Linux-Advocacy Digest #183, Volume #29 Mon, 18 Sep 00 15:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("JS/PL")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: GPL & freedom (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (OSguy)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (Tim Kelley)
Re: Unix more secure, huh? (A transfinite number of monkeys)
The Linux Experience (Jake Taense)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (The Ghost In
The Machine)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! ("Nigel
Feltham")
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! ("Nigel
Feltham")
Re: The Linux Experience (dattaway)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Chad Irby)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 13:32:40 -0400
"Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS/PL wrote:
> >
> > "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > That's right. All those things are in the NT 5 kernel, aka Win2K.
> > Which
> > > > > is exactly what Chad and Alan have been saying.
> > > >
> > > > No such thing as an NT 5 kernel.
> > >
> > > Sure it is. Until around Beta 3, Microsoft called it NT 5. They
changed
> > > its name to Win2K at that time.
> > >
> > > For all practical purposes, Win2K is NT 5.
> >
> > I know that the name change was announced on or around October 98, it
> > doesn't change the fact that references made to NT5 are false.
> > When the Windows 2000 final release code was compiled Dec. 1999 it was
not
> > known as NT 5, it was known as Windows 2000.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Why don't we just make up personalized names for everything? That
will
> > > > surely be of benefit to all wont it?
> > > >
> > > > Boy I saw (aka heard) that Rhapsody (aka OSX) sure is doing bad (aka
> > good)
> > > > in its retail release (aka beta release)
> > >
> > > Idiot.
> >
> > How is Rhapsody 2.0 doing?
>
> Nah, it's OPENSTEP/Mach 5.0 with Macintosh Emulation!
Yes.. I'm sorry, I thought we were still allowed to assign any arbitrary
fictional name we like and assume it wouldn't look like a typo.
My bad.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 17:40:31 GMT
FM wrote:
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Keep dreaming. I think you have a very limited understanding of just
> >how far-reaching my vision is.
>
> It's not your vision. It's an old subject in Operating
> System research.
Bravo, you've just demonstrated that you can read my mind,
because there can't possibly be another way you'd know what
my vision is (having never posted more than the smallest and
most widely accepted parts of it on the USENET). Or are you
just being a numbskull again?
> >Besides, the requirement that programs
> >"support" session management is arbitrary, onerous and intolerable. If
> >you're a programmer, you shouldn't even need to provide a "save" function.
>
> I'll just keep laughing at your "new ideas"
Did I lay claim to orthogonal persistence? No. Did I ever
imply it was mine and mine alone? I don't see how that's
even possible since I gave a link to a list of already existing
OPOSes. You're such a stupid wanker.
<rolleye> And I've only know about Grasshopper, EROS
and Opal for more than 3 years, so thank you *ever* so
much for your oh so helpful links to them, you thickheaded
cretin.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: 18 Sep 2000 17:50:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:8q54dd$riu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> If the majority of the authors agree to change the license, the minority
:> code can be replaced by new code in order to make the new work not
:> derived from theirs, and thus not copyrighted by them, and thus no
:> longer bound by the GPL.
: And just exactly how are you going to tell which code is copyright by whom?
: It's fine if each module is copyright by a single person. But after each
: file has been modified by dozens of people, hudreds of times it will be
: virtually impossible to track this, even with version control.
Obviously projects are easier to re-license in the early stages of
development rather than waiting until it reaches version 102.
But whether or not figuring out whose code is whose is easy is
beside the point. If developers really want to re-license their
project (which is a pretty rare occurance anyway), they'll need
to figure out who owns what before they can proceed.
<snipping to the point>
:> Of course the GPL is about freedom. It's about the original author
:> making sure you don't have the freedom to make *HIS* code less
:> free to everyone else than when it was first released. And it's
:> about your freedom to not use his code if you don't like that
:> arrangement.
: This is the fallacy that the hipocrisy is founded on. No matter what I do
: with my copy of *HIS* code, that doesn't change the fact that he can still
: offer it free to anyone and everyone. Once i've changed his code, the parts
: that I have changed are now my own copyright, even under the GPL. That
: makes *ME* the owner. The unmodified portions are still *HIS* code and
: still exist in his original release.
I think most GPL arguments center around the word "free" being thrown
about far too much. If we think of "freedom" in terms of
less restrictive/more restrictive licensing of the source release,
the GPL is a less free license than others by its restriction upon
subsequent authors. Calling it "free software" might be seen
as hypocritical depending on your definition of "free" is.
But since the restrictions are meant to enforce freedom, the issue
tends to be headache-inducing and arguing about it isn't
particularly helpful.
The GPL is. It's restrictions are well-known and whether or not
those restrictions are a good thing is debatable.
The key is that source released under the GPL is clearly marked as
to what flavor of "free" it falls into. If one doesn't like the
GPL for any reason, there's plenty of opportunity to avoid it
simply by not using it in your own projects. People have to
actively seek out GPL'd code; it's not going to creep into your
projects without your permission. So you'll always be free
to not worry about it.
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy,comp.ms.windows-nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:44:00 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Take a look at your device manager. You'll see that Windows loads 32 bit
> protected mode drivers even for the built-in IDE ports. I'll say it again.
> Win ME doesn't use the BIOS for drive access, thus it *MUST* know how to
> physically access the hardware (which is different for every card). It
> doesn't matter if Win ME can detect the card or not, it doesn't know how to
> USE the card. (I think you'll find that Win ME *DOES* detect the card, but
> since it doesn't have 32 bit drivers for it, cannot use it).
No, as I spent a large amount of time verifying, WinME NEVER detected the 3rd
ide port card (Not even an unknown device indication). It stubbornly reported
that I had 2 and only 2 ide ports (the built-ins on the chipset on my
motherboard). I'm not going to let MS off the hook....if they can provide a
DOS driver for the board, then they can also provide a Wndows Driver. Even
worse is that the driver for the 3rd ide port board is in Win98. What's the
excuse for dropping that out of WinME?
> Win ME is designed primarily for new hardware. You might find additional
> drivers in the support directory on the CD for what MS calls "obsolete"
> devices.
So having a 3rd IDE port is being obsolete? Nonsense.
> No, I know how OS's work.
Yes, you're doing your best to justify why M$'es OS works the way it does,
instead of wondering why it doesn't do things sensibly.
> For a guy with the nym "OSGuy" you should as
> well. Unsupported hardware goes with the territory.
But In this case, the 3rd ide WAS supported. The driver was on the
installation disk. If MS had the presence of mind to put a DOS version of this
driver on the install floppy, why couldn't they include the Windows version of
the driver in WinME?
> There will *ALWAYS* be
> hardware that isn't supported out of the box.
> Did you try installing Linux on that machine? Did *IT* detect all the
> hardware?
Yes it ran Linux before I turned it over to my daughter in the first
place.....It ran Linux perfectly with all the equipment that also ran with
Win98.
===============
I'm sure you'll now just have to have the last word. You are wasting my time
in this thread, and I'm not responding to you (In fact, you go back in my
killfile so you don't waste my time) after this post.
I no longer care how or why the floppy DOS drivers work, and I don't care to
justify why M$ should or should not put drivers in their WinME. WinME now
works fine on the computer I installed it on, so I'm not interested in touching
it anymore.
To Reiterate my points
- To make WinME work on my computer, I had to spend hours figuring out that the
3rd ide will never be recognized by WinME no matter what. If the 3rd ide port
had not worked when I installed WinME, I would not have lost all of those hours
trying to figure out that WinME didn't have those drivers.....so I am angry
that MS pulled this stunt. Who, in their right mind would make a more capable
install system then the actual OS? Microshaft apparently.
- I had to pull my 3 port ide card out of the system, and replace my sound card
because M$ won't run legacy drivers, or in this case, drivers that install like
legacy drivers. What possible excuse can there be for not stating that legacy
Drivers will no longer work anywhere in MS' official install manual for WinME?
- I got to buy more memory because M$ lies about what the minimum acceptable
Memory is (not to mention that every OS upgrade makes you add more memory) that
lets you use a minimum system. When I used WinMe with 32 Mbytes, the system
was unacceptably slow and hammered the hard disk making it pretty unusable.
Linux on the other hand recommends 8M for text systems and 16M for X-Windows,
and I have used systems with 16M.....while its true that the machine is
sluggish in X with 16M, at least it is useable without hammering the hard disk.
So that's it. I'm not interested in any more HOW to fix or Why MS does the
things they do (And I refuse to accept the demented reasons justifying MS'
shoddy handiwork).
BTW: How does one justify putting out a floppy disk the lets you partition the
disk with fdisk, but doesn't let you format the disk because they forgot to put
format.exe on the floppy? The WinME install floppy I have definitely doesn't
have format.exe on it.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 12:54:12 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Almost no one complains about linux being hard to install, not
> > even the schizo steve-heather-keys88 guy that posts here. Even
> > he thinks linux is easy to install. Most Linux distros also take
> > less time to install, and is set up so that you fill out all the
> > info first, then go about whatever else you wanted to do (with
> > windows you need to sit at attention during the entire install
> > process).
>
> Linux *IS* difficult to set up if you have anything that's unsupported, just
> like Windows.
No, linux will always install, as long as your disk and cdrom are
detectable, and this is barely an issue. Windows has a lot more
dependencies to fulfill just to get it installed.
> > Consider: a full RH6.2 install takes about 20 minutes, and that
> > is about half the time it takes to install Win98 and yet is about
> > five times as much software.
>
> Apples to oranges. Windows must detect all it's hardware, Linux is free to
> only detect what it wants to. Windows supports thousands more devices than
> Linux does, and probes must be done for each of them. This takes much
> longer.
It doesn't matter, it still takes too long to install, that is
the bottom line. The biggest problem is the way the flow of the
installer works. Fill out a bunch of crap, reboot, repeat ad
nauseam.
> > Windows is NOT easy to install. Windows installers (from 95 to
> > NT) have always been poorly written, klunky, futzy and weird.
>
> Please justify this statement with *SOME* kind of evidence. Even if it's
> just anectdotal.
I figure everyone here having installed windows upwards of
thousands of times was evidence enough.
In linux you get a shell and a fully functioning linux system
during the install. You can load and unload drivers, and most
distributions let you step backwards through the install. Most
are intelligently designed so that you fill out all the
information first, then let the installer go it's merry way.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:08:20 GMT
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 11:39:03 -0500,
Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: That's essentially how it works on Windows 2000. When there's a new
: patch, the OS tells you and offers to install it after it lets you read
: about it.
Actually, it works nothing like that. It works just like it did in
Windoze 98. If you're running the "Windoze Update Agent" thing, you get
a little icon in the tray that says there are new patches. At least
it's better than that blasted window that used to pop up right in the
middle of the game of HalfLife you're playing.
You STILL have to go to Windoze Update, you still have to choose to install
the patches, you still have to hit the Download button, you still have
to accept a EULA (for a patch!), then wait for it to download and install.
Oh, and reboot when it's done (95 times out of 100).
Doesn't sound any more automated than RedHat's up2date. In fact, there are
more automated systems for Linux, such as autorpm or apt-get.
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jake Taense)
Subject: The Linux Experience
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:16:21 GMT
Spent some of my Sunday helping out a friend with a problem.
Seems she has been happily using Linux for most things (RedHat 6.2) for a
little bit now. However, like many users, she disliked the lack of Truetype
support.
So, she called up another linux user and asked what she could do to fix that.
"Oh, just add a truetype font server."
"Where can I get that?"
"I'll mail you a link. Download the tarball and make sure you follow the
instructions in the INSTALL file."
To her credit, she did exactly that. She downloaded the right file, extracted
it properly, and followed the instructions precisely. She replaced the
existing xfs file with the new one as indicated in the INSTALL file, replaced
the man page, and the other files as necessary, taking care to back up the
originals.
Finally, the moment of truth - she rebooted. What happened? The xfs server
failed during initialization. She uses the redhat graphical login. Result? A
machine that just sat and kept switching video modes. Killing the x-server
with ctrl-alt-backspace didn't fix it. All she could do was ctrl-alt-delete,
which shut everything down.
She was without a machine until I could come over and fix it.
"What was I supposed to do?" she asked.
"You did everything fine. In fact, I'm glad this happened. Welcome to the
linux experience."
"Would I have been more successful if I had just completely upgraded to
Xfree86 4.0.1?"
"Good Lord, no."
Xfree86 has the wonderful role of being the worst group I've ever seen for
writing documentation that is completely useless to the world at large. I'm a
technical guy, and my upgrade to 4.0.1 was problematic to say the least. I
succeeded, but only after much exasperation.
Linux. Documentation is "no longer being maintained", outdated, and frequently
flat-out wrong. What should be simple "make"'s become nightmares due to
dependencies or programmer assumptions. Precompiled binaries fail. RPM's torch
X-settings. Instructions are written by programmers, for programmers, with no
thought at all given towards non-technical users.
Go ahead. Flame away. But unless you are prepared to spend a huge amount of
time in support, turning a friend on to linux is probably a mistake. Either
that, or lock them down, don't give them root access to their own computer,
and get call-display so that you can avoid their calls.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:17:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rich C
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:21:35 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> I believe VMS has some kind of file versioning system ( so if you
>overwrite
>> a file, it keeps the old one. If you accidently hose something, you
>> can "roll back" ). But I don't know very much about it.
>
>The VMS file versioning system simply adds a version attribute (;v) as a
>number after the file name. If you simply name the file, without the
>version, VMS will operate on the latest (highest) version number.
>Alternatively, you can specify another version. For example, if I have:
>
>myfile.c;1
>myfile.c;2
>
>and I edit myfile.c;1 and save it, it will be saved as myfile.c;3. There is
>also a command that will purge all older versions, although I can't recall
>offhand what it is , and I don't have access to a VAX at the moment.
Most likely, it's PURGE /VERSION=depth wildcard, or just PURGE.
Admittedly, this is from memory and I haven't touched a VMS
system since 1990.
[snip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random OS here
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy,comp.ms.windows-nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:36:45 +0100
>If someone needs dos, they could try Free Dos.
How many new computer buyers purchasing machines with Win-me preinstalled
and then finding they need a flash upgrade and cannot start in dos will
actually
know of the existance of freedos / dr-dos (also at least partially free) and
any
other free versions of dos that may exist as many new buyers will only know
the software they had in their hardware bundle and to them no other
operating
systems exist except what they are using.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy,comp.ms.windows-nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:42:40 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote in message ...
>"Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > They don't bitch about legacy support in itself being gone, they
>complain
>> > about
>> > the support for their hardware being removed -
>>
>> Exactly. So my video card is obsolete because MS says so? Fuck
>> that. That is the sort of arrogance that is driving a lot of
>> people to try linux.
>
>Just because MS doesn't provide a driver in the distribution doesn't mean
>you can't install one yourself. Geez. I guess that means any hardware not
>supported by Linux out of the box should be thrown away as well.
>
What about hardware where there are no drivers available from the
manufacturer
either - are you expected to manually extract all needed drivers from inside
the .cab
files on your previous version of windows?
How often do linux distro's remove drivers for old hardware in new
versions - my copy of
mandrake 7.1 still seems to carry drivers for every device that was
supported when I had
my first linux distro (slackware 2.0) back in october 1994 as well as most
devices invented
since them except the horrible windblows only type hardware (mainly modems).
------------------------------
From: dattaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:32:25 GMT
Jake Taense <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip!>
> technical guy, and my upgrade to 4.0.1 was problematic to say the least. I
> succeeded, but only after much exasperation.
I can sympathise, but my experience upgrading xfree from the source was
without a hitch.
> Go ahead. Flame away. But unless you are prepared to spend a huge amount of
> time in support, turning a friend on to linux is probably a mistake. Either
> that, or lock them down, don't give them root access to their own computer,
> and get call-display so that you can avoid their calls.
Which is exactly the reason why I use Linux and give it to friends. I got
tired of fixing strange Windows hangups and things that don't work any more.
Once I give them a Linux box, things just work. And stay working.
--
-=Duane
0x00F4 Starkville, Mississippi
http://www.attaway.org Why drive a car when you can ride a bike?
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:59:37 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Name isn't the only difference between what was an early build of NT5 and
> what is Windows 2000 final (Pro, and Servers).
You're right, they surely added some more bugs. And took some stuff out.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
