Linux-Advocacy Digest #643, Volume #26 Tue, 23 May 00 00:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linux fails - again ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("David D. Huff Jr.")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Steve White)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Jack Troughton)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Jack Troughton)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bill Altenberger)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("David D. Huff Jr.")
Re: Gnome, KDE, others.... ("none2")
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Steven Smolinski)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Mark Robinson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Loren Petrich)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 02:14:51 GMT
"Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am led to believe (in other words I may well be wrong...) that rpms
> basically have a required/not-required status. If the system MAY require
> a package, then either it is flagged as required and the system tries to
> make you install it, or it's not flagged and gets ignored.
Well, technically, some is either required or it isn't. If you're
right (I have no idea), the problem seems to be more on the package
maintainer's end, rather than the rpm developer's end.
> dpkg has far finer graining - required (ie it'll break without it), and
> various other grainings.
Well, there are basically two levels of dependencies: OS and package.
Some packages (like init and glibc2.1) are required for the OS to
work. Those packages depend on other packages in order to work. So
there are settings for both of those two. Debian is a little likelier
to recommend packages for the OS rather than for another package, for
obvious reasons.
> So in my example OSS and ISDN4LINUX should be
> flagged optional. SuSE/rpm apparently has no way of marking something as
> optional.
Actually, in Debian, I believe they'd be marked "extra."
> In other words, it's not the package maintainer's fault if the
> maintenance package has no way of correctly marking-up the dependency.
I don't really understand how this can be so. If the required bit is
set, the package is required; if it's not, it's not. Even the most
basic usable package-management system has to have at least these two
states.
--
Eric P. McCoy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
------------------------------
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: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:24:30 +1000
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8gc389$21ta$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8g7rgl$qnf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
>
> >Have you tried specifying to unpack the files to some other drive (/x) ?
>
> This worked! I unpacked to a network share, then (after hunting
> a bit) found the update directory with update.exe and it
> ran with no complaints.
Now, have you tried running chkds with the /r options (scan for bad sectors)
?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux fails - again
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 21:37:03 -0600
In article <8gbv3m$p4e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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!
I Agree...try ``Linux for Thinkers''...www.think-linux.com\index.vbs;)
------------------------------
From: "David D. Huff Jr." <[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: Tue, 23 May 2000 02:37:48 GMT
>
> It would be better for us all if MS were no longer dominate.
Agreed.
> > Put another way Edwin, how about if I said the survival of M$ dominance
> may be
> > at stake. Would that appease you?
>
> Nope. Windows will not lose dominance because of this, nor will MS lose
> its grip on the market. It's all just a big shell game.
Let's hope not.
> > Would you not agree that M$ would be stronger if it defined the lines of a
> > breakup instead of a panel?
>
> Good reason to let a panel do it.
>
> > What about the survival of pension funds that are going down the tubes.
> Should
> > brokers continue to allow their clients money to continue to erode?
>
> Nope. Sell MS stock. Buy something else. Apple stock was up there
> awhile. Everybody loves Apple now. Buy Apple stock.
>
> Or do what I do: Put all your spare money into canned goods and shotguns.
>
> > Think about the people.. ok .. when is enough, enough?
>
> You think MS cares about people... heh, heh, heh. Oh sorry, that's rude,
> but then... heh, heh, heh.
>
> Don't get in a huff now. Oh wait, you can't help it. Carry on. <:o]
I thank you, I got more mileage out of this thread than I had hoped for, had you
been familiar with my posting style. You would have known where I was going with
this thread. Every time I try to spell out the facts a WinTroll shows up and
goes off the deep end.
It's a word game, we sit here and throw out the goodies to see who nibbles. Just
like how the liberal media keeps saying gun control is for the "children", dis
dat and da other ding. It's all for the children. Well in this game we try to
protect the retiree's and all those poor schleps whose' investors sunk their
retirement funds into M$ stocks.
I would prefer that M$ be run asunder, I'm not changing my tune because of your
argument just check my posts over the last few years. If public attention could
be focused for whatever reason on this M$ lunacy and the public educated by
anyone besides BGU (Bill G University.) It could be over and done with, nobody
wants to see this played out in the courts for the next two years.
> > Edwin wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > If you truly believe that Microsoft's survival is in jeapordy, you're
> living
> > > in a fool's paradise.
> >
------------------------------
From: Steve White <[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 22:07:24 -0500
In article <8gcd95$cd4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Loren Petrich) wrote:
> If Hitler had controlled himself about Yugoslavia, he could have
> had much more success conquering the USSR.
Nope. Consider that from the German front lines of early 1941, the USSR was
like a giant funnel, open end to the east. The front got wider and wider
with every mile. There simply weren't enough German soldiers to cover.
Hitler could have started 6 weeks earlier. The Germans might have taken
Moscow. In the end, it would not have mattered. Stalin would have fought
back and the war would have taken 6 weeks longer to end.
steve
reply to: steve[no space]white at mediaone dot net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 22 May 2000 19:23:13 -0700
Linux is about coding. get that. we need no stinkin bug track system.
you find a bug, shoot an email to someone. or post it on the net.
period. this is how linux always worked, and how the coders
want it to stay. bug tracking is for those who want to get
control on things, and no one will ever control linux, cause
linux is free.
you find a bug, fix it yourself, if you can't let someone else
do it. all what a bug tracking system will do is slow people down
to have to enter a bug on some site. and what if the site is down?
and who will manage the database?
linux was build to be free and open and bazzar type of programming,
do not try to bring organization to it or processes that will only
drive programmers away from hacking the code and will slow us down.
bug tracking systems is for the people who do not know how to code. if
you want to use bug tracking, go code in windows and leave us alone.
//jorion
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 03:10:23 GMT
On Mon, 22 May 2000 22:38:02, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
><jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
>news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-tqIXq4dlqd4m@localhost...
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > DOS and Windows are OS's. They're not applications.
>> >
>> > Windows cannot run without DOS, thus Windows and DOS are joined.
>> >
>>
>> I had a copy of Windows 3.1 running in OS/2 v3. Look ma, no DOS!
>
>The version of Windows used by OS/2 is modified to work correctly with OS/2.
>
>According to Andrew Schulman, the code that causes problems with DR-DOS also
>causes problems with OS/2's VDM.
Yeah. That's why you can install Warp for Windows with your copy of
Windows 3.1x and have it work.
It didn't cause any problems with OS/2s VDM. The only real problem is
that it actually runs better under OS/2 than it does under MS-DOS 5 or
6.
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montr�al PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 03:08:38 GMT
On Mon, 22 May 2000 22:16:36, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jack Troughton wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 22 May 2000 20:08:19, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens) writes:
>> >
>> >> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > DOS and Windows are OS's. They're not applications.
>> >> >
>> >> > Windows cannot run without DOS, thus Windows and DOS are joined.
>> >>
>> >> I had a copy of Windows 3.1 running in OS/2 v3. Look ma, no DOS!
>> >
>> > Please tell me you know about the DOS VDM that Windows 3.1 runs atop
>> > of in OS/2?
>>
>> A DOS VDM isn't MS-DOS, that's for sure.
>
>It implements enough of DOS to fool Windows. However, claiming that Windows
>can run without DOS based on this is like claiming that a Super Nintendo game
>can run without the Super Nintendo, based on the existence of emulators.
>While factually true, it says nothing about the designers' collective
>intentions.
I think the idea is to debunk the idea that "windows cannot run
without dos, therefore windows and dos are joined." Keeping in mind
Funkenbusch's predilections, when he says dos, he generally means
MS-DOS. After all, MS-DOS and Windows were joined in Win95 in
appearance if not in fact (the dude who wrote _Undocumented Windows
95_ had a lot to say about that, IIRC), but here is a good debunking
example of the need to join Windows and DOS (specifically, MS-DOS) at
the hip.
Is this not what the Caldera case was about?
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montr�al PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
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 22:31:09 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "David D. Huff Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Edwin I think beyond M$, I happen to care about some of the people whom have
> lost a great deal of their retirement funds due to this single minded lunacy of
> M$. There has to be a time and a place to draw the line. Survival may have been
> a poor choice of words, because M$ zealots can only construe my meanings in one
> way. Consider M$ dominance survival, somebody needs to lead, M$ is definitely a
> poor choice I'd agree.
> Put another way Edwin, how about if I said the survival of M$ dominance may be
> at stake. Would that appease you?
> Would you not agree that M$ would be stronger if it defined the lines of a
> breakup instead of a panel?
> What about the survival of pension funds that are going down the tubes. Should
> brokers continue to allow their clients money to continue to erode?
> Think about the people.. ok .. when is enough, enough?
>
> Edwin wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
> > If you truly believe that Microsoft's survival is in jeapordy, you're living
> > in a fool's paradise.
>
The Nasdaq has had a pretty good haircut lately and I don't think it over
with yet. IMHO, I think the government has investing all screwed up. If you
just put money into regular savings, one can barely keep up with inflation
after the feds tax the hell out of ya. So on one hand congressional social
engineering has drivin people to the markets in hopes of higher returns,
while another government branch is saying those returns are way to high
and to go back to conventional savings. Go figure..
Your friends may want to check out http://www.bobbrinker.com. Bob
started getting nervous late last fall..
Bill
------------------------------
From: "David D. Huff Jr." <[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: Tue, 23 May 2000 03:41:20 GMT
Steve White wrote:
> In article <8gcd95$cd4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>
> > If Hitler had controlled himself about Yugoslavia, he could have
> > had much more success conquering the USSR.
>
> Nope. Consider that from the German front lines of early 1941, the USSR was
> like a giant funnel, open end to the east. The front got wider and wider
> with every mile. There simply weren't enough German soldiers to cover.
True the USSR retreated back to defensible lines thus ensuring survival while,
the Germans 6 weeks late at the start driven by a madman extended their
territory beyond their ability to supply it. Sound familiar? BillG take note
here.
> Hitler could have started 6 weeks earlier. The Germans might have taken
> Moscow. In the end, it would not have mattered. Stalin would have fought
> back and the war would have taken 6 weeks longer to end.
Well I don't know about that because the USSR destroyed all the resources upon
their retreat insuring that the German army would not reach Moscow before
spring.
An opportunity missed, may never return. Back to the subject, should M$ press
on driven by a madman bent on total domination, they could befall the same
fate. Are you listening BillG?
------------------------------
From: "none2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gnome, KDE, others....
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 15:57:04 +0000
In article <8g7dit$17ih$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(abraxas) wrote:
> piddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> When will the new versions be finished?
>
> KDE 2.0 will be finished fairly soon, check their website for details.
> Ive experimented with a couple of the nightly builds and have been
> pleasantly surprised.
>
> Dont use gnome. It sucks ass.
Helix Gnome rocks, KDE2 has windows clone all over it.
1.1.90 runs on my desktop 24hrs/7days, and i havent seen one crash. I'm
impressed. KDE2 isnt so lucky with stability.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven Smolinski)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 03:48:58 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Linux is about coding. get that. we need no stinkin bug track system.
What a load of crap. Alan Cox is the bug track system. It's just
a question of what interface is available to Coxzilla--web or email to
kernel-devel.
Steve
------------------------------
From: "Mark Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 04:00:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> Appeal courts should not be looking at past decisions of judges
>> to decide whether to overturn.
>
> Yeah. We wouldn't want them setting a "prescedent" for such actions of
> looking back on former cases, now would we?
No, they should evaluate based on merit decided on a case-by-case basis.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
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: 23 May 2000 04:08:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bill Altenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I wouldn't liken MS to the Nazi era of Germany. I think a more appropriate
>example would be a state univerisity directly east of Illinois in Elam's
>territory..
I'm totally lost.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
