Linux-Advocacy Digest #620, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 14:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Passenger Pigeon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 13:57:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Greg Yantz from alt.destroy.microsoft; 12 Jul 2000 10:35:55
[...]
>This does not seem unreasonable to me, and I am no MS fan. Yes, Windows
>is essentially unreliable and unmaintainable. However, it is possible
>to reduce the symptoms somewhat (if not effect a cure) with careful,
>conservative administration.
In other words, smoking is good for lung cancer, because some people who
have lung cancer and smoke don't die. I say it "may be possible", to
reduce the symptoms with careful administration. But "may" isn't good
enough to establish a causal link. I have seen carefully,
conservatively, and properly administered Windows systems, with reliable
and stable network interconnectivity, and users who are merely
data-entry personnel who would never use the Start Menu, let alone the
control panel, fail. Other systems with identical hardware and
identical software (but for typical use divergence), do not fail.
Thus I believe your impression is wrong, and am asking you to reconsider
it in light of these considerations.
>> > It sure sounded to me like what I said. Again, you are not defending
>> > MS, or saying it is OK. You're defending Microsoft's *position*, and
>> > saying that Window's crashes can be avoided by competence. This is a
>> > mistaken position, so forgive me for disagreeing with it.
>
>Are you kidding? I suspect you have a personal agenda that interferes with
>your reading comprehension. To quote:
>
> "in some cases it is possible to set it up to run
> without crashing *a lot*"
But, I will yet again point out, unless you can be much more explicit in
identifying precisely how this is to be done (I've already stated
unequivocally that proper administration is not sufficiently explicit),
it is a meaningless statement, even if it is true. "In some cases it is
possible" is only a useful concept if you can know in advance which
cases these are. Taking each system that crashes, and finding a fault
you can attribute to "improper administration" or other concerns is not,
I'm afraid, a valid approach to learning how to avoid crashes, as it is
a troubleshooting technique which can *appear* successful to large
degree, without actually benefiting from any empirical validity.
>This is something I have said myself (if not in those words) and it is
>in no way an admission that all Windows crashes can be avoided by
>competence. You're trying way too hard.
No, you are assuming way too much. You know, if you change something,
and the problem goes away, so you say "that fixed it", you're setting
yourself up for what we call "voodoo troubleshooting".
Once again, not because I'm an asshole, but just because I want to be
clear:
The statement "in some cases it is possible to set it up so it doesn't
crash *a lot*" is, indeed, logically controvertible. There are some
cases where it is not possible to set it up so that you know in advance
that it won't crash a lot. Since you cannot know in advance which cases
these are going to turn out to be, maintaining that the original
statement is either useful or factually correct is, in my opinion, the
equivalent of stating that *any* (not all) Windows crashes can be
avoided by competence. Competence is NOT sufficient to stop Windows
from crashing! (Though competence and luck is certainly a better bet
than luck alone.)
Now do you understand what I mean, and why I couldn't just let you guys
go on basing your troubleshooting on invalid assumptions?
If you *really* want to be a master at troubleshooting computers (and,
yes, I do consider myself a master, capable of instructing others in
this regard, even those with a good deal of experience, and possibly
even a greater duration in the trade then myself), then you have to
remember that the fix for the problem needs to be validated and tested
every bit as much as the original problem you're fixing. You can't just
assume that correcting something is what fixed it, or even, if this is
true, that it fixed it for the reasons you think it did. I think maybe
at least some of these cases that convince you guys that proper
administration improves Windows behavior substantially is that changing
an incorrect setting often forces Windows to re-construct part of its
internal interconnections, and it was the loss of these
interconnections, as opposed to the incorrect setting you identified and
changed, thus re-applying those connections, which fixed the problem.
This is also why I remarked that I have observed that Windows is more
likely to change control panel settings by itself than the user is, and
many times when administrators assume their problem is clueless users
monkeying with things they shouldn't, it is actually Windows puking on
its registry. Since to the admin coming in late, all they have to do
is "fix" the registry settings through the control panel, or
re-installing, or what have you, they assume that the problem was caused
by a registry setting being misconfigured, when it could also be the
registry setting misconfiguring itself which was the problem, and
changing it back to the correct setting doesn't "solve the problem", but
merely ignores it. Because the problem wasn't that the registry setting
got changed; the problem was that it changed itself. And its going to
do that again, or something like it, over and over, until somebody has
the balls to admit that proper administration is not sufficient to
ensure a working Windows system.
Here's another example, more specific because it is a true experience
which occurred to me no more than two weeks ago:
After having previously used Outlook connectivity to the Exchange server
over an Internet connection (bog-standard ISP, no tunneling or silly
stuff; Internet all the way to Atlanta) for several weeks, I found
Outlook giving me a "server is not available" one morning. I ran a
standard array of diagnostics, pinging the server, verifying SMTP to my
other accounts to validate Outlook, etc.
Calling the help desk to verify if anyone else was having difficulty, I
was informed that the server was up and available as far as they were
aware. We verified this again by connecting to the Exchange web
interface which they have set up. But I still could not connect with
Outlook. (Anyone who has ever used the Exchange web to access email
knows it is not a preferable, or even fully functional, interface to the
native Outlook client, despite that client's, and the system's as a
whole, problematic architecture and implementation.)
Eventually, I was reminded (and felt great chagrin that I hadn't
remembered to check myself, but I think the reason should be obvious) to
verify my LMHOSTS file. This file allows resolution of NetBIOS names to
IP addresses, in a mirror functionality to the hosts file for DNS name
resolution.
(While the hosts resolves software names to logical address, the lmhosts
resolves physical computer names to logical address. Though it is often
described as performing the same function as hosts, it is actually quite
the opposite. This itself causes an immense amount of confusion,
intentionally spawned by Microsoft.)
When I opened my C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\ETC\LMHOSTS file, I found,
not the two lines of text to resolve the name of the NetBIOS computer to
the Exchange server's IP address, but a very large block of absolute
gibberish. The file had been corrupted to the Nth degree; no trace of
the information which was supposed to be in there (and which I myself,
as a competent administrator, had added not three weeks prior, and used
successfully for two weeks before it puked all over itself) could be
found. The formerly text file was now random ANSI characters; a binary
file.
Whether the file was scrapped by an unrelated disk error (on NTFS?), or
"the stack" has some need to write to LMHOSTS, and botched the job
monstrously. There were no other indications of any failures that I
could detect (and I don't miss random occurrences on my system as a
general end user would), and re-creating the file with the proper
information completely corrected the indication I was getting. I
connected to the server and got me email immediately after, and ever
since.
But is the "problem" fixed? Not to my thinking. The problem is still
there, because it is a flaw in the software. It was not "improper
administration", nor "careless users", nor "a network problem". It was
Windows doing what Windows does: proving itself to be an unreliable
piece of software. That isn't of course, Nathan's issue, and my
repeatedly deriving it is no doubt why he is convinced I don't
understand his real issue. But I guess then the real issue is whether
an administrator that doesn't know that Windows can screw itself up very
easily with no help from humans doing so accidentally can truly consider
himself competent in this regard.
Maybe its just a difference of perspective, but I think my perspective
is a larger one. I will not draw lines and say "well, that's someone
else's screw-up". Whether it be fault management (failure
response/troubleshooting) or configuration management (administration),
or any other professional implementation area, with any kind of
computer, the issues are often more extensive than the front-line
person, be they user or administrator, is often willing to accept.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 04:03:38 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 03:13:12 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:43:54 +1000, Christopher Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In article
> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [deletia]
> >> >> doesn't have any Mac drivers, it would probably be a good idea for
> >> >> people to mention such things.
> >> >
> >> >OTOH, we get Mac advocates claiming Windows doesn't have PnP because
it
> >> >doesn't work perfectly with non-PnP hardware.....
> >>
> >> ...that it's SPECIFICALLY meant to work with.
> >
> >It is ? Where is it stated Windows is specifically meant to "plug &
play"
> >with hardware not designed to be PnP ?
>
> What hardware would that be these days?
Try some el cheapo kwung-how hardware, and you'll soon find out.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 17:46:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 15:50:58 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> You're a lying dishonest ass, that's so what.
> >
> >You could make a very compelling case for such a statement if
> >you could show where I lied.
>
> You imply some necessity or likelihood of the GPL being used
> for a shared library. This is in stark conflict with reality.
With your skewed idea of reality, maybe.
There are libraries under the GPL: libreadline, libgdbm, for example,
and there is a very influential group calling for more libraries
to be under the GPL: the FSF. Just read their "Why not use the LGPL"
position paper.
So, it seems reality shows likelyhood (it has happened, so it is
obviously likely to happen), and, in the opinion of a important
group, necessity.
> You seek to alter the argument by exploiting the potential
> ignorance of those involved.
Well, your ignorance didn't prevent you from trying to alter the
argument, too. I find that distasteful.
Let's make a deal, jedi: you obviously don't like me. Killfile me.
If you won't killfile me, please only call me a liar when you know
I am lying. Thanks in advance.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:05:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Nathaniel Jay Lee from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
>Greg Yantz wrote:
>> You might have screwed up the wording elsewhere, but the part that I
>> quoted directly seems pretty much on target.
>
>Thanks for backing me up on my statement, but I truly believe that only
>a total admission of guilt will do for this individual.
That, actually, won't make a bit of difference to me. I'm here to teach
and to learn, not to prove you wrong or myself right simply for the joy
of doing so.
>Until I admit
>that my entire reasoning/thought/wording/and everything to do with my
>statement is incorrect, this person is going to insist that I am backing
>up MS.
One more time: I have never hinted, let alone stated, that you are
backing up MS, and have gone to great lengths to explain why you may
think so but are mistaken. Until you admit that your statement was
incorrect, and recognize that it has nothing to do with Microsoft, I
will, indeed, not be satisfied. Your reasoning was, indeed, invalid,
and that, too, has nothing to do with MS. Other than the point that it
does, indeed, both illustrate and support their desire that their
customers be as clueless as possible, and encourage them to use invalid
reasoning when troubleshooting Windows in order to shift blame from
their crappy products.
>That's OK though. I know what I said, I restated it a bit more
>clear, and still in his mind I'm wrong.
Yes, but not the part you re-stated or thought was unclear. I didn't
address that, as it is not related to the issue. The issue is NOT
whether Windows is crap. The issue is whether you can state in advance
what will cause it to crash or enable you to avoid crashing, and I will
continue to maintain that you cannot do so, and so your contentions that
you can are factually incorrect. You are not "wrong", btw, I don't
think anyone is ever "wrong". You're just mistaken, and having a hard
time both seeing it and admitting it because you feel it is an insult to
your professional capabilities. If that is the case, I'm sorry, but I
can't help that situation by pretending your statement was correct when
it isn't.
>So, life goes on. I don't have
>to impress everybody. As long as I can live with myself.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Passenger Pigeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:09:24 GMT
In article <8kibhb$2mv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8kh0e4$ts1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > The method used by the Mac puts whatever program is running in the
> > > > foreground in charge of yielding to background programs if it wants
> > > > to, while pre-emptive multitasking allows Windows to have
> > > > background processes take control without waiting for the
> > > > foreground process to yield.
> > >
> > > Yes. Thus, your 900 page print job doesn't stop the rest of the
> > > system dead so you have to take the next two hours off.
> > > Additionally, it means that if some background program gets the CPU
> > > and refuse to yield, you don't have to reboot.
> >
> > You could just force the program quit. The force quit command applies
> > to
> > the app that currently has the CPU, not necessarily the foreground app.
> > I have to do this when IE5 freezes at random while sitting in the
> > background every now and then. (You have to wonder how it manages to
> > freeze while not doing anything....)
>
> My experience with force quitting is bad. I think I've seen it work
> *once*.
You are unlucky, and I sympathize. As somebody who forced quits
applications when I want them closed faster (never mind actual
problems), though, I can assure you that it's usually pretty safe, even
when there IS an actual problem.
Of course, YMMV.
> > > > This does seem a bit in the Mac's favor in terms of being
> > > > appropriate for a system which is intended to be used as a user
> > > > desktop.
> > >
> > > How can you say a system which allows any arbitrary program to
> > > potentially and *easily* hang the machine and require a reboot is
> > > appropriate for a user desktop ? IME, most users don't like having
> > > their last few hours work go down the drain.
> >
> > Again, a Mac won't require a reboot just because something fails to
> > yield CPU time.
>
> You will if it won't force quit. And you *should*, if you have to force
> quit something - no telling where it's scribbled in memory.
Any program that won't yield to death-keys is certainly a bad thing, but
they're by no means limited to Mac systems. And your argument kinda
curves back on itself here -- it's true that a forced quit may leave the
computer in an unstable state, but it's certainly an improvement over a
hang, and it's very probably going to give you enough breathing space at
least to save your open work, so you won't be losing anything, which
appears to be what you disliked about the whole setup.
--
William Burke, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System 8 angers me because it's much more difficult to force-quit the Finder.
Visit my web page! Current essay: Happiness. http://come.to/passenger-pigeon/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
