Linux-Advocacy Digest #199, Volume #27 Tue, 20 Jun 00 01:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux Project at Medfield High School (Adam Schuetze)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Secretly Cruel)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Secretly Cruel)
Re: [Fwd: Newsweek US Edition: Microsoft's Six Fatal Errors] (OSguy)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (void)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (David M. Cook)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roger)
Re: Number of Linux Users (Andrew)
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (John Hasler)
Re: Windows98 ("Robert L.")
A Better Wintroll Than Wintrolls (was: Re: Desperately Seeking Intelligent Windows
Advocates...) ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Windows98 ("Robert L.")
Re: Good books on writing a kernel. (cLIeNUX user)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: stability of culture of helpfulness (David M. Cook)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 22:12:25 -0500
In article <alA35.245157$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Citrix has been a "partner" for a surprisingly long time; I'm not sure
>why they're _still_ in business, unless the MSFT proboscis got stuck,
>and they're trying to be quiet while the DOJ is on the warpath...
Doesn't Citrix make a version that works with clients running
on non-MS platforms? I can see why MS would allow them to
continue as long as they end up raking in the client access
fees that approximately match the price of installing NT on every desktop.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam Schuetze)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux Project at Medfield High School
Reply-To: adam_schuetze at iname dot com
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 03:22:19 GMT
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Not long ago, in a galaxy somewhat nearby, mike burrell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.help Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Healp me my text-baste UNIX mailreder cant rede HTML!"
>
> ?? you should probably get a different mailreader then.
Or people could stop posting in html. html email is just plain
stupid.
- --
Adam Schuetze <adam_schuetze at iname dot com>
Get my pgp keys at http://tirith.me.uvic.ca/~schuetze
rsa f'print B8 80 DA D6 BB CA 80 5F C5 68 1C 08 FE 3E 65 1C
dss f'print 46 CB B3 C3 A1 C9 BA 57 7C B4 A1 6A BF 8F 2D 95 2B 7A 1D 77
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: PGP 6.5.2
Comment: GNU/Linux and PGP, get yours today!
iQEVAwUBOU7lbupyocWvYyjpAQGlZwgAmmDIlCGGNT+t7t5FVLwVakZCXSD9re4t
oQRRZrubqF2VkhUep8qxKa7IfHp0j2wfXJiUET8pKpebKC4MNTGx3e1XTjuo/nfP
/Gx8D0m1RNonlNi3jIpghyMmhFHui1cJR9pI4WS0A2gBDirBYuAFZ7M6vzpUBiIr
MePvPV1kLFLf7s69AdbigQmd+EweCqjaakiHtqz9KgsabsQRwF74xdY9cuwL8g0l
/E4wESBwy0SGSPPYOfY87hiBkrVNz2K0C/e05otJzfYzZ+ujCZqhwD8i+vWbDcr1
4zuNw7YEEcGF45Y3Mnzba3T81IefuREltY1GMab9f0of4ASqMENy1A==
=ZzFr
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:55:23 -0400
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In Windos, if the softwhere is beta, you won't see it on the market.
That was the funniest thing I've read in a very long time.
--+==]Secretly Cruel[==+--
(Antispam measure is obvious in email address)
------------------------------
From: Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:58:02 -0400
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But moast peopel don't USE it, and it can be turned off.
>In Windos you can have no password without getting cracked. You onley need password
>for PCAnywhere or Terminnal server, but the password doessn't effect you when you
>use the PC.
>Nobody neads an over-network feeture. Windows wins without it.
>You can list the exceptians, but it doesn't change the ruel.
An eff yu haf a chanse pleez leeve som flowrs on Algernons grave in the
bak yard.
--+==]Secretly Cruel[==+--
(Antispam measure is obvious in email address)
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Newsweek US Edition: Microsoft's Six Fatal Errors]
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:05:04 -0500
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> After reading the fine print, it begins to make sense, but still
> if you go to the link where http://www.newsweek.com is redirected
> you find msn's navigation menu on the left where you expect
> navigation, so it is easy to mistakenly view the msn content when you
> expect unbiased Newsweek content. It fooled me, and I've seen
> web sites before.
Understandable. I just hate seeing companies sellout their web space to MSN(BC) and
AOL. I don't know why they think they're getting any better service than before
<sans the MSN(BC) or AOL marketing hype to get them there>.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: 20 Jun 2000 03:45:17 GMT
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:44:14 -0400, tinman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> There is no difference.
>
>Sure there is, one's got a hard platter, and the other doesn't. ('
Yes, and one's bigger, and one costs more than the other, etc., but:
at the highest level, both should be presented to the user simply as
removable storage.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 20 Jun 2000 04:15:28 GMT
On 17 Jun 2000 17:36:13 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1. It scails down
>Noboddy cares
Nokia cares.
The rest of your post exhibits the same kind of stunning cluelessness about
how computers are actually used in the real world (the one outside your
rumpus room.)
Dave Cook
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:17:44 GMT
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:19:52 GMT, someone claiming to be Joe Ragosta
wrote:
>> So, then you can point us all to, let's say, a dozen of these studies
>> specifically comparing the 9x interface? Why did you not post
>> pointers on your website? All I ever saw there was 3x...
>They were there. I pointed them out many, many times.
>
>Your inability to read isn't my problem.
Nor is your lack of ability to support your claim mine. I say again:
plenty of studies vs. 3.x
None vs. 9x
Please feel free to post an URL which proves me wrong.
>I turned the site over to a csma regular and he'll be reposting it some
>day (soon, I hope).
And of course, have no other records of these mountains of studies...
>> >They did mountains of studies when WinNT 4.0 was current. Same result.
>> >The press and IS people around (not to mention Wintrolls) ignored them).
>>
>> Ditto -- a dozen here.
>Yep. you chose to ignore all the studies then, so why should they print
>new ones?
>
>And why a dozen studies? You have no evidence, so even a single one
>should be sufficient.
Except that one would not support your claim of "mountains" of
studies.
>> Of course, since I've not stated a position, this can hardly be
>> considered extraordinary...
>Your position is that Macs don't have better TCO--in spite of mountains
>of evidence. Where's yours?
How nice of you to inform me of my own opinions. BTW, how do I feel
on gun control? Since you seem to have complete knowledge of my
mindset and can even articulate those positions I' no even aware I
hold, you could sure save me a * bunch * of time...
Oh, and Joe?
I'm * still * waiting...
------------------------------
From: Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 23:01:14 -0400
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> For NT you might be able to come approximately close mapping
> sales to installations. With Linux, a single download (not even
> one sale) can result in dozens or hundreds of installations.
Or the reverse. I have at least 10 distros sitting on CDs on my bookshelf and
another 3 at work. The only one I have installed is a copy of RH 6.1. (yeah, I
know, I know)
Andrew
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:47:55 GMT
Bill Unruh writes:
> Although his contention is that all bugs are shallow in open source, this
> is less true than it should be. See the recent bug report on the
> PGP5.0(?) disasterous bug for automatically generated keys.
PGP is not free software.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:06:24 GMT
Linux is very good OS ( or maybe better than that ). This is why there's no
need for reinstalled.
I know it's ( mean windows) not reliable at all. But, you can't say is not
good at all.
In windows, there's some good thing, some bad and some very bad thing.
In Linux, there's some bad thing, some good thing and some very good thing.
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Robert L." wrote:
> >
> > Win98 is a good OS. If well configured, it may be bug less.
> > I mean, habitually, it take 3-4 month before i have to reinstalled it.
>
>
> Conversely, I have NEVER re-installed a Unix or Linux system.
>
> Why is that?
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> H: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
>
> C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
> sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
> that she doesn't like.
>
> D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
>
> E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (D) above.
>
> F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
> response until their behavior improves.
>
> G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: A Better Wintroll Than Wintrolls (was: Re: Desperately Seeking Intelligent
Windows Advocates...)
Date: 20 Jun 2000 04:31:49 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in part:
: I just wanted to find someone intelligent, literate, and pro-Microsoft
: with whom to debate Windows benefits vs. the burden cost of supporting
: it.
Good luck.
Microsoft has very few niches it can adequately fill over the long
haul.
Wintrolls know that, which is why they troll, instead of presenting
logical arguments based on something at least tangentially related to
fact.
On the other hand, almost every advocate of
Linux/Mac/BeOS/BSD/whatever also has some exposure to WinDOS at some
level and knows better than any Wintroll (most of whom aren't
computer-literate and some of whom aren't literate in any sense) about
both the weaknesses and strengths of the WinDOS platform.
Hence, any advocate of any real OS could, if he or she so chose, make
a better "devil's advocate" type of case for WinDOS than the Wintrolls
themselves can.
If I had more time I'd try myself just for the heck of it. (I use
Linux and sometimes the *BSDs, but have no particular animosity toward
any OS other than those made by Microsoft, and even those have some
strong points although they are far outweighed by the bad ones.)
: I know, I know... intelligent & literate would contravene a pro-M$
: position, but one can but hope.
It would be like trying to get someone to make an intelligent and
literate case for racism. Almost by definition it's impossible. But
once you've argued with enough racists (as I have) you get to the
point where you could make a better case for *their* side than they
can, although it would be a weak case nonetheless.
: If anyone has anything rational, literate, and correct (factually
: accurate) to say about Winders, feel free to speak up. The illiterate
: children who usually post pro-M$ flames can all go jump. I routinely
: shred your ignorant, fallacious claims without any effort. Your
: infantile, illiterate, blathering rants are boring everyone.
: I'm looking for someone who can actually think and write rationally and
: logically, and who is willing to do so in Microsoft's favor.
I might but only as a devil's advocate. I don't use Windows or any
Microsoft product by choice, and while I do have to use them at work,
I'd prefer not to and am constantly trying to find ways to migrate
away from Microsoft "solutions" and toward open/nonproprietary ones
wherever possible.
My case in support of Windows would revolve primarily around three
points.
First, Windows is everywhere, on the desktop at least, and is thus a
_de facto_ standard. Writing for Windows guarantees by far the
largest market share, both now and for the foreseeable future. In
many markets it simply doesn't pay to write cross-platform code,
especially GUI code (which is notoriously difficult), just in order to
reach the 5 or 10% of the market that doesn't run Windows at least
part-time.
Second, Windows offers an unparallelled depth, breadth, and variety of
third-party software that not only has never been matched in the
history of computing, but is never likely to be again (since it is
likely that diversity, not another monopoly, will be what eventually
reduces Windows to a less dominant role). It may be that Windows is
not the ideal platform for any single application, but it is clearly
the best "all purpose" platform viewed from the standpoint of
available software, in large part because it is the *only* all purpose
platform from that standpoint. BeOS has little software; Linux has
lots but much of it is not as consistent or user-friendly as its
Windows counterparts, and it does some kinds of multimedia poorly
(chiefly due to limitations in X). The Mac, while it has some very
high-quality apps, doesn't have very many of them. If you want a PC
to do everything from sound editing to scanning to serving small Web
sites to creating and editing word processing and desktop database
documents, Windows is not only your best choice, but pretty much your
only choice.
Finally, Windows has two things that most other platforms do not: MS
Office and Internet Explorer. Like it or not Office is the _de facto_
standard for document creation and exchange within large
organizations, and more and more Web pages are optimized for IE so
that over time it will be more and more difficult to have a
decent browsing experience without it. There are other Office-like
programs, but they are less featureful than MS Office and may not be
able to import and export to/from Office formats reliably; similarly,
there are a few other decent Web browsers but they are either
unfinished (Mozilla), buggy (Netscape), or expensive (Opera . . .
expensive at least compared to free/gratis). The three combined don't
equal IE's share at present, so naturally Web developers are writing
mostly for IE.
Microsoft has a hell of a lot of problems, but it does have some
strengths. If the Wintrolls were worth the money they're being paid,
they would at least try to understand them. It really must be
embarrassing to them that I can advocate 'Doze better than they can,
even though I hate it!
: Not to scare anyone off, but just so you'll know, I am a systems
: analyst, network "engineer" (yes, I know there's no PE) and amateur
: scientist, with over two decades of real experience working with
: computer systems, from the Wintel Frankenstation at home through most of
: DEC's minicomputer line, to IBM S/370's running MVS/XA. Yes, if you can
: do math, you'll see that I was writing programs (in various languages)
: before a lot of Win-d00dz finished drooling. I've designed, built,
: trained, & serviced PC networks since Novell was the only show in town
: and Micro$oft couldn't even make subdirectories.
: If you're worried you may get slammed for fallacious reasoning, just
: ask, I will be happy to share reference materials which will help you
: clean up your logic.
I think my arguments are logical and factually correct. Their biggest
problem is neither fact nor logic, but what they *omit* - for
instance, that many of the very advantages I believe Windows
possesses, it possesses partly or completely for the reason of its
being a monopoly, which in turn came about because of unlawful and
dishonest activities on its part; or that both developers and users
would be far better off if there were sufficient competition that
writing portable code, portable drivers, open file formats and
protocols, etc. became the rule rather than the exception. Also note
that I pointed out some real shortcomings in the competing OSen, and
even acknoweldged some of their strengths (this does wonders for
credibility - it makes one sound less like an irrational zealot), but
still managed to paint all of them in a less than positive light.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 04:15:04 GMT
Get a cdrom of windows 98, make a scratch on the cd, and maybe you can
achieve something more reliable than that. :)
When I read people saying "Linux is not free unless your time worth nothing"
I laugh and i can't do anything for about 1 hours ( isn't the time it take
to install windows? )
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Robert L." wrote:
>
> > Win98 is a good OS. If well configured, it may be bug less.
> > I mean, habitually, it take 3-4 month before i have to reinstalled it.
>
> Incredible! Where can I buy this paragon of reliability!
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (cLIeNUX user)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.programmer,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.aix
Subject: Re: Good books on writing a kernel.
Date: 20 Jun 2000 06:39:37 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Manish Ahuja heeft geschreven in bericht
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>you write and implement it. Any good books that can help me write an
>>absolute rudimentary kernel, or maybe parts of it like FS, VMM or proc
>>to begin with.
>>Where can i begin ?? Any tutorials ?? Web pointers ?? books ?? I prefer
>>if the books has
>>things to do suggestions and exercises in the end.
>
For "absolutely rudimentary" you want to look at Forth. There's a 32 bit
bootable protected-mode Forth called RETRO, and it's linked off
www.tunes.org, which BTW is a great overview site for writing "kernels".
What looks tight and elegant in UNIX is rampant bletchery to a Forth.
Well, not really, but a Forth is the shortest path to a usable system.
RETRO, however, is the first Forth I know of that may become pre-emptive
multi-tasking, i.e. true multi-user.
To give you an idea of the Forth approach, it's RPN, and a classico
stand-alone Forth doesn't do filesystems. It gives the user a direct
interface to disk blocks and buffers.
Linus Torvalds recommends "The Design of the UNIX Operating System",
Maurice J. Bach, 1985 or 6. AT&T copyright, pricey, typeset with *roff, it
is in many ways the "K&R" of UNIX. Linus wrote Linux from Minix, probably
with that book on his lap. The lingo of linux-kernel@vger is right out of
that book. He also refered to the Intel 386 programmer's doc for an
example of how to get into protected mode, etc.
Rick Hohensee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"So far, Linux doesn't have a lot of traction on the client
[Microsoft-ese for desktop computers], except in some university
environments."
Steve Ballmer of Microsoft, as quoted and remarked by John Schwartz
in the Washington Post, June 11 2000
>
>Take a look at :
>
> Operating System Design, the XINU approach
> Douglas Comer
> Prentice Hall
> ISBN 0-13-637539-1
>
>Rob
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 20 Jun 2000 04:57:36 GMT
> If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
> tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
> the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
That's a great statement.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: stability of culture of helpfulness
Date: 20 Jun 2000 04:59:33 GMT
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:02:32 GMT, Oliver Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1)Does this make sense--that they could reduce their support staff? (and
>if so, by how much? if anybody cares to make an estimate.)
If the cluster is made up of similar machines, yes it makes sense. One
person could easily administrate many machines from off site. However, this
does take considerable unix experience; you can't just throw _Linux for
Dummies_ at an MSCE and expect things to run smoothly.
>2) Is this culture of on-line helpfulness impervious to a)increasing
>numbers of Linux users, b)increasing numbers of queries from Linux users
>at companies who--it might be perceived--could afford to hire people to
>generate in-house the answers they are instead getting through the
>kindness of strangers.
A lot of the people asking questions on the newsgroups are probably asking
as part of their job. I think this is understood.
But that's beside the point; if the support they need is at a hand holding
level, it's unlikely this venture will succeed. They should think about
hiring competent unix admins or outsourcing the job.
>So far, one person has said it doesn't matter what the affliation is of
>who is asking (though their perceived attitude does).
I'd agree with that.
Dave Cook
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
