Linux-Advocacy Digest #249, Volume #27 Thu, 22 Jun 00 07:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: I had a reality check today :( (Ray Chason)
Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ??? (Daniel Haude)
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(John Wiltshire)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(John Wiltshire)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Darren Winsper)
Re: Windows98 (Darren Winsper)
Re: Windows98 (Martijn Bruns)
Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux
("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: 22 Jun 2000 08:08:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Anyway, I went to CompUSA, Staples, Electronic City and several local
>places, the kind of places I would avoid like the plague on my quest
>and here is what I found.
>
>1. Win Hardware is EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!
> Motherboards have built in modems, Ethernet, SoundChips, video
>and so forth. Much of this is Win hardware.
>
>2. The included printer is usually some POS Win printer. Same for
>scanner and USB devices are sometimes included as well.
>
>3. The operating system is always Win 98SE and no credit is given for
>not getting it.
>
>4. Internet bundles (you are hostage to Compu$erve for 3 years) are
>typically used to lower price.
>
>5. You get a bunch of low priced software and nothing of real
>substance. The exception was MS Works which is pretty decent.
>
>
>The iMac is starting to look better all the time :)
>
>Anyway, my point is that this is the typical way that a user buys a
>computer. They are not like you and me who build our own, they walk
>into a chain store and buy what seems, to them, to be the best value.
>
>My question is, how is Linux going to realistically overcome this?
In summary, Linux enthusiasts must focus on the fights we can win, and
forget about the fights we can't. I think it was Sun Tzu (_The Art of
War_) who counseled generals to force the enemy onto ground of one's own
choosing and not the enemy's choosing.
On points 1 and 2 (WinHardware):
- Winmodems are Microsoft's turf and probably a losing fight for Linux.
Reverse engineering is right out, because recent (read: useful) modem
protocols are patented to hell and gone, and writing an open source
Winmodem driver is likely to bring a lawsuit. (IANAL of course.)
Your safest bet, at present, is an external, serial-interface modem.
Most but not all ISA-bus modems still work, though you may need to
learn the isapnptools. The forthcoming 2.4 kernel will support USB;
that will help on a number of fronts.
OTOH, a couple of weeks ago I saw a modem on the shelf of Best Buy
whose box specifically said it was controller-based. (It was ISA bus
IIRC.) It is rumored among the gaming crowd that controller-based
modems lead to better scores. So a decent demand for non-Win internal
modems may continue.
- Inexpensive non-Win printers *do* exist. The Printing-HOWTO has an
(incomplete) list of printers that are known to work, known to mostly
work, known to partially work, and known not to work.
I use an HP Deskjet 612C which I got at Best Buy for $100; I certainly
wouldn't recommend it for heavy use, but for occasional correspondence
it does the job. With Linux. Fully supported.
- I don't understand how one would build a Win-Ethernet card -- or why,
given Linux's popularity as a server platform.
- I don't really know the current situation for video; mine works, but
it's a rather old card. I know Voodoo-based cards work, and nVidia;
anyone want to fill in the blanks for other currently-available
hardware.
Perhaps the first thing needed is a Hardware-Compatibility-HOWTO.
Point 3 (Win 98 preloaded) is one that we really can't do anything about.
Point 4 (MSN owns your @$$ for 3 years for $400) is perhaps best countered
by pointing out what it really involves. You get $400 off your computer,
but then you pay $22/mo for 3 years to MSN. Do the math; it's not such a
hot deal, especially if you prefer AOL or a real ISP.
Point 5 (cheap bundled software) is one I think Linux has quite well
covered. :-)
BTW, this is reasonable criticism. Keep this up. When you barge in here
shouting "Linux sucks!" you may have fun stirring the hornets' nest, but
in the long run you just look like an idiot, and end up in lots of
killfiles. Offer reasonable criticism, valid reasons *why* Linux sucks,
and maybe you may get the ear of someone who can make Linux suck a little
less.
(ObMicrosoftBash: speaking of killfiles, when is LookOut going to innovate
this clearly useful feature?)
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Haude)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ???
Date: 22 Jun 2000 09:39:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:36:26 -0400,
peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
in Msg. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| I'm setting up two 486 linux systems, one will be a small web sever,
| firewall, and ip masq.
|
| The other will be a machine to write perl programs on.
|
| I have two 250 meg drives, I don't plan to install X, so which distro
| is out there that will allow me to do what i want to do on the 486's
| ???
I just installed a Debian system (including X with fvwm2) on a 486DX/100
with 8MB RAM without problems. I mean, the installation was without
problems, *using* the system became only feasible after installing at
least 8MB of additional RAM.
There isn't really much of a difference between distributions except in
what the distributors think what should be standard on a linux box. Debian
and Slackware think "essentially nothing", and SuSe thinks "a full-blown
KDE system with 256 screensavers". I don't know any other distros.
So you _can_ install a minimal Linux with any of those, only it requires
more effort and de-selection of features with "big" distros.
The Debian "dselect" and "apt-get" package management system is a
monumental pain in the ass *until* you've got it figured out. Then it
works like a dream. I'm partial to Debian mainly because it has a very
strict and concise idea of where to store things. All configuration goes
in /etc, so the "personality" of your system is easily backed-up.
--Daniel
--
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy
way to factor large prime numbers." -- Bill Gates, "The Road Ahead"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:44:54 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:52:29 -0400...
...and Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[KDE]
> Instead of using a web browser style interface to browse local
> locations you use... uh... well... a web browser style interface to
> browse local locations.
It's a well-known fact that KDE had this first; Windows 98 came after.
mawa
--
Develop an understanding of our problems, it all helps.
-- Mike Lawrie, Director, Computing Services, Rhodes University, South
Africa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
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: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:32:24 GMT
On 21 Jun 2000 07:34:47 +0500, Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>>>>> "John" == John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I wasn't saying you need a GUI on an arbitrary machine. I was
> > just commenting that given a few more years, and after moving
> > the GUI to the kernel for speed,
>
>What gives you the idea that the GUI will be moved into the kernel in
>a few years time? Having a GUI an a server (which is usually headless
>anyway) makes no sense and is a waste of resources.
Yep - about 16k last I looked on my NT box. Of course, the fact that
Linux can't page out kernel memory where NT can makes a huge
difference here. :-)
> > it would make sense for good admin tools to be developed for the
> > GUI and hence require a GUI on the machine to use them.
>
>If you really want GUI admin tools what is wrong with a web based
>interface through SSL or a ncurses based interface through xterm+ssh?
Web based interfaces are never as smooth as proper GUI interfaces.
HTML just isn't up to X, let alone Win32 or MacOS style interfaces.
> > The quote was "Just as you practically need perl, python and
> > half a dozen other scripting packages to run a full featured
> > Linux installation, so you will probably end up needing the
> > GUI."
>
>Although you can write graphical applications with most of these
>scripting languages, you don't have to.
Where did I say that you would?
> > For a full featured unix machine, one day you will probably need
> > the GUI. It is already heading that way - look at Mac OS X.
>
>Maybe for a desktop machine depending on your personal peferences, but
>definitely not on a server. Although Mac OS X uses a BSD kernel, it is
>an Apple OS and is *not* marketed as Unix.
Suit yourself. I say it will happen eventually. You say it won't.
Neither of us can prove the other wrong unless we have a crystal ball.
> > I was the other day, trying to install a NAT system from RH 6.2
> > onto a 240M disk. Just wouldn't work. Turned out trying to
> > replace Win98 + ICS on that machine with Linux was a stupid
> > idea.
>
>Actually, the functionality that you need here can fit on one floppy
>image, just look at the Linux Router Project. You can probably acheive
>the same result yourself by doing a custom install with just the
>packages that you need. You can further slim it down by recompiling
>the kernel with just the functionality that you need.
I looked at LRP and it looked a little low featured and low on
configurability for me - especially as it had to run the cable modem
login software as well.
I know it's possible, but doing it required a hell of a lot more
technical knowledge that I'd initially expected. Turned out easier to
get a bigger drive.
> > Graphical applications are tied to interfaces because it is the
> > interface that abstracts the hardware. Change the interface and
> > the application necessarily has to change.
>
>I thought it is the OS that abstract the hardware. Just look at the
>device file system.
The OS abstracts the hardware by presenting a consistent interface.
That's what the 'I' in API is.
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
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: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:42:30 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:35:14 GMT, Mathias Grimmberger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Gotta give you that one. At least you can boot a command prompt from
>> the CD now though. :-)
>
>Hmm, I should try that some time. I won't be impressed if it is the same
>as the "safe mode, command line only" (or whatever it is called in
>english) of the W2K boot menu.
You mean boot the GUI with cmd.exe as your shell? No. But it is a
*very* stripped down rescue shell.
>> Fortunately the GUI doesn't take up a lot of memory when not used.
>> 16k last time I looked.
>
>Ohh, usage of ressources is not the reason to not do it.
>
>Having a big hunk of additional code potentially executed is. It may
>have bugs endangering the stability of the machine. It may even have
>security holes.
On a Microsoft product? In a GUI app? Never!!
Point taken, but given the code should never be executed on a system
with any decent security, and that the GUI is local machine only it's
not that high on the list of bugs to watch out for.
>> >Making the server GUI working the same as the WS one is a good idea.
>> >This doesn't mean they had to include DirectX 7 (this is in the server
>> >version too I think), any sound support at all, funky OpenGL screen
>> >savers. What should that be good for?
>>
>> Don't have to install the OGL screensavers.
>
>Granted.
>
>> Sound - because some server motherboards actually have sound on them?
>
>Just because the hardware is there shouldn't mean the drivers get
>automagically installed. Not on a server anyway (who would have speakers
>connected? :-).
You don't have the sub woofer on the bottom of the rack? I think the
option is nice and no, you don't have to install the sound driver if
you don't want to.
>> To be honest, I think most of it is because it allows them to test one
>> product rather than two. Saves time and money.
>
>Hmm. NT without sound is a supported configuration. I don't like "One
>size fits all".
Yes, it is a supported configuration. I'm just saying it reduces the
testing load. I guess it does make you happier now to see different
kernels (Pro/Server, Enterprise, Datacenter) turning up?
>> Actually, X does limit what you can do. Transperancy (like the Window
>> fade in, antialiasing etc.) is really hard to do on X.
>
>Of course it does limit your choices. Any API/protocol does.
>
>X is rather old and needs to be careful about consumed network
>bandwidth.
It's not even very good at that. Running Terminal Server is much more
pleasant than X over a low speed modem. X serves its purpose. I
doubt very much it is still the best tool for the job but, like Win9x,
it still exists for compatibility's sake.
>> >I feel that the whole ease-of-use issue, UI design, whatnot has
>> >degenerated into a marketing instrument a long time ago.
>> >
>> >Everyone claims they have it, noone defines it and you can't measure it
>> >easily.
>>
>> Actually, they do. Generally you do this by taking a set of users
>> with similar experience and putting them in front of the system and
>> ask them to use it without manuals. MS, Apple and other major
>> companies do this a *lot*. Most Linux distros don't. It shows.
>
>Sure. But MS, Apple and the others AFAIK do not publish their criteria.
>Results they publish are tainted in any case. I have no idea what they
>actually think and do about usability.
>
>I only see that it seems to be strongly related to some sales droid's
>dreams and beginners. IOW must look flashy and try to guess what you may
>want to do. If it guesses wrong things get complicated.
Yes. Read the UI guidelines for wizard design - if you don't use an
option 90% of the time it gets thrown out. Some things like that
annoy me so I just find other ways around, like using the command
prompt or scripting.
>> >After having briefly used a Mac some time ago I know that I don't want
>> >to touch one again.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> You'll probably like OS X with a good command shell and X11 instead of
>> Aqua.
>
>That would be just another Unix and as long as Emacs runs on it...
Yes, but hopefully a very pretty and very well supported one.
>No mouse with only one button is allowed though. :-)
You have my agreement there.
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: 22 Jun 2000 10:51:15 GMT
On 21 Jun 2000 19:11:31 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Oh realy? Then what ealse does Linsux do becides shuffal text and suck in
>genneral?
> >
> >A troll.
>
> Then maybe youd care to anser my questchin.
I tell you what, I'll answer when you give a useful (And correctly
spelt) answer to this:
What does Winblows do besides crash and such in general?
> >
> >> >What part of X is bloated when compared to something like the GUI
> >> >components in NT?
> >>
> >> Its 6 compleatly different "visuals" and the need to write 6
> >> different versions of every drawing
> >> function in order to be compatibbal with all of them. Most of this blote
> >> ends up in the libearies
> >> like KDE or even GTK. For this reason, the programs that only use
> >> Xlib are usually use monochrome.
> >
> >Most of that is a lie.
>
> Its' treu and you no it
The only truth there is that if you want to use all 6 toolkits, you
have to use...all 6 toolkits. Distros are standardising on GNOME or
KDE. If you want to write an app, you pick GNOME (Or just Gtk) or KDE
(Or just Qt) and there you have it.
> >> But if it crashes your console its' just as uesless as if it crashed the
> >> kernal so you mite as
> >> weal reboot.
> >
> >No, you can usually recover from Telnet or ssh.
>
> Its faster to just reboot.
No. I can usually fix such problems in around a minute. It takes
longer than that to reboot, login and re-run all your programs.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 22 Jun 2000 10:51:16 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:07:30 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did you ever consider some people don't like spending HOURS trying to
> get simple things in Linux to work the way they want them too? I've
> never had to reinstall Win2k. NT is the future of consumer Windows.
Then how come MS *still* haven't make the move from Win9x to NT?
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:56:48 +0200
> Did you ever consider some people don't like spending HOURS trying to
> get simple things in Linux to work the way they want them too? I've
> never had to reinstall Win2k. NT is the future of consumer Windows.
Looks like these same people DO like to spend HOURS trying to put
down everybody who doesn't share their particular view of how
computers should be run. Pathetic, if you ask me.
--
It shows everybody's files neatly in a tree,
While Your desktop shows a BSOD,
Your home-made virus can really run free.
It's made by your favorite monopoly!
------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:02:16 +0400
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2000 01:51:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
>
> You've proved that two distributions of Linux simply don't work. Are
> you sure you're a Linux advocate? Isn't Mandrake 7.1 a popular enough
> release? I tried to install it on a system with 1 NIC and 1 video
> card. That's it. It crashed and burned on the SCSI probe. It doesn't
> get much more stock than this system... BX board, Celeron, 64MB, 1
> generic ne2000 NIC.
Mine:Aopen BX motherboard with PII 400 MHz
128 Mb RAM
Creative AWE 64
Two NIC's Linksys and Genius both 10/100
M$ Intellimouse
Epson Stylus 600 printer
ATI Rage Pro Turbo video card at 8MB
Robotics V90 external modem
All of that were detected without any problems during
install. How I wish I can also have a digital video cam
and I can prove it.
> That's it. Linux couldn't do it.
Huh!
>
>
> What distro must I try next?
Wait for M$ Linux for Wintrolls. It's coming.
Ferdinand
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
