Linux-Advocacy Digest #626, Volume #26 Sun, 21 May 00 09:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Pete Goodwin)
Re: a great job (Andy Newman)
Re: Time to prove it's not just words (Giuliano Colla)
Hotmail still using FreeBSD & Solaris? (Donn Miller)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX ("Marc Schlensog")
Re: Hotmail still using FreeBSD & Solaris? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: An honest attempt (Jens =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pr=FCfer?=)
Re: Challenged Todd Returns (Was: Here is the solution (tinman)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (mlw)
Re: 4 year old anecdotal evidence!! ("Otto")
Re: Hotmail still using FreeBSD & Solaris? (Mig Mig)
Re: a great job (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 10:07:53 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mlw) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Windows 98'SE' does have some good features. It ought too, it costs
>enough. Here are some things that one should consider were they
>interested in reevaluating their OS strategy.
One of its best features is that everything supports it as its the most
popular OS. I just tried LINUX and it couldn't drive my EPSON 640 printer
and my PCI sound card (ESS Maestro 2E).
>(a) Stability
>In the stability arena, Windows NT, 98SE, and 2K can't hold a candle to
>Linux. Linux is vastly more reliable.
>From my own experience, I've seen NT and LINUX run about the same length of
time.
>(b) Overall cost and exposure.
>As much as people like to say cost is not an issue, the reality is that
>it is. Also, one should note that the BSA can't prosecute your company
>for using Linux. BTW one of the biggest participants of the BSA is
>Microsoft.
Cost is not an issue. If it cost you nothing for it, what did you expect?
>(c) Longevity of investment
>Microsoft changes standards and APIs on a regular basis. As any
>developer will tell you, just keeping up with the latest MS API change
>is a problem. API's like DirectDraw, COM, OLE, and WinG are poorly
>designed and badly implemented, often requiring huge changes after
>publication, driving development cost up.
DirectDraw I can understand, but COM is not an API. OLE stunk from the
first. DirectSound works pretty well. WinG is obsolete. As for massive
changes, only DirectDraw is the one that's changed a lot.
>(d) Ability to perform a function
>If a particular function is only available on Windows, then you are
>stuck, however, if you can find applications to do it on Linux (and this
>is becoming easier), in the long run the Linux solution will often work
>similarly for a longer period of time.
Or the inability to do something - my printer and my sound card. On a P166
system, it couldn't recognise an ISA SoundBlaster card and an ISA SCSI
card. Now on my PII 400MHz it can't recognise the printer or the sound
card.
>(e) Ability to protect itself
>Windows is a joke when it comes to protecting itself. Using the desktop,
>it will ask you if you want to overwrite a file, but outlook will simply
>run a virus (that will wipe out every file on your system) if you click
>on it. Any person can log into your system, without a password, and do
>anything they want to your machine. With Linux you can set it up such
>that they would need a password or a screwdriver and alternate boot disk
>to see what is on your system.
I don't use Outlook or IE, so I'm not affected by those kind of viruses. As
for protection, since I'm the only person that uses it, then its protected.
Linux is the same if you have access to the console (yes I know it will
take a bit longer!).
Pete
------------------------------
From: Andy Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: a great job
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 10:41:25 +1000
On Fri, 19 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> In the early days, only hobbyists owned tandy computers.
In the early days only hobbyists owner computers, full stop.
>One could say that Apple and Tandy brought computers to the layman, but not
>"the masses". Since that would indicate a ubiquitiousness that neither
>Apple or Tandy was able to pull off.
Apple attempted it, or were at least on the right path. The early Apple ][
ads used to show a happy family around the computer in the TV room
(or similar, its been a while since I saw one). But, yes, it was the IBM
name that legitimized things.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 12:33:59 +0200
Damien wrote:
>
> On Sun, 21 May 2000 05:50:19 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | On Sat, 20 May 2000 20:22:58 GMT, "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> | wrote:
>
> [snip problem]
>
> | I'm not sure if this solves all of your problems, but try the
> | following:
> |
[snip solution]
> |
> | Problems like these highlight how antiquated Unix permissions are.
>
> I don't follow. You just laid out a 3 step solution for the problem
> by using Unix file permissions. How does this highlight "how
> antiquated Unix permissions are"?
>
Maybe he was just trying being sarcastic. Sometime sarcasm is
successful, sometimes fail.
> | When you combine this with Samba even more problems arise.
>
> How so?
>
Same as above. Or maybe he hoped that other readers would skip solution
and just read conclusions.
P.S. My spell checker suggests that I spell you Daemon. Are you still
running? [atrocious pun]
========
Ing. Giuliano Colla
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Hotmail still using FreeBSD & Solaris?
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 May 2000 06:38:40 -0400
Is Hotmail still using FreeBSD and Solaris? I know NT 4.0 is being
used in there someplace, but I don't know where. People who know me
in here know that I love FreeBSD. Some people hate me because I am
always trumpeting about how great FreeBSD is in COLA. Well, I love
Linux also, because it is a great open source operating system. But,
FreeBSD will always be my first love.
Although I love Linux "second best", it is my opionion that Linux is
many times better than NT. Let's face it -- NT 4.0 is a joke compared
to Linux. Linux is a great proof that Open Source is much better than
the crappy development method that Microsoft is using. Bugs are found
faster, and fixes can be distributed much faster using the open source
OS model.
I think Microsoft should leave Hotmail as is. If something isn't
broken, why fix it? Of course, I suppose MS would be in a good
position if they could use Windows 2000 for the entire Hotmail
operation. But, they would risk having some potential serious
problems just to make Win 2000 look good.
The hell with it. Microsoft has shown that they have good taste by
using FreeBSD. They know how good and how stable it is. Bill
probably runs FreeBSD at home. I'll bet Bill is home right now as I'm
typing this cvsup'ing some fixes for his 4.0-stable box right now.
Congratulations, Microsoft, on realizing that FreeBSD is a good OS.
If nothing else, this just proves that each operating system has its
own strengths and weaknesses. For example, FreeBSD is good for
server/network type applications. Come to think of it, FreeBSD, like
Linux, does everything well; it's just that developers love
concentrating all their time writing games and other software for
Windows, because that's where the money is. FreeBSD and Linux are
also good at multimedia apps, and indeed, my FreeBSD box (P166) plays
mp3's much more solidly and glitch free than an equivalent Windows 98
box with an AMD 450. If FreeBSD or Linux had more multimedia apps
than Windows (NT or 98), there's no doubt in my mind that these two
platforms would kick NT's ass in the use of multimedia.
Windows NT is good for Hotmail engineers to play games on while their
FreeBSD and Solaris servers are down. See, Windows NT really DOES
co-habitate nicely with other operating systems! As long as Hotmail
is using FreeBSD in there someplace, I will continue to use my hotmail
account.
Windows 2000 must be a pretty nice platform to play games and listen
to MP3's on! haha! Let's face it, dudes, Edwards is in here all of
the time bragging about how good NT is for graphics (3D) work. This
is the same guy that, 2 years ago, was Mr. Linux. Now, he's
Mr. Windows NT. The guy really doesn't know WHAT he wants... who
knows what operating system he'll be a fan of a year from now?
Me, I've loved FreeBSD and Linux ever since I've tried them, and I
haven't wavered since. Microsoft is making a great effort by putting
out Windows 2000. But, the Linux 2.4 kernel will kick Windows 2000
right in the ass. I'm not like Stephen S. Edwards, who switches
favorite operating systems every 2 years.
Let's face it -- if there were better 3D graphics software packages
out there for Linux, Linux would be kicking Windows NT in the ass
right about now.
Long live FreeBSD and Linux! Together, we both kick Microsoft right
in the ass! Yes, by recompiling your kernel, you can apply security
fixes to your FreeBSD or Linux system faster or more efficiently than
MS can get NT service packs out there.
Keep Hotmail running FreeBSD, Microsoft, and take notes on how a REAL
operating system does it! Keep those NT servers running so the
hotmail administrators can play games while the unix servers are down!
- Donn
P.S. Chad Myers is a weenie! Oh, and Stephen Edwards, come back over
to where the light is -- come back to FreeBSD and Linux! Let Chad
Myers play games on his wittle Windows 2000 'puter. Oh, and Boris is
a jackoff. I'm out.
------------------------------
From: "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 12:33:18 +0200
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
[snippage]
> Lets look at some numbers:
>
> $89.00 Windows 98.
> $29.00 RedHat Official packages (w/Star Office).
>
> $0.00 Windows 98SE Update
> $0.00 RedHat 6.2 download
>
> $149.00 Windows 2K
> $0.00 (no need to upgrade for Linux)
>
> $150.00 Extra RAM for Win2k
> $250.00 Extra disk space required for Win2k
>
> $???.?? MS Office and applications to run under Windows.
>
>
> Windows:$638 + cost of MS office and applications
> Linux: 29.00
Given, you have 5 Computers:
Windows: $638 * 5 = 3190 + 5 * (MSO +apps)
Linux: $29.00 (plus a couple of CD-Rs, if you prefer)
>
> My guess is you have a lot more invested into Windows than you say.
Probably...
Marc
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hotmail still using FreeBSD & Solaris?
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 06:08:37 -0500
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Is Hotmail still using FreeBSD and Solaris?
...
> I think Microsoft should leave Hotmail as is. If something isn't
> broken, why fix it?
I'm curious. If you truly believe this, why do you have to keep asking if
it's "still" not using NT?
> Of course, I suppose MS would be in a good
> position if they could use Windows 2000 for the entire Hotmail
> operation. But, they would risk having some potential serious
> problems just to make Win 2000 look good.
Exchange Server 2000 is still in beta. Assuming MS wanted to move Hotmail
to W2k, they would likely wait for Exchange Server to be finalized. I'm not
saying they will, only saying that all the pieces aren't there yet.
> The hell with it. Microsoft has shown that they have good taste by
> using FreeBSD. They know how good and how stable it is. Bill
> probably runs FreeBSD at home. I'll bet Bill is home right now as I'm
> typing this cvsup'ing some fixes for his 4.0-stable box right now.
Actually, Bill's house runs on many different NT servers (at least that's
what the press has reported).
> Keep Hotmail running FreeBSD, Microsoft, and take notes on how a REAL
> operating system does it! Keep those NT servers running so the
> hotmail administrators can play games while the unix servers are down!
Why would the unix servers be down, and why would the administrators be
playing games if they were down?
Are you drunk?
> P.S. Chad Myers is a weenie! Oh, and Stephen Edwards, come back over
> to where the light is -- come back to FreeBSD and Linux! Let Chad
> Myers play games on his wittle Windows 2000 'puter. Oh, and Boris is
> a jackoff. I'm out.
Must be.
------------------------------
From: Jens =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pr=FCfer?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An honest attempt
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 03:52:34 +0200
Raymond Swaim wrote:
>
> I agree that switching from Windows to Linux can be a huge step --
> especially
I wish you would switch newsreaders to produce readable messages. Why on
earth does Outlook sprinkle all those stupid line feeds?
[...]
> why buy a Linux distribution from a company in Canada, or a Linux
> distribution that
> only offers support via *email??* I'd recommend that you try Red Hat
> Linux -- not
> because it's a better distribution than another, but because you get free
> tech support
> by *TELEPHONE.* And it's an 800-number, so the call is free too. Think
> about it:
> that's something you'd do in the Windows world. Buy from someone who offers
> tech support by telephone, so why treat Linux any differently?
Actually, does M$ still offer support via telephone? I thought they gave
up on that (at least over here in good old Europe ...)
I don't agree on RedHat though. They start to behave like M$ these days,
charging for access to their ftp site etc. If you want plenty of
software packages and documentation, get SuSE Linux, if you want
terribly easy installation, get Corel Linux. If you are very experienced
user, get it directly from the web. Of course you can allways choose one
of the many other distributions out there. That is the nice thing about
Linux -- lots of free choice!
PS
> > P.P.S. I am not stupid, nor lazy... don't flame me for that. I am a
> > physicist who has better things to do than chase lost causes (not that
> > Windows is not a lost cause... just the better alternative for me here.)
A physicist! I wonder what software you used to write your thesis ...
here in Germany LaTeX is allmost mandatory :-)
--
WYSIWYG is a step backwards. Human labor is used to do that which the
computer
can do better.
Andrew S. Tanenbaum
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Challenged Todd Returns (Was: Here is the solution
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 08:00:53 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Brent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8frjpm$vsq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Todd"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> {snip}
>
>
> > Finally, my network access at home is great. I've got a DSL connection
> > and a cable connection. My bandwidth to the 'real' internet (not the
> > intranet) is a lot better than from HP using a proxy server.
> >
> > Regards, Todd
> >
>
> Todd,
>
> Why DSL and cable. Cable blows DSL from the water.
>
Yeah, until your neighbors get it too...('
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 08:34:55 -0400
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote in message ...
> >> Also reported goals were to eliminate the
> >> problem of blue screening as well as
> >> maintain performance levels in multitasking.
> >
> >No. It's impossible to eliminate such things, just like it's impossible to
> >eliminate kernel panics from Linux. If you could eliminate them, they
> >wouldn't need to be there.
>
> At this point, I don't know what happens to Linux when a
> driver fails, but I know that NetBSD automatically tosses
> the system into an interactive debugger if a faulty kernel
> driver throws the system into a panic (my NetBSD v1.4.1
> install did this with my Yamaha OPL3SA sound system; it's
> been fixed in v1.4.2).
>
> If it never happens, then the instructions to do so wouldn't
> be in there, as you already stated.
>
> Frankly, I wouldn't mind WindowsNT doing something similar.
> It would make life a tad easier for WindowsNT sysadmins who
> know how to use such things.
This is entirly possible. You need to setup a monitoring box running NT
or 98, and run the kernel debugger on all your NT systems. When a server
crashes, the kernel debugger console on the monitoring machine will wake
up and show you where it broke.
I'm not sure if there is a big performance hit using kdb with a
non-debugging kernel, but you can do it. Alternately, you can prbably
use SoftICE and run that using a single machine.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >> And at the same time have provided the public
> >> with no improvements to the desktop.
> >
> >More absolutes? All it takes is *ONE* improvement to prove you wrong, and
> I
> >can name several.
> >
> >Personalized Menus
>
> >Unified All User/Specific User settings
> >Integrated Index Engine into search system.
> >Numerous small enhancements, like settings to make the control panel,
> >printers, etc. a cascading menu
> >The ability to customize the start menu. You can turn on and off things
> >like Favorites, whether to scroll or tile the menu, etc..
> >
> >So, are you still going to say there are *NO* improvements?
>
> I think Charlie is going to say absolutely nothing until
> he either grows up, or suddenly gets a little more tissue
> mass in his brain.
>
> >> How could it be possible that the Team at
> >> Microsoft spend 2 years more than estimated
> >> and come up with a uni-os which doesn't
> >> meet it's design goals?
> >
> >uni-os? It's most certainly a multiprocessor OS. It's also got tons of
> >backend features.
>
> I'll say. Windows2000 DataCenter Server can access up to 64GB of
> RAM, and 16 processors. Throw clustering in there, and you have
> a very powerful and cost-effective high-end solution. Not bad at
> all for a boxed OS.
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| 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
--
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: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 12:47:39 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8g7kds$17s7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: In article <97FV4.88864$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >
: >: No. This is an untrue statement.
: >
: >Never mind the fact if Linux can't contact the DNS server at
: >bootup time, then it takes 4-5 minutes to time out the search for the DNS
: >server.
:
: This only happens if it doesn't know it's own name. Put all the
: names it has to resolve at bootup in /etc/hosts along with the
: matching addresses (usually just your own). Most installs
: ask for this and do it for your. I prefer to start a named
: at bootup configured as primary for my local net, but that
: is to take care of the other machines when the internet link is
: down.
The laptop does know it's own name and it only happens when the DNS server
isn't available. The problem is that the laptop is moved between networks
quite frequently and the Internet access is through the NIC. Since the
networks don't support DHCP, the changes need to be made manually. Once it's
done then Linux is booting just fine. This isn't much different from NT,
with the exception of the DNS search time out. One interesting note, if I
remove the DNS server addresses from the configuration on the Linux box,
then it boots just fine. Regardless of which network it's connected to, or
just off-line.
:
: >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.
:
: 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.
If it is not coincidence, then that would make the *.0 and *.1 version a
buggy vaporware :)
Otto
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hotmail still using FreeBSD & Solaris?
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 14:52:35 +0200
> - Donn
>
> P.S. Chad Myers is a weenie! Oh, and Stephen Edwards, come back over
> to where the light is -- come back to FreeBSD and Linux! Let Chad
> Myers play games on his wittle Windows 2000 'puter. Oh, and Boris is
> a jackoff. I'm out.
Heheheheeh.. ill bet they will bite ;-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: a great job
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 13:08:59 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Andy Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sun, 21 May 2000 10:41:25 +1000 <958869860.1578414029@bebop>:
>On Fri, 19 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> In the early days, only hobbyists owned tandy computers.
>
>In the early days only hobbyists owner computers, full stop.
You forgot about the other owners: government and commercial
installations. (For example, ENIAC wasn't owned by a hobbyist! :-) )
Of course, a lot of hobbyists tinkered with microcomputers
in those days -- Tandy among them.
>
>>One could say that Apple and Tandy brought computers to the layman, but not
>>"the masses". Since that would indicate a ubiquitiousness that neither
>>Apple or Tandy was able to pull off.
>
>Apple attempted it, or were at least on the right path. The early Apple ][
>ads used to show a happy family around the computer in the TV room
>(or similar, its been a while since I saw one). But, yes, it was the IBM
>name that legitimized things.
Sounds about right.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
