Linux-Advocacy Digest #466, Volume #28 Fri, 18 Aug 00 00:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (Tim Hanson)
Re: Info needed (Tim Hanson)
Re: MCSE != Engineer (Was: Microsoft MCSE (David M. Cook)
Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come (Tim Hanson)
Re: Steve/Mike's 37th Fake Name (was: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a bridge for
sale in Bklyn..... (David M. Cook)
Re: It's official, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Microsoft=AE?= porting applications to (Tim
Hanson)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Decent Linux CDR software wanted. (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (Craig Kelley)
Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?) (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates) (Craig Kelley)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: Notebook/Windows rebate? ("B. Joshua Rosen")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:12:56 GMT
Truckasaurus wrote:
>
> So, to all you Windows advocates, who have claimed that the Linux/Open
> Source communities will fragment and drown in quarrelling:
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO48629,00.html:
>
> "Unix vendors adopt Gnome desktop
>
> By DOMINIQUE DECKMYN
> (August 16, 2000) Desktop Linux gained momentum on the first day of
> LinuxWorld in San Jose, as vendors including Red Hat Inc., Hewlett-
> Packard Co., IBM, Compaq Computer Corp., Sun Microsystems Inc. and VA
> Linux Systems Inc. joined to form the Gnome Foundation."
>
> Not only is Gnome manifesting itself as a popular Desktop environment
> in Linux - Gnome seems to bind different UNIX vendors together, where
> we all know that the (commercial) UNIX commuity is traditionally a
> fragmented one.
>
> In your face, Windows advocates! Linux fragmentation my butt!
I think its healthy, regardless of all the doom mongers' whining. I'm
no KDE fan myself, but I know a lot of Windows users who may not have
switched had it not been for it. Maybe the extra pressure from this
push toward GNOME will prod KDE into dumping that ridiculous licensing /
kickback scheme.
--
If all the world's a stage, I want to operate the trap door.
-- Paul Beatty
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Info needed
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:13:33 GMT
Hector Vega wrote:
>
> Hi, for an investigation, I would like to have the addresses of web
> pages with information regarding the use of Linux by Government
> agencies, or Laws prohibiting the use of non Open Source Software by
> Government.
>
> Thanks in advance.
Second that.
--
If all the world's a stage, I want to operate the trap door.
-- Paul Beatty
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Subject: Re: MCSE != Engineer (Was: Microsoft MCSE
Date: 18 Aug 2000 03:19:57 GMT
On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 23:44:32 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That's sad. I think you would find Engineering school very rewarding.
I have a B.S. in Physics, and I'm Physics grad school drop out (UT@Austin).
It was the Linux hobby that got me my last 2 jobs, though.
Dave Cook
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 23:23:35 -0400
On 18 Aug 2000 00:49:54 GMT, "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You'll never get at the .MDB file from outside Access except via ODBC,
>but, fortunately, you can write VBA code inside Access to export your
>database - including its structure, queries, etc. - into XML, SQL DDL
>statements, or any other format that might be useful for
>reconstructing the database in an SQL environment (in Linux or
>anyplace else).
Access should output to CSV or TSV.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:23:49 GMT
Steve Mentzer wrote:
>
> >Let's take these events one by one:
>
> Ok...
>
> >
> >(1) Open-Sourcing StarOffice
> >
> >StarOffice was previously available on a "free beer" licence. Now it is
> >being open sourced. This will make it future-proof: the software will
> >never go away, and will always get upgraded to work with new environments,
> >so long as a (small) minimal number of users are still using it.
>
> And do you think that the minimal numbers of users supporting it are going to
> continue to work for free? Someone has to pay the piper eventually.
>
> >
> >(2) Gnome foundation
> >
> >Why would major hardware companies set up the Gnome foundation? So they
> >can ship the Gnome desktop environment on computers, especially Unix
> >computers, that they sell. Note that there have been prvious efforts
> >to produce a common GUI for Unix boxes: the Common Desktop Environment.
> >But Gnome has an advantage over CDE: it is open source, which means that
> >firstly, it has got a lot of developer effort behind it, without
> >attracting large amounts of corporate money, and secondly open source
> >means that no company can shaft another member of the consortium by
> >stopping them using proprietary enhancements. Goodbye competition,
> >hello co-opetition.
> >
> >The Gnome desktop they will produce includes the Gnome base software,
> >StarOffice (now called Gnome Office), IBM's Sash development tool,
> >and Evolution, a competitor to MS Outlook.
> >
> >A beta release of this system is likely to be out later this year, with
> >a fully integrated version next year.
>
> Until the API's are standardized and there is a consistent inter-process method
> of communicating between apps (similar to OLE), it will never catch on. One of
> the strengths of windows is inter-app compatibility. The ability to go into
> turbotax and copy a bunch of text, and paste it into MSExcel with two keyclicks
> and some mouse movement is pretty powerful. I know there are facilities to do
> this in the current desktop environments, but **all** apps need to support a
> common framework.
>
> X, Motif, KDE, Gnome, etc etc have tried so hard to remain so modular and
> flexible that they obfusciated and complicated the long-term vision of a GUI.
> It should make things EASY TO DO. KDE is really, really cool So is Gnome. But
> users want apps to work as easy as they do under Windoze. This is an
> unescapable fact. Some native KDE apps are really great. But there is a long
> way to go.
>
> >
> >(3) Microsoft re-imaging rip off
> >
> >If you are a MS corporate customer, you have Windows 2000 on a PC, and
> >you re-install the OS, MS want you to pay them again for the software.
> >The charge is $117 to $157. This is, of course, a blatant rip-off only
> >possible because of MS's dominant monopoly position.
>
> What are you talking about? If you purchase a license of Win2k, you have the
> right to install that OS on one PC. You can install it 1000 times if you want.
> As long as it is on the same PC.
Not true. Gartner:
"Microsoft is benefiting from confusion related to this issue to
increase revenue from upgrade licenses during contract negotiations. By
encouraging the purchase of a UA ($157) or VUP ($117 to $121) license
for all OEM desktops reimaged, Microsoft has effectively doubled the
licensing cost for Windows. For example: An enterprise that purchases
5,000 PCs from Hewlett-Packard (HP) with HP's OEM version of Windows
2000. The enterprise receives the PCs, and reformats and installs their
custom image created using Select media. Microsoft will require that the
enterprise pay an additional $117 to $157 per desktop -- or $585,000 to
$758,000 -- for the right to install the same version of the OS that it
paid the OEM for."
http://gartner12.gartnerweb.com/public/static/home/today/il0731003.html
>
> >
> >Be scared Microsoft, be very scared.
> >
>
> Linux developers better start understanding what the users want if they want to
> succeed on the desktop.
--
Don't believe everything you hear or anything you say.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Subject: Re: Steve/Mike's 37th Fake Name (was: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a
bridge for sale in Bklyn.....
Date: 18 Aug 2000 03:22:22 GMT
On 15 Aug 2000 06:04:48 GMT, Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[...] his campaign to make
>people think there are lots of dissatisfied Linux users,
Instead he's driven most of the thoughtful MS advocates away.
Dave
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: It's official, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Microsoft=AE?= porting applications to
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:28:00 GMT
Milton wrote:
>
> In a desperate attempt, to regain some legitimacy in the high-tech
> software arena, Microsoft� is letting a an experienced 3rd party,
> Mainsoft, port it's applications to the state of the art operating
> system, Linux.
>
> The results, so far, have been disappointing.
>
> Brought to you by Windows 2000 Magazine
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2874
>
> :)
Well folks, now they're denying it. <yawn>
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/00/08/17/000817hnmslinux.xml
--
Don't believe everything you hear or anything you say.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 23:18:53 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8nheup$j4j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > to consumers Microsoft is just_another_choice.
>
> Ask twenty consumers at Wal-Mart or Circuit City what other "choice" is
> available besides Microsoft.
19 would probably say "Who cares", then you pick up a $50.00 copy of RedHat
Linux and say here's a choice, and 19 of those 19 say "So what! ....I'll
stick with Windows".
And how would this be Microsofts fault? By producing a product everyone
WANTS?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Decent Linux CDR software wanted.
Date: 17 Aug 2000 22:32:55 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I like Xcdroast (which does use cdrecord and mkisofs programs). It has done
>very well for me in Burning both audio and data CDs with a mix of ISO9660 and
>Joilet filesystems. I will be even happier for a version of Xcdroast that will
>have the option to Erase a CDRW disk.
Xcdroast uses cdrecord to to the real work, so you must have the
program. Just do a:
cdrecord -dev=0,6,0 -speed=2 -blank=all -eject
(replace the 6 in the dev= with your CD's ID, and use a reasonable
speed). If you don't like typing commands, put the command in a file
and hook it to an icon on your window manager.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 13:52:07 +1000
"Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > "rj friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 15:53:28 Chris Wenham
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > � > Face reality sonny boy. It is not a case of the whole world
> > > � > being wrong and you being right. Stick your head in the sand
> > > � > and pretend all you want - but deep in your heart you have
> > > � > to face the fact that you are 100% full of shit.
> > >
> > > � And why are you so full of coprolalia?
> > >
> > > Full of what?
> >
> > Needless profanity. It seems to be an OS/2 advocate characteristic.
>
> Please don't generalize. Friedman is generally perceived as a lunatic who
> occasionally says something of interest around here. An old adage about a
> million monkies and a million typewriters comes to mind.
Of the three OS/2 advocates I can think of off the top of my head (you,
Germer and Friedman) you're the only one that can keep a civil toungue.
I was making an observation, not a judgement :).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: 17 Aug 2000 22:41:54 -0500
In article <3D_m5.154$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Mentzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>(3) Microsoft re-imaging rip off
>>
>>If you are a MS corporate customer, you have Windows 2000 on a PC, and
>>you re-install the OS, MS want you to pay them again for the software.
>>The charge is $117 to $157. This is, of course, a blatant rip-off only
>>possible because of MS's dominant monopoly position.
>
>What are you talking about? If you purchase a license of Win2k, you have the
>right to install that OS on one PC. You can install it 1000 times if you want.
>As long as it is on the same PC.
You can install *that* copy on one PC. What most companies want to
do is make one master image with the standard apps installed and
replace the pre-installed cruft on new PCs with this tested and
predictable load, paying per copy license fees. Microsoft is
saying that the license of pre-loaded copy of Window is lost
when you do this and doesn't reduce the license count that
must be purchased again. So, the companies get their choice
of spending an extra day or two hand-installing each PC with
all the apps and hoping it comes out right or paying twice.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Aug 2000 21:48:52 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
>
> > Yes, but we have a choice under Linux of whether we want to
> > significantly add to our program's bulk, or to just use the one-line
> > fork() call. Forking is fairly scalable, but not as scalable as
> > threads in most situations. The problem is, 90% of the time (my time,
> > anyway) you don't care if the process is extremely scalable and you
> > can ditch a bunch of complexity by using processes instead.
>
> And if using fork() ends up consuming too many resources, you can just fork
> out for a more powerful platform! <g> Sorry, just couldn't resist.
Yep, Linux does provide a good path to powerful OSes like AIX.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:37:19 GMT
In article <8mrm4f$kkt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Impartial benchmarks seem to point to NT as far superior...
> http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,1015266,00.html
Note that this test was a specially modified benchmark in which
benchmark configurations, message sizes, and NT configuration
parameters were specially modified to compete with Linux' "Default"
configuration.
It's offline right now, but DejaNews has an extensive archive thread
on this particular benchmark search for "Mindcraft Benchmarks"
that exposed the test and the summary as something just short of
a fraudulent misrepresentation of the facts.
Here is another benchmark - unfortunately, the links to the actual
tests have been clobbered (Microsoft?) - seems there is a typo in
the copy.
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/1999/41/ns-10795.html,
it also lists about 15 other benchmark tests, many of which are
more "real world".
This is the same benchmark with no special tuning.
http://www.kegel.com/nt-linux-benchmarks.html#benchjan1999
The Bloor site is:
http://www.bloor-research.com/ not
http://www3.bloor-research.com/
then search for benchmarks.
There's also:
http://www.it-director.com/99-07-07-1.html?its
http://www.heise.de/ct/english//99/13/186-1/
Again, you need to search for Benchmarks and Linux.
(Bloors also cites the original Mindcraft benchmark).
http://www.kegel.com/nt-linux-benchmarks.html
This result is more up to date.
http://www.kegel.com/nt-linux-benchmarks.html#web
This also sites a number of other benchmarks.
There is also the SAP benchmarks:
http://www.sap.com/solutions/technology/pdf/50020428.pdf
Page 109 and Page 103 are very interesting.
<4 Xeons, Linux 2.2.11)
Linux: 1210 SAPs
(4 Xeons)
NT: 1280 SAPS
Page 124 (4 Xeons, Linux 2.2.14)
Linux: 1320 SAPS.
On page 108
Linux: 1850 SAPs, but that's on 8 Pentium III/550 Xeons.
Worst case: you get marginally better performance with NT in
optimal configurations, about 6% faster. But the Linux system
has no CALS, no $1500/CPU licenses. You have multiple sources
for tier 4 support (access to source code), and have no restrictions
on public disclosures (related to Linux).
The software for Linux is less expensive than the UNIX equivalents,
and often competitive with the NT versions.
If there is software that you can ONLY get on Windows, you can ASK
for a Linux version (some companies that offer UNIX versions of
vertical market software are beginning to offer it on Linux). Since
SCO's vertical market is now Caldera, we should be seeing a shift
here too. I'm curious what this does to Microsoft.
If you are a vendor, you now have a platform that is scalable from
very small Linux systems all the way to OS/390s, E-10Ks, and S-80s.
Put another way, you have scalability from an old, outdated laptop
costing under $300, to a server capable of serving 1 million visitors
a day. I'd love to see if a Linux server/cluster could
serve 1 billion pages per day.
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Aug 2000 21:54:50 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II) writes:
> XNews is outstanding. I'm using the WindowsNT port.
> I'd highly recommend it under any platform.
I like GNUS myself.
> Does Mozilla have a message center, like Netscape, or do
> you view and post from within the browser itself?
>
> Does it not have filtering capabilities? I thought that
> it was more or less Netscape Communicator, no?
Mozilla doesn't have any NNTP client at all yet (at least not in the
latest download anyway).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 21:01:23 -0700
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
JS/PL wrote:
> "Chris Wenham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>>>> "JS/PL" == JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The relationship between the buyer and the seller ought to be one of
> > peer to peer, that is what I think Max is talking about. Not the
> > relationship of a peon to a modern-day lord. Not a relationship
> > between a consumer and an abuser.
>
> The relationship is one of supply and demand. Always has been, always should
> be. MS is one of the most consumer reactive software makers in existence.
Nonsense. Most of MS sales are not to the consumer but OEMs.
> They listen to and implement consumer input into their products almost to a
> fault. That's not indicative of a "peon/lord" relationship.
> The demand by OEM's (and 99% of their custumers) is a no brainer, graphical,
> point & click operating system. Microsoft supplies that demand, consumers
> and OEM's all benefit. What's the problem?
Abusive Monopoly.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 21:03:59 -0700
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Or do research.
There's a lot of good work that doesn't fall under communism - human sprit and
curiosity - working towards a common good. You know, stuff they teach in
church.
Ironic that the internet wasn't a for profit project.
JS/PL wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > In other words, your company won't make a product if it can make a
> > profit on it; it has to be able to profiteer (restrict access to it in
> > order to charge exorbitant profits) or it isn't worth the investment.
> > This is the standard mode of business today, and rather than being
> > responsible for the wonders of the modern world, it merely takes
> > advantage of it, and purports to take responsibility for it.
>
> Marx would be proud of the above thesis. Here's an idea...move to Cuba, they
> look like they are thriving on the philosophy above....join the big party in
> the streets down south Max.
------------------------------
From: "B. Joshua Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.portable
Subject: Re: Notebook/Windows rebate?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 00:08:00 -0400
Every time I've priced machines from Dell, I have 3, the Linux offerings
were always much more expensive than the equivalent Windows machines,
but it's true they were not exactly the same. Dell only offers Linux on
server class machines which use SCSI rather than IDE drives, which
drives up the price of the machine by a thousand bucks. In workstation
applications SCSI offers no performance advantages, SCSI is only helpful
in file server applications. The Dell desktops are completely Linux
compatible (unless you select the Winmodem option instead of the real
modem) but they are not offered with Linux.
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
>
> "B. Joshua Rosen" wrote:
>
> > Dell seems to charge much more for a machine with Linux then it does for
> > the same system with Windows,
>
> But is it the same hardware? Does the Linux machine have a winmodem
> (Lucent has Linux drivers), etc.
>
> Colin Day
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
