Linux-Advocacy Digest #464, Volume #29 Thu, 5 Oct 00 08:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux and Free Internet? ("philo")
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Another M$ Troll (droll?) (Grega Bremec)
Netmeeting server for unix ? (Martin Svensson)
Re: 2.4! (Grega Bremec)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Adam Warner")
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Stuart Fox")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Illya Vaes)
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Donal K. Fellows)
Consistency ("Raul Iglesias")
Re: 2.4! ("Todd")
Re: 2.4! ("Todd")
Re: 2.4! (Grega Bremec)
Re: 2.4! (Ian Davey)
Re: 2.4! ("Stuart Fox")
Re: 2.4! (Roberto Selbach Teixeira)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "philo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and Free Internet?
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 03:09:26 -0500
i like the idea of linux and a free isp...but there is a possible problem...
i've helped many of my friends set up free isp's
freeweb was a good one as it was pretty easy for me to configure it to log
on to the net and *avoid* all the banner
ads etc...
(of course they went out of business or were swallowed by juno)
and of course...if you disable the ad banners in juno, the browser shuts
down...
since a linux system would easily be hackable to disable the ads...the free
providers may not be so happy to provide their services...
thats my $.021 worth anyway...
Philo
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 09:32:11 +0100
"A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 12:58:08 GMT,
>
> Hmm.. Since your "evidence" is anecdotal, I'll counter with an anecdote
of
> my own. Here's our mail server at work:
>
> [cliff:jcostom](03:57pm)
> /home/jcostom$ uptime
> 3:57pm up 103 days, 7:05, 1 user, load average: 0.33, 0.20, 0.21
And here's ours - NT 4. Rebooted last when it was set up.
C:\dev>uptime \\echo
\\echo has been up for: 103 day(s), 19 hour(s), 30 minute(s), 28 second(s)
>
> The last time it was rebooted was for a kernel upgrade. Before that,
> it as up for about 180 days.
>
> A couple of web servers:
> (2 large sites, a servlet engine, single P-III/550)
> [cipher:jcostom](03:02pm)
> /home/jcostom$ uptime
> 3:02pm up 107 days, 6:55, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
A NT 4 file server\PDC (~200 users). Last reboot for a power down in the
server room.
C:\dev>uptime \\hit2502-fs
\\hit2502-fs has been up for: 143 day(s), 17 hour(s), 49 minute(s), 13
second(s)
>
> Like my friends who work at a large insurance company's data center down
> the road here (in NJ)? Their standard operating procedure is to reboot
> anything running NT or 2000 every Sunday night at 7:00PM. Their
bluescreens
> have been cut by 2/3 since instituting weekly reboots... They do "wacky"
> things like run Compaq Proliants with 100% Compaq-sanctioned hardware,
> with all of their "special" Windows installs (to accomodate the Compaq
> butchered hardware), and such crazy applications as SQL Server and
Exchange.
Our servers don't bluescreen, so we don't need to reboot them.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Subject: Re: Another M$ Troll (droll?)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 08:41:38 GMT
...and Ian Pulsford used the keyboard:
>
>That's "rationalise" not "rationalize" ;-)
>
If you're Ahmarican, yes.
--
Grega Bremec
grega.bremec-at-gbsoft.org
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: Martin Svensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Netmeeting server for unix ?
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 10:42:35 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi!
Is there a netmeeting/ILS server available for unix (Linux/solaris)?
I've searched sourceforge with no results (other than a H.323 Gateway).
Thanks, and please reply by email as well.
--
Martin Svensson
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 08:50:06 GMT
...and Todd used the keyboard:
>
>yawn... Windows 2000 has had USB support since its inception. Also, Windows
>2000 has *drivers* for the USB devices so that you can actually *use* them.
Well, Windows 2000 had support from vendors that wrote drivers for
their own devices, and tons of dough to pay for actual USB
implementation. By the way, how's Alpha/PPC support going on in W2K?
>BTW, according to recent tests on www.tomshardware.com, NVidia hardware runs
>OpenGL faster on Windows 2000 than under Linux.
He said "we need an open source GL driver". Learn to read.
>Why even use Linux??
Go back under your bridge, troll.
--
Grega Bremec
grega.bremec-at-gbsoft.org
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 22:08:27 +1200
Hi Matt,
Yes greetings fellow Kiwi :-)
> Chad, not be rude, have you ever used UNIX in your life? I consider, in
my humble
> opinion, 30 years of development to be a great legacy to builder upon.
Yes, it is. But I'm interested in what you said here:
>...rip out a PCI card whilst computer is running, Linux doesn't give
> a toss, Windows 2000 crashes to a black screen of death.
Heck, I didn't realise you could rip PCI cards out of Intel hardware while
the computer is running. I thought that was a recipe for disaster. I
accidently blew up a 3Com network card while my computer was turned off with
a misplaced screwdriver (that's when I fully realised that to properly turn
off a computer with a soft power on you must unplug it).
> Before you post, run a server with UNIX on it. Then after several years
> experience then comeback and stand on your soap box.
Go Matt!
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:22:17 +0100
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rhgea$7vt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >...rip out a PCI card whilst computer is running, Linux doesn't give
> > a toss, Windows 2000 crashes to a black screen of death.
Or doesn't, depending on what card you've pulled out, whether you've
shutdown the PCI slot or whatever...
>
> Heck, I didn't realise you could rip PCI cards out of Intel hardware while
> the computer is running. I thought that was a recipe for disaster. I
> accidently blew up a 3Com network card while my computer was turned off
with
> a misplaced screwdriver (that's when I fully realised that to properly
turn
> off a computer with a soft power on you must unplug it).
>From another Kiwi, yes you can. Compaq hardware definitely supports it.
They also provide support for Windows NT/2000 to cope with hotplugging
devices. All they have to work on now is hotplugging processors and
memory...
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 10:23:36 +0100
"Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> like in Windows, rip out a PCI card whilst computer is running, Linux
doesn't give
> a toss, Windows 2000 crashes to a black screen of death. Before you post,
run a
Or doesn't. If the hardware supports it, it's fine.
------------------------------
From: Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 11:29:39 +0200
STATIC66 wrote:
>>>Loren Petrich wrote:
>>>>>Hillary Clinton goes into a restaurant for the first time on her own and
>>>>>doesn't tip a waitress.
>You really are clueless...The point he was making is that the nations
>second most benevolent (her caring husband being #1) caring for the
>poor, takes a community talking phoeny, cares SO much for the plight
>of those less fortunate that she couldn't be bothered to leave a
>tip...
Not every waiter's / waitress' service is worth a tip.
>Now anyone with half a brain knows that wait staff is paid a reduced
>wage, and that tips are supposed to make up the rest of that wage.
So complain to the employers. That's what unions were founded for (though
they've managed to distance themselves from such basic things quite well).
Every price in every restaurant in The Netherlands legally has to be
"including tip", IOW "you've paid everything".
Why don't you tip your car salesman (at 5% of the price...) but do you tip a
waitress? That's the problem you should be attacking, not finding a stick to
beat up on someone you happen to disagree with (vehemently).
--
Illya Vaes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385 Not speaking for anyone but myself
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: 5 Oct 2000 09:51:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>> That's complete bollocks. The purpose of a programming language is to
>> tell a computer what to do in such a way that a person can understand
>> it too. English is *not* a programming language, and yet it can be
>> used (and used effectively) to communicate with other human beings
>> about computers. Hence, you're wrong.
>
> Only because we don't have the AI technology to compile it. Quite
> a few people would like to use natural human languages as computer
> languages. ;-)
Natural languages are very ambiguous and context sensitive. Telling a
system to "get the stuff and put it over there after a while" is fine
in natural language terms, but programming a computer/robot like that
is Not a Good Idea. If you restrict yourself to a subset of a natural
language, you end up with something like COBOL or SQL. Partially
symbolic languages have been more successful overall. (Fully symbolic
languages have different problems.)
>> Naturally, you claim to comprehend what these laws of beauty are? And
>
> No, I only claim that they exist (I do know some of them but it's hardly
> the level of comprehension) and that I go to great lengths to get a feel
> for them. Comprehension will have to wait until I can read On The Nature
> Of Order by Christopher Alexander, which will have to wait until the 4
> volume book is actually published!
There are all sorts of trade-offs between power (in a programming and
not a mathematical sense) and beauty. If we take, for example,
working with a network. POSIX/C gives you loads of expressive power,
but it is pig-ugly to use, as the fine control tends to get in the way
of the big picture and the fact that most people using networking just
want to open a TCP/IP client socket and "just use it." It is far
easier, cleaner and clearer to do this sort of activity with Java or
Tcl[*] but you no longer have access to all the low-level features
that C lets you get at. This illustrates the trade-off quite well.
Ideally, the common things will be easy and the rare things possible.
>> Having done program development and maintenance in SML, it is quite
>> capable of being a complete pain-in-the-backside. What makes for a
>> good programming language is not necessarily what you *think* makes
>> for a good programming language. There isn't even (IMHO) a universal
>> solution to the problem.
>
> Was it piping that was at fault?
No, it was the lack of real objects. For all that the problem was
very functional in nature, it was also very OO in nature too, and it
turned out to be easier to state it all in Java. In terms of
minimised opacity of code. at least.
Donal (and who knows, Java might even get generic classes at some
point; the developer community seems to be quite keen on the
idea.)
[* And maybe other languages too, but these are the ones I know best
in this area. ]
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I could even declare myself a religion, if that'd help.
-- Mark Loy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Raul Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Consistency
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 10:41:34 GMT
XF86Config is sometimes at /etc and others at /etc/X11; sometimes
there is /opt/kde, /opt/gnome and /opt/netscape, others there are all
of them at /usr/bin; sometimes lynx.cfg is at /etc/, others it is at
/usr/lib;
sometimes there is /etc/rc.d/rc.local, others /sbin/init.d/boot.local;
kernel
is at /boot, while kernel modules are at /lib/modules; shared libraries are
at /lib, /usr/lib, /usr/local/lib, /usr/X11R6/lib, and sometimes at
/opt/gnome/lib and /opt/kde/lib (in fact, wherever /etc/ld.so.conf says);
sometimes network configuration is at /etc/sysconfig/ and others it is not
there, sometimes FTP and web homes are at /home while others these
are at /usr/local; and I think I could write several inconsistencies more.
What I mean is, flexibility is good, but the LSB is a thing we already
need. I feel confortable with all of that, but just because I know where
the things are, but I understand that people that start feel a little lost.
What do you think about this ? This is not a "Windows v.s. Linux" post,
just a "how to improve Linux" one; I'd like to read your answers, how is
it LSB progressing ? I think Redhat, Debian, SuSE, Mandrake, and all
of them should cooperate to make GNU/Linux a little more uniform
in the areas where it is needed.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 18:57:48 +0800
"Jesper Krogh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Why even use Linux??
>
> If you re happy with using microsoft products, then fine with that.
> Some other haven�t sold their soul to microsoft.
Sold my soul? It's just an operating system. Get a life.
> But, I guess you have never felt the power of a unix workstation in your
hands,
Huh? I *own* an HP K-Series Unix server and a NeXT TurboColor station.
> thats why you can clain this. When you have, you wouldn�t even think about
> turning back.
I didn't say 'why even use UNIX', I said "Why even use **Linux**?".
There is a huge difference.
Although, Windows 2000 provides benefits over UNIX as well, although, UNIX
has better hardware available for it. When Windows 2000 is ported to a
64-bit architecture...
-Todd
> --
> ./Jesper Krogh.
> The Goal is world domination, no more, no less.
> This means that your PC should run linux too.
>
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 19:00:39 +0800
"Grega Bremec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ...and Todd used the keyboard:
> >
> >yawn... Windows 2000 has had USB support since its inception. Also,
Windows
> >2000 has *drivers* for the USB devices so that you can actually *use*
them.
>
> Well, Windows 2000 had support from vendors that wrote drivers for
> their own devices, and tons of dough to pay for actual USB
> implementation. By the way, how's Alpha/PPC support going on in W2K?
Not sure... I like high-end Pentium/Xeon systems as opposed to the slower
PPC architecture. Nobody wants Alpha, not even for UNIX.
> >BTW, according to recent tests on www.tomshardware.com, NVidia hardware
runs
> >OpenGL faster on Windows 2000 than under Linux.
>
> He said "we need an open source GL driver". Learn to read.
We are not talking about the fact that he mentioned you need an open source
GL driver. We are talking about the fact that he showed that Windows 2000
OpenGL is faster than Linux' on Nvidia products.
-Todd
>
> >Why even use Linux??
>
> Go back under your bridge, troll.
> --
> Grega Bremec
> grega.bremec-at-gbsoft.org
> http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 11:10:39 GMT
...and Todd used the keyboard:
>
>Although, Windows 2000 provides benefits over UNIX as well, although, UNIX
>has better hardware available for it. When Windows 2000 is ported to a
>64-bit architecture...
...which won't happen, because as you say, you prefer Intel chipware
over slow PPC architecture, and "nobody wants Alpha, not even for
UNIX"...
How's SPARC support going? Is there a running beta for IA64? Is it
available? How's ARM? Any RISC machine _AT_ _ALL_????
Stop spitting into your own vocabulary, dude.
--
Grega Bremec
grega.bremec-at-gbsoft.org
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 11:32:50 GMT
In article <8rhmsg$o0o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>We are not talking about the fact that he mentioned you need an open source
>GL driver. We are talking about the fact that he showed that Windows 2000
>OpenGL is faster than Linux' on Nvidia products.
>
With a beta driver (opposed to the non-beta windows driver). How come that
fact keeps passing you by?
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:43:35 +0100
"Grega Bremec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ...and Todd used the keyboard:
> >
> >Although, Windows 2000 provides benefits over UNIX as well, although,
UNIX
> >has better hardware available for it. When Windows 2000 is ported to a
> >64-bit architecture...
>
> ...which won't happen, because as you say, you prefer Intel chipware
> over slow PPC architecture, and "nobody wants Alpha, not even for
> UNIX"...
>
> How's SPARC support going? Is there a running beta for IA64? Is it
> available? How's ARM? Any RISC machine _AT_ _ALL_????
Why would they do one? The market has already spoken by rejecting the PPC
and Alpha versions of NT. Microsoft made a commercial decision (they are in
the business of making money after all) that it wasn't worth them continuing
with support for non-Intel architectures. Linux is somewhat different in
this respect, as the money making incentive isn't there and ports seem to be
done for love, so commercial restrictions don't come into it.
I believe MS have demoed Windows 2000 64-bit on the new Intel chip, but
there is no beta available as yet.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Selbach Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: 05 Oct 2000 08:56:07 -0200
>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Davey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> With a beta driver (opposed to the non-beta windows
Ian> driver). How come that fact keeps passing you by?
IMNSHO, this whole argument is useless... yes, Linux driver is beta
and thus it is not supposed to be perfect. But that does not change
the fact that, as things are right now, GL is faster in Windows. Ok.
Now I ask: so what? Do we *really* want to fight windows in GL? Yes,
we want. But it is not nearly as important as all the other categories
where Linux simply blows Windows.
So, keeping this thread alive is simply stupid.
Just my opinion for you kids out there.
regards,
--
Roberto Teixeira.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
