Linux-Advocacy Digest #623, Volume #26 Sun, 21 May 00 02:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (mlw)
Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Streamer)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Time to prove it's not just words (Full Name)
Re: Time to prove it's not just words (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 00:20:34 -0400
Streamer wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
>
> > (a) Stability
> > In the stability arena, Windows NT, 98SE, and 2K can't hold a candle to
> > Linux. Linux is vastly more reliable.
>
> Just curious....seeing that I will never upgrade to w2k, what is it's
> stability compared to NT and 98SE? I know how 98SE justs gets slower &
> slower until you have to reboot. I also know that NT keeps running, except
> that one-by-one, explorer features and applications tend to break down
> (Applications suddenly don't launch, NT Explorer suddenly can't see all of
> the directories, etc.). I've heard from others that w2k tends to run just
> fine for something like a week, then it just drops dead all at once. Is
> this true?
Well, Windows, be it 95,98,98SE,NT,W2k all seem to have a couple
behavior patterns that are interesting.
First, once previously stable systems start to crash, there is little
you can do to figure out what module is really doing it. Yes, you can
see what module the system crashed in, but it is seldom the root cause
of the problem. But, relax, just reinstall the Windows variant and it
will work again. ;-)
Windows NT and 2K kernels are better designed than their DOS
counterparts, but, many of the UI and application layer modules are
shared, so instabilities and memory leaks will bring down NT and 2K as
well.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!!
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 04:43:42 GMT
On 20 May 2000 22:16:12 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <97FV4.88864$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>>Been there done that, X locked up and there was no network to access the
>>Linux box from. Reset was the only option and we all know how well Linux
>>handles that. Takes forever to reboot.
I've not managed to experience this EVER, going all the way back
to '94 Slackware and including several x.0 Bughat releases.
...sounds like a bad, recycled, 4th hand account...
>
>Looking back, I don't think this has ever happened to me with
>an *.2 version of RedHat. It is either coincidence or the get it
>right by then.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Sun, 21 May 2000 04:45:55 GMT
On 20 May 2000 22:21:44 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>>It requires your software to be GPL, if you use the Qt Free Edition.
>>>>>Naturally, if you don't like that, don't use Qt.
>>>>
>>>> This alone makes the QPL more restrictive than the LGPL.
>>>
>>>Of course. GPL advocates were the ones who pushed for this
>>>change and they don't like the LGPL much.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
That makes it the position of the Free Software Foundation
not of the various groups that opposed the original licence
including those that made their own alternative...
...licenced LGPL.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 23:51:47 -0500
mlw wrote:
<snip>
> Well, Windows, be it 95,98,98SE,NT,W2k all seem to have a couple
> behavior patterns that are interesting.
>
> First, once previously stable systems start to crash, there is little
> you can do to figure out what module is really doing it. Yes, you can
> see what module the system crashed in, but it is seldom the root cause
> of the problem. But, relax, just reinstall the Windows variant and it
> will work again. ;-)
Thanks, but I'll stay with my Linux System. It has been up for 3 months since
my last reboot after adding new hardware (I've yet to even see NT go that far
without problems). At least Windows 95 made it easy for me to switch entirely
to Linux almost 2 years ago....it deleted itself automatically.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 04:52:44 GMT
On Sat, 20 May 2000 23:17:28 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:yNxV4.36687$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > Direct X, which although not a standard like OpenGL, it seems
>> > more customized to each app, maybe for that reason.
>>
>> I have programmed DirectX. It's a bad mismash between ugly C and poorly
>designed C++.
>
>I'll take your word from it since I don't program.
>Maybe MS makes companies use their stuff. DirectX is popular.
DirectX is 'popular' due to being associated with the market's
800lb Gorilla. This doesn't prove anything about it's quality
or suitability for any particular purpose.
>
>>
>> >
>> > Thread support seems more mature.
>> > At the Linux Business Expo at Comdex, someone I can't remeber his name
>> > was giving a talk who was from CodeWeavers. They use Wine, but focus on
>> > the porting of Windows apps to Linux. He mentioned the missing calls
>that
>> > are powerful in
>> > the Windows API that are missing from Linux, thus causing many problems.
>He
>> > mentioned the
>> > name of a call specificaly which I can't remember (hey I don't program),
>> > but it was basically a "wait for multiple events" thread that Linux
>lacks
>> > and it hinders porting.
>> > I understand 3D support lags behind that of NT a fair amount.
>>
>> Not really. With Xfree 4 and DRI you can get pretty good performance from
>Linux. I can get great performace from my Voodoo3 in Linux.
>
>I do too.
>In XFree86 3.3 I got slow performance. Games were unplayable.
>Most everyone still uses 3.3 vs 4.0.
So? That never stopped a Win32 game from exploiting a new
version of Direct3D. That part of the system just gets
updated along with the game/hardware install.
[deletia]
DRI is exploitable by anyone who cares to write a driver NOW.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 04:55:19 GMT
On Sat, 20 May 2000 23:27:11 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 20 May 2000 00:27:23 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Thu, 18 May 2000 20:36:57 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:8g0sl1$q5j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [deletia]
>> >
>> >Thread support seems more mature.
>>
>> Thread support NEEDS to be. There's no other effective method
>> to achieve concurrency under NT. However, this is quite
>> disputable.
>
>There are some nice advantages of theads as they are lightweight.
It really depends on the implementation. Some threads
are heavier than others and some processes are lighter
than others.
>It doesn't seem like a process can be a perfect substitute.
You don't seem to be in a good position to judge.
>
>
>>
>> >At the Linux Business Expo at Comdex, someone I can't remeber his name
>> >was giving a talk who was from CodeWeavers. They use Wine, but focus on
>> >the porting of Windows apps to Linux. He mentioned the missing calls
>that
>> >are powerful in
>> >the Windows API that are missing from Linux, thus causing many problems.
>He
>>
>> That sounds more like someone who can't quite make the shift from
>> one enviroment to another more than anything else. Although, it's
>> quite hard to tell in the total absence of ANY useful detail.
>
>As modern and powerful Windows apps are more
>likely to call these complex/powerful types of calls Linux might lack, this
>is probably becoming more of a common problem.
IOW, they're platform dependent and the app coder doesn't have
any clue how to transition the functionality onto another interface.
This is not necessarily a problem of the target platform.
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 04:58:30 GMT
On Sat, 20 May 2000 23:39:38 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8g6icm$mvb$13$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
>> xOGU4.2045$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > Linux only has 4% desktop market share and won't grow since it's not
>easy
>> > enough,
>> > and missing critical features like anti-aliased support.
>>
>> Why is anti-aliasing critical? Stability is critical, but most certainly
>> not aa,
>> when you still can read the fonts. That was a really dumb one.
>>
>> >
>> > Jim
>>
>> Marc
>
>That's the server mentality.
>On the desktop, why use an OS without jagged fonts when other OSes don't?
Mebbe you don't want your work to get toasted quite so much,
or deal with as many sysadmin headaches.
>
>Hint: Windows stability is "good enough" for most people on the desktop.
This is disputable. Most people don't percieve that they have
a choice. Either they are unaware that there are other alternatives
or have the perception that those other alternatives won't let them
do all the things they think they need to get done.
>NT's stability is "good enough" for virtually everyone on the desktop.
This is also disputable.
>So, with that out of the way, good fonts are next. Why use Linux, when
>Windows/NT has AA fonts and Linux+X doesn't?
NT will make you somewhat of an orphan anyways, while any Unix
will be more robust than NT and likely perform better.
>Linux as a desktop system seems to take a backseat to Linux as a server.
>If X can't support AA, Linux can't be billed as better than Windows/NT, not
>as a desktop OS. Plus lack of apps and you should get the picture.
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 15:26:15 +1000
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8g75bc$1k6h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8g6up4$qb7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >As Christopher pointed out, I find it odd that nobody that I
> >know of that uses either Windows9x, or WindowsNT ever notes
> >that they've had any troubles with them (and I'm usually the
> >first person my friends come to).
>
> I have, on my desktop, an NT box that will not complete the
> installation of sp6a due to disk errors that happen in the
> temp files after it unpacks them. Chkdisk say the partition
> is OK. I'd appreciate any advice on how to fix this without
> having to reinstall all the software loaded on the box.
Are you overclocking ?
Did you use chkdsk with the /r switch ?
Have you tried re-downloading the service pack from a different place ?
What's the drive subsystem like (IDE/SCSI, disk controller etc) ?
Any beta drivers ?
Have you tried specifying to unpack the files to some other drive (/x) ?
> (Hardware problems caused the crash that corrupted the disk
> and this has since been fixed).
What type of problems ?
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 15:39:30 +1000
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[Charlie's in my killfile, but it's a quiet day so I'll reply to his bit of
the post]
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on Sat, 20 May 2000 21:07:00 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Christopher Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:8g6q6g$9im$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > My S.O.s laptop (running W2K professional as well) has now
> >> > bluescreened 4 times, twice while trying to quite RealPlayer.
> >> > (trying to quit IE was what did it the first time on my desktop
> >> > machine). Luckily the last couple of bluescreens on that laptop
> >> > havent been as bad as the first (when I horror of horrors, plugged
> >> > a USB mouse into the machine) which resulted in a 'NO KERNEL FOUND'
> >> > (or something very close to that) error apon reboot.
> >>
> >> I always find it amazing that this sort of thing:
> >> a) *Never* happens to anyone I know
> >> b) Always seems to happen to faceless people on usenet who spend most
of
> >> their time cursing Microsoft.
> >>
> >> I'm thinking my WindowsAI theory might be right :).
> >
> >If you've NEVER got a Microsoft product to blue screen then
> >what are you doing with it?
I never said that. I've had four BSODs with NT (since February '96), all
driver or hardware related.
#1 was a memory chip dying (literally, the smoke escaped).
#2 was someone kicking a network cable attached to my machine. Since my
machine at the time was basically just a motherboard sitting on a desk with
a powersupply hooked up and a couple of hard disks, it sent the whole kit &
kaboodle flying off the edge of the desk.
#3 was a hard disk giving up the ghost. This wouldn't have hurt too much
except it happened to the drive with my swap on it, and about 2 minutes
after the disk died NT tried to swap and died.
#4 was the SP2+McAfee virus scan+floppy disk access bug. (That was the last
one, happened about a day after SP2 was released).
> >We'd be curious?
No, you wouldn't, because you won't believe me.
> I've never seen a blue screen on my computer at work. However,
> I have seen some strange behavior, both on my machine, and
> on other machines.
>
> My favorite -- if one can call it that -- had to be the "gosh, you
> don't like the icons for this file type, so I'll change them for you
> before asking" syndrome. That one was just plain weird.
That's the icon cache getting corrupted, I'd say. Look for the file
"ShellIconCache" in the Windows directory and delete it.
> The more
> normal one, which is mostly an annoyance, is the "oh, I forgot how
> to do the tooltips across the bottom icon bar" (under normal operation,
> NT (Explorer?) shows tooltips -- the full title of the iconified window
> appears therein). This particular problem also afflicts my boss's (?)
> machine. (I'm running SP5, in case it matters; I think he is, too.)
Does it do this all the time, or is it fixed with a logout/login cycle ?
> I've also had at least one crash with Visual Studio (fortunately, I
> save my work often!) and at one point my computer was working
> v--e--r--y s--l--o--w--l--y so that I could see each and every
> redraw of each and every polygon, line, and text string while it was
> updating its display. (It also was very slow in responding to mouse
> clicks.)
Sounds like you were under a pretty heavy memory load :). What type of
programming ?
> And then there was the peculiar problem with my disk drive.
> (Or was it?) The disk drive, over the course of a week, suddenly
> decided to develop some sort of a problem that would slow down
> performance very noticeably, and I was getting time-out events,
> (and in one case, "old firmware" notifications)!
Sounds like a hard disk on its way out. Possibly heat related.
> Funny thing, though -- after the machine was slated to be replaced
> (my new machine's quite happy) I decided, out of desperation,
> to shut it down (that took a good half-hour!) and power-cycle it.
> Problem solved....maybe??? Bizarre! But the "ticking" and performance
> problems stopped. I'll never know, now, whether it was a hardware
> problem or a software one; the computer was duly replaced, and the
> other one is now .... somewhere, probably back to the manufacturer
> to be analyzed.
>
> Problems should be more obvious than that.
>
> Even HP-UX on an HPPA isn't this unreliable (and even during the bad
> old days of 8.x, I at least could count on it 99.9% or so). HP-UX
> occasionally gives me "dead" xterm windows in 10.20; I've had 1 panic
> that I can count and today a problem where my screen lock (HP-UX has
> CDE) wouldn't do anything intelligent with my password; I had to log
> in on another machine and kill the session. There are also a number
> of problems if the network goes bad (HP-UX's favorite behavior in that
> case is "OK, my X server is going to freeze up now!"). I will admit,
> to my employer's credit, that their network rarely has problems. :-)
> And dead xterms I can just iconify out of the way. (Try that with
> a hung process on Windows....)
Well you can just kill its process :). That'll get rid of it.
> And then there's Outlook, and its susceptibility to viruses
> (mostly because apparently some people are dumb enough to click on
> love letters :-) ). But that's a separate issue, and I for one
> wasn't suckered. (Of course, enabling display of the suffixes
> in the options of Internet Explorer may have had something to
> do with that.)
The setting makes no difference - extensions in outlook are always displayed
in the little attachments list.
[chomp]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 05:50:19 GMT
On Sat, 20 May 2000 20:22:58 GMT, "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Okay, so I thought :
>"I have a problem with the file access permissions on my linux webserver.
>This, of course, come from the over-simplisitic permissions in linux, always
>thought I'd eventually come to problems with them. Only I had not expected
>so soon. Now, there's a lot of people here saying good of linux, and many
>of them saying the access permissions of linux are sufficient. So surely
>they know how to solve my problem..."
>
>So, here is the problem. I have one solution, which is a five-legged sheep.
>I will not tell it to you so that you start from a clear view of the problem.
>I want to know what would be your solution for the problem.
>
>* The files discussed here are part of a website. The server machine serves
>several websites, so major changes to the configuration of httpd are not
>a good idea. Httpd is running as "nobody/nobody".
>
>* The website uses PHP. The PHP scripts may need to create, next to each
>html file in the website, a sort of "translated" version of it. This file
>is regenerated when target is older or missing.
>
>* Several users have access to parts of the site as authors. They may want to update
>the site, and possibly remove the translated files generated by the server,
>using FTP, and, possibly, telnet. There is no restriction to how the
>user accounts must be : they will only be used for that job.
>
>So there are files that the user must write and read and the server read,
>and files that the server can create and read and the user remove.
>
>Who has got a solution for my problem ?
>
>Thanks in advance for any help.
>
>I still regret Windows NT's ACLs.
>
>Yannick.
>
I'm not sure if this solves all of your problems, but try the
following:
1. Create group (eg wwweditors) and place all the required users in
this group.
2. Assuming the location of the files is say /wwwfiles use the
following:
chgrp wwweditors /wwwfiles
chmod g+s /wwwfiles
The s bit causes all files created in the directory to be in the
wwweditors group.
3. Set the creation umask of all the users so that all files they
create have rw group permissions.
Problems like these highlight how antiquated Unix permissions are.
When you combine this with Samba even more problems arise.
The irony is that many of the advocates in this group do not know
enough to understand this (if their posts are anything to go by).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 06:07:28 GMT
On Sun, 21 May 2000 05:50:19 GMT, Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 May 2000 20:22:58 GMT, "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Okay, so I thought :
>>"I have a problem with the file access permissions on my linux webserver.
>>This, of course, come from the over-simplisitic permissions in linux, always
>>thought I'd eventually come to problems with them. Only I had not expected
>>so soon. Now, there's a lot of people here saying good of linux, and many
>>of them saying the access permissions of linux are sufficient. So surely
>>they know how to solve my problem..."
>>
>>So, here is the problem. I have one solution, which is a five-legged sheep.
>>I will not tell it to you so that you start from a clear view of the problem.
>>I want to know what would be your solution for the problem.
>>
>>* The files discussed here are part of a website. The server machine serves
>>several websites, so major changes to the configuration of httpd are not
>>a good idea. Httpd is running as "nobody/nobody".
>>
>>* The website uses PHP. The PHP scripts may need to create, next to each
>>html file in the website, a sort of "translated" version of it. This file
>>is regenerated when target is older or missing.
>>
>>* Several users have access to parts of the site as authors. They may want to update
>>the site, and possibly remove the translated files generated by the server,
>>using FTP, and, possibly, telnet. There is no restriction to how the
>>user accounts must be : they will only be used for that job.
>>
>>So there are files that the user must write and read and the server read,
>>and files that the server can create and read and the user remove.
>>
>>Who has got a solution for my problem ?
>>
>>Thanks in advance for any help.
>>
>>I still regret Windows NT's ACLs.
>>
>>Yannick.
>>
>
>I'm not sure if this solves all of your problems, but try the
>following:
>
>1. Create group (eg wwweditors) and place all the required users in
>this group.
>
>2. Assuming the location of the files is say /wwwfiles use the
>following:
>
>chgrp wwweditors /wwwfiles
>chmod g+s /wwwfiles
>
>The s bit causes all files created in the directory to be in the
>wwweditors group.
>
>3. Set the creation umask of all the users so that all files they
>create have rw group permissions.
>
>Problems like these highlight how antiquated Unix permissions are.
>When you combine this with Samba even more problems arise.
>
>The irony is that many of the advocates in this group do not know
>enough to understand this (if their posts are anything to go by).
Then educate us.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
