Linux-Advocacy Digest #368, Volume #31 Wed, 10 Jan 01 12:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: kernel problems ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: KDE Hell (Craig Kelley)
Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long) ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: KDE Hell (Craig Kelley)
Re: KDE Hell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Predictions ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: RPM Hell (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: Andrew Leonard has another fabulous chapter: this time IBM's commitment to Open
Source (Bruce Scott TOK)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:11:46 GMT
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:10:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
Ebert) wrote:
>In article <xzR66.27225$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>>Microsoft's support site is a thousands times better than anything the LDP
>>could squeeze out of it's ass in a century.
>>
>
>
>Ah, I can tell you've never written or worked with Windows before.
He's talking about the quality of a web site, not writing code.
>At Microsoft's web site they do have an impressive support site
>which details out the 37,000 some odd bugs which have been found
>in Windows 2000. Now, after spending about 6 hours going through
>this dip-shit site, if you find your bug the changes for them
>having a remedy for it other than "REPORTED" are ALMOST NILL.
Baloney.
>On the other hand if you have a problem with Debian you can
>just write a message to the debian users newgroup and it
>will be responded to typically within an hour.
Yea and you will get 100 different answers, most of which will either
be accusations of your stupidity or a collection of wrong and outdated
information.
>And you don't have to look anything up.
Why bother?
>Hope this helps.
>
>Charlie
>
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 10 Jan 2001 09:13:29 -0700
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "." wrote:
> >
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I guess you haven't used FreeBSD then.
>
> > > There may not be a central admin system, but thanks to the uniformity of the
> > > platform, 3rd party programs that perform administrative tasks are POSSIBLE
> > > and WORK under FreeBSD, instead of having to deal with the massive array of
> > > text files, and VI... (Flashback circa 1989).
> >
> > Try running it on an 8 processor machine.
>
> I don't know if either would be very great on an 8 processor machine.
> FreeBSD & Linux are pretty much at their best on "low-end" hardware,
> like maybe 4 processors or less. For more than 4 processors, you'd be
> better served with a microkernel-based unix, like Solaris for example.
Not with with the 2.4 Linux kernel series.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Call for developers: Living Object System (long)
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:13:27 +0000
Jens wrote:
> This is my vision of a living object system which
> I will try to explain below.
[...]
Your proposals have all the hallmarks of not being all that carefully thought
out. The cost of supporting hundreds of thousands of simultaneous components,
even if they are all extremely simple, is very large (you can take that as
professional advice, as I've been working with simulating and analyzing
massively parallel hardware systems for years now.) Adding lots of network
connections (which are actually quite a limited resource) and encryption
(never cheap unless worthless) all over the place just makes what you say
even more unrealistic. And all implemented in C++, the language that memory
protection forgot. Heh!
By all appearances, you don't understand security or networking in depth
(prerequisites for the production of any new OS design) and your grasp of
parallelism is unfathomable. It looks to me like you're an undergraduate
student, with neither the learning or experience to start on a project like
this. Maybe you can compensate for this with sheer drive and effort, but to
do that you will need to come up with a load of downloadable source so that
people can try it out, get excited about it, and *then* decide to chip in and
help out. Until then, we'll treat your proposal exactly like the rest of the
unimplementable pipe dreams that float around here (anyone remember Tao? :^)
Prove us wrong, and we'll talk. Until then, why write USENET messages
instead of coding?
(On a purely stylistic point, you waffle way too much. You could have said
the same thing, and more, in less than half the words without much trouble.
Spending the first 40% of the message trying to frighten people off is also
rather dumb. :^)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- "I'm going to open a new xterm. This one's pissing me off" Anon. (overheard)
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 10 Jan 2001 09:15:14 -0700
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> > I agree as of the 2.2 linux kernel era.
> >
> > But we have 2.4 now and there's little incentive to use
> > FreeBSD now that 2.4 is released.
>
> Wait till Whistler is released. Then there'd be little incentive to use
> FreeBSD or Linux.
We've heard that before...
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:21:56 GMT
On 10 Jan 2001 08:39:31 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Orgy? Functionless?
I can drag a menu item tight off the start menu or any other menu
under Windows and put it anywhere.
How do I do that under Enlightenment?
Edit some obtuse config file, that's how.
Sure sounds like functionless to me.
Orgy?
Maybe for the Penguinista's because they love editing files.
>Have a nice day.
I am :)
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 10 Jan 2001 10:22:11 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93hs0u$79o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> > > Actually the so-called "32-CPU" windows system is just four 8 way
> >> > > systems.
> >> >
> >> > Really? Is this including the NEC, Unisys and several other vendor's
32-CPU
> >> > and 64-CPU boxes? One single box with 32-CPUs is actually just four
8-way
> >> > CPUs? That's not what their sites say, so they must be falsely
advertising,
> >> > right?
> >>
> >> All the so called "32-way" windows systems I have seen,
> >> turn out to be, on closer inspection, clusters of 4 8 way PCs.
> >>
> >> If you know of a true 32-way windows pc, do be a good
> >> sport and provide a URL, OK?
>
> > <sigh>
>
> > You haven't been paying attention at all, have you? At the Win2K launch,
> > they had a 16-way Unisys box pumping away at an Airline flight routing
> > program.
>
> > Here's a press release of the Win2k launch event I was telling you
about:
> > http://www.unisys.com/news/releases/2000/feb/02176866.asp
>
> > Here's a press release of the release of Unisys' 32-way Intel server:
> > http://www.unisys.com/marketplace/giga/702248-df99.html
>
> > Here's the product information on the 32-way ES7000:
> > http://www.unisys.com/hw/servers/enterprise/7000/default.asp
>
> > Here's a Compaq Proliant ML770 32-way server:
> > http://www5.compaq.com/products/servers/proliantml770/index.html
>
> > Here's Microsoft's shortlist of vendors who provide
> > Windows 2000 Datacenter Server hardware:
> >
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/datacenter/hardware/default.asp
> > (note: not all are 32-way, some are 8, some are 16, and some are 32)
>
> > Needless to say, you are wrong, and perhaps you should keep your eyes
> > open in the future to the news rather than just getting all your
> > info from slashdot.org.
>
> Chad doesnt know too much about how x86 processors work.
>
> 32 processors in one box is not the same thing as an entirely parallel
> 32 processor system.
and nothing to do with this thread ...
>
> This isnt surprising. Chad doesnt know much about a whole host of
> subjects, computers being only one.
aparently Mr. Period doesn't know much about reading, comprehending and
following a thread for context.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 10 Jan 2001 10:23:09 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:93ddau$a5i0p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >Wow! 32 "computer chips" at once! Is that like counting the CPU,
memory
> > > HUB,
> > > >BIOS, hard drive controller, sound controller, etc? A whole 32 chips!
woo
> > > >hoo!
> > >
> > >
> > > Thats 32 CPU chips at once.
> >
> > So?
> >
> > >
> > > >far larger individual files, has a journeling file system and can
support
> > >
> > >
> > > Linux has support for at least 2 choices of journaling filesystem
(reiser or
> > > ext3 )
> >
> > Neither of which are stable and each have their own caveats. NTFS 5 has
none
> > of these problems.
> >
> > > and has built-in software driven RAID.
> >
> > *yawn*
> >
> > > >much more physical as well as virtual memory.
> > >
> > > What about using whole partitions as virtual memory without a
filesystem
> > > getting in the way - linux has done this since version 1.x over 6
years ago
> > > (up to 128mb per partition with virtually unlimited number of
partitions).
> >
> > The filesystem doesn't "get in the way" and it's never been an issue.
Even
> > NT 4 still kicks Linux's ass in all things performance.
> >
> > > >isn't even out of development yet ... big deal? Do you really think
itanium
> > > >will ship before it runs Windows? (p.s., there is a beta of Windows
2001
> > > >that will run Itanium, butthead)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > When is MS starting development for the 64-bit AMD chip then - linux
> > > development
> > > started at least a month ago. Why shouldn't the itanium ship before a
> > > compatible
> > > version of windows - why should Intel wait for MS to be ready?
> >
> > It's irrelevant, MS is ready, they've had at least 2 or 3 demos of
> > Windows 2000 running on Itanium.
>
> Native code, or running Pentium instructions....
>
> (DOH!)
Native code - DOH!!
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 10 Jan 2001 10:24:09 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > > Linux has support for at least 2 choices of journaling filesystem
(reiser or
> > > ext3 )
> >
> > Neither of which are stable and each have their own caveats. NTFS 5 has
none
> > of these problems.
>
> So say the windows zealots - but of course it's not true.
> Suse has been shipping lvm and reiser for some time now,
> and is used in production environments.
yawn...
>
> > The filesystem doesn't "get in the way" and it's never been an issue.
Even
> > NT 4 still kicks Linux's ass in all things performance.
>
> Is that why Linux is the reigning specweb champ?
> It seems the windoze zealots all want to live in the
> past, and keep reassuring themselves with tales
> of the old discredited mindcraft benchmarks.
mind you, that's without a journaling file system which slows linux down to
lower than ntfs speed.
AND, mind you again, it's a non-production benchmark-busting-limited
funcionality kernel mode httpd. It was tuned to beat benchmarks, no one is
using it in production (show me the netcraft URL of someone who is?) As
opposed to the off the shelf IIS platform which came within 2.7% of the
"champ"'s performance. If you think 2.7% is a whooping win - I guess we know
you are satisified with small things.
>
> Wake up, rip van winkle! windows is losing ground
> and market share on the server side -
>
> jjs
>
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 10 Jan 2001 10:26:09 -0600
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93h6m2$4jm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi J Sloan",
>
> > So say the windows zealots - but of course it's not true.
> > Suse has been shipping lvm and reiser for some time now,
> > and is used in production environments.
>
> Anyone want to guess why Microsoft's Linux Myths:
> http://www.microsoft.com/NTServer/nts/news/msnw/LinuxMyths.asp
>
> Have not been updated since 1 November 1999?
>
because it served it's purpose then and linux hasn't overcome the problems
outlined in that document in over a year...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:30:28 GMT
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:24:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
Ebert) wrote:
>Linux is unfeasible at work?
>
>Either you lived with your head up your ass your entire life or you
>need to put your cheeks on a diet.
Call up 10 Fortune 100 companies and ask them what their standard
desktop and mobile platform is and report back to us.
>HA~! Windows being more usable than Linux in a business environment.
See above.
>
>You are really some kind of crazy dreamer Kyle.
No. He is a realist Charlie and backs up his statements with facts and
not a blind zealot spouting off with no data to back up the claims.
>Charlie
>
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Predictions
Date: 10 Jan 2001 10:35:13 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> >
> > "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:935kn8$8lg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > <snip crap>
> >
> > > I'm all for successful "capitalism." Just not organized crime.
> > >
> > > Most grown-ups do know the difference between the two.
> >
> > And as a grown-up I recognize that what MS does is not even remotely a
> > crime, let alone an organized one. They are a successful company and a
huge
> > one at that - how else would you expect the largest software company to
act
> > and be reacted to by the smaller companies and wannabe's? Let MS fall,
fine.
> > Now let Oracle step up - do you expect anything different? Do you think
if
> > MS fell and RedHat became the next biggest software company in the world
> > (divine intervention assuming) - would they do anything differnt? Hell
no,
> > they are in it for the money. Period.
>
> The point is for NO one company to have absolute fucking market
> domination, you idiotic fucking brainless shithead.
Brainless?
Do you really think MS has "absolute fucking market domination?"
If so - I have a bridge to sell you. That's like saying they can buy
judges - gee, didn't work recently now did it? Silly - if they had "absolute
fucking market domination" there would simply be no Mac and no Linux and no
Slowaris, period.
Grow a brain eh?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:49:53 GMT
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 06:48:48 GMT, BradyBear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>while using --nodeps may enable me to install the .rpm in question, it
>probably isn't a good idea. The dependancies are there for a reason.
In the specific case of KDE2, using nodeps is required unless you do the
package installs in a particular order. Using it doesn't hurt anything
if you know that you're going to be installing the dependency in a few
minutes.
I normally do qt and kdelibs with --nodeps, then it isn't needed for the
rest.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:51:13 GMT
On 10 Jan 2001 05:16:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>Wow, when I installed mandrake a few days ago, my soundblaster live
>card "just worked".
Including the digital outputs?
>Looks like you are incorrect.
Nope.
He is correct.
You are incorrect.
Typical Linux "half truth"
>
>
>
>-----.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:55:04 GMT
On 10 Jan 2001 23:13:38 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>This would appear to be so much baloney, especially as you still seem
>blissfully unaware of the on-board SCSI. But anyway --- the drives, both
>of them, are original IBM.
Wrong. The BIOS on the SCSI card looks for an IBM copyright on the
drive EPROM and if it doesn't find one you are SOL.
The fix was to call Future Domain and get the standard Future Domain
Eprom and plug it on the card.
It is a fact.
>>Try buying cards for it and see how standard it is :(
>
>I have been doing that. I have also turned down cards for it --- not
>much point having a sound card in a machine upstairs ;-)
You found a sound card for a Microchannel machine?
>Well, some of us need more CPU cycles than others. When a single program
>run takes 6-12 hours, having a few more machines is quite useful.
Agreed.
>Of course, for day-to-day stuff (mail, news, WWW, simple text editing
>and so on), I am using a lowly P150.
If it works....
>Bernie
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:57:09 GMT
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 06:47:49 GMT, "Sphinx367" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I think he's got ya there, adam!! ;-) Oh, BTW, was that a 1996 Chevy Impala
>or big-block 1966??? What's the engine size? Is it naturally aspirated, or
>super/turbo-charged?
1996 LT-1 with a blower.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: 10 Jan 2001 18:03:50 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Richard Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>When I install Linux its as easy to do as Windows. The only hard parts being
>the X configuration (there ought to be a new tool for this by now) and the
>partitioning - which has to be done for Windows as well. Everything else
>then falls into place for a great desktop operating system.
In SuSE you just tell it XVGA and take the "basic" (default)
partitioning scheme. If you leave windows out of your equation (ie,
only one partition plus swap), it is even easier.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Andrew Leonard has another fabulous chapter: this time IBM's commitment
to Open Source
Date: 10 Jan 2001 18:02:30 +0100
In article <936r8l$jmd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>http://www.salon.com/tech/fsp/2000/09/12/chapter_7_part_one/index.html
>
>It's another fascinating read detailing IBM's secret porting of Linux to the
>System 390 (you'll feel really sorry for Linas Vepstas) and how IBM was
>accepted into Apache development (very interesting).
>
>My public thanks for Andrew Leonard's superb book-in-progress.
I second that!
[...]
It was especially amusing to read the CEO's reaction when he found out
how deeply his catacombs were already into Linux before he had any wind
about it!
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
