Linux-Advocacy Digest #182, Volume #27 Mon, 19 Jun 00 07:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Tim Palmer)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Tim Palmer)
John Smith fucks his sister daily!!! (Trent Worthington)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Donal K. Fellows)
Windows come in, your time is up. (2:1)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(John Wiltshire)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 06:03:14 -0500
On 18 Jun 2000 06:10:10 GMT, WhyteWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Palmer wrote:
>[sniped]
>
>>>Actually the store people will do what they do no matter what you ask
>>>them. They will stand there scratching thier heads going "DUH" and
>>>drewling.
>>
>>Learn to speal "drool", morron.
>
>your giving spelling lessons?
>the world is truly doomed
>
>
>>>> NT can handall 2 network card. All Linsux fools have to say about that is "one
>network card
>>>> ought to be enough for anybody!"
>>>
>>>Um, I hate to break this to you, but I have two servers in the room
>>>right above me that each have four network cards in them. You were
>>>saying?
>>
>>Linsux slows down to a crawl when it has to handall more than 1 NIC. NT can run
>circels around
>>Linsux with 2 NICs. Linux loser's only answer to this is 'why would you ever want to
>run a server
>>with 2 NICs?'
>
>bold face lies
>good going ... nice tatics ... gota love that
>so when is NT going to handle a S/390??
>{and yes LINUX runs on the system
>pure linux .. on the big iron ... }
>
>>>> And then you half to drop to Linux's version of DOS in order to correct the
>shortcut.
>>>
>>>I don't know of any graphical file manager under Linux that won't allow
>>>you to create links.
>>
>>I know of a few that will delay forever and a day when you try to lode a folder as
>big as /dev.
>
>yeah? I wannt see that I havn't seen one yet
Look at KFM.
>and I"ve used most of the most obsecure ones
>only thing I've ever seen have that problem
>was a windows box that tried readding a
>network link to a huge directory over a
>100/10 it hung the system cause windows
>didn't know enough to stop reading on it's own
>I figured that the client at least would have figured
>out TIME_OUT
Was the remote systam running UNIX?
>
>>>> Yeah, if you like wrighting a shell script everytime you nead the computer to do
>something that
>>>> would be simpal under Windows.
>>>
>>>Um, no, it wouldn't even be possible under Windows most of the time.
>>
>>What woudlnt evan be possible? A script that takes the second word from every file
>in /etc and
>>prints it all on one line? Who cares?
>
>no ... what wouldn't be posable in windows is a script
>that grabs all the headers for updated programs off of
>freshmeat checks a database that was built with another script
>of all the programs that you want it to update with the
>latest stable release transparently of course
On Windows you wouldn't even need to do all that.
>>>Let's see, browse the web,
>>
>> ...with Nutscrape. Try IE. You'll never look back.
>
>tried IE ... 5.0 was when they first started
>towards the right track ... they really have alot
>more work to do ...
Netscape has even more work too do.
>
>>
>>>watch RealMedia streaming,
>>
>> ...with last year's version of the software...
>
>nope 7.0 .. which is the latest version for windows
Compleat with the famous "is Backspaice Backspace or is Del?" bug that has haunted
UNIX since
the beggining of time.
>
>>
>>>use imaging software,
>>
>>Photoshop? Or are you counting the GIMP as "imaging software"?
>>
>>>scan papers,
>>
>> ...only with scannars specially designed to be "standard" enough for Linux to
>recognize.
>>
>>>serve files, web servers, ftp servers,
>>
>> ...only as long as you like fucking around with /etc/inetd.conf,
>/etc/rc.d/rc.WHATEVER, etc.
>
>yeah .. love fsking around with /etc/inetd.conf ... only hafta
>enter the data once and it runs ... exatly like I want it to
>with out having any problems ... everytime
>
>>
>>>NIS/YP servers,
>>
>>Only usefull on UNIX, whear you half to have the same numerric user-IDs across the
>whoal network.
>>
>>>play games,
>>
>> ...only crappy, open-sores games.
>
>
>Quake III is open source?
>UnReal Ternament is Open Source?
>
>>
>>>and pretty much any other thing you can dream up
>>>doing with your precious Windows. Granted, I'm a writer as one of my
>>>hobbies and Linux allows me much more flexibility with my writing, but
>>>that doesn't mean I can't use it for a million other things. One of my
>>>favorite Linux boxes is the one I use to rip and compress all of my CDs
>>>into MP3s and then anytime I want to listen to a song it's just a few
>>>mouse-clicks away.
>>
>>Don't you mean a few text commands away? Thears nothing on Linux that even counts as
>being
>>functional to a WinAmp user.
>
>
>nope mouse clicks ... XMMS is a nice little piece of work
>looks and acts exatly like Winamp ...
...but its only half as functionall.
>it's always
>fun to listen to shoutcast streams in it sence it doesn't
>take as much over head as winamp it self did ...
>I was plesently surprized with the downbit streams i was getting
>
>
>>>You aren't stuck with someone else's idea of what your computer should
>>>"feel" like. That is the one thing that I hated about Windows. You had
>>>to use your computer the way that Bill Gates decided you should use it.
>>
>>I'd rather have Bill Gates deciding how my computer should feel than having some
>apps decide
>>they want to feel like GTK and other apps decide that they want to feel like KDE,
>etc, and
>>none of them beign compattible with eachother.
>
>not being compatable? what *ARE* you smoking??
>i have QT proggies and GTK proggies working together all the
>time and as for KDE ... I hate the feel of KDE ...
>the shortcuts were to much like windows ..
>
>
>>>The few times that X does crash you can typically just go to another
>>>machine, log in through telnet and do a "rcxdm restart" (sorry, using
>>>SuSE convention here) and be right back in business. Of course, if you
>>>are on a non-networked machine you have a point. But I will also say
>>>that the last time that X crashed on me was when I was hacking around in
>>>a program and forgot some rather important clean-up functions.
>>>Consequently when I launched the program a second time it kind of
>>>overrode itself and locked up itself and X with it.
>>
>>A program doing the same thing on Windos would'nt crash the system.
>
>bullshit ... a program that doesn't have clean up
>in windows not only crashes the system it
>has the side effect of leaking into the DLL's
That's just LinoNerd FUD.
>
>
>>>Other than a screw up like this, it is pretty difficult to lock X
>>>through every day use.
>>
>>You can lock it up with a trojan.
>
>thats not everyday use
>plus the fact that windows has a much
>more difficult time with trojans the linux
>lets see ...
>NetBus,Back Orafice, SubSeven, ILOVEYOU.vbs,LOVEBUG.vbs
>
>I even know a guy in new zeland that had his
>harddrive formated from montana cause he had
>NetBus on his system ... lost his entire
>contract cause of a trogan
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>-=-=-=-=-
>Ever wonder if taxation without representation might have been cheaper?
>-=-=-=-=-
Why don't you just move to Englund, then?
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 06:03:24 -0500
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 01:22:45 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>> 1. It scails down
>>
>> Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of RAM. Windows
>runs on todays
>> computer's, and the fact that it doesn't run on some obsoleat piece-of-shit
>computer from 1991
>> doessn't mean shit.
>
>Think Palm Pilot.
>
>>
>>
>> 2. It's multi-user
>>
>> Linux ganes NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user. All that meens to me is that
>I have to
>> remember a password just to be able to get into my own computer. Users want to get
>their work
>> done, not waist time "logging in" screwing around with usernames and passwords that
>can't
>> even be disaballed, and having to remember the "root password" every time somethign
>goes
>> wrong. Those "other users" that UNIX is dessined to support through VT100 terminals
>can get
>> the're own computer, and the "administrative identities" aka daemon, nobody, mail,
>news, bin,
>> sys, and uucp, can all go to hell. It's not the '70s anymore.
>>
>
>Should a family of four have four different computers? Hmm. Would they
>all need separate printers? Separate phone lines?
One computer. No accounts. No 'administrative idneities".
>
>
>>
>> 3. It's "flexibbal" (in other words you can turn off the GUI)
>>
>> And noboddy cares. Linux is just as useless without its GUI as Windows is. There is
>NO REASON
>> to turn off the GUI, and NO REASON to turn off the desktop, and NO REASON to turn
>off the
>> Window manager. These are all useless feetures, and Linux gains NOTHING over Widnos
>for halvign
>> them. Yet Linux isn't flexibble enough to allow you to turn off the multi-user
>"feature". Now
>> THAT would be a somewhat usefull feature.
>>
>
>[root@localhost /]# cd /etc
>[root@localhost /etc] emacs inittab
>
>change id:3:initdefault: to id:5:initdefault: and then save and exit.
All that text edditign and it still doesn't get rid of the multiuser.
>
>This is analogous to setting BootGUI=1 in Windows. And unlike Windows, where
>a user could boot into DOS, a user can not override this.
>
>Also, CLI in Linux is far more useful than DOS. Do any browsers work in DOS?
The browser is for Windows. There isn't even a point in making a browser for DOS. The
goal of
Windows is so you don't half to use DOS.
>
>>
>> 4. You can logg in remotely
>>
>> ...creating the nead for the whole username-and-pasword system. And since it's a
>feature that
>> only geeks need, the only "beneffit" for normal users is that they need a password
>(see #2)
>> to keep hackers out, where they don't need one if they run Windows.
>>
>> 5. "X" Windows works over a network.
>>
>> Another faeture that nobody ever uses. This doesn't make "X" Windows more usefull
>to most
>> users. Windows still wins.
>>
>
>How would Windows win? At worst it would be a draw.
Windows is on more than 90% of computers, and peopal arnt going to switch just because
"X"
Windows works over a network and MS Windows needs PCANYWHERE.
>
>
>>
>> 6. The CLI can multitask and network.
>>
>> ...which still doesn't make it any more usefull than DOS. Multitasking is only
>usefull to normal
>> people in a GUI, which is why DOS doesn't do it.
>>
>
>Why is multitasking only useful to people using GUI's?
>
>>
>> 7. It gives you "choice"
>>
>> ...betwean one crappy program and 50 others just like it. Most people's "choice"
>is MS Windows
>
>Choice? Then why does Microsoft resort to cliff-tiered pricing?
What cliff-tiered pricing?
>
>
>>
>> and the fine MS software that goes together with it. They would never give up all
>that just to
>> run Linux and its shitty little beta-test apps
>
>WordPerfect 2000 is hardly a beta-test app. And at least beta-test apps are labelled
>as
>such in Linux.
In Windos, if the softwhere is beta, you won't see it on the market.
>
>
>> except if they were tricked into it.
>>
>> 8. It's "free"
>>
>> ...but it costs lots and lots of time, a little time at first durring the
>installation, and
>> then more and more time after the installation as one thing after annother goes
>wrong.
>>
>
>But things don't go wrong after the installation.
>
>>
>> 9. It's Open-Source
>>
>> ...but nobody want's to waste time fixing all the bugs it has when they can just
>run Windos
>> like they've been doing and have world-class sofrware.
>>
>
>What world-class software is available for Windows?
>
>>
>> 10. It's been ported to 16,000 different hardware plattforms that alreaddy shipped
>with UNIX
>> to beagen with.
>>
>
>My HP Pavilion didn't come with UNIX.
>
>>
>> Yawn.
>>
>> :
>> :post
>> The post command is unknown.
>> :exit
>> The exit command is unknown.
>> :close
>> The close command is unknown.
>> :quit
>> File modified since last complete write; write or use ! to override.
>> :save
>> The save command is unknown.
>> :s
>> No previous regular expression.
>> :Oh darnit!
>> The Oh command is unknown.
>> :?
>> No previous regular expression.
>> :quit
>> File modified since last complete write; write or use ! to override.
>> :!
>> Usage: [line [,line]] ! command.
>> :! quit
>> File modified since last write.
>> bash: quit: command not found
>> quit: exited with status 127
>> :?
>> No previous regular expression.
>> :DIE YOU PIECE OF LINSHIT!!!!!!
>> The DIE command is unknown.
>
>And what shell is this?
See? Even UNIX users are confuesed by UNIX. This is the VI "shlel", which is reely an
edditer
but you still half to type commands just like a shell.
>
>Colin Day
>
------------------------------
From: Trent Worthington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,free.uk.guns,alt.night-club.review.uk,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.linux.os,alt.startrek,alt.uk.teens.london,at.troll,alt.trentworthington.sucks
Subject: John Smith fucks his sister daily!!!
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 06:21:28 -0400
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:48:13 -0400, JS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Funny, your name wasn't in the title and you still read it, because
>you knew it was about you.
>
>If you didn't leave a reply, we would have never known that you read
>the message...but you were drawn to the message, right.
>
>You just told us more about yourself...in your pathetic search for an
>identity...
First of all, if you had a fucking brain, you'd know that Agent can
mark messages with keywords in them. Second of all, how do you manage
to drink liquids without drowning yourself, you unbelievable imbecile?
>
>
>>On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:52:43 -0400, Mr.Right <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> An Abortion Horror Story
>>>
>>>It's was the morning June 5th, 1984. I was working at the Yarbury
>>>Clinic. This young lady walked in and asked about our services. I
>>>explained to her what we do here. She said, okay, and that it was her
>>>boyfriend that was making her do this. I told to just fill out these
>>>forms and we can get started. After the forms were filled out, we
>>>preceded. About halfway through the procedure, this ugly, short, bald
>>>man walked into the room and said, "sweet, jesus, Martha, what are you
>>>doing here?"
>>>
>>>The woman replied, "But you told me to get an abortion"
>>>
>>>The man said, "No, no, no, I said, go to the auction..."
>>>
>>>"oh," the woman replied.
>>>
>>>Then the man looked at me and asked, "is it too late,"
>>>
>>>Seeing that this guy was a retard, I said, "no, it's not too late,
>>>here take it it's yours..".
>>>
>>>The man look upwards and said, "Trent, I'll call the little bugger
>>>Trent Worthington."
>>>
>>
>>Another leg humper for my collection, cool! I OWN JOOO!!!!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: 19 Jun 2000 10:28:19 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In fact, for years, the only "extensions" on Unix systems were
>
> .h header files for C programs
That was always convention, not force. For example, the .xbm image
format is really the same as that used in .h since it just declares
the C structures associated with the bitmap...
> .c C program source
> .o object files (output of the C compiler before linking)
There were also .s for assembler source and .a for object file
archives. And anyone willing to use the actual compiler, assembler
and linker binaries directly (instead of the [g]cc front-end) could
bypass even this.
> tar files are suffixed with .tar by convention, not force.
It was always mightliy convenient to have your compressed files end in
.Z since that made using them far easier...
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.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: 19 Jun 2000 10:18:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Lawrence D=B9Oliveiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Who uses POSIX any more?
People whose software puts in the References: header right. Unlike
that steaming crock known as MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) so it would
seem (which also screws up the headers by putting non-ASCII characters
in there without encoding them)...
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: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Windows come in, your time is up.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:57:50 +0100
I just downloaded the latest version of Wine. it's pretty impressive.
Soon, one of the main advantages of windows --- the applications
avaliable (although I'm happy with the linux ones), will cease to be an
advantages.
In all other areas (except driver support), windows is playing catchup
now. How else can windows becoming more like UNIX every release be
explained.
It's only a matter of time...
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:04:45 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:29:22 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I *think* you can still get licenses for these products if you try
>> really hard. You'd probably have to talk directly to someone in MS
>> though. With some license rationalization you can probably find
>> you've got extra Win9x licenses lying around anyway so you can
>> 'unupgrade' the original licenses and survive an audit.
>
>Really? Extra unused Windows 9x licenses lying around, tell where would
>someone find them. Where do they come from. I can assure you that there
>are none around here, since they don't come in cracker jack or cereal boxes.
No, as pointed out by some advocates, they come with new computers.
If you've ever bought a computer with Windows pre-installed then you
have a new license. If that machine replaces another machine then you
more than likely have a spare Windows license.
Your comment on the new licensing invalidating the old product is
incorrect as well. Go read
http://support.microsoft.com/support/windows/InProductHelp98/lic_upgrade_change_eula.asp
You'll notice that you have the right to run the new version or the
old one, but not both as the two products are now considered one
licensed unit. That means a dual boot configuration is probably ok.
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
