Linux-Advocacy Digest #644, Volume #26 Tue, 23 May 00 02:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Gnome, KDE, others.... (abraxas)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. ("Jim Ross")
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (John Hasler)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks ("Jim Ross")
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Christopher
Browne)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks ("Jim Ross")
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks ("Jim Ross")
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (JEDIDIAH)
Advocacy or Mental Illness ? (Lurch)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Brandon)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (abraxas)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (CAguy)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Gnome, KDE, others....
Date: 23 May 2000 04:12:07 GMT
none2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Feh, I dont make a habit of using either anyway. There are two things
that I despise about gnome, and theyre both design issues:
I hate that gnome toolbar thingie.
I hate the gnome menuing system.
> 1.1.90 runs on my desktop 24hrs/7days, and i havent seen one crash. I'm
> impressed. KDE2 isnt so lucky with stability.
Your machine would be faster if you ran windowmaker instead. :)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 00:13:24 -0400
>
> > Similarily, we all know that because W2K has GDI in the kernel,
> > bad video drivers can also cause a BSOD. In contract, an X server on
> > linux does not have access to kernel address space, and so X crashes
> > only lock up the console. Of course, if you are running a desktop, you
> > work is lost anyways so it doesn't matter. If you are running a server
> > however, it makes all the difference.
>
> X can also cause the graphics adapter to fault the bus, which can cause
your
> entire machine to lock up.
>
I've seen X crash an entire machine.
My guess is it caused an out of memory situation.
Caused by a simple graphic resize in a buggy little KDE app.
So theory aside, X in reality can crash the entire machine.
Jim
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 03:26:13 GMT
jorion writes:
> 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.
Speak for yourself (BTW, what is the name of your package?)
> bug tracking is for those who want to get control on things, and no one
> will ever control linux, cause linux is free.
So is Debian, but it has a bug tracking system.
> 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.
"Site"? I type 'bug packagename', type in a description, hit a few more
keys, and off goes the bug report to the Debian BTS.
> and what if the site is down?
I don't believe that the Debian servers have ever been down long enough to
bounce email.
> ...and who will manage the database?
One of the Debian maintainers does so as a small part of his duties.
Volunteers to manage a kernel BTS would not be hard to find. Compared to
the Debian BTS a kernel BTS would be a piece of cake.
> 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.
A bug tracking system makes decentralized development and debugging easier.
> 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.
So I guess you figure that the Debian developers don't know how to code?
A bug tracking system would be a damn good idea.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 00:24:08 -0400
Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was the Sun, 21 May 2000 22:11:08 -0400...
> ...and Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > It was the Sat, 20 May 2000 23:39:38 -0400...
> > > ...and Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On the desktop, why use an OS without jagged fonts when other OSes
> > don't?
> > >
> > > This is pathetic. So you're *that* completely out of other arguments?
> > > Nothing else to make a point with but *fonts*?
> > >
> > > Anyway, if you use good fonts, antialiasing doesn't matter very much.
> > > My fonts are not antialiased, but they aren't jagged either.
> > >
> > > mawa
> >
> > That sounds very much like a server user mentality.
> > Figures.
>
> The only Linux machine I use is the desktop machine in front of my
> desk, and I use that box (and only that) for all my computing tasks.
> Anyway I don't know what you mean by "server user mentality". Sounds
> very much like nonsense to me. What's a server user? People don't use
> servers like they use a desktop machine, people administrate them and
> lock them away in cabinets.
>
> mawa
> --
> Look at the community. Look at how fast they turn the crank. They know
> how to create a desktop environment out of the middle of nowhere in
> less than two years - how could there be a company not scared by this?
> -- mawa
Someone who can tradeoff system stability for ease of use/nice desktop
environment.
On the desktop I must have ease of use first if I can't have both.
Thus Windows|NT make more sense than Linux on the desktop.
Fonts are smooth in Windows and have been for years.
Linux is still diddling around with limited AA support and asking people to
buy Windows and use those TTFs that come with that.
Very strange.
I don't think this is a weak argument.
It's in fact my main problem.
If XFree86 has AA and I didn't need to borrow Windows fonts to have a nice
desktop, I'll be much happier.
Jim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 04:31:43 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jim Ross would say:
>So theory aside, X in reality can crash the entire machine.
I blame it on the video hardware. You can send instructions to the
video card that will cause it to dump data pretty arbitrarily _anywhere_
in system memory, outside the control of the CPU.
If memory serves, the Amiga had two "kinds" of memory, one being called
"chip RAM," which was a portion of memory that was accessible by the
graphics harware; other RAM did not exist as far as the GPU was
concerned.
If PC video cards could be forced to only look at certain "safe" portions
of memory, then systems could be made robust. When they can't, all the
reliability you can add to the CPU is of no avail if the video card is
against you...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
Know the list of "large, chronic problems". If there is any problem
with the window system, blame it on the activity system. Any lack of
user functionality should be attributed to the lack of a command
processor. A suprisingly large number of people will believe that you
have thought in depth about the issue to which you are alluding when you
do.
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 00:35:42 -0400
>
> It may not be obvious whether a particular program would benefit more
> from one approach or the other; the question being whether the thread
> switching overhead in a kernel-based scheme is outweighed by the ability
> to parallelize.
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
> Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they AREN'T after you.
Thanks for that lucid explanation.
I know Apache is looking to a hybrid thread/process arch.
They seem to be after more speed.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 00:31:04 -0400
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ga95l$1f5l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <fI0W4.194$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> If you use low quality hardware on the desktop. Put some more pixels
> >> there and X will use them nicely.
> >>
> >Les, are there some good free fonts I could use that you're using?
>
> Depends on your definition of free, but you might try these:
>
http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/contrib/noarch/noarch/webfonts-1-3.noarch.html
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's a good start.
I find it so funny that MS fonts are RPMed. What an OS...
You made my day. I'm d/l'ing right now.
Thanks Les,
Jim Ross
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 04:39:55 GMT
On Tue, 23 May 2000 00:24:08 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It was the Sun, 21 May 2000 22:11:08 -0400...
>> ...and Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > It was the Sat, 20 May 2000 23:39:38 -0400...
>> > > ...and Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > > On the desktop, why use an OS without jagged fonts when other OSes
>> > don't?
>> > >
>> > > This is pathetic. So you're *that* completely out of other arguments?
>> > > Nothing else to make a point with but *fonts*?
>> > >
>> > > Anyway, if you use good fonts, antialiasing doesn't matter very much.
>> > > My fonts are not antialiased, but they aren't jagged either.
>> > >
>> > > mawa
>> >
>> > That sounds very much like a server user mentality.
>> > Figures.
>>
>> The only Linux machine I use is the desktop machine in front of my
>> desk, and I use that box (and only that) for all my computing tasks.
>> Anyway I don't know what you mean by "server user mentality". Sounds
>> very much like nonsense to me. What's a server user? People don't use
>> servers like they use a desktop machine, people administrate them and
>> lock them away in cabinets.
>>
>> mawa
>> --
>> Look at the community. Look at how fast they turn the crank. They know
>> how to create a desktop environment out of the middle of nowhere in
>> less than two years - how could there be a company not scared by this?
>> -- mawa
>
>
>Someone who can tradeoff system stability for ease of use/nice desktop
>environment.
You're sadly deluded if you think either of us tradeoff any ease of
use or 'niceness' for our desktops.
>On the desktop I must have ease of use first if I can't have both.
>Thus Windows|NT make more sense than Linux on the desktop.
No, you're just perpetrating FUD.
>Fonts are smooth in Windows and have been for years.
Some fonts are. Push TT a little bit and you still get jaggies.
Whereas you can still achieve similar results (to TT) even with
out the anti-aliasing.
>Linux is still diddling around with limited AA support and asking people to
>buy Windows and use those TTFs that come with that.
>Very strange.
Actually the font selection that comes with Windows is really
quite pathetic. Themes.org would be a much better place to go
looking for TT fonts.
>
>I don't think this is a weak argument.
>It's in fact my main problem.
>
>If XFree86 has AA and I didn't need to borrow Windows fonts to have a nice
>desktop, I'll be much happier.
One does not need to do this to have a 'nice' desktop under X.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Subject: Advocacy or Mental Illness ?
From: Lurch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 21:42:42 -0700
Well that got your attention !
Honestly, I get a little worried when I see 300 - 400 replies to
a Post on the lines of Linux Sucks etc and most of the posts
seem to be by only 2 or 3 people, oh well everyone needs a
hobby, but I digress...
I'm evaluating a move to Linux & I wold like to learn more about
the memory architecture and workings of the kernel etc. Anyone
know where I can find this. I had a quick look in kernel.org but
this is mostly (? all) just posts between the developers about
what they are doing.
Thanks in advance!
[ I have my asbestos mouse glove on & the blast shield is in
place on the monitor ;-) ]
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 00:57:51 -0500
From: Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
>
> Tonight I set up an email server in about 45 mins.
> Oh yes, I'm running linux on a command promt only.
> Linux is easy to user, extreamly versitle, and fun. windows is
> expensive bloated, and
I'm all for linux but at least I can spell unlike this person. Go back to
school.
>
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[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: 23 May 2000 05:10:58 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: "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
: 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
That's the problem. RPMs only have these two states. You can't have
conditionally required RPMs. There are no modal operators, such as
"necessary on mondays" ;-).
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: 23 May 2000 05:27:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Similarily, we all know that because W2K has GDI in the kernel,
>> > bad video drivers can also cause a BSOD. In contract, an X server on
>> > linux does not have access to kernel address space, and so X crashes
>> > only lock up the console. Of course, if you are running a desktop, you
>> > work is lost anyways so it doesn't matter. If you are running a server
>> > however, it makes all the difference.
>>
>> X can also cause the graphics adapter to fault the bus, which can cause
> your
>> entire machine to lock up.
>>
> I've seen X crash an entire machine.
> My guess is it caused an out of memory situation.
> Caused by a simple graphic resize in a buggy little KDE app.
> So theory aside, X in reality can crash the entire machine.
In many, many years of dealing with X under linux, bsdi, freebsd,
openbsd, netbsd, mklinux, hp/ux, solaris, aix and sunos, I have
never once seen X lock up an entire machine.
Ive seen other locks caused by other things, but not X.
I'm not saying that it cant happen, im saying that there is a
marked difference between a panic and a frozen console. :)
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CAguy)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 05:49:03 GMT
On 22 May 2000 19:23:13 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>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
Well, with billions of dollars now riding on the success of linux...I
think it's about time they kicked the kiddies off kernal development,
and start using a more professional development process.
James
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
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 22:34:29 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 22 May 2000 17:19:53 -0400,
Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Just like W2K Datacenter...
>
>"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>>
>> > WindowsNT Datacenter Server can recognize up to 16 processors.
>> >
>> > Exactly how many can Linux handle? The most I've ever heard
>> > of was 16, and that was with a major kernel renovation.
>> >
>>
>> Linux for S/390 handles up to 32 processors. See Chapter 2 of:
>>
>> http://linux390.marist.edu/download/inst.pdf
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>
>
No Drestin, W2K doesn't run on big iron :)
(since you can run 41,000 + instances of linux S/390 on a single machine,
does that mean that linux scales down to 1/41,000 of a processor also :)
(Linux S/390 is to a server wwww, what ArcherDanielsMidland is to a garden
plot.)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
