > progress in every software industry segment they have entered, here's
> > good news:
>
> Hey, look at that, petilon spreading FUD, what a shock!
FUD? FUD?!
The only one spreading FUD *anywhere*, is Microsoft!
They DO this to keep their users from trying anyone else's
OS's!
Linux doesn't have to spread FUD to keep it's users around,
because the number of users is already rising every day!
--
% make fire
Don't know how to make fire
% Why not?
No match
------------------------------
From: Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where is PostScript support??
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 19:08:52 GMT
On 24 Apr 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's nice to see a number of presentation/wordprocessing programs emerging for
> Linux - geeks do need to write documents as well, not just MSWord drones.
??? "geeks" have been able to write documents under Linux for many years.
> There's just one thing that's really bugging me - none of them (AFAIK) seem to
> support postscript properly. Oh, they'll all allow an EPS file to be imported,
> and show a big blank square until it's sent to the printer; but this is barely
> adequate at best, and if one has a lot of inline graphics, pretty much useless.
>
> I've looked at demo versions of WordPerfect for Linux, StarOffice (not bad but
> a complete resource pig) and just now downloaded Adobe FrameMaker - and WTF -
> it doesn't display EPS files either. Now correct me if I'm mistaken here, but
> if any product should handle postscript properly, it should be something from
> Adobe...
>
> Does anybody know of any decent wordprocessor/desktop publishing application
> that can actually provide useful vector graphics filter/display capabilities?
Why didn't you mention TeX in your question?
The "classical" way (after *roff) of producing documents under *nix is:
write a (La)TeX file containing the text and structure.
produce EPS graphics using xfig/gnuplot/another package.
run "(la)tex" on the (La)TeX file.
preview with xdvi (you can see the figures here already, although it's not
as nice as gv/ghostview)
convert to PostScript with dvips.
preview ps/eps files with gv or ghostview.
send to the printer.
Many articles, reports, theses and books have been written this way.
LyX (www.lyx.org) is a nice GUI frontend to LaTeX, nowadays.
Bart
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Kelly)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 19:14:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Office will be broken up into a separate company. This company will
>be free to port Office to Linux, BeOS, PalmOS etc. Office, together
>with business applications written in Java will make all these
>alternative platforms viable.
He meant to say:
Java will be broken up into a separate company. This company will
be free to make Java work on Mac, BeOS, Linux, etc. Java, together
with business applications written in Java will make all these
alternative platforms viable, instead of just Solaris and WinNT.
>They will not be
>able to use their monopoly profits to subsidize weak products such as
>SQL Server to the detriment of fair competition in this industry.
He meant to say:
They will not be able to use their monopoly profits to subsidize weak
products such as SQL Server to the detriment of Larry "Lawrence"
Ellison.
>The proposal is well-thought-out.
He meant to say:
Yes, let's put all know-nothing apparatchiki in charge of designing
software.
oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0
JConfig 2.0 now comes with FULL SOURCE! Get your copy here:
http://www.tolstoy.com/samizdat/jconfig.html
Then, send Sun a Message!
Vote for JConfig in the JDJ Readers' Choice Awards.
http://www.sys-con.com/java/readerschoice2000/
See the 'Best Class Library' category.
oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0oo0
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 19:23:22 GMT
mlw wrote:
> The stock market, currently, has no basis in reality.
Today just reaffirms that statement.
You'd think that the entire world depends on MS just to survive the way anything
"tech" is going down no matter what it's ties to MS or computers at all. Every
news link equates it to fear of the possible MS split too... damn it people!
Use some common sense already! Companies do not rely 100% on MS... and if
they've locked themselves into MS as their sole OS... that's a stupid thing to
do no matter what the OS is.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to
lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the
fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them into
it in the first place. - Douglas Adams in Guardian, 25-Aug-95
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: 24 Apr 2000 19:33:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:36:59 GMT, Sierra Tigris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Craig Kelley posted Apr 22 re: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
>>
>>|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.
>>
>> While I agree with the above sentiment, I must point out that in
>>some cases having multiple enviroments/manangers can cause some problems,
>>such as not being able to use an application because it requires another
>>enviroment than the one you choose to use.
> I run GNOME and KDE apps all the time without having either
> 'enviroment' loaded.
You do not do it without either environment installed on your machine
however. They ARE there, and the programs you run do so nicely because the
libs and suchness that they require are actually present.
> Any app that cannot do that is broken
> by design. The problem lies with the individual application
> programmer and not with 'choice'.
I really wish youd stop using linux. You're making the rest of us look
bad.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "William Palfreman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 05:54:05 +0100
[snip]
> erm, I don't think my grammar was very clear. OpenSource=sharing to work
> towards common good
> capitalist companies=make proprietary to maximise profits
> opensource should not be judged on its commercial success, but rather on
> its product. Has the product benefitted by its mode of production? I say
> yes. Is it working with more vitality and vigour than commercial sectors?
> I'd say, yes, it looks that way.
You can't just define open-source as communist and propriatry as capitalist
and just move on. Companies like Redhat are quoted on the stock market, and
every single scrap of Linux code is owned by those who wrote it, not held in
'common'. The point is they make MORE money by making it open source, to
hell with the common good. None of these Linux companies would exist were
it not for open source, so it is wrong to claim it isn't commercial.
[snip gobledygook]
> >
> > >I mean the gap between rich and poor. The amount of the GDP and its
> > >distribution.
> >
> > This is a bogus figure, because it ignores things like living standards.
> > My supervisor earns about 5 times as much as me, but his living
> conditions
> > really aren't that much better.
>
> Wow- you've managed to stumble accross the greatest flaw in capitalism.
In
> order for the system to work, you need constant, increasing, consumption.
> This doesn't actually lead to a better standard of living. Couldn't have
> put it better myself.
But you didn't, nor is it what he was saying. Totally disengenuos.
> And yet we have a finite amount of resources to
> consume. We make equipment that breaks, so that you have to buy more.
> They're even trying to do that with crops cf: suicide gene.
What the hell are you blathering on about?
> Throw-away
> consumption in order to maintain constant illusion of growth.
Er, is this statement here just to have a go at growth or consumption? You
don't seem to like either.
>
> > >West is living off. We have a finite amount of resources, and if you
> > >distribute more to one place, you have to take it away from another.
> >
> > You seem to be assuming that the resources start out in a shared pool.
> > They don't. The resources are created by productive labor. Of course,
> > if you want to give to those who are unproductive, you must take from
> those
> > who are productive.
>
> No. Most resources are consumed by your definition, or at least the
> division of wealth's definition, of productive. See below...
See below what? Just your same tired arguments. Anyway, more resources
consumed, more demand, more money to be made, more resorces produced.
Everybody gains.
>
> > > The
> > >world cannot support all its population to have a standard of living
> > >comparable to you and I, in the states and in the UK.
> >
> > Not unless the rest of the world is as productive as the US and UK.
> >
> > > Our standard of >living is at the expense of others, don't forget it.
> >
> > I don't see how it is. How is the US stopping anyone else from
developing
> > a stable political system and an economy to match ?
> How long have you got? I could fill a book with this one
And like all Marxists you procede to do so. Long winded "Have a look at
this, have a look at that" argument snipped.
>
> (snip rare agreement :)
> >
> > > If we lived by "from each according to their ability, to
> > >each according to their need" instead of "take what you can and guard
it
> > >with your life"...
> >
> > If we lived by this, noone would have incentive to be productive,
because
> > they'd only be allowed to take what they need.
>
> I am still confused- what is the incentive to make good OpenSource
software
> (trying desperately to keep OT;) if there is no financial reward?
But there is. What open source things people write is brilliant advertising
for their commercial work. Look at how well Linus T has done by giving code
away.
Why is
> this industry productive? What makes them do it? To secure more wealth
> for themselves?
Yes.
> Doesn't seem to stand up, does it?
No. You have also skipped straight from description to consculsion without
argument again. Merely talking about something you don't like then saying
"It doesn't stand up, does it?", is not an argument.
> People can work and be
> productive with better motivation than greed. That's not my motivation,
is
> it yours?
Greed is a pejoritve term. I prefere 'utility', or personal benifit.
>
> > The system in the US works most of the time. Anyone with a job "gets
what
> > they need".
> >
> > >> I'm not clear as to what your "solution" to the problem is.
> > >
> > >If I knew that, I'd be a revolutionary, rather than in IT ;)
> >
> > The problem is that there is no perfect solution, only a lot of
> unsatisfactory
> > compromises.
>
> Yeah, there's no solution to the big picture (well there is, it's just for
> everyone to realise that there is actually a better way to live, but like
> that's gonna happen) but it doesn't mean you stop trying for the little
> stuff. We never got anything by not working for it.
You people ultimatly got nothing even after working at it. You've only got
Kim-Jong-Il and Castro left now, and Castro will be dead soon. Then you
will just have some North Korean psycho who qualifications for the job of
leader of the world's only workers paradise is that he is his fathers eldest
son, plus there are still some people who have yet to die of manutrition or
be shot for muttering counter-revoloutionary words in their sleep.
W. Palfreman.
------------------------------
From: "William Palfreman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 06:03:21 +0100
red-5 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:01bfa712$783ee160$231424d5@default...
>
>
> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Why do they "choose" to give away their intellectual property? I'd
say
> > > because they view the products of their labour to be the "property" of
> > > the community-
> >
> > No. I do it because my software isn't property at all: it's
information,
> > and I do not deprive myself of anything by giving it away. This is not
> > true of the crops I grow on my farm, and so I sell those.
>
> oh dear, I shouldn't have mentioned anything about a suicide gene, should
i
> (wincing)
>
> >
> > > OpenSource=sharing to work towards common good
> > > capitalist companies=make proprietary to maximise profits
> >
> > Humpty-Dumpty definitions.
>
> Drat, I rather liked them. No, dammit, I stand by them.
>
> > > What restraints are there on the illegal trade in drugs...
> >
> > The cartels will kill you if you compete with them.
> >
> > > In order for the system to work, you need constant, increasing,
> > > consumption.
> >
> > Horseshit.
>
> Oh, you must be right, then.
>
> > > We make equipment that breaks, so that you have to buy more.
> >
> > Horseshit.
>
> No, I shit you not, your beautifully crafted argument has swayed me
>
> > > They're even trying to do that with crops cf: suicide gene.
>
> (snip the bit where you evidentally know more than me, I concede that
> farming was not a good example, as I've barely trimmed a lawn in my life)
>
> >
> > > I am still confused- what is the incentive to make good OpenSource
> > > software (trying desperately to keep OT;) if there is no financial
> > > reward?
> >
> > I netted $25,000 earlier this year as a direct result of my free
software
> > efforts. If I had tried to sell that software I would not have made a
> > penny.
>
> Well, good for you.
>
>
> (snip)
>
> > > People can work and be productive with better motivation than greed.
> > > That's not my motivation, is it yours?
> >
> > One man's greed is another man's altruism. I see nothing wrong at all
> with
> > offering to exchange some of my goods for some of yours in the
> expectation
> > that we will both be better off.
>
> Yeah, not a problem. And the idea of money as a medium to aid bartering,
> is also a good idea. But the commodifaction of money was not a good idea.
> Doesn't change the problems of "free markets" either, I'm afraid.
Your afraid of what?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 24 Apr 2000 13:34:55 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sea1Dragon2) writes:
> On 23 Apr 2000 19:38:31 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >There is a certain "elite snobbery" that goes hand in hand with a
> >command-line environment, be it UNIX, or VMS, or even DOS.
>
> Correct. Most users of CLI's think that they are Really Smart(tm)
> because they know how to operate a CLI. What is funny is that conceptually
> deleting a file is the same thing whether you drag it to a trash can, type
> in rm, or whatever, but CLI users believe that typing in the commands is
> actually somehow closer to the computer (as if the GUI's are interacting
> with the CLI's and not directly with the system).
>
> >IMHO, Linux was born out of a sheer dislike of Microsoft, unlike its BSD
> >cousins, who seemed to originate from a need for a BSD-like OS.
>
> The very early development of Linux was decidedly for hobbyist purposes,
> but it is clear that the Linux _movement_ is primarily anti-Microsoft
> and has minimal technical basis. I am still trying to figure out why
> redhat.com feels the need to post news about Microsoft on their site, and
> why slashdot.org regularly posts articles about Microsoft. If Linux were
> truly independent and not fueled out of irrational hatred of Microsoft,
> these things would not exist. What if Microsoft put a ticker of LNUX's
> falling stock on their site with the caption "How much do you want to lose
> today?"
I agree, but please do not excuse Microsoft from doing the same
thing. Look to their infmamous Linux Myths pages, and to the
Mindcraft tests. Are we to now conclude that the Windows _movement_
is primarily anti-Linux? :)
[snip]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
