Linux-Advocacy Digest #601, Volume #26 Fri, 19 May 00 14:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (John Sanders)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (josco)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (josco)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (brian moore)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (brian moore)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (brian moore)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 12:04:29 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Hauck <hauck[at]codem{dot}com> wrote:
>>>Oh yes you can! Try FTE. It does exactly all what you requested :-)
>>>http://fte.sourceforge.net/
>
>0.49.13 comes with a slang version called "sfte". It isn't compiled by
>default, you have to edit the TARGETS line in ~/src/fte-unix.mak. Seems
>to work ok on the console, with the PuTTY telnet client for Windows, and
>in a kvt (with the exception of c-pgup and c-pgdn not working) but the
>keybindings get funky in an xterm (hint: alt -> esc).
This is pretty nice - it seems to be mostly functional in a
kconsole window except for selecting with the shift-motion
keys. And it doesn't replace selected text when you type
on top of it.
>I'm still playing around with it (downloaded when I saw the previous post)
>so don't yet have a good feel for how well it will hold up over the long
>term. But it is in fact pretty easy to get started with for DOS/Win
>converts due to the CUA-style default key bindings and menus, so it'll
>probably end up staying on my system for that reason alone.
I think it would be nice to have as close as possible to a dos
EDIT clone for people's first encounter with Linux and for when
you have to talk someone through fixing a config file. A tiny
version for use on rescue floppies would be especially good.
Sfte looks pretty close for the user interface, but it is
pretty big with all the syntax parsing stuff.
But, back to the question of a university project: how about a
real overlay filesystem where you could mount something else
transparently over an existing directory. The main use would
be to make a 'master' tree on a CD or network that you could
mount read-only and overlay your custom files for the specific
machine. Or overlay a ramdisk on top of a source tree for
fast compile/link/install times.
An interesting variation would be to do something similar at the
block device level. Build a log of block-writes where the contents
are different than the matching device block (a gdbm file might
work) and satisfy reads from the log if the block exists.
You would also need some tools to start and stop the logging
with an option to merge the changes back.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 17:12:50 GMT
On 05/19/2000 at 06:51 AM,
"Erik Adolph Hitler Fuckingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > There you go again. You get caught in a lie so you try to distort history
> > to justify your lies.
> No, I'm telling you what my thougts were. When anyone says OLE, I don't
> even consider OLE1. It simply isn't in what i'm thinking, thus it's not
> in what I'm writing about.
OLE is OLE. You didn't qualify it as to a version. Therefore, you were
caught in a lie and tried to cover it up. It didn't work.
If you make absolute statements using incorrect terms, you are the one at
fault. Try telling a Judge that when you promised to pay back a loan next
week, you were thinking in Martian weeks.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19ze Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 17:18:25 GMT
On 05/19/2000 at 06:49 AM,
"Erik Herr Goebels Fuckingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3925188b$3$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Why do you people keep claiming I say things I obviously have not said?
> >
> > Because you do say different things at different times depending on which
> > lie you are trying to defend. You aren't smart enough to be a liar. You
> > can't remember what you wrote.
> Untrue. People read things into what I say that I haven't said. I know
> exactly what I have written, because I choose my words very carefully in
> most cases to show specifically what I mean.
People can only read what you write. If you choose some wierd definition
of standard terms like OLE which no one understands, then you have not
chosen your words very carefully.
> If I say "Bill gates doesn't say that Office benefits from Windows
> source code" I am not saying that Office doesn't benefit from Windows.
> Read more carefully.
One must read statements in context. The context of that quote of yours
was clearly an impassioned defense of MicroSoft. Therefore, the reader can
only conclude that you agree with Gates' statement.
> > > I've said that Windows takes things that the Apps group develops and
> > > makes it part of the OS, not the other way around.
> >
> > > And if I haven't said it specifically, i've certainly implied that
> > > Office makes use of new OS features. But 3rd parties can make use of
> > > those same features as well.
BTW, I didn't respond to that inanity before. Your claim makes
pathologists of every ISV other than MS.
A pathologist is a doctor who knows everything and does everything but too
late. Since the half-life of a version of an application is something like
9 months or less, MS has a whole version lead time on the competition if
MS is not broken up.
>
> > If that be true, then one of the remedies the Feds should seek is a ban on
> > MS releasing any updates, new software, patches, etc. to any application
> > until six months have passed after the release of any new version, update,
> > or patch to the Operating System.
> Great, then that means that security issues cannot be fixed for 6
> months. I'm sure the OS community will love that.
This would not be a problem if MS is broken into two entirely separate
companies. This is why the DOJ is demanding the breakup.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19ze Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 12:15:20 -0500
TheKeyMan wrote:
>
> First off, Linux is a good system when it is used in the proper
> setting and under the guidance of people who actually understand the
> system. With that point considered, my company, a small real estate
> company with 10 offices in the northeast USA began a study late last
> year to try and consolodate our network and quite frankly save some
> money.
There is absolutely no reason to switch to Linux in an environment like
a small real estate office which has been using the usual Windows apps.
Moving to Linux to run the same type of app. IS pointless.
Linux is not Windows. Linux is not a Windows replacement. If you
don't understand it, don't use it.
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'.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 17:23:53 GMT
On 05/19/2000 at 06:44 AM,
"Erik Adolph Hitler Fuckingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> How do you get that? The discussion was about the DOJ, Joseph said
> "Bummer dude because..." indicating that he was say I was wrong that the
> DOJ investigation began years after 1991. If he had intended to say
> that other offices were investigating MS before the DOJ, he would have
> said that. Instead, he continued the discussion in the same context
> without specifying any other specific agency other than "the feds" which
> certainly includes the DOJ.
Here you go again with the Nazi propaganda machine working overtime. The
Feds is a well understood term meaning any and/or all agencies of the
United States. Even the person to whom you responded understands that and
English is not his primary language.
Since you were caught in an outright lie, you try to use semantics to turn
shit white. It won't work, Erik. Unlike your heros of the 1930's we have
intelligent people with access to the same places you spread your lies to
expose them.
> The term "the feds" also includes the CIA. Do you really think the CIA
> was investigating MS? It also includes the messhall of the 1st
> batallion rangers. Do you think the chefs there were investigating MS?
> Clearly if he had intended to mean some other branch, he would have said
> some other branch insteading making it appear that he was disagreeing
> with my statement that the DOJ's investigation began years after the
> article.
Typical propaganda worthy of Adolph, Joseph, and Josef Stalin. Everyone
understood what Ilya wrote as did Ilya. You made a mistake and lied. Now
you try to put words into another's keyboard which clearly were not there.
You have a truth squad on your ass. It won't go away until you do.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19ze Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: 19 May 2000 12:21:49 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>This depends almost entirely on your pixel size. If your screen
>>resolution is low, X looks bad. The higher the resolution the
>>less you need anti-aliasing.
>
> Now that consumer PC's have finally 'caught' up to Unix workstations
> of the 1980's in terms of montor size and video resolution, that
> shouldn't be too much of a problem. <snicker>
Several companies tried to give us better video resolution in the
80's but the lack of device abstraction in DOS made the
attempt fail. Double-scanned CGA was the best anyone could
do because the software was so bad.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 10:40:35 -0700
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Wrong.
>
> Pre-OLE2 was useless. I don't even consider it OLE since it was so
> radically different.
Too bad, MS does.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/partbook/activevj/ch05_2.htm
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q86/0/08.asp
OLE Concepts and Requirements Overview
The information in this article applies to:
Microsoft OLE, version 1.0
http://www.whatis.com/ole.htm
> OLE2 was introduced in 1992 as part of the OS.
There is no acronym OLE2. OLE 1.0 was updated with OLE 2.0. MS uses
version numbers. Talk like an adult and use the coreect meaning of words
- made up words are for childern and it is called baby-talk.
http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761552226&hs=baby+talk
------------------------------
From: josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 10:48:04 -0700
On Thu, 18 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > OLE officially used by MS prior to 1992 and it was an office only
> > solution. The Apps group invented OLE for their exclusive use.
>
> Are you talking about OLE1? Christ, that was just a DDE trick. It wasn't
> part of the OS per se, though it was documented.
I'm talking about OLE.
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q86/0/08.asp
OLE1 and OLE2 are meaningless acronyms.
OLE is an API so any personal editorials on the implementation and changes
between versions 1.0 and 2.0 are irrelevent.
http://encarta.msn.com/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761552226&hs=baby+talk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
Crossposted-To:
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 17:49:31 GMT
On 19 May 2000 09:56:27 -0500,
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8g31si$6ri$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >/opt is for independent packages. But there is a new fsstd coming up.
>
> Oh good - we didn't have quite enough standard layouts already...
No, we don't have enough detail and vendors that are anal about
following the rules.
> More like 20 - and they still don't correctly address issues of
> having local copies AND (perhaps multiple) network-mounted directories
> of the same thing, or things where the config files should be
> network-shared but not the binaries or vice-versa.
Why would you local -and- shared copies of the same thing?
You may want to look at /usr/share, which is precisely for things that
can be shared across platforms. (Man pages, docs, pixmaps,
soundfiles, dictionaries, all sorts of things should be living in
/usr/share -- I've got a couple hundred meg worth of stuff there)
See http://www.pathname.com/fhs/
--
Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor.
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting
Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day.
Netscum, Bane of Elves.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
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 17:53:10 GMT
On 19 May 2000 07:00:33 GMT,
Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.development Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> :>I use /usr/local for things that weren't in my original system and
> :>aren't likely to be in it for the foreseeable future. Netscape would
> :>be an example, though I can't think of any good ones.
>
> : 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. 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?
Hrrm? Netscape is in the 'non-free' portion of debian and comes with
most (all?) other (non-tiny) distributions as well.
--
Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor.
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting
Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day.
Netscum, Bane of Elves.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (brian moore)
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 17:56:28 GMT
On 19 May 2000 01:07:29 -0500,
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Never, never, never let user who doesn't understand things tweak the
> >> config files. For such users remote sysadmin service via SSH should be
> >> provided.
> >
> >Huh?
> >
> >Are you suggesting we start up a Centralized Linux Administration
> >Bureau or something? And remember that not all computers are on a
> >network, and very few of them are on one all the time.
>
> I've suggested something similar on the freebsd newsgroup before
> because they need it even worse, but they seem to think everyone
> should learn to be an expert.
>
> I think what we really need is some number of well-maintained
> 'master' system images (somewhere between 10 and 100 would
> suffice, but the number doesn't matter) and some tools
> to sync up your system to the master without breaking things
> due to hardware differences. Good system administrators
> would each maintain their own 'ideal' system as the master
> copy, tuned for whatever purpose they want. They would
> document the philosophy of the configuration (i.e. the
> purpose, not the details) and keep everything up to date,
> adding new things as they become available. This is work
> every system administrator does anyway - we just need the
> tools to share it easily. Then, instead of everyone having
> to configure and tune their own system, they would just pick
> a setup already built that matches their needs and periodically
> sync up any updates. There would still be a small amount of
> local setup to do, but the bulk of the work could be done.
That sounds like Debian.
Debian makes the sysadmin's job trivial.
--
Brian Moore | Of course vi is God's editor.
Sysadmin, C/Perl Hacker | If He used Emacs, He'd still be waiting
Usenet Vandal | for it to load on the seventh day.
Netscum, Bane of Elves.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 19 May 2000 17:03:30 GMT
Bob Hauck <hauck[at]codem{dot}com> writes:
: 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.
Fair enough. The point is, all operating systems have problems. All of
them have potentially fatal bugs. To say that there is any one operating
system that does not have these flaws is simply absurd. It is this
pretense of "perfection" that I'm challenging Bob, and not Linux's
validity (though I've questioned it before, for the sole purpose of
lighting a fire under the butts of those who evangelize it profusely).
: >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.
It's perfectly scientific. Lack of evidence suggests that I cannot make
any conclusions. It would be more accurate to say that I see no reason
why I should consider Microsoft to be unprofessional. Their products work
very well for me, and I've always been able to get help from them when I
needed it.
: 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.
Perhaps. There is no way to know, when one is not on the inside of such
establishments. These large entities have certain standards for behavior,
and I'm sure that excessive diversion from the accepted standards would
easily get someone fired.
: >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".
I already stated that my _reasons_ for feeling the way I do might be
considered to be irrational. As for justification of my feelings, I'm
going about it in the most logical manner I can. There cannot be logic in
one's _feelings_ about something, so to argue one way or the other is
pointless.
: >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".
Fair enough. Now, explain the attitudes of the various people that I've
had to endure at user group meetings, and technology expos, and you just
might have me using Linux again.
I've met some very annoying WindowsNT users (online, and in person), to be
sure. But not in nearly the same magnitude as Linux users (online, and in
person as well).
: >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.
Touche'.
: >: 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.
Okay. By English definition, anything that is stated as a truth, be it
empiracally true or not, is a "fact". However, anecdotal evidence cannot
be used to prove anything.
But this is getting pedantic.
[SNIP]
: 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.
But it doesn't mean anything, Bob. For example:
Let's say I install NetBSD 1.4.3 on a reasonably well-equipped system.
Let's also say that it crashes constantly, with no apparent reason. Let's
say that this happens similarly on 20 different machines. Now, answer me
this:
Does NetBSD suck, or do I just not know what I'm doing?
Seeing as how you neither know me, nor do you know exactly what sort
of hardware I'm trying to run it on, it's impossible for you to tell.
So, if I state the NetBSD sucks, simply because of my experience, it means
absolutely nothing.
: I will agree that anecdotal evidence does not *prove* anything until there
: has been enough collected to call it a statistic.
Now that I can buy. :-)
--
.-----.
|[_] :| 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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
