Linux-Advocacy Digest #176, Volume #30 Sat, 11 Nov 00 08:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Disapointed in the election ("Tom Wilson")
Re: OS stability ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Disapointed in the election ("Tom Wilson")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Curtis)
Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Disapointed in the election ("Tom Wilson")
Re: What I dont like about Linux ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Sam Morris")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Sam Morris")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Sam Morris")
Re: Is there any limitation to the numbers of opening files? thanks (mlw)
Re: Windows vs. everybody-else in the desktop/server markets. (Long!) (Stefan
Ohlsson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Disapointed in the election
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:20:28 GMT
"Clifford W. Racz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ufutq$2dk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> At least Bush has integrity. And when he talks, he doesn't lie
> pathologically.
True. If he were Gore, he'd have claimed to have invented alcoholism!
> But I guess that doesn't matter because the economy is good. Thanks to
> Clinton-Gore? No... Thanks to the Reagan/Bush administration and the END
OF
> THE COLD WAR. Are you people dense or just ignorant?
Clinton was too busy pondering the definition of sex and avoiding litigation
to
do much about the economy. The economy pretty much takes care of itself.
It does great when politicians don't dick with it.
The military arms race was certainly a catalyst and the Star-Wars bluff was
brilliant.
The Soviet Union would have collapsed without it though, eventually.
Socialism, at least as practiced by the Soviets, was just too unproductive.
Simple economics did 'em in.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS stability
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:20:30 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ZS0P5.7607$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8uhm09$j5g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > This is where you are VERY wrong! Down time even scheduled down time
> > is
> > > > costly. The more I can get away from down time scheduled or
> > otherwise
> > > > the better.
> > >
> > > Downtime is costly, but unscheduled downtime is disasterous.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but I would *MUCH* rather take a server down for regular
> > *HARDWARE*
> > > maintenance every so often, than risk a spontaneous failure, which
> > will
> > > leave my site unavailable and losses of data since the last backup.
> >
> > Of course you would, you run MS software. I would want to do the same if
> > I ran that crap. I don't I run Unix or linux which is more robust and
> > does not crash with every minor harware clitch the way MS does!
>
> Are you blind or just stupid? Hardware failure has nothing to do with the
> OS.
He's neither...
The OS's response to the failure and its' over-all resiliency are being
weighed here.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Disapointed in the election
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:20:29 GMT
"Clifford W. Racz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ufuhs$28g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > I voted for Nader.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately the idiots in my home state voted Hillary "The Witch"
> > > Clinton in as US Senator.
> > >
> > > Sad :(
> > >
> > > claire
> > >
I've yet to here a New Yorker happy about this!
How in the name of God did she get elected?
> > I'm fromthe UK, so I obviously could not vote in your elections.
>
> Oh sure you could... happens in California all the time. When I voted,
they
> asked me my name. then they asked me if i was the guy on the paper. I
said
> yes. Then I voted. That's it. Boy, America is great.
>
> *Wish Linux could be that easy*
> (can't wait to hear responses to that comment)
*I wish I could assure you that it could be*
(It's about as difficult as a Florida ballot from what i've heard! <g>)
>
> > I can see why you voted for Nader
>
> Oh yeah, Nader. "I can see a future with zero emissions... because
industry
> will be powered by solar energy." What a joke. Do some simple
calculations
> and a cost analysis. But at least he has some principles (unlike
Clinton).
He'd be a disaster, that's for sure. On the bright side, Blow Jobs and
stained
dresses wouldn't be an issue.
------------------------------
From: Curtis <alliem@kas*spam*net.com>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:23:43 -0500
Les Mikesell wrote...
[..]
> > If you stupidly associate PNG's with Adobe Photodeluxe then what do you
> > expect????!!!! Install a basic image viewer and fix up your associations.
>
> Adobe stupidly did it for me, I guess. How are you supposed to deal
> with programs that twiddle the associations?
Because they don't feel the user should burden themselves with knowing
about file associations and that they exist. They practice what you
preach. :-)
Thankfully, others are seeing the light and prompting the user to create
the associations. The user then has to ask or find out what a file
association entails, then they can make an informed decision and control
their system in that respect.
> So after you've memorized the associations you are supposed to
> worry about, installing any new program can change it while
> you aren't looking?
:-) I've dealt with that above.
> > I just don't know if we can ever make computers idiot proof. They simply
> > have got to learn how to use it.
>
> The computer is supposed to work for you, not the other way
> around.
You have to set it up to work for you. It cannot set itself up.
> > It's good to know. It gives you more control. It allows you to
> > competently take control instead of making the computer control you,
> > which is what you seem happy with.
It is you who seem happy with letting the computer control the user. You
get all fussy about proposing that they learn something so that they can
use the computer effectively and better prevent mishaps caused by e-mail
attachments. It's you who are saying I'm asking that they remember too
much.
> Control is when you pick the application to manipulate any particular
> data type yourself.
A competent Windows user is never denied this ability. Use drag and drop
or simply open the application of choice and use file -> open.
> Conceptually, letting a data object pick or provide
> its own methods sounds appealing, but it has never matched the way
> I do things.
Actually it's the system setup that determines what application is used
to open the attachment automatically after double clicking. This is all
done by associations, which is manipulatable.
> I always use a lot of different programs to do different
> things to the same file, using the best tool for each job.
Same here.
> Having a
> particular program associated with a file is only useful if that program
> does what I am ready to do this particular time.
Or if the user really doesn't have a multitude of tools to pick and
choose from. Or the user doesn't know which tool to use to do it. It's a
nice system for the newbie but of course their ignorance can be taken
advantage of which brings me full circle. You and I don't have a problem
because we aren't ignorant.
> > A computer is never really easy to use with any reasonable level of
> > competence. I think you know this but are deliberately being difficult.
> >
> > Windows is EASIER to use than other OS's such as Linux/UNIX.
>
> Only if you start with certain preconceptions. If you learned unix
> years before windows existed, the windows approaches often
> seem bizarre, especially if you track all the variations in its
> short lifespan.
I feel the same way about UNIX since I learnt Windows and OS/2 before
looking at Linux.
> The entire unix manual, 3 sections that included
> the command line tools including the shell, system calls and
> c-library functions fit in a small book.
So?
> Everything done with
> that set of instructions will still work virtually unchanged 20
> years later.
So?
> Of course X added some complexity...
Aaaaaaaahhhhhh! You stopped there quickly eh? :-)
> The thing to be cautious of is the mailer that doesn't handle them
> correctly for you.
The user doesn't handle the mailer correctly.
If you have an ignorant user, you need a sysadmin to guide that user or
simply take away control from the user. Very nice arrangement in a
corporate setting. Not so nice in a SOHO user situation where the blind
is leading the blind or there's no one to immediately turn to. They have
to LEARN.
> > > Opening is the normal thing to do with mail. People should not be
> > > forced to memorize the difference between every script interpreter
> > > and photo editor before viewing their mail.
> >
> > No-one is saying that and this is really a desperate argument.
>
> No, if you are going to insist that it is the user's responsibility
> not to execute anything unsafe, then he must keep track of all
> file associations which is a moving target.
Keeping up with his systems development is a moving target. Keeping up
with the world in general is a moving target. There's nothing strange
about that. We are well suited to dealing with a changing environment
because we can learn!!
> If I have recently
> installed a new program, how do I even know what will happen
> with a .txt attachment?
Ask the one who wrote the install routine. They're the ones who decide to
take over the machine and assume things for the user. You see, there are
two sides to the coin when dealing with ignorant users and your pathway
to deal with this involves making decisions for the user rather than
showing them what's happening so that they can make their own.
Of course, typical users show considerable resistance to learning about
their computers and what's happening because of the fear of information
overload. "Oh Lord, this is too complicated for me. Will I ever learn it.
" They're all too happy to hear that all they have to do is double click
the file and everything will be done for them. The unfortunate thing is
that associations being messed up is one of the many problems associated
with such an approach.
> > Agreed. It should run if and only if the user chooses to do so.
>
> It should only run if the user knows what interpreter is going to
> execute and if the mailer assumes that the user knows because of
> some obscure name or icon it is almost certainly wrong most of
> the time.
The typical user would flip if they are constantly being asked which
application to open the file with. They often start experimenting instead
of asking. You watch and see. File associations as they are in Windows
are there for a reason. UNIX OS's never had to cater to users like that
which Windows has to cater to. If these types of users do use UNIX it's
in a setting where the machines are setup and maintained by competent
sysadmins. The users are ignorant and at home with machines in front of
them. They wish for things to happen with minimal effort and without
having to constantly calling for help. For this to happen file
associations are necessary. These ignorant users are vulnerable and the
only way to cure their vulnerability is to warn them about dangerous
attachments and tell them about associations and how they may be
manipulated.
--
ACM.
________________________________________________________
"A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion.
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:20:26 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tom Wilson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:39:17 GMT
> <9nPO5.69$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > Does Bush run Linux?
> >>
> >> Michael Moore wrote a great article about Bush, makes a good case that
> >> he is a functionally illiterate, alcoholic, failure with a drunk
driving
> >> record an a drug addiction.
> >>
> >
> >* The Kennedys became rich from prohibition bootlegging
> >* LBJ was a redneck asshole
> >* Nixon...WAS a crook.
> >* Gerald Ford couldn't even stand up
> >* Jimmy Carter was naive
> >* Regan was...well...Regan.
>
> Pedant point. Ronald Reagan was the President (1/81 - 1/89), Don Regan
> was his White House chief of staff (2/85 - 2/87).
For some reason, I always reversed the spelling of their names.
Drives me nuts!
I'm fond of pedantic points, myself.
About time I got my own medicine.<g>
>
> >* Bush was Regan light.
> >* Clinton obviously DOESN'T understand sexual relations seeing that
> > he mistook a 22 year old intern as a humidor.
> >
> >Sounds to me like Bush Jr. is in good company!
> >
>
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Disapointed in the election
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:20:27 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:39:19 GMT, Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
>
> >The media keeping their damned mouths shut until the results are truly in
> >would also be an improvement.
>
> I don't quite agree. The media's job is to report events, not to cover
them
> up. OTOH, they jumped the gun wrt making predictions, twice (once when
they
> called Florida, and once when they declared Bush the winner).
>
Precisely!
Their job IS to report events. It isn't to predict, speculate and otherwise
obsfucate the
issues. I'm all for freedom of the press. Please don't get me wrong. It's
just that
a certain responsibility comes with that freedom. Making a blanket
declaration about
something so important as a Presidential election BEFORE the ballots are
completely
tabulated, borders on gross negligence.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I dont like about Linux
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:20:23 GMT
> MS doesn't know how to write software unless they can secretly tweak the
OS to
> accomidate their S/W. MS-word uses hundreds of undocumented system calls.
And keeping them undocumented LONG after the fact.
MS-DOS Interrupt 02eh comes to mind...Stable since the mid-2s yet marked
as a no-no for years. I don't really think they do these things to hamper
outside
development, as many claim. IMHO they're too embarrassed by the sloppy
constructs to make those hacks public.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion.
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:20:25 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > > > Does Bush run Linux?
> > >
> > > Michael Moore wrote a great article about Bush, makes a good case that
> > > he is a functionally illiterate, alcoholic, failure with a drunk
driving
> > > record an a drug addiction.
> > >
> >
> > * The Kennedys became rich from prohibition bootlegging
> > * LBJ was a redneck asshole
> > * Nixon...WAS a crook.
> > * Gerald Ford couldn't even stand up
> > * Jimmy Carter was naive
> > * Regan was...well...Regan.
> > * Bush was Regan light.
> > * Clinton obviously DOESN'T understand sexual relations seeing that
> > he mistook a 22 year old intern as a humidor.
> >
> > Sounds to me like Bush Jr. is in good company!
>
> It is all about hypocracy.
>
> Bush claims that all that was past, and he clearly misrepresented that.
How so. Honestly, I missed that.
>
> The Kennedys were what they were, and don't deny it.
And that fact makes rigging the West Virginia primary in 1960 excusable?
>
> Ford was probably the most athletic president we ever had. He tripped
> once on the stairs on air-force one, and became ridiculed for it.
I know, blame Chevy Chase...
>
> Jimmy Carter was a very smart man in hard economic times.
No dispute there. He's the only president, Democratic or Republican,
that I have total respect for. Unfortunately, he got in WAY over his head
where Iran was concerned. I say he was naive, because he over-estimated
the Iranians and humanity in general.
> Regan circumvented the constitution, in effect commited treason, but
> funding the contras with Ollie North. Fires all the air traffic
> controllers to break the union, and they name an airport after him.
> Republican cruelty at its worse.
And called Nancy, "Mommy" , And followed Astrology, And was co-star
to a chimpanzee. GAWD I miss the eighties!
BTW, cruelty is a bi-partisan trait.
> Jebb and GW are idiot sons of a stupid president.
George Sr. strikes me as many things... Stupid, though, isn't one of them.
> Clinton is a brillient man with an impulse control problem. (Or at least
> with a getting caught problem)
He's charismatic, intellegent.... and a total sociopath...
Anyway...back to "serious advocacy/discussion"
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:37:05 -0000
> > Facts which apparantly have not prevented you from acting like one of
the
> > most stupid and prejudiced people I have ever seen posting to these NGs.
I
> > guess the .sig really does say it all.
>
> It serves the purpose for which *I* want it to serve.
The only purpose it serves is to make you look like a biggotted fool who
can't let things go.
--
Cheers,
Sam
_o/
>\
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:45:29 -0000
> > > > On *nix systems, virii are inhibited because a user is running in
his /
> > > > her own space, so that downloaded files are isolated, even if run.
> > > > These programs are never given access to any executable on which the
> > > > machine depends. On *nix systems, "virus" is something of an
> > > > anachronism.
> > >
> > > As it should be. Fortunately, exactly the same thing happens when
running
> > > Windows 2000 (and possibly NT4 if you're using NTFS).
> >
> > Certainly NT4 (and every other version of NT).
>
> And is Microsoft pushing this for home users?
Actually, yes. WinME, although still using FAT partitions, does include a
service called System File Checking that allows the modification of system
files, but immediatly & silently replaces them with signed versions. This
protects the system files. Of course, program files are still vuilnerable
ATM, but it looks like Microsoft is finally going to live up to its six year
promise to abandon DOS; Windows Whistler (to be released as Windows .NET) is
the next version of NT, and so provides file permissions. Whistler will ship
in Server, Professional and Personal incarnations, of which the Personal
version should replace DOS-based Windows.
> Colin Day
--
Cheers,
Sam
_o/
>\
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:50:19 -0000
> The only problem with Win2k for a home user is the limited game support
> and hardware support. Usability should no longer be an issue.
Win2k has been out for nearly a year now; most hardware has had relevant
drivers released from it. The next version of Windows will only work with
the newer, WDM drivers anyway so companies like HP and Creative will have to
release drivers for their consumer products or lose a lot of their
customers.
Usability is vastly improved for the home user, at least in one area. I had
insane amounts of difficulty getting my Creative soundcard and noname modem
to work on my PC under Win98; Win2k sorted both pieces of hardware out,
setting the memory ranges, DMA channels and IRQ numbers up, no problem. I
didn't even need to install drivers for them as they came with the OS! :)
> ACM.
> ________________________________________________________
> "A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
--
Cheers,
Sam
_o/
>\
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.groupware.lotus-notes.admin,comp.groupware.lotus-notes.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there any limitation to the numbers of opening files? thanks
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:51:01 -0500
Nick Cheng wrote:
>
> Dear sirs, I've got a problem when I use server.load to test my Domino
> Server.
> In the console it tells me : too many opened files.
> It there any limitaion to the numbers for openning files? I'm using kernel
> 2.4.0.
> If you know it under 2.2.x, It's OK to me as well.
> Please help me on maximizing the number. thanks a lot!
There are two types of file limitations, system and process.
System file limitations can be adjusted in (2.2.x, but I think it is
similar in 2.4) by:
echo [some number] > /proc/sys/fs/file-max
You should cat /proc/sys/fs/file-nr, which tells you about the number of
files in this order: max used, currently used, limit. If you adjust
file-max, you will see the third number change.
The per process limitation requires a complete system rebuild, so don't
even bother. The current limit is AFAIK 1000. (probably 1024) This is
because of routines like "fdset" which must have prior knowledge of a
limit.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows vs. everybody-else in the desktop/server markets. (Long!)
Date: 11 Nov 2000 13:53:00 +0100
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>Nothing that is reliable. The lack of reliable sources does not make the
>>counter reliable
>So when you've at tracking device installed on a lot of the webpages, in
>fact, it's the most installed tracking device that I'm currently aware of,
>you say it's invalid, and do not propuse any other way to get it?
>Please note that I couldn't care less about the number themselves (and said
>so in the original post) it's the precentage that interest me.
>
The problem is that different sites are visited by a different audience.
The problem is also that we, as investigators, don't have any control
whatsoever of what sites are used in the measurement. There is no guarantee
that the sample is not biased.
To give one example from each end; How many Linux users visit microsoft.com
and how many Windows users visit debian.org? How many are repeat vistors and
how many isn't? I maintain a website using an Amiga, and the statistics
for the Amiga is _severely_ biased by my checking up on the site.
Thecounter is not totally useless though, it can give an indication or a rough
estimate of things.
/Stefan
--
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] � There will always be survivors - Robert A Heinlein � []
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
