Linux-Advocacy Digest #633, Volume #26 Mon, 22 May 00 08:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Maciej Golebiewski)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Illya Vaes)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (David Goldstein)
Linux fails - again (Full Name)
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (John Sanders)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Sean Akers)
Re: Linux fails - again (Martijn Bruns)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Giuliano Colla)
how to enter a bug report against linux? (steve@howdy)
Re: Linux fails - again (mlw)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Stephen Cornell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Donal K. Fellows)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Maciej Golebiewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Mon, 22 May 2000 11:11:01 +0200
"Anthony W. Youngman" wrote:
> And as a result of SuSE predating RedHat, SuSE rpms are incompatible
> with RedHat ones :-( I wish they'd switch to dpkg, but I bet there would
Since when? I always install RedHat as the base system (SuSe's layout of init
scripts etc. gives me a headache) and then install application rpms from SuSe.
Everything is working seamlessly (mostly).
------------------------------
From: Illya Vaes <[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: Mon, 22 May 2000 12:05:14 +0200
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>>I think it's perfectly legitimate for DOS to have
>>>>undocumented API's if they do nothing but access internal data that 3rd
>>>>party programs should not be accessing.
>>>You mean 3d party programs (to DOS anyway) like Windows???
>>>What the f*ck does Windows have to find in "internal data" unless it's
>>>not really "internal" after all?
>>>Excuses, excuses, excuses...
>>I note that "Erik" has not responded.
>What is there to respond to?
>Windows communicates very closely with DOS and replaces many DOS functions
>(and in Windows 95, nearly all of them). Windows uses DOS data structures
>for process and module creation.
Windows isn't (part of) DOS. So any data it's accessing isn't "internal data".
So (other) 3d party programs should be able to get to it to.
If they shouldn't, neither should Windows.
>Windows 3.0 and 3.1 was not marketed as an add-on for any version of DOS.
>It was marketed as an add-on for MS-DOS or PC-DOS, since those two versions
>had very known structures.
Keep reurgitating the MS partyline. Who knows, someone might even begin to
believe it/you!
--
Illya Vaes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385 Not speaking for anyone but myself
------------------------------
From: David Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 10:06:04 +0200
Pete Goodwin wrote:
<snipped>
Every report that I have read on the speed of W2K vs NT4 is that NT4
is faster. Perhaps that is on identical hardwarem, since W2K consumes
even more resources than NT4 does, it would stand to reason that I need
to do a major hardware upgrade to see the improvements; of course, NT4
would run that much faster, too :)
> Depends what you mean by improvements. Fadout menus (can Linux do that?),
> fadout Windows (now part of the API).
Wow, a major innovation on MS' part. Fadeout menus! What will they
think of next?
> Pete
David Goldstein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Subject: Linux fails - again
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 10:20:31 GMT
We had a brief power outage today. Affected were two Sun Ultras
(Solaris 2.7), an aging HP-UX, a SCO Intel box, two NT BDC's, around
50 NT workstations and one Linux Intel box.
When the power returned two machines failed to come back up without
assistance. One was an NT workstation for which the BIOS reported a
failed hard disk. The drive was making audible noises and we assumed
the boot sector of the disk had failed sometime during the last few
months since the user could not remember the last time her NT box had
been re-booted.
This is actually the second time we've observed the boot sector of a
hard disk drive to fail during a single uptime of an NT machine. This
is because our users never re-boot their NT boxes. NT has uptimes
longer than the life of some hard disk drives :-)
The other machine to fail to come up was, of course, the Linux box.
Since the NFS server part of Mandrake is broken we used it as an NFS
client to mount the file system of the Ultra with the DAT drive. We
tar up the user's files from the Mandrake box to the NFS system. They
are later transferred to tape.
This wastes valuable (and expensive) disk space on the Ultra but, hey,
Linux is free - NOT!!!
Anyway the Mandrake box paused while it waited for the Ultra to start
its NFS server daemon. After about 10 minutes we realised it was not
going to continue with the boot sequence. We hit the reset button to
put the pile of crap out of its misery. It then came up OK since the
Ultra was at that stage fully functional.
It appears as though the client side of Mandrake NFS is also broken.
The odd thing is that the SCO box also NFS mounts a file system from
the Ultra. It paused as well. However it continued on it's merry way
once the Ultra got going.
It appears as though a SCO box that is pushing 10 years old is more
reliable than the latest Linux offering.
The Ultra with the tape drive also NFS mounts a file system from the
second Ultra (for backup purposes). It came up without any problems.
The two NT BDC's did not miss a beat. The only evidence of the power
outage was an entry in the event log indicating the last system
shutdown was unexpected.
Linux - you get what you pay for.
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 05:24:04 -0500
Gary Connors wrote:
>
> in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ray at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote on 5/14/00 2:42 PM:
>
> > On Sun, 14 May 2000 05:23:55 -0400, Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
>
> Why should I have to install several desktops in LInux to find one that
> works. Good lord man, you realize how stupid that sounds. "Gnome blows,
> you think, well look for a different interface" Well, I dont have that sort
> of time, I have work to do. The OS should work out of the box and there is
> not a single Linux distrib out today that is as complete for home use as
> MacOS or Windows. Stability be damned, I have work to get done.
>
Linux is not a Mac OS, and it's not a Mac OS replacement. If you don't
have a real need for a Unix system, then don't bother with Linux. You
can find this out by just using the console for a week. If you can't
get anything done, then Linux is not for you. Clicking on icons won't
help you.
Likewise, if you find that you don't want to configure your machine the
way you would like it, but would rather take it the way Bill (or Apple)
gives it, then Linux is not for you.
OSes are designed with an end user in mind. Windows was designed for
those who need an application toaster. Unix was designed for tool
users.
It's OK. There is no requirement to use Linux.
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: Sean Akers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 11:54:29 +0100
On Sun, 21 May 2000 19:52:10 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>Depends what you mean by improvements. Fadout menus (can Linux do that?),
>fadout Windows (now part of the API).
>
>Pete
Fade in/out and/or scrollup/down menus are possibly the most
irritating user interface features I've ever come across. Thankfully,
Microsoft did manage to provide the facility to turn the bloody things
off.
The other new 'feaure' of the UI, namely the helpful abbreviation of
menus with the helpful facility of automatically putting the menu item
you actually want to click on in the hidden part so you have to move
to the little scroll arrows to get to it is totally top. I also love
the wait involved for it to get its act together to actually display
the stuff its hidden for you. Thankfully, this also is a feaure you
can switch off. (Except in IE5 of course).
2 years to improve the user interface with these helpful and
thankfully switch offable features was obviously time well spent.
Oh and I mustn't forget the shadow on the mouse pointer. Fantastic
that is.
Sean.
------------------------------
From: Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux fails - again
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:06:42 +0200
Full Name schreef:
>
> We had a brief power outage today. Affected were two Sun Ultras
> (Solaris 2.7), an aging HP-UX, a SCO Intel box, two NT BDC's, around
> 50 NT workstations and one Linux Intel box.
>
> When the power returned two machines failed to come back up without
> assistance. One was an NT workstation for which the BIOS reported a
> failed hard disk. The drive was making audible noises and we assumed
> the boot sector of the disk had failed sometime during the last few
> months since the user could not remember the last time her NT box had
> been re-booted.
>
> This is actually the second time we've observed the boot sector of a
> hard disk drive to fail during a single uptime of an NT machine. This
> is because our users never re-boot their NT boxes. NT has uptimes
> longer than the life of some hard disk drives :-)
>
> The other machine to fail to come up was, of course, the Linux box.
>
> Since the NFS server part of Mandrake is broken we used it as an NFS
> client to mount the file system of the Ultra with the DAT drive. We
> tar up the user's files from the Mandrake box to the NFS system. They
> are later transferred to tape.
>
> This wastes valuable (and expensive) disk space on the Ultra but, hey,
> Linux is free - NOT!!!
>
> Anyway the Mandrake box paused while it waited for the Ultra to start
> its NFS server daemon. After about 10 minutes we realised it was not
> going to continue with the boot sequence. We hit the reset button to
> put the pile of crap out of its misery. It then came up OK since the
> Ultra was at that stage fully functional.
>
> It appears as though the client side of Mandrake NFS is also broken.
>
> The odd thing is that the SCO box also NFS mounts a file system from
> the Ultra. It paused as well. However it continued on it's merry way
> once the Ultra got going.
>
> It appears as though a SCO box that is pushing 10 years old is more
> reliable than the latest Linux offering.
>
> The Ultra with the tape drive also NFS mounts a file system from the
> second Ultra (for backup purposes). It came up without any problems.
>
> The two NT BDC's did not miss a beat. The only evidence of the power
> outage was an entry in the event log indicating the last system
> shutdown was unexpected.
>
> Linux - you get what you pay for.
Are you done? Great!
Now: If you don't LIKE Linux, don't USE Linux! Don't bother US
with your crap! No Linux-newbies look at this NG anyway, so
Microsoft-FUD won't do anything here either!
Most of the NFS bugs/issues have already been cleared in the past
six months. Your stories are mostly annoying re-runs, like
Flipper and Ivanhoe on TV.
Scram, TROLL!
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:22:50 +0200
Roger wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 May 2000 03:30:45 +0200, someone claiming to be Giuliano
> Colla wrote:
>
> >There is just one difficulty: we happen to have uninstalled Office 97 because it was
> >too buggy to be used (our secretary had become almost hysteric).
>
> Bugs such as ... ?
Crashing daily. What's shown on the screen doesn't show on
print. You save a document and next session you can't open
it (either hangs or shows some fancy error dialog). Each
time Sysadmin intervention, fruitless attempts, recovery
with simple text editors, importing text only, etc. etc.
Sending a letter to a customer becomes more costly than
sending him a Christmas present.
For further information please refer to old F-Prot
documentation, which explains how anti virus program may
hang while scanning Word documents due to MS OLE bugs. They
solved the problem just rewriting what they needed. We can't
afford that.
>
> >Reinstalling the
> >previous Office was quite hard because of the usual registry mess of Microsoft.
>
> You * did * uninstall O97 first, right?
Of course my friend, to discover that a number of registry
entries had been left behind, which apparently affected
previous Word. Had to use Norton uninstaller, carefully
check all proposed deletions (not all were right of course).
Go two or three times through: install Office 4.3, test,
uninstall, run Norton, until we got rid of all the stuff and
Office 4.3 was running. Again more costly than purchasing a
different Office program.
>
> >Documents produced with Word 97 where completely unreadable with Word 96.
>
> Nope.
>
>
>http://officeupdate.microsoft.com/downloadDetails/wd97cnv.htm?s=/downloadCatalog/dldWord.asp
>
> Available since September 1998.
If a conversion program must be used then documents ARE
incompatible. We choose NOT to use MS conversion program,
being made cautious by experience (see above).
--
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Via del Fonditore 3/E
Bologna (Zona Industriale Roveri)
Tel. 051 53.46.92 - 0335 610.43.35
Fax 051 53.49.89
------------------------------
From: steve@howdy
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 22 May 2000 03:26:53 -0700
any one can give a link or have information on how can one
enter a bug report if they find a problem in the linux OS?
Is there an official site setup so one can do that? if not,
how does one report a bug in linux? is it distro specific?
I see rhat have a bug report page
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/
But if one has a bug in kernel, is that the place to
report it? btw, I did not see such a thing on Suse web site.
looking at http://www.kernel.org I did not see a place
to report a bug.
I think there should be one place to report bugs for linux. The
way it is now seem confusing. How do people enter bug reports
against other OS's such as windows? (not a window user so I do
not know).
regards,
steve
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux fails - again
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 07:27:20 -0400
Full Name wrote:
[long ridiculous story snipped]
First of all the story you tell indicates one thing, you must have put
an nfs drive in fstab. So when the Linux box was booting, it was looking
for the nfs server. (Which, by your own account, was not operational at
the time) The one line that makes this clear is: "It then came up OK
since the Ultra was at that stage fully functional."
When you put an entry in fstab, and direct that it should be mounted as
a local file system, the machine is configured to treat that file system
as critical and not boot without it. Booting without it would have be an
error. Linux treated the situation EXACTLY as you had configured it too.
If you want to treat the file system as "mount on demand" take a look at
autofs.
--
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] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 22 May 2000 11:25:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Owen Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SCREW THE BUSINESS WORLD! buy a mac, head off to the mountains and write
> haikus!!!
Why bother getting a Mac? If you're serious about screwing the
business world, just head off to the mountains and write haikus by
scratching on a bit of rock. Compound this by talking only in
riddles and refusing to cut your hair (going otherwise naked is
probably not advisable initially) and you should be able to pass
for a major religious figure within a decade.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 22 May 2000 11:39:21 GMT
In article <8g7s9g$qgc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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.
The real problem is deeper, and stems from the fact that many people
don't understand trust, security, or file extensions. None of which
would matter so much if the default settings were more aggressively
secure; it isn't as if MS is unable to provide support for this (at
least for their own software.)
IOW, it *is* MS's fault since they darned well *should* have known
there was a problem and done something about it. It isn't like nobody
warned them either...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: 22 May 2000 12:45:52 +0100
(attributions re-ordered so that they make sense)
> On Sat, 20 May 2000 03:32:53 +0000, "Colin R. Day"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Oh, so what version of Windows is now shipping with TeX/LATeX,
> >emacs, gcc,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> And who in their right mind needs such stuff?
Er, scientists such as myself who want to do work.
I'm the only Linux user in my group - the others use NT and Solaris.
One thing we all have in common is that we use Latex, emacs, and
C-compilers.
> >> Try Linux and see for yourself....
I came, I saw, I was conquered.
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Mon, 22 May 2000 06:56:57 -0500
Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Windows communicates very closely with DOS and replaces many DOS
functions
> >(and in Windows 95, nearly all of them). Windows uses DOS data
structures
> >for process and module creation.
>
> Windows isn't (part of) DOS. So any data it's accessing isn't "internal
data".
> So (other) 3d party programs should be able to get to it to.
> If they shouldn't, neither should Windows.
That's not the issue here. The issue is that Windows *DOES* communicate
very closely with DOS, and expects certain things to be certain ways.
Microsoft has no control over any other version of DOS, so it can't
guarantee that Windows will run correctly with a non-MS or IBM version of
it.
> >Windows 3.0 and 3.1 was not marketed as an add-on for any version of DOS.
> >It was marketed as an add-on for MS-DOS or PC-DOS, since those two
versions
> >had very known structures.
>
> Keep reurgitating the MS partyline. Who knows, someone might even begin to
> believe it/you!
So, you're suggesting that Windows WAS marketed as an add-on for other
DOS's?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 22 May 2000 11:49:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am a zealot and damn proud of it SSE!
Why does the gene pool always seem to end up with floaters in it?
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 22 May 2000 11:51:52 GMT
In article <8g28ld$96h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Winning an argument in these forums is easy. Simply think
> rationally, and without heavy bias. If I can learn this, anyone
> can.
What about those of us that think rationally with a heavy bias towards
cynicism and disgust?
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
