Linux-Advocacy Digest #637, Volume #26 Mon, 22 May 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Mark Robinson")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Steve)
Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("David D. Huff Jr.")
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (George Russell)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (JEDIDIAH)
who is linux really hurting the most ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: Linux fails - again (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux fails - again (Mig Mig)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (josco)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bill Altenberger)
Re: Linux fails - again (Mig Mig)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (josco)
Re: Linux fails - again (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mark Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 16:11:42 GMT
In article <lcaW4.2578$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> Windows 2000 has much fewer limitations and has commercial products
> capable of up to 32 processors. I imagine that 64 bit NT will be able
> to scale even further.
>
Sure.... What will it scale to? The x86 is 32bit so a 64bit OS won't be
worth a damn. The Alpha? Not any more Compaq pulled the plug on that.
Itanium? Not due until 2002 and even then Linux is almost ready now.
Mark
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 11:35:31 -0500
Mark Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:2%cW4.37566$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <lcaW4.2578$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Windows 2000 has much fewer limitations and has commercial products
> > capable of up to 32 processors. I imagine that 64 bit NT will be able
> > to scale even further.
> >
> Sure.... What will it scale to? The x86 is 32bit so a 64bit OS won't be
> worth a damn. The Alpha? Not any more Compaq pulled the plug on that.
> Itanium? Not due until 2002 and even then Linux is almost ready now.
Actually, Itanium is due at the end of this year (though it will likely be
early next).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 22 May 2000 17:49:45 GMT
On 22 May 2000 03:26:53 -0700, steve@howdy wrote:
>
>any one can give a link or have information on how can one
>enter a bug report if they find a problem in the linux OS?
>
>Is there an official site setup so one can do that? if not,
>how does one report a bug in linux? is it distro specific?
>I see rhat have a bug report page
>
>http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/
>
>But if one has a bug in kernel, is that the place to
>report it? btw, I did not see such a thing on Suse web site.
>
>looking at http://www.kernel.org I did not see a place
>to report a bug.
>From the Meta-FAQ dated February 6, 2000
Note that at this time, the kernel developers are not answering bug
requests for earlier kernels, but instead are concentrating on
developing 2.3.x version kernels and maintaining 2.2.x version
kernels.
--
Cheers
Steve email mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee 0 pps.
web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/
or http://start.at/zero-pps
4:48pm up 5 days, 53 min, 3 users, load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00
------------------------------
From: "David D. Huff Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 16:59:56 GMT
Instead of taking a beating across the board. Might M$ stand a better
chance of survival if it breaks up voluntarily then some part of the
business could survive. The last couple of days they've been taking
quite a beating in the stock market. Along with a lot of peoples'
retirement money. Shouldn't the stockholders demand that they bite the
bullet now and salvage what they can?
They should split on their own terms, not what the government dictates.
Thus ensuring themselves their best chance for survival. Three parts may
be better than two, diversifying their cumulative losses.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Russell)
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:47:40 GMT
On Sun, 21 May 2000 21:34:03 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 May 2000 22:10:02 +0100, Paul Voller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>JEDIDIAH sent an email on Sun, 21 May 2000 like this:
>>
>>> >In America I guess. Here in the UK we still have local charges for
>>> >telephone calls (nothing is free yet) and a max. of 56K modems. ADSL and
>>> >Cable modems aren't here yet.
>>>
>>> That still leaves the cheap CD burners and $1 a pop blanks.
>>
>>Sure, but CD burners are still quite expensive. If, like me, you are a
>
> $100 isn't 'quite expensive'. That's about as much as you would
simple answer - CD Burners are not $100 dollars.... in the UK.
VAT + inflated prices.... �120 + VAT at 17.5%
>> http://www.linuxemporium.co.uk/
>>
>>I found it very useful and the quality of service is good too.
>[deletia]
>
> Typically, shipping on 'cheap CDs' ends up being more than
> the price of the CD's themselves. It's a shame more Linux
> mags don't have coverdisks...
PCPlus had Mandrake 7 recently - they've also had SuSE 5.2, Redhat 5.2, Caldera
2.4 (on DvD) and Corel 1.0
Try www.cheeplinux.com , they had an offer for CDs for PCPLUS readers - pay
�2.99 p&p and the CD was free {SuSe, Slackware, Redhat, Mandrake, Debian,
FreeBSD 4}
George Russell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:55:18 GMT
On Mon, 22 May 2000 17:47:40 GMT, George Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Sun, 21 May 2000 21:34:03 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Sun, 21 May 2000 22:10:02 +0100, Paul Voller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>JEDIDIAH sent an email on Sun, 21 May 2000 like this:
>>>
>>>> >In America I guess. Here in the UK we still have local charges for
>>>> >telephone calls (nothing is free yet) and a max. of 56K modems. ADSL and
>>>> >Cable modems aren't here yet.
>>>>
>>>> That still leaves the cheap CD burners and $1 a pop blanks.
>>>
>>>Sure, but CD burners are still quite expensive. If, like me, you are a
>>
>> $100 isn't 'quite expensive'. That's about as much as you would
>
>simple answer - CD Burners are not $100 dollars.... in the UK.
>VAT + inflated prices.... �120 + VAT at 17.5%
Then don't buy locally.
[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: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: who is linux really hurting the most
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:56:55 +0200
now even the netcraft guys are saying it. linux is hurting commercial unix
vendors more than microsoft.
from http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
"Notable Sites
On May 9th w3.org introduced Linux into its load balancing pool, such that
around a quarter of requests are now served from Linux. This is the first
time that we have noticed the web standards controlling organisation running
anything other than Solaris. While Microsoft is nearly always the target of
the Linux community's rhetoric, in practice it seems that Sun is being posed
the more difficult operational problems competing with the price/performance
and convenience of the Linux platform. Many commentators seem to sometimes
forget that Linus started developing the operating system because he
couldn't afford a Sun.
"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux fails - again
Date: 22 May 2000 13:30:05 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The other machine to fail to come up was, of course, the Linux box.
Ummm, "of course"? What does that mean?
>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.
Odd that you don't just add the NFS patches, or run the VALinux
kernel that includes them, or use amanda, or pipe the tar
copies over rsh/ssh.
>This wastes valuable (and expensive) disk space on the Ultra but, hey,
>Linux is free - NOT!!!
It was your choice to set it up that way... You could also
move the DAT to the Linux box.
>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.
That's the way NFS is supposed to work. If nothing in the subsequent
boot sequence relies on the mount being up, add 'bg' to the
options so it will keep trying in the background. If you prefer
to let it time out and fail, use 'soft'.
>Linux - you get what you pay for.
You get exactly what you set up. You can't blame anyone else when
it is done wrong, but why do it wrong in the first place?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux fails - again
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:44:32 +0200
Peter Espen wrote:
>
> You are obviously a Microsoft stock holder who is afraid to use your
> real name.
He's real name is David Smyth and he's a student living in Australia. He
trys to give the impression that he works/spends time at some company but
fails miserably.
> You also obviously have a real lame network setup evidenced
> by the fact that you are still using a SCO systems. Also you are
> obviously
> some sort of MBA type person who has been drafted into running computers
> cause you don't seem to think it's important to give us the details on
> what
> versions you are running and how you've setup your NFS clienting.
>
> I recommend a good book for you titled: Computers for Dummies
Too advanced!
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:41:26 -0500
Or they could just tough out this DOJ PR railroad case and win with
real justice in the appealate courts and forget about this whole thing
and watch their stock rise higher than before this whole BS?
The DOJ wants/needs a victory over big-business. They've been marginally
successful with big-tobacco and with big-firearms.
They need a BIG victory. MS was an easy target as there is no real
precedence set in software industry trials or dealing with intellectual
property and rights of innovation.
So, they set up a talking head half-dead judge that will do whatever they
say and railroad the whole trial and get their win. Yeah! Liberals win
another battle over all those mean capitalist pig-dogs! Elect Al Gore!
He'll punish all those mean big businesses! First software, next guns and
tobacco!
Appealate courts usually don't play politics and get down to law and justice,
which is why MS is holding out for the appeal, because they know they'll win.
-Chad
"David D. Huff Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Instead of taking a beating across the board. Might M$ stand a better
> chance of survival if it breaks up voluntarily then some part of the
> business could survive. The last couple of days they've been taking
> quite a beating in the stock market. Along with a lot of peoples'
> retirement money. Shouldn't the stockholders demand that they bite the
> bullet now and salvage what they can?
> They should split on their own terms, not what the government dictates.
> Thus ensuring themselves their best chance for survival. Three parts may
> be better than two, diversifying their cumulative losses.
>
------------------------------
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: Mon, 22 May 2000 11:49:54 -0700
On Mon, 22 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It is if you mean to defend MS by making blanket statements about their
> having
> > every right to shield off "internal data" from 3d party programs.
> > If some programs _do_ have some business in that data, then your whole
> > reasoning of shielding off and "private internal data" goes out the
> Window.
>
> DOS and Windows are OS's. They're not applications.
>
> Windows cannot run without DOS, thus Windows and DOS are joined.
Windows was an environment - other 3rd parties had the opportunity to add
their own environments on DOS in competition with MS windows.
At a later date MS turned Windows into an OS...and Caldera sued them. DR
DOS was an alternative technoology to MS DOS for running windows
4.0/Win95.
------------------------------
From: Bill Altenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 13:47:25 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David D. Huff Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Instead of taking a beating across the board. Might M$ stand a better
> chance of survival if it breaks up voluntarily then some part of the
> business could survive. The last couple of days they've been taking
> quite a beating in the stock market. Along with a lot of peoples'
> retirement money. Shouldn't the stockholders demand that they bite the
> bullet now and salvage what they can?
> They should split on their own terms, not what the government dictates.
> Thus ensuring themselves their best chance for survival. Three parts may
> be better than two, diversifying their cumulative losses.
>
I think Microsoft suffers from the win at all costs syndrome. It is sort
of like the death penality problems that have cropped up recently in a
few states. They got so big that ethics got a back seat.
Bill
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux fails - again
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 20:49:35 +0200
Martijn Bruns wrote:
> Paul Voller schreef:
> >
> > On Mon, 22 May 2000, Full Name wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> > > <snip>
> > > 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 :-)
> > <snip>
> >
> > Wow! How /do/ you get NT to run for more than a day without
> > rebooting? When I used Access to manage a couple of large database tables,
> > the bloody thing cooked itself!
> >
> > Sorry. I just get bitter about the successes of others. But as a
> > precaution, I would switch hard disk suppliers...
>
> Oh come on! You've got to give NT more credit than that!
> NT and W2K are really stable! They won't crash every day!
> Sometimes you get uptimes with those of over a week! If it only
> runs a file- and printserver it could even be up for a full
> month!
>
> ;-)
Thats incorrect!! I managed to get my NT box to run for about or just
under one week without rebooting after dancing manbo for two hours every
day.. after upgrading to SP5 its around 3 times per week. My record is
about 2 weeks old and was under the upgrade of McAfee after the ILOVEYOU
thing.. i managed to get 8 REBOOTS with 5 BSOD's before the damm thing
runned again (NO I'm not so stupid i was not the only one with 6-8
reboots/BSOD's on that particular upgrade)
------------------------------
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: Mon, 22 May 2000 11:58:14 -0700
On Mon, 22 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Which doesn't change the fact that MS uses the term OLE to refer to OLE 2,
> and not OLE 1.
The origin of OLE refers to OLE 1.0 and not the Origin of OLE 2.0.
> MS does act like OLE 1 never existed for the most part.
Just the oppisite, MS protects their legal rights to OLE and refers to OLE
1.0 on their web pages.
> > Read your own evidence wrt. what is _says_, not what you'd like it to say.
>
> It says exactly what I'm saying. OLE without a version number means OLE 2.
The origin of OLE refers to OLE version 1.0 - it does not refer to the
origin of OLE 2.0.
> Didn't you notice the statement above where it says "One must read
> statements in context", which states that he I didn't say what he says I
> did, but rather that he's implying it based on his idea of the "context".
A lie always has a context since it is a statement designed to mislead and
misinform -- as in lying about the origins of OLE and then covering the
lie by demanding that OLE means version 2.0.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux fails - again
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 May 2000 12:58:45 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name) writes:
[snip NT fairy tale]
> 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.
If you want Linux NFS to act like Solaris NFS, just tell the kernel to
emulate it and recompile. I'll hold your hand all the way through if
you are worried about it.
> This wastes valuable (and expensive) disk space on the Ultra but, hey,
> Linux is free - NOT!!!
It's not our fault that you're clueless.
> 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.
Odd, we use NFS in fstab under Linux all the time without problems.
They talk with AIX and HPUX boxes all the time.
Of course, we also use UPS systems that tell the boxes to shut down
when they are going to loose power...
> 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.
It appears you don't know enough about Linux to me.
> 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.
Clues - you get what you pay for.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
