Linux-Advocacy Digest #654, Volume #30 Tue, 5 Dec 00 02:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("tony roth")
Re: Linux is awful (Charlie Ebert)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is awful ("Sourav Laskar")
Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their PC's? ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "tony roth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 21:07:37 -0800
Not one of my production servers has been down (except when some moron
leaned on the emergency power shut-off shutting power off for the entire
computer room). Like I said in another post I have (or should I say I
forgot) that I had a customer thats never once rebooted their server and its
been running for more then 3 years straight.....
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90ev5j$14ie$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Just out of curiosity. What the current best uptime of the NT/2000 boxes
> under your control? I'd really like to know. Honestly, I can believe my
> experiences may atypical. What you're experience?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 05:19:45 GMT
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 06:31:57 +0200,
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 4 Dec 2000 22:15:03 +0200,
>> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"I R A Darth Aggie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Mon, 4 Dec 2000 12:45:33 +0200,
>> >> Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
>> >> <90ftn4$qoko$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> +
>> >> + "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> + news:sqDW5.29923$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> + >
>> >> + > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> + > news:90ebn3$smj4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> + > >
>> >> + > >
>> >> + > > > Just read the guides first.
>> >> + > >
>> >> + > > I know that it is in the docs, the reason I've problems with it
>is
>> >that
>> >> + > > Redhat neglected to put a simple warning box through the
>> >installation.
>> >> + > > You may disagree, but on every other possibly distructive action,
>> >you
>> >> + get
>> >> + > a
>> >> + > > warning saying this may be dangerous. Why not on one of the most
>> >> + dangerous
>> >> + > > thing that you can do to your computer?
>> >> + >
>> >> + > Are you sure about that? I can't remember exactly which steps I
>used
>> >> + > on which distribution, but I am sure that I went through a
>workstation
>> >> + > and server install to see what you get and before it changed the
>> >> + partitions
>> >> + > it issued a warning about losing all contents on the hard disks.
>> >That
>> >> + > could have been Mandrake, or perhaps you used some unusual modes
>> >> + > expert/text, etc. that exposed a bug.
>> >> +
>> >> + Yes, I'm sure of it.
>> >> + A Server Installation in RedHat will wipe out every last bit of data
>> >you've
>> >> + on your system and will take it, without a *single warning*.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps the warning came before you expected it. I can't speak to
>> >> RedHat, but I know Debian puts up a warning of "you should back up
>> >> your data first, installing this software could wipe out everything
>> >> you've" very, very early on.
>> >
>> >No warning whatsoever during the installation of redhat server.
>> >Not early on or during the parts where you choose
>server/workstation/custom.
>> >None at all.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> I think you will find that even RedHat has printed in their
>> install manual this information. But you must be able to read.
>
>
>So must you, "No warning whatsoever *during the installation* of redhat
>server"
>
If you read the manual you will see how to avoid this.
It would just appear you have to.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 05:27:53 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:HDKW5.10600$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson writes:
>
> >>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> I wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Donovan Rebbechi writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The movement keys are placed sensibly in vi (hjkl),
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Which is not intuitive. First-time vi users, if they try to do
>
> >>>>>>>>> Big fucking deal. NOTHING about computers is "intuitive"
>
> >>>>>>>> Incorrect; consider the power switch.
>
> >>>>>>> You'd be surprised....
> >>>>>>> Never underestimate the idiot factor.
>
> >>>>>> The power switch is NOT "intuitive"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Proof: put a primative tribesman in a room with electric appliances
> >>>>>> and tell him to start the things into operation.
>
> >>>>> I'm in agreement.
>
> >>>> You shouldn't be. His example doesn't represent proof for a power
> >>>> switch not being intuitive.
>
> >>> I'm agreeing that my choice of "idiot" was wrong.
>
> >> But Aaron didn't say that your choice of "idiot" was wrong.
>
> > He did that very thing by intimating the situation to be a question of
> > intuitiveness as opposed to stupidity.
>
> He didn't even intimate that situation. He simply repeated his claim
> that the power switch is not intuitive, and then tried to offer some
> proof for that claim.
Well then, offer a valid and credible argument to the contrary and can the
foolishness.
>
> >>> The hypothesis, strange as it is, points it out. It's a matter of
> >>> experience and environment, not intellect.
>
> >> "Experience" is the word I used for it. Someone else chose
"familiarity".
>
> >>> I used the word idiot because I had been trouble-shooting over
> >>> the phone to complete morons that evening and had a dim view of
> >>> humanity as a result.
>
> >> Someone who couldn't find the "any" key on the keyboard?
>
> > Worse. This was an professional moron.
> >
> > An old Novell customer who consistantly forgets his Administrator
password.
> > He's STILL running Novell 3.12 which is good, in a way, because you can
hack
> > into console debug mode and trick it into believing all system passwords
> > have time-expired. That way he can log on as Administrator and get
prompted
> > for a new one.
> >
> > Ever tried to talk someone, who constantly interrupts and thinks he
knows
> > everything, through hacking Novell from the debug console?
>
> No; I don't know anyone who hacks through Novell debug consoles.
It's a not-so-common trick used to remedy the above situation and it only
works for 3.12. I'm certainly not the only one who knows about it. For
years, Novell denied it was possible, though, since it was admitting to a
major security loophole. They closed it in the later versions.
>
> > I would have done it myself, but, he lives 600 miles away.
>
> Behind a firewall?
You have to have physical access to the server's console to do this. Its' a
security loophole, not a gaping chasm. Besides, you just can't assume that
all businesses are online. This one is a smallish construction company and
has no need to be.
>
> >>>>> The language I used, in hindsight, was wrong.
>
> >>>> That doesn't justify your agreement.
>
> >>> How do you figure? I was agreeing that my wording was off track and
> >>> Aaron's post had pointed that out.
>
> >> Aaron's post wasn't pointing to your wording. He was simply repeating
> >> his claim that the power switch was not intuitive.
>
> > He was pointing to my wording's intent - That it was a question of
> > intellegence.
>
> Where did he do that?
You really aren't this dense are you?
>
> AK] The power switch is NOT "intuitive"
>
> >>>>> Read: Never underestimate the ignorance factor.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I used "idiot" because i'ts been one of those nights...
>
> >>>> Go to the store. Buy a lamp. Take it home. Do you consult a manual
> >>>> to find out what to do with the cord? I hope not. Yet the
> >>>> hypothesized "primative tribesman" could have no idea what the cord
> >>>> is for. Does that prove that the power cord is not intuitive?
>
> >>> Oh for God's sake!
>
> >> Which presupposes the existence of God.
>
> > Yep, you're anal....
>
> An illogical conclusion.
No, an obvoius one.
>
> >>> His hypothesis was extreme, yes. However, it makes a valid point
> >>> regarding experience.
>
> >> On the contrary, it ignores the essential element of intuitive design,
> >> which involves experience with similar items. If someone states
something
> >> about trees, you don't go to a desert and then proclaim the statement
> >> about trees to be wrong.
>
> > You watched a lot of Kung Fu as a kid, didn't you?
>
> No.
>
> > You sound like a fortune cookie.
>
> On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim?
Your "If a tree falls in the woods..." psuedo-intellectual arguments. You
sound ridiculous. You come across as an unemployed philosophy major.
>
> >>> You're bordering on anal retention, i'm afraid.
>
> >> How ironic.
>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 05:53:51 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:t8NW5.11238$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Charlie Ebert wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > And I agree with your comments. The Democrats haven't supported
> > > the middle class in 20 or more years.
> > >
> > > We have become a nation of extremist parties.
> > > You are either extreme rightwing or your extreme leftwing and
> > > the middle ground where most of us stand is not being represented.
> > >
> > > This in itself is an extremely dangerous thing.
> >
> > Ya damn liberal! <grin>
> >
> > "Liberal" now is as bad as "Commie" used to be! What a world!
>
> When you get down to it, what's the difference between them, other
> than the spelling?
Actually, liberals are more socialist than communist. But, let's no split
hairs, eh?
--
Tom Wilson
A Computer Programmer who wishes he'd chosen another vocation.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 05:55:12 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 4 Dec 2000 18:47:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Daley's iron grip of Chicago is a well known fact.
>
> >Uhhmmm...Sweetie, I live in chicago and have for quite some time. You
> >obviously never have.
> >
> >Ive also met the mayor on a number of occasions, and have had the
> >opportunity to be social and professional with people close to him
> >politically.
>
> Chad is just confused between Daley Sr. and Daley Jr. Rush forgot to
> tell him that one of them was dead.
And the still-mortal one is killing himself politically.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 05:58:29 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 14:04:44 GMT,
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The sad part is, the legal system WAS designed to handle crybaby
losers
> >> > like Gore, however, the Gore lawyers, the almost entirely Democrat
> >> > controlled election system in Florida, and 7 Democratic activists --
er
> >> > -- FL Supreme Court Justices managed to ursurp the Constitutional
election
> >> > power from the FL legislature and make a mockery of the Rule of Law.
> >> >
> >> > But then, this is nothing new for the Democrats, take the
Impeachment.
> >> > Clinton and Gore are bullet proof. Laws do not apply to them, so they
> >> > can bend it and stretch it to however they see fit. It's unfortunate
> >> > that there are so many willing accomplices willing to throw
conscience
> >> > to the wind and do whatever he says no matter the Constitutional
> >> > ramifications.
> >> >
> >> > The really, really sad part is, the American public is too ignorant
to
> >> > understand it, let alone get angered about it. A large portion of
them
> >> > think Hilary is right when she wants to do away with the electoral
college.
> >> > If it were her druthers, she'd abolish the Constitution all together.
> >>
> >> I'd stop listening to AM radio if I were you. Start reading
newspapers.
> >> Find some good history books. Start looking into the shenanigans of
> >> your own party.
> >
> >Can you so blindly dismiss the truth?
> >
> >Can you not see what is going on, or what has gone on? Unfortunately, you
> >are one of the ignorant Americans I was referring to. You seem fit to
> >dismiss the obvious because it's not something you want to be confronted
> >with. Please note I'm not attacking you personally, or calling you stupid
> >or anything like that. I'm just saying that there are many people out
there
> >too busy to be concerned with how their government is being
systematically
> >overturned right under their noses.
> >
> >It wasn't three days after Hillary was elected and she wanted to change
> >the Constitution. There is a pattern here...
> >
> >-Chad
> >
>
>
> Boy! It's very cold out there today!
>
> Ah, I have to agree with Chad. We need to put Al Gore on the moon
> with a 30 minute supply of air for the crap he's pulled this last
> few days. Further, we need to wipe out the Democrat party and
> start one which actually represents the middle class.
>
> My message to the Republicans is, WHERE'S MY TAX BREAK!!!!
The ecomomy is tanking....You won't see it i'm afraid.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 05:59:58 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:KxNW5.11242$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:qxGW5.42558$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:n%DW5.9403$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:r2zW5.41622$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > <trimmed>
> > > >
> > > > As opposed to investigating the links between the comunist chinese
and
> > GHWB
> > > > Sr. in relation to the granting of Favored Nation Trading Status
shortly
> > > > after Tienenman Square.
> > >
> > > Or Clinton granting them permanent MFN status on the anniversary of
it?
> > >
> > > China had had MFN status for awhile. GHWB bowed to the corporations,
yes,
> > > but at least he didn't completely sell out the entire nation and its
> > > security like Bill Clinton has. Clinton has not only given them perm.
MFN,
> > > but also given them sattelite missle tracking capability, thus giving
them
> > > ICBMs which are targeted at San Fransico, thank you very little. He's
> > given
> > > them many more missle and deployment technologies. He's ensured the
Lippo
> > > Group's domminance in markets such as low-sulfur coal (Federal park in
the
> > > middle of the desert in Utah, give me a break!), millitary equipment,
and
> > > espionage (Los Alamos!?!). It's a far cry from the precedent that GHWB
> > > followed to the precedent that Clinton is setting.
> > >
> >
> > In the immortal words of Pete Townsend.
> >
> > In with the new boss,
> > Same as the old boss,
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > 3) Exposure of their fear-tactics to be nothing but lies.
> > > > > Democrats have been claiming for years that if the Republicans
> > > > > get power, that the result will be concentration camps for
> > > > > blacks, and elderly kicked out into the streets to starve to death
.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4) Republican control of the education system, resulting in
reforms
> > > > > that start to re-introduce actual EDUCATION in inner city schools.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > By removing any funding for the systems. Good choice that one.
> > >
> > > Typical Democratic fear tactics. "The children will starve without
> > > school lunch programs!". Give me a frickin' break.
> > >
> >
> > I'd rather give them an education.
>
> So you think that the Republicans just want to strip education from the
> children? Give me a break!
It's a common belief now, I'm afraid. Indicative of a political party better
at PR than governing.
------------------------------
From: "Sourav Laskar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:59:05 +0530
Hey why nobody's talking about partition management.
MS way of maintaining drive letters and the devils godown "REGISTRY" has
cost me a reinstall of my workplace system yesterday. Has anybody tried
partition management in window @#$@#%@#!?>?$%@$%$%
As for unix system of a single root -- I have swapped components, drives,
partitions blah, blah and what not -- I don't even need to touch one single
configuration file (except maybe for /etc/fstab), because I can mount the
new partition at exactly the same place as the old partition was.
-Sourav
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90edqi$rrfb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:hIyW5.2834$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:BieW5.5326$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> In comp.os.linux.x Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >> >> Then let's discuss the registry, another stinking pile of dung
from
> > >> >> MS. The same information repeated multiple times under
> indecipherable
> > >> >> keys with little or no documentation. I'll take text format files
> any
> > >> >> day.
> > >>
> > >> > The registry is hard to deciphere.
> > >> > You aren't suppose to work with it directly, not unless you've a
good
> > > level
> > >> > of understanding about it.
> > >>
> > >> Oh yeah, little things like software that puts run some crud at
> > >> startup in the registry that you want to get rid of.
> >
> > > msconfig.exe
> >
> > >> > As for it to be undocumented, this is *false*.
> > >> > There are *plenty* of resources to find out what each key or node
or
> > > value
> > >> > does.
> > >> > Take a trip to *any* good NT/2K focused site, and you'll find
plenty
> of
> > >> > tips on what the registry does, how it does it, and how to change
it.
> > >>
> > >> But I shouldn't have to read anything or know anything to admin my
> > >> computer, recognize the quote? At least the old *.ini files made some
> > >> sense, the registry is just crap.
> >
> > > No, if you want to use the registry directly, you need to read.
> > > If you use the tools that the OS/Application supply, you generaly
don't
> need
> > > to use the registry directly.
> >
> > Ecxept that the OS and applications have a habit of doing things that
> > I don't want, and the only way to fix them is to edit the registry.
> > The typical windows mentality, BTW, "we know what's best for you".
> >
> > My major reason for editting the registry is to remove all of the junk
> > that various apps add to startup. If they would only just add the damn
> > things to the startup folder so I could remove them.
>
> Why are you doing this via the registry?
> msconfig.exe, the last tab.
> You can disable/restore/delete programs that run from startup.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their PC's?
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 06:57:10 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:5bBW5.1055$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "jtnews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > The "Fully Loaded System (Unassembled)" item will give you:
> > >
> > > ATX Mid-tower case with power supply
> > > Celeron 600 with CPU Fan
> > > 64MB of memory ($22 extra)
> > > Floppy, 52x CDROM, Keyboard, Onboard Audio and Video, Onboard 56K
modem
> and
> > > Onboard 10/100 Ethernet
> > > 10.2 GB hard drive.
> > >
> > > All for $441.
> >
> > that's interesting but I need a CD-RW drive.
> > plus i want Creative Soundblaster chipset and a linksys 10/100 pci
> > ethernet card.
> > The nvidia chipset probably would be ok though.
>
> Fine, you want a CD-RW, add $149, still cheaper than the dell.
>
> Why do you want the crappy soundblaster chip?
Most, myself included, think of compatibility concerns. I agree that its' a
crappy chipset but its' a standard crappy chipset.
--
Tom Wilson
A Computer Programmer who wishes he'd chosen another vocation.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
