Linux-Advocacy Digest #171, Volume #31 Mon, 1 Jan 01 13:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: open source is getting worst with time. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Why Hatred? (mlw)
Re: Uptimes ("JSPL")
Re: Plan 9 (Jim Broughton)
Re: Why Hatred? (mlw)
linux price? (Coconut Ming)
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge (Bob Hauck)
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge (Bob Hauck)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux vs Microsoft (mlw)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Comments of E.F. a TRUE MASTERMIND... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: MORE EF MASTERMINDEN! (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 10:03:36 -0600
"steve@x" wrote:
> I rpm -Uhv it, but I get dependcy error, it wanted these
>
> error: failed dependencies:
> textutils is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> sh-utils is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> bzip2 >= 0.9.0c-2 is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
> libbz2.so.0 is needed by rpm-3.0.5-9.6x
You don't have this problem under Windows, because Windows applications just
quietly and upgrade (or downgrade) the libraries to whatever version they need,
and break all your other stuff so that the new toy will run.
AKA "DLL Hell".
Face it; modular components sometimes depend on having specific versions of
other modules. At least with Linux you can manage the situation. Install
multiple versions if you must: no DLL Hell here.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 11:20:57 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2001 03:53:48 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:5LX36.47378$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>
> >> > Fact is, as long as Linux must be maintained by through text files, it's
> >> > not
> >> > going to be able to replace Windows.
> >>
> >> In some instances, it is very useful to be able to use an editor to edit
> >> these text files and configure the system. Sometimes a GUI can just "get
> >in
> >> the way".
> >>
> >> I don't think Linux is going to be held back by being configured by text
> >> files - I think your other excellent points are closer to the truth.
> >
> >You misinterpret what I said. I said as long as Linux *MUST* be maintained
> >through text files. In other words, even with tools like linuxconf, you
> >still need to maintain quite a bit through text files exclusively.
> >
> >There's nothing wrong with text configuration files, as long as there are
> >easier ways to maintain it as well.
> >
>
> Allowing administrators to configure Unix through text files is the
> OS's Achilles' heal. IMHO it will eventually lead to the downfall of
> the OS.
>
> In theory MS could release an OS with an entirely different structure
> for the registry and not break a single application. This is possible
> since the interface to the registry is controlled through regedit or
> the appropriate library functions. OTOH with Unix the system is
> configured through any text editor and the configuration parameters
> are exposed at the lowest level - through the file system. Any small
> change to these files would break numerous programs.
Why would the configuration files need to change independently of the
packages which they configure? Answer: they won't. This is a very well
stated, and pointless, red hearing.
>
> An open system like Unix is somewhat analogous to having hardware
> without drivers - all software would be exposed to the internal
> operation of the hardware.
This is completely false. UNIX packages run across many platforms, more
so than any Windows program. Strict adherence to drivers and API is
required.
> This is what it was like in the early '90s
> - take a look at the early source code for NCSA telnet and you will
> see that there was different code for different Ethernet cards. The
> first thing you did before buying a new Ethernet card was ensure it
> was "NE2000 compatible" - otherwise you may be buying a host of
> compatibility problems. Packet drivers providing a standard software
> interface solved these problems.
NE2000 compatible requirement was mainly for Novell IPX drivers under
DOS, and for Windows because many OEM's did not support Windows directly
(MS supports NE2000 on all of its platforms). The NE2000 spec was based
on a reference implementation of ethernet. It was never very good, but
as a public specification, gained much OEM support.
>
> Unix is more or less stuck. Its open design prevents it from ever
> undergoing any sort of radical redevelopment.
This is also false. Solaris is completely different from Linux, yet
programs are written, easily, which can be compiled on each. Two
completely different operating systems usually have a much higher degree
of difference than a big redesign of one.
> I know a lot of the
> people in this group think that Gnome or KDE or linuxconf is a radical
> redevelopment. But this is just window dressing (pun intended). In
> the meantime MS has made the transition from DOS, Windows 3.1, 95/98
> and on to NT/2000 while breaking relatively few applications. All of
> these OS's have very different natures - especially NT versus the
> others.
You have got to be kidding, right?
Many non-trivial DOS programs have never run well under Windows. Windows
2.x to 3.0 transition broke every Windows program. The Windows 3.0 to
3.1 transition broke about half. Many "Windows" programs can't run on
NT/2000 more still could never run on NT < 4.0 sp3.
Windows is a DOS extender, and didn't do nearly as good a job at running
DOS applications as did DesqView.
NT is a pseudo VMS clone, with an emulated Windows environment, and it
doesn't even run all the Windows programs available.
MS has never, and will never, make a good OS.
>
> The one thing that Windows haters love to attack the most is the
> registry. Why did MS ever give up those nice .ini files? The irony
> is that the introduction of the registry is probably one of the most
> important changes MS has made. Even if NT/2000 doesn't survive it is
> difficult to see an open and inflexible OS like Unix surviving much
> longer.
You are clearly not learning from history. UNIX has flexibility,
adaptability, and stability head and shoulders over DOS/Windows or
NT/2K. Every new release of NT has broken drivers and applications from
previous releases.
NT 3.1, the first version, wouldn't run many Windows applications. 3.51,
with the 95 add-on ran some more, but still not many. While NT 4.0 ran
more applications, MS changed the entire graphical subsystem and we
driver writers had to check and/or rewrite every line of code to make
sure that what used to run in protected user space, could now run in
kernel space. 2K had its share of driver changes as well.
It is a guarantee, long after MS abandons NT, and they will, UNIX will
still be around as a popular base for many system.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 11:25:11 -0500
Reply-To: "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92q9f9$1gfe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > They are related and the sole source of Netcrafts information. The http
> > response to a HEAD request to the server at port 80 is the only data in
> > which Netcraft uses to come up with their uptime assumptions. Now, if
you
> > look through the rfc's on the standard, industry accepted header fields
> > you'll find that there are none which pertain directly to "time since
last
> > reboot" or anything even close. Therefore netcraft is using some kind of
> > unsupported method which is apparently impossible to duplicate. I
suspect
> > that their method wouldn't stand up to independent analysis, which is
why
> > they do not release their method. Uptimes.net purposely puts a header
> field
> > in which indicates time since reboot on participating machines which
makes
> > it much more accurate if it weren't for the fact that the field can be
> > forged by the client at will.
>
> The uptime numbers are not comming from any HTTP headers, as has been
> discussed multiple times in this thread. The numbers come from the
> synchronization number in the TCP packet. That's why most firewalls don't
> report any uptime value.
According to uptimes.net, they get all their info from a proprietary header
field which is added to participating machines.
If netcraft in fact gets their "time since reboot" info from the TCP packet,
why does it take several pollings? Wouldn't that information be available at
first contact with a given server? The whole problem with Netcraft, and the
main reason they have no credibility is they are perfoming a feat which is
impossible for anyone to duplicate.
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Plan 9
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 16:36:01 GMT
J Sloan wrote:
>
> Donn Miller wrote:
>
> > Meet Linux's newest competitor. I plan (no pun intended) on trying this bad
> > boy out!
> >
> > http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/download.html
>
> Heck that's not a competitor, it's a kissin' cousin.
>
> Most likely, all of the really cool parts of plan 9
> will end up in Linux sooner or later anyway...
>
> jjs
There is another OS built on the linux kernel minus the GNU part.
Check /. (older article 3 or 4 days old) OR check the web site...
http://helio.pliant.cx/
--
Jim Broughton
(The AmigaOS now there was an OS!)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 11:43:27 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Fact is, as long as Linux must be maintained by through text files, it's not
> going to be able to replace Windows.
The registry is a binary database which holds critical configuration and
operating system information. Errors in this database can render a
system inoperable, yet the only tools which can find and correct errors
in this database must be run from an operable system, and on a complete
and uncorrupted database.
Anyone that does not see the fundamental problem with this system, does
not understand what makes a system maintainable.
Whether information is stored in a text file, a database, or in flash
memory is irrelevant to the methodology of a working system for editing.
One could put any number of programs in front of any one of these
storage mechanisms, and no one could tell the difference.
What is important is when the system is NOT working and you have to fix
it quickly. The registry is a disaster when there is a problem. Under
Linux, one can boot off a floppy, edit the text files as necessary to
remove offending drivers or settings, and boot a working system.
Here is an actual NT problem I have seen which proves my point:
I installed WinCE development kit on a version of NT, that had been
service packed. It called for RAS components to be installed. The
install program requested my original NT CD, which I put in, and it
installed the components. When I had to reboot (It is, after all,
Windows) it would blue screen before ever getting to the GUI.
There is no way to fix it from the system. I had to pull the hard disk
out and add it as a slave to a working NT system, delete the drivers
which had been crashing, and move the hard disk back to the original
system. I reinstalled the service pack.
Had this been a Linux system, I could have booted off a floppy,
commented out entries in the modules.conf file, or deleted the entry in
/etc/rc.d/rc?.d that started the service.
The registry is a bad idea, I have yet to see one reasonable argument
for it that can't be countered by a number of very good reasons against
it.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 00:58:12 +0800
From: Coconut Ming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: linux price?
All Linux is free?
Can anyone tell me... Linux redhat.. Mnadrake... Corel...
All is free OS?
All Linux clone except WinLinux is free?
Please answer me. I am a newbie..... Yet decide to get a free Os :)
thanks.
from
kokming
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 17:43:42 GMT
On Mon, 1 Jan 2001 14:21:53 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Making a counter is not a trivial task to most people.
Yes, that's why most reputable ISP's and web hosting companies provide
one. Or, there are several that you can download for free. That way
your site doesn't get held up loading because some _other_ site is
having problems.
Free counter sites are mostly popular for personal home pages and the
users of free hosting services. For that matter, having a hit counter
in itself sort of screams "budget site", regardless of where it was
obtained. How that might skew the results I don't know, but they
probably aren't representative of the web as a whole.
> However, since you can get a fully functional counter for free, why
> bother?
Reputable hosting companies and ISP's will provide access to server
logs, which are much more useful for a professional site than a hit
counter is.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 17:43:40 GMT
On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 18:55:33 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm still skeptical. Why then are Linux books such a large segment of
>computer books in the bookstores nowadays?
Because there's a market! Contrary to what some WinZealots want us to
think, people are using Linux.
>Too many factors here. It still seems to me that the site merely counts
>systems that are using the counter. So it could simply be that this
>site merely has a counter popular with "Windows system administrators".
Counter sites tend to be popular with unskilled webmasters and people
who use free hosting services. IOW, I wouldn't count on the sample to
be at all representative of "the world at large".
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 17:43:44 GMT
On Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:28:58 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> No, you claimed that the Democrats were trying to "subvert the rule of
>> law."
>
>Which they were. You didn't even answer the claims, instead stooping to
>name calling.
How is going to court "subverting" the rule of law? I've always been
under the impression that you went to court to get an interpretation of
the law, not to subvert it. Subverting would involve something
extra-legal, such as paying off the people counting the ballots or
voting on behalf of dead people.
Maybe I missed a civics lesson someplace where they defined lawsuits as
"subversion".
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs Microsoft
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 12:56:39 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> So here it is the new year and no new Linux kernel yet. Goes to show
> that Linux's due dates are no better than anyone elses.
Who cares? When it is released, it will work, unlike MS who delays and
delays, and eventually releases a buggy project because Marketing says
it has too.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 17:53:56 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 31 Dec 2000
>redc1c4 wrote:
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
[...]
>> > SSSShhhhhhhh! They might hear you!
>>
>> oh puhleeeeeeeeezzzzzze. you only came up with the "i'm a troll" bullshit
>> once you'd been spanked repeatedly on facts, here and elsewhere.
>> you can run, but you can't hide, wannabe.
>
>So says the man who claims that medics never get shot because they're
>protected by a magic force field....or something.
So says the troll who keeps bringing that fabrication up every time he
gets nailed.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Comments of E.F. a TRUE MASTERMIND...
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 17:58:59 GMT
In article <KCY36.4888$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>functional is a bit of stretch. I guarantee you that if you take any 100
>office users and give them StarOffice, the majority will find StarOffice to
>lack features they need to do their jobs.
>
Well!
Let's see here.
With Star Office you can type a document and print it.
With Word you can type a document and print it.
With Excel you can do a spreadsheet and print it.
With Star Office you can do a spreadsheet and print it.
With Word you can integrate your spreadsheet documents and
some graphs from Excel into your documents.
With Star Office you can integrate your spreadsheet documents
and some graphs into your documents.
I guarantee your full of shit Fukenbush.
>You're also assuming that a typical office worker only has needs for those
>programs. Most companies have Access databases, contact management systems
>(ACT or GoldMine for instance. Nothing similar exists for Linux), custom VB
>programs, etc...
>
Are we saying Linux doesn't have it's share of databases?
Call Tracking systems are easy to write also.
And to say that Linux is inferior because it lacks custom written
VB applications is so moronic it's almost unbelievable you printed this
statement.
>That won't work, because every user will then be sharing the same desktop.
>Try putting 100 users on the same desktop.
>
And who would? But more importantly if this feature is such crap
then why on earth did Microsoft emulate it finally?
Are they not worth a crap either?
>They're not going to rewrite those apps. VB allowed them to write a simple
>app to do something quickly, they're not going to spend 100x more in
>developer time to do something in C.
>
>
They absolutely will. When the price of the Windows Desktop goes above
$800 a unit and the cost of VB enterprise tops $3000 they will all leave
Microsoft in favor of Linux.
The development tools found in GNU C++ are far superior than anything
you can find using a modern copy of VB.
VB is crap and if you were a real computer PA you would know this.
And you would quit making yourself look like a complete idiot on the
newsgroups.
>
>Actually, windows is getting EASIER for the developer. Windows 2000
>supports all the same API's as Windows 9x now, with DirectX, MAPI, Direct3D,
>etc...
>
Doesn't this admission that Windows is hard to develop for seem to make
everything else you've said just a large pile of crap?
>
>No, those apps are still using Windows API's, they're just using common
>subsets.
>
And here we have more condolences.
>
>I doubt it. Linux will never have those scaled down modems and other
>hardware that OEM's love because they're cheap.
>
Oh, you mean WIN MODEMS.
Anybody who buy's a WIN modem or a WIN printer is an idiot.
They are sacraficing their CPU power they could use to perform
tasks away to printers and modems which should be built like
they used to before they came up with this cheap idea.
>
>Apart from fonts, they also need more standards between desktop
>environments.
>
No, we don't. Sorry. Your wrong.
We don't NEED to do anything you say.
The current Linux development model is growning at 40% world wide.
People are comming out of the woodworks and trying Linux.
They are staying as they like it.
Microsoft Windows will become a dinosaur in just a few years.
And people like you who are completely full of shit will finally
be silenced forever as you won't have an operating system to
bloat!
>
>One can hope.
>
>
Yes! One can hope.
>It's easy to run as root. Most users don't understand the security issues.
>When you don't run as root, you need to worry about file privs and such.
>It's a pain to su all the time.
>
And here in lies why Microsoft security sucks.
They have written their systems to meet the demands of people like
Fukenbush who have no clue how an operating system should be written.
You can use any common Linux users account and change the security on
any of YOUR files you want to. The beauty is the common user can't
fuck up his own system from this user account either intentionally
or by accident. You can't say the same for Windows.
Because people like Fukenbush exist, we have problems with VB
viruses like ILOVEYOU. This is because people like Fukenbush are
3 year olds who tought the superiority of VB written applications!
Everybody who toughts W2K on this newsgroup talks about the security in
the Administrator rights. This is similar to the Linux ROOT account.
Appearently Fukenbush only runs as Administrator on his Windows box.
And he's giving advice here today on COLA as the Microsoft EXPERT
and he's saying go the MICROSOFT WAY and HE'S the EXPERT of the
MICROSOFT PRODUCTS.
Let us review what Fukenbush has said.
#1. I AM EXPERT AT MICROSOFT WINDOWS.
#2. VB APPLICATIONS ARE SUPERIOR TO ANYTHING ELSE FOUND
ON ENTIRE WORLD. C, C++ IS A LANGUAGE FOR INFERIOROIDS!
#3. LINUX IS INFERIOR.
#4. WINDOWS WEAK SECURITY IS TO YOUR ADVANTAGE.
#5. STAR OFFICE IS NO GOOD.
#6. MICROSOFT WINDOWS IS A BETTER CHOICE FOR RUNNING
100 USERS ON THE SAME PC.
#7. WIN MODEMS AND WIN PRINTERS ARE SUPERIOR TO ANYTHING
ELSE ON PLANET EARTH. CAN'T WAIT FOR WIN TOASTER.
#8. WINDOWS IS GETTING EASIER TO DEVELOP FOR, SO EASIER
THAT LINUX WILL NEVER BE AS EASIER!
#9. LINUX HAS DIFFERENT DESKTOPS AND THIS IS DANGEROUS!
and finally we have #10 message!
#10. I AM FUKENBUSH! I AM GOD! SUCK MY PP!
Isn't it great that we have people like Erik Fukenbush around
to straighten out our worlds for us and give us control.
Until your next totally insaine newgroup posting!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: MORE EF MASTERMINDEN!
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 18:02:25 GMT
In article <_VY36.5313$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>No, I use Linux because it's the right tool for the job I use it for,
>however I'm seriously considering going back to FreeBSD because of the lack
>of standardization between distros.
>
Now! To consolidate everything else EF has said,
take a gander at this comment.
Does anybody believe EF uses Linux or has ever used Linux?
If you've been a study of EF you wouldn't think so.
To mix EF with Linux would be like giving a rat poison.
Truely, no domestic house pet is safe while their is
an EF in your neighborhood.
EF is masterbating - homocidal - jerkwad brain.
I rest my case.
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
