Linux-Advocacy Digest #255, Volume #27 Thu, 22 Jun 00 15:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: The MEDIA this year! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows come in, your time is up. ("James")
Re: It's all about the microsurfs (abraxas)
Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill ("James")
Re: Linux, easy to use? (abraxas)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Darren Winsper)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy? (Darren Winsper)
Re: The MEDIA this year!
Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ??? (John Culleton)
Re: X can't be that slow ("Robert L.")
Re: Linux, easy to use? (John Culleton)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (MK)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The MEDIA this year!
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:59:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FEE FII FOO FUUMM! I SMELL THE BLOOD OF A WINRAT....
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > No-Spam wrote:
> >
> > > How can a Wintroll, with a fake name, who never gives sources
himself,
> > > and quotes the same lame Wintroll lies year after year, question
> > > Charlie ?
> >
> > Isn't Charlie the fellow who swears Windows has no disk cache?
>
> Yes. It doesn't seem to have one. They claim it does, but,,,
> nobody's every been able to prove it existed thru testing.
I did a couple of tests, a file copy and a regular login, both
worked faster the second time around. Not very scientific I guess,
but it made my mind up.
> > As most full featured OS's (hardware allowing of course) do
> > caching, I'd like to see something a little more convincing than
> > Charlie saying so, as the windows I have here seem to be caching
> > something. Is there some new spec on what caching is that I've
missed?
>
> Well,,,,
> Being the scientific person you are,,,,
> Reboot your machine then do something you would think would be
> cached by the OS. Some disk activity. I won't put any kind of
> criteria on it. You could pick some 1 meg file to load into
> Excell or you could just do a program start up, or maybe you'd
> like to pull my primate's trick of opening a directory with explorer.
(See above)
> Time the even the best you can with your watch.
>
> Then do it again about 5 times, each time recording the time.
>
> What we did in the insurance business was perform some serial
> and random read tests on a simple 1 meg file. From the first
> read to the 10th run of this test, the time difference
> was ZERO. They all took the same time. And, nothing
> else was running.
>
> So, where's the cache.
I remember discussions where files / sectors were pre-read
into cache (can't remember what OS was discussed, just that
this happened under _some_ environment), perhaps that was
what happened? Just a guess.
Also, what program you used could have an impact. What did
you use?
> While on the Mandrake test box we set up, there was a timing
> difference recorded from the first run thru the 10th.
> A noticable cache of the disk WAS observed.
>
> >
> > Anyways, who cares who posts what? I look at the post more than
> > the poster anyways.
>
> Well, you do for one. Otherwise, why this.
I would have remarked on your 'no cache' comment irregardless.
Its not who you are, but the fact that you made the 'no cache'
comment, _and did not change your recogniseable posting id_.
You see, you're not really Charlie to me, you're 'Mr. Windows-
has-no-cache' ;-)
> You know. I can never convince a wintroll of anything.
> It will never happen. And I don't care. Never have.
Probably a credibility thing, it happens.
> The Linux market is currently 35% world wide for servers
> and 14% for desktops as of last count. I remember when
> Linux only accounted for 3%.
Its clearly catching on.
> Windows hasn't grown any for 3 years now. Their percentage
> hit it's peak in 1998.
>
> In 5 years time, wintroll's won't exist.
There will always be trolls, who knows about Windows' fate :-)
> > > To all concerned, "Steve/Amy/Keys88/Heather/Simon" etc, is a
> > unbalanced,
> > > or paid Microsoft Wintroll, do yourself a favor, and save some
> > valuable time.
> > >
> > > kill file him
> >
> > Or better yet, pick an incarnation of his and prove him erroneous.
> > Then you can claim spank at any time given commonly accepted usenet
> > practices.
>
> This is good advice?
> Why on earth would you say this.
Because it is my personal choice. Mr. 'killfile' offered his personal
choice, I offered mine. Clearly neither option is catastrophic.
> Of all the loonacy wintroll's represent, why become one of them.
Probably flat out entertainment value.
> > Off topic, anybody know how to get KDE's window manager to run
> > standalone, that somebody with 0 knowledge (me) can manage? One
> > of the threads here has my curiousity up now, I'll continue reading,
> > but if anybody knows a shortcut, redhat 6.1, ordinary KDE
installation
> > (?)
>
> As one man has tried to say about 1000 times, KDE isnt' a window
> manager.
If you'll look closer, you'll notice I said 'get KDE's window manager
to run standalone'. I didn't know the difference, but by the time
I posted above, I did. Irregardless, you're welcome to assume I'm
a zero knowledge luser also. Hope that helps!
> > (On the other hand, I've seen some interesting behavior just
renaming
> > files randomly :-)
> >
> > --
> > I'm one of those 0 knowledge folks yttrx talks about.
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
> I suppose you still believe Windows has a disk cache?
To be honest, I've never given it much thought until now.
I've learned some stuff, assumed other stuff and have been
proven wrong, theorized, experimented, asked questions, etc.
At this time, yes, Windows seems to cache. Whether it is
disk, file, or a combination of both, I don't know. But
I'm willing to experiment too, so I'll let you know how
my experiment goes, I'm interested in the fact that you're
not seeing a time difference, so I'll give it a shot.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows come in, your time is up.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:49:21 +0200
Geez, does Wine only support 2 winapps? Not according to 1/2 !!!!!!
"Karri Kalpio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >
> > RIP W2k.
> >
> > James
> >
> > "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > From your enthusiasm I assume I will be able to run all those great Win
apps
> > within weeks.
>
> Probably yes... Both of them...
>
> --karri
>
> --
> You have moved your mouse, for these : Karri Kalpio
> changes to take effect you must shut : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> down and restart your computer. Do you : [+358] (40) 5926895 (mobile)
> want to restart your computer now? : [+358] (9) 75111771 (work)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: 22 Jun 2000 17:59:28 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It doesn't even matter because half the hardware in those machines
> won't run Linux anyway so Linux isn't even an option.
>
"Half the hardware", eh simon?
Tell me, which half would that be?
And what, specifically?
Shouldnt be too hard for a 42 year old who knows what a punchcard reader
is, eh?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:06:13 +0200
Another example:
Read "Build the right [web] site for you business" in the PC Magazine dated
23 May 2000, p 154. Interesting comparison between W2k, Netware 5.1, RHL
Pro 6.1, Solaris 8. Ok, I know it is all lies, but humour me.
James
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > >And as I said before Simon777.
> > >Just pick up any computer magazine from your office or Grocery store.
> > >
> > >Now, is that so hard.
> > >
> > >That's a BIG BOY.
> >
> > You were the one that claimed Linux is three times faster than Windows.
> > Care to justify that statement? I did some tests of my own and found
Linux
> > is _slower_ than Windows!
> >
> > Pete
>
> We never did hear if you took any of the suggestions on tuning and
> retried your tests. Or is this one of those Mindcraft type of
> examples? Tune windows perfectly and let Linux sit with non-optimized
> settings.
>
> I don't agree that Linux is tree times faster than Windows, but for most
> things it is somewhat faster. I'm not a benchmarking person, so I don't
> have solid numbers, but I am interested in if you ever re-ran your test
> with any of the suggestions that were given to you. This to me would be
> the equivalent of running your test under Windows without loading the
> proper drivers to your motherboard/IDE controller/vide card/etc. Tuning
> and driver loading are essential to get a well optimized system.
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 22 Jun 2000 18:10:17 GMT
Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay. Lets say you wanted, oh I don't know, create an XML document.
> Now, you have two choices, a command line (that is using your favorite
> text editor and hard coding it yourself), or using the Graphically based
> XML editor of your choice. Which is easier? In the MAJORITY of home
> uses, GUI's are easier to deal with. Command line params are not for home
> users. I know my Mom can barely use AOL much less parse:
>
> #!/bin/sh
> let x=0
> while [ ${x} -le 360 ]; do
> (
> cat model.in1
> echo ' by rotation x ' ${x} ';'
> cat ./model.in2
> )>model_temp.in
> set -e
> bobscript -r < model_temp.in > ${x}.r3d
> nawk ' NR == 5 { print "1 1 1 RGB background \
> colour; black"; next; } { print }'<${x}.r3d>${x}_2.r3d
> render -tiff < ${x}_2.r3d
> if [ ${x} -lt 10 ]; then
> mv render.rgb files/000${x}.tiff
> elif [ ${x} -gt 9 -a ${x} -lt 100 ]; then\
> mv render.rgb files/00${x}.tiff
> elif [ ${x} -gt 99 -a ${x} -lt 1000 ]; then
> mv render.rgb files/0${x}.tiff
> else
> mv render.rgb files/${x}.tiff
> fi
> rm -f ${x}.r3d
> rm -f ${x}_2.r3d
> let x=x+5
> done
>
>
> To anyone who uses bash and knows how to use Molscript and Raster3d
> this is trivial to parse and its obvious why it exists. To someone who
> doesn't give a poo about shell scripting or programming, this ranges from
> somewhare parseable to Sanscrit.
> Power. Sort of.
> Extendable. Definitely.
> Easy. No.
>
So what youre saying is that the average person who uses KDE because its
'easier than the command line' when it comes to XML parsing.
I see.
What im saying is that KDE is one of dozens of choices. Some are better
than others. None of them are LINUX; rather, they are all program/script
combinations that run UNDER linux. So if you're going to bash linux for
being slow/difficult to understand by only using KDE as an example, you're
not actually bashing linux, but KDE specifically.
If you cannot understand this, you really should probably give up now.
>
>
>> > Second, Linux may be a kernel, but it is most
>> > often distributed for use
>> > at home with a GUI and most people refer to this
>> > hybrid as still being Linux.
>
>> Youve missed the point. The point is that since
>> KDE *isnt* linux, if you dont like it you can use something
>> else without tossing the entire operating system.
>
> KDE isn't that much different from Gnome,
KDE isnt much different from gnome for the end user, but it is ENTIRELY
different 'under the hood'. COMPLETELY different.
> which are the main GUI's for
> Linux distrib.
Oh really? What the hell am I doing with windowmaker?
> Most of the changes are cosmetic.
Wrong, most of the difference is between QT and GTK, and one only allowing
C++ development and the other letting you do whatever the hell you want.
These are *amazingly* large differences. If you cannot understand this,
you have no point to make at all.
> It's like replacing one
> WinClone for another WinClone. Personally, on an astetic level I like
> Gnome more for some reason.
Its probably the widgets. Its usually the widgets.
> Usually Gnome/KDE replacements are little more than Gnome/KDE with
> different colors and buttons or a copy of the GUI of someone elses OS's.
> I've personally never really been impressed.
You have no idea what youre talking about. None at all. Just stick with
windows, friend...its intellectually suited to you.
>
> Anyhow, it is you who have missed the point. Linux without a GUI or tools
> its absolutely useless.
Wow. Youd better run off and tell the good folks at Google this important
news. They run a 4000 node linux cluster RIGHT NOW, which theyre expanding
to 6000 nodes to handle their search engine.
It doesnt have a GUI! UH OH! HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY WORK?????
> A kernel without init, cp, mv, ls...you get the
> point...is usless (unless you put kernel level firewall on it, then it
> might be the best firewall in the whole world). Most people, including
> those who respond to drool like "Linux blows cause i can't use office on
> it" (when in fact you can with Wine) still call the combination of kernel
> (aka Linux) with its tools and a GUI...well Linux.
Theyre incorrect.
>
>
>
>> I understand that its incredibly difficult for windows users to
>> understand a GUI that is not so intrinsically built into the operating
>> system as to be impossibleto replace.
>
> I'm not a Windows users. In fact I have NEVER used Office (any version,
> which is the main app for windows). I'm not a "Linux User" either. I do
> have a old P100 sitting around that I turned into a mp3 streamer for my
> home network. In fact if you want to be technical, Im a "Unix User",
> since I sit in front of Unix Boxes all day at work.
>
If you were a 'unix user' you would understand that the bits and pieces
of the GUIs that are layed atop X11 have nothing at all to do with the
usefulness or stability of the system in question, since they are
utterly configurable.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: 22 Jun 2000 18:14:19 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:14:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The point is NOT the card, it is that the LinoNuts are always claiming
> support from this manufacturer or that vendor, I am only exposing the
> fact that Win2k drivers were out, full function Livewire drivers, long
> before Linux ones (which don't even exist yet) and therefore showing
> that Win2k is a money maker for vendors and Linux is, as always taking
> a backseat.
Then explain how Linux got ATA-100 drivers *before* Windows.
--
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)
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: 22 Jun 2000 18:14:20 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:41:07 GMT, John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:10:32 -0400, "Colin R. Day"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Ask Microsoft. From my EULA:
> >
> >Single COMPUTER: The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed with the
> >COMPUTER as a single integrated product. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT
> >may only be used with the COMPUTER.
>
> That's sufficiently vague to mean about anything. Guess it depends on
> who has the best lawyers. :-)
I can't really say what MS mean, but I can take a guess. You can buy
an OEM version of Windows with a motherboard IIRC. Also, from what I
hear the new Windows "image" CDs OEMs now have to use are tied to a
particular BIOS.
Those two items seem to indicate that as far as a definition goes, I'd
say the computer can be defined as the motherboard. If you buy a
non-OEM version of Windows, I imagine it means only on one system at a
time.
--
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] ()
Subject: Re: The MEDIA this year!
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:19:12 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:23:16 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <ku.ca.xo.gne@rje89
.foo> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Off topic, anybody know how to get KDE's window manager to run
>> > standalone, that somebody with 0 knowledge (me) can manage? One
>> > of the threads here has my curiousity up now, I'll continue reading,
>> > but if anybody knows a shortcut, redhat 6.1, ordinary KDE installation
>> > (?)
>>
>> As one man has tried to say about 1000 times, KDE isnt' a window
>> manager.
>
>True, but KDE consists ov several components. One component must be a
>window manager must'nt it?
Actually not at all. That's rather the point of modularization.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:26:03 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 17:14:15 +0200, Davorin Mestric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
EMOVEX> wrote:
>
>well, linvocates claim linux is 'better' than other os-es, but they also
>claim linux has 30% desktop share, so...
...care to actually back that up with a citation?
[deletia]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ???
From: John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:28:59 -0700
Slackware can be downloaded over the net and installed in bits
and pieces -- A series is required, then there is N series for
communications and so on. Or you can buy the Slack 7 cdrom.
Minimum you need a boot diskette, a root diskette, and the A
series to do initial install and get going. I ran Slackware on
minimal machines for years.
John Culleton
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: X can't be that slow
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 18:34:55 GMT
I never use X as root.
My user use qvwm, else, it's too slow. ( Do you know some other wm faster
than that?)
I know i have to start X before my window manager start.
"OSguy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Robert L." wrote:
>
> > "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > can anyone awnser my question, what is everyone doing to X to make it
so
> > > slow???
> > >
> > > -Ed
> >
> > Misconfigured. If you put the SVGA server instead of the S3 server when
you
> > have a S3 video card.
> > Bad drivers, it happen too in windows.
> >
> > When i need speed, i don't use X. My root don't have a windows manager
ready
> > ( just the one that is set automaticly by RH 5.2 setup.
>
> Does this mean you come up in console text mode without X? Or do you mean
you
> get X up without a window manager (can be done, but it is a pain since
your
> apps probably don't know how to resize or move the window around without a
> window manager)?
>
> > Some people may think that X is kde or gnome, and they are saying that X
is
> > slow.
>
> They are desktops, where kwm is the Window Manager for KDE, and sawfish or
> Enlightenment seems to be the default window manager put with Gnome in the
> distros. (I think gnome.org has adopted sawfish for the Window Manager
under
> Gnome).
>
> > I use only games from both, i use qvwm instead, not for the windows
look,
> > but for the speed. Take 1/5 of the time that kde take to start.
> > ( my Linux box have 16 Meg )
>
> Hmm.....I don't think you understand what X is. If you're using any type
of
> window manager, you're using X (or MetroX or Berlin if you replaced X).
The
> only time I know that you aren't using X is when you are in console text
mode
> (ie - no X started), and you wouldn't be able to run qvwm until you
started X.
>
> Now, are you really saying you don't use Window Managers other than qvwm
> because they're slower? I can buy that.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
From: John Culleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:02:18 -0700
I have this feeling that modern distros by making everything so
easy and graphical have ultimately made everything harder and
more confusing. I have used Slackware for years, and the
installation program features an ncurses based presentation that
does not require that X window be active. Of course it doesn't
fool with those silly RPM packages; the old-fashioned tarball
works fine and still allows for easy install and uninstall.
Perhaps for the gui generation such a basic approach may seem
intimidating. I am grateful for its simplicity.
But to each their own.
John Culleton
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (MK)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:11:28 GMT
On 22 Jun 2000 15:46:48 GMT, Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In talk.politics.libertarian MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As the author of "The New Trustbusters" soberly pointed, the charge
>If you posted a link to this article, I missed it. Could you
>post it again?
I quoted the text of the article. I don't have link, but you can find it on
site of Reason magazine, http://www.reason.com.
MK
---
Equality requires slavery.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
