Linux-Advocacy Digest #599, Volume #26 Fri, 19 May 00 12:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re: The
"outlook" for kooks) ("Brian Lewis")
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: a great job (abraxas)
Re: a great job (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Slashdot is down (Bob Hauck)
Re: Desktop use, office apps (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Desktop use, office apps (John Sanders)
Re: New Microsoft Virus, Worse Than Loveletter -- VBS.NewLove.A (Mr Rupert)
Re: Elitism ultimately ruins the fun... (was Re: Closed-mindedness and zeal...)
(dakota)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (abraxas)
Re: Charlie Ebert: COMNA's new official punching bag... (was Re: Things Linux can't
do!) (abraxas)
Re: a great job (abraxas)
Re: Top 10 Reasons to use Linux (SiKing)
Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!! (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 19 May 2000 10:05:39 -0500
In article <8g2oqh$4ij$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: On an stock rpm-installed Redhat - and Mandrake:
>: /usr/bin/netscape
>: /usr/bin/netscape-communicator
>: /usr/bin/netscape-navigator
>
>:-). Well, that's wrong then. Netscape is not part of a distribution
>in any sense I can think of and its the single thing that's most likely
>not to have come from the original distro o my system.
RedHat seems to take the approach that if they are allowed to
include it on the CD, it is part of the distribution and belongs
in /usr/bin.
>Surely it should
>go in /opt! I.e. "large package put together by someone else". Or has
>someone finally understood a sufficient fraction of the source to
>actually be able to compile it meaningfully?
You can go to extremes either way - from any Linux packager's perspective
almost everything is ultimately done by someone else but the object
is to simplify the system as installed. I kind of like the /opt
configuration as a means to have a potential mount point there, but
I'd really rather have more thought put into what should be network
mounts, or a decent overlay filesystems to completely hide the
cruft. For the moment I'm willing to throw a 3 gig partition at
a combined / and /user and just not worry about it. It's hard to
buy a drive less than 8 gigs these days anyway.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Brian Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for kooks)
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 11:10:53 -0400
"Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Brian Lewis wrote:
> >
> > "Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Jumping into discussions again, Brian? How typical.
> >
> > What alleged "discussion"?
>
> Non sequitur, as a particular "discussion" was not singled out by me.
Having
> reading comprehension problems?
Taking posting lessons from Tholen again? Typical. I see you fail to answer
my question.
>
> > > Brian Lewis wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "tholenbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article <8fk3j9$8g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S.
Edwards
> > > > > > > II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If anyone on USENET ever wishes to emulate Templeton, as
> > > > > > > > some seem take great pride and joy in emulating Dave Tholen
> > > > > > > > (whom I know nothing of, outside of the opinions of others),
> > > > > > > > just simply follow these steps:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Illogical. The true home of the tholenbot is
> > > > > > > comp.os.os2.advocacy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Incorrect. How typical.
> > > > >
> > > > > Evidence, please.
> > > >
> > > > $19.95 please
> > >
> > > How $19.95 is "$19.95", Brian?
> >
> > Incorrect use of variable of type "float."
>
> On what basis do you make this ridiculous claim?
Ask your mentor grasshopper.
>
> > Cannot assign the string value "$19.95."
>
> What you "cannot assign" is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant.
Balderdash. An integer variable cannot be assigned any value but an integer.
Your point is blunt and ineffective.
>
> > > > (shipping and handling fees.)
> > >
> > > How ironic.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Evidence, please.
Please provide $19.95 for shipping and handling.
>
> > > > > > Tholenbot always picks the right newsgroup for the
> > > > > > job. Sometimes that is COOA.
> > > > >
> > > > > The right "newsgroup"? How rich!
> > > >
> > > > On what basis do you claim that the "newsgroup" is "rich"?
> > >
> > > Don't you know?
> >
> > You fail to answer the question.
>
> On the contrary, you have simply failed to locate my response.
Have I?
>
> > Typical.
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who just failed to answer my question:
>
> M> How $19.95 is "$19.95", Brian?
Illogical.
>
> > > > > > At least you made no attempt to conceal your own misinformation.
> > > > >
> > > > > What alleged "misinformation"?
> > > >
> > > > Why, don't you know?
> > >
> > > See what I mean?
> >
> > You fail to answer the question.
>
> On the contrary, you have simply failed to locate my response.
How ironic.
>
> > Typical.
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who just failed to answer my question:
>
> M> How $19.95 is "$19.95", Brian?
Illogical.
>
> > > > > > > On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ask your grasshopper
> > > > >
> > > > > The grasshopper is in my head.
> > > >
> > > > What alleged "head"?
> > >
> > > Reading comprehension problems?
> >
> > What alleged "comprehension"?
>
> Don't you know? It's your comprehension.
On what basis do you claim that it's my "comprehension"?
>
> > > > > On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
> > > >
> > > > Illogical.
> > >
> > > On what basis do you make this claim?
> >
> > Typical invective.
>
> Illogical. Meanwhile I see you have failed to answer my question again.
How
> ironic, coming from the person who said the following 2 (!!) times in this
> very posting:
>
> BL> You fail to answer the question. Typical.
Evidence please.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 15:12:15 GMT
On 19 May 2000 03:09:16 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Bob Hauck <hauck[at]codem{dot}com> writes:
>: Whatever his experience with NT or lack of it, your experience with Linux
>: is out of date and it is a bit disingenuous for you to claim "extensive
>: linux experience" as you have done in the past.
>
>I do not recall ever claiming that I had "extensive" experience. Did you
>find such material on deja.com, or something?
You do repeatedly make claims about Linux "doing" this or that, without
stating that it has been four years since you used Linux. As you are well
aware, Linux changes quite rapidly, and many claims that would have been
valid four years ago aren't valid any more. And vice versa.
>I look at computing as a science Bob, and I would expect anyone else who
>takes the profession seriously to do the same.
>: if their are any such words in NT's source? Would you change your opinion
>: of NT if there were?
>
>I would question the seriousness of its developers, yes.
So, since you can't see the source, you assume that they are in fact
"professional" by your definition, even though you have no evidence at
all. This does not sound like a very scientific approach to me.
I find it helpful to keep firmly in mind the fact that the people who work
at Microsoft or IBM or any other big company are in general not any
smarter or more serious or more professional than you or me. They just
happen to work for an organization that has a big marketing budget to
create an image for themselves. This image is pure illusion.
>don't get to see the source code anyway, it's a non-issue. Now, if
> [if] Microsoft started creating registry keys to that effect, then you
> can be sure my confidence in WindowsNT would be lessened... shakened
> even.
Yet nothing has really changed. The software still works exactly the same
way it did before. This is purely a psychological reaction with no
rational basis. You are hardly being "scientific".
>Everyone uses vulgarities to make a point. But using it in everyday
>dialogue is the stuff of people who cannot communicate with intellectual
>grace.
Being able to communicate "with intellectual grace" is not in any way
associated with software engineering talent as far as I can tell. Some
expert developers can communicate well, some can't. Some get frustrated
when dealing with brain-dead hardware or software that they can't fix
(which seems to be a major source of vulgarity in kernel code..."These
chips are basically fucked by design...").
It isn't as if the kernel source has a vulgarity on every other line or in
every file, or even in every subtree. They are pretty rare actually. And
where they occur, they do seem to be used to "make a point".
>People who speak well, command respect. Vulgarity spoken out of place is
>not speaking well. Therfore, it gets little or no respect from me.
This is a two-edged sword. Many people who speak well are con-men,
marketers, politicians, and other sorts of liars.
>: I also think you are very quick to dismiss people's experiences on the
>: basis of it being "anecdotal evidence".
>The point is, neither my, nor yours, nor Charlie's experiences stand as
>"proof" of anything. Using one's "experience" as proof is fraudulent, and
>absurd. The only things that can be offered as "facts" are things that
>can be proven.
No, what you call "anecdotal evidence" certainly can be a "fact" too.
Someone's experience is a "fact". That one fact does not necessarily
prove the point, but it is not a non-fact simply because it is not written
down in a reputable journal. Most facts are not written down in reputable
journals.
It is incorrect to say that "NT crashes for me and that proves NT sucks",
but it is equally incorrect to say that NT crashing for me is anecdotal
evidence that does not mean anything at all.
I will agree that anecdotal evidence does not *prove* anything until there
has been enough collected to call it a statistic.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 19 May 2000 16:15:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> Ah, this explains once again why youre so bitter. You've been sleeping
^
You forgot one apostrophe. <G>
> with a corpse for the past five years.
So users of OS/2 are necrophiles? At least some of them can appreciate
Linux-babies as well.
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
This operating system/newsreader does not support the
advanced features of VapourSig 1.1.
Please upgrade your operating system/newsreader to the
latest version of RipOffCorp's product.
Have a nice day.
========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: a great job
Date: 19 May 2000 15:14:15 GMT
Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Commodore & Atari did that sooner.
> They were considered "game" computers, rather than "general purpose"
> (read "business") computers...
I just forwarded this off to a guy I used to work with at GVP...
(if you dont know what GVP was, you have no business talking
about commodore computers in any regard)
Lets see what he thinks...:)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: a great job
Date: 19 May 2000 10:12:03 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 18 May 2000 18:27:45 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Because the machines running MS software need constant attention.
>>
>
>All I can say is that you are an exceptionally poor systems
>administrator if this is the case.
Yes, system administrators have to be carefully trained never to
load any new software on a production system without doing simulations
first on an identical test system. Especially ones that are
used to unix where you can normally run a test instance with an
alternate configuration right along with the production copy.
>Have you ever considered that the main fault of Microsoft is that they
>have created products that have allowed incompetent people believe
>they are qualified to manage a network?
Well, I've considered that intentionally misleading people was one
of their faults, but I don't think I'd go so far as to say it
is their main fault.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Slashdot is down
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 15:28:05 GMT
On Thu, 18 May 2000 21:28:12 -0400, Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I'm sure if they were running ASP under IIS, they wouldn't have those
>> same DDOS problems, eh?
>
>Of course not.
What does the OS have to do with DDoS? If the pipe is full, it is full,
and running W2K isn't going to fix it for you. Nor does W2K have some
sort of magical foreknowledge that allows it to know which connection
attempts are "fake" and which are real.
You really need to stop taking that medication. The quality of your
postings has declined of late.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: 19 May 2000 10:21:35 -0500
In article <hzcV4.95$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Raul Valero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Care to make an estimate of the difference you have to spend on RAM
>> and video card acceleration today to get equal performance (X vs MS
>> or whatever)? Now do the same comparison after adding remote
>> capability to the other system.
>
> Not every home user does need that.
Maybe not today, but why should they have to re-invent the world
or make a full copy of everything when they get their second
machine or a laptop that they connect occasionally? But even
without the remote consideration, my point is that the cost
of accomodating the extra resource consumption of X vs. something
more closely coupled to the hardware is not all that much today
and continuing to shrink.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 17:30:54 +0200
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps they should be. MacOS's application support is decidedly
> inferior to Windows. Ferinstance, if Photoshop had been written
> for Windows 95 or NT in the first place, I doubt they'd have rolled their
> own VM implementation.
>
> Now, it's true that Win95 and NT didn't exist back then, and MacOS did-
> but it is the year 2000 now, and MacOS *still* doesn't have a VM
> implementation adequate to Photoshop's needs.
<http://x27.deja.com/%5BST_rn=ps%5D/getdoc.xp?AN=609966184&search=thread
&CONTEXT=958749161.182714374&HIT_CONTEXT=958749161.182714374&HIT_NUM=7&h
itnum=41>
Deja.com: Re: Apple Website Misleading
--->
> >200 Meg to the application.
> >After loading Windows on a 256 Meg machine, 200 Meg is usually available
> >for applications.� However, NT does start getting fussy (double swapping
> >VM) when applications take more than 75% of available RAM, so I typically
> >need more RAM installed to test NT.
>
> Yes, it would be wonderful if Photoshop would get rid of its archaic
> legacy memory management and behave like a modern Win32 app.
Well, that pretty much proves you have no idea what you're talking
about. Photoshop's memory management is _very_ modern for a Win32 app.
It does have to be done a little differently from your average, small
data-set application because Photoshop deals with data sets much larger
than available RAM and deals with them in an order that does not work
with the typical LRU replacement scheme used in virtual memory systems.
As I seem to keep saying: just because you don't understand something
does not make it wrong.
<---
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 10:33:49 -0500
"R. Christopher Harshman" wrote:
>
> StarOffice
> WordPerfect Office Suite 2000
> Applix 5.0
> Word Perfect 8
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Chris Harshman
>
Get a man's job.
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: Mr Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Virus, Worse Than Loveletter -- VBS.NewLove.A
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 10:54:18 -0500
Tim Kelley wrote:
>
> "Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
> >
> > A new variant of the Loveletter VBS e-mail virus was mentioned
> > on all the local news programs in Silicon Valley tonight as
> > already causing severe problems in some businesses.
> >
> > It changes its Subject line each time it infects a new com-
> > puter, and deletes almost *all* files, not just JPGs and MP3s.
> > Symantec's web page says 1,000 systems have already been
> > infected.
>
> I was waiting for this, and wondering why the original
> "loveletter" was so wimpy. It could've done a lot more damage.
>
Perhaps the original intent of the ILOVEYOU virus writer was to
get a hackable copy of the code into world wide distribution
where it could mutate into something much more dangerous.
--
Mr Rupert
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Elitism ultimately ruins the fun... (was Re: Closed-mindedness and
zeal...)
From: dakota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 08:56:55 -0700
>..-----.
Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and >license.
>| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems
>that
>| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I
>think.'"
>|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
>http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
>
>
Elitism from the BSD camp seems to be the worst of all.....
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 19 May 2000 15:59:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>> Ah, this explains once again why youre so bitter. You've been sleeping
> ^
> You forgot one apostrophe. <G>
Again, this has been beaten pretty much to death. Dejanews.
>> with a corpse for the past five years.
> So users of OS/2 are necrophiles? At least some of them can appreciate
> Linux-babies as well.
"Linux babies"?
It probably wouldnt be a good idea to push that one, since it would involve
me telling you that I used OS/2 for a number of years and really liked it
very much. :)
But I knew when to quit. I didnt wait nearly as long as I did with my
old Amiga.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert: COMNA's new official punching bag... (was Re: Things Linux
can't do!)
Date: 19 May 2000 16:02:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19 May 2000 02:45:36 GMT,
> Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Uh, you haven't posted a _SINGLE_ URL since you started babbling into
>>COMNA.
> Sure he did:
> http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=625244728
> Your not coming down with Althiemer's, are you??? Your memory seems to
> really suck.
Facts are only 'facts' when they serve to back up Steve's claims.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: a great job
Date: 19 May 2000 16:04:29 GMT
Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 18 May 2000 18:27:45 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
> wrote:
>>
>>Because the machines running MS software need constant attention.
>>
>> Les Mikesell
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> All I can say is that you are an exceptionally poor systems
> administrator if this is the case.
Anything you say, Mr. Name.
Can I call you "Full"?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: SiKing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons to use Linux
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 09:05:02 -0700
1$worth wrote:
> Yes, I find penguins sexy, what's your problem?
http://www.stileproject.com/lls.html
no problem here ...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
Date: 19 May 2000 16:06:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : > : > "...it's quite possible for X to bring Linux down to its knees."
> : > : No. This is an untrue statement.
> : > No it isn't. If you knew half as much as you claim to, you'd know that
> : > what I'm saying has, and does happen (though the frequency of such
> : > occurrences are small).
> : I know exactly as much as I claim to, and the above can also happen
> : under NetBSD. (though the frequency of such occurences is small)
> Funny you mention that. It actually did happen to me under NetBSD 1.3.
> It didn't like my Voodoo3 2000 PCI, apparently. v1.4.1 seems to work just
> fine now.
Yeah, that actually happens with Voodoo 3 cards under a variety of unices, all
running XFree. If you're running XFree, that would pretty much explain it.
I think that the argument of X being able to 'bring down a system' would be
better served on a newsgroup like comp.os.unix.interfaces, no?
Newgroup it and see what happens.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
