Linux-Advocacy Digest #431, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 04:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Re: The real truth about NT
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows (Lewis Miller)
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows (Lewis Miller)
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The real truth about NT (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux a non-starter at CES ("Todd")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:09:03 +0000
Bones wrote:
> Why are you re-installing the operating system after adding a hard disk?
> Where did you pick this bad habit up?
I removed the 2GByte disk as a museum piece. The 30GByte disk has a 4GByte
partition for the system now, as well as a humungous /home partition, which
is what I wanted.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:11:32 +0000
This gets better!
I reinstalled because I wanted to use ReiserFS, the journaling file system.
That all went smoothly and everything seemed to be working.
I moved the machine backup upstairs, plugged it into my network and
*oopsie* can't talk to the other machine! I can see the lights flashing on
the hub but they can't see each other.
Oh dear, now what I have done wrong?
Linux is SO much better than Windows!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:13:18 -0000
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:52:36 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:08:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 01:03:04 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Personally, I hate having to add a decent mp3 player, a CD
>> >> >> mastering app, or a basic archiving tool to NT5.
>> >> >
>> >> >Personally I hate not have ANY decent varieties of the programs you
>> >> >mention available for Linux.
>> >> >
>> >> >Oh yea, for NT5 Try MusicMatch Jukebox and Winzip.
>> >> > Both free/shareware.
>> >>
>> >> So then, what are wrong with the Linux variants you seem
>> >> to despise so much? Please be precise.
>> >
>> >Congratulations on completely missing the point.
>>
>> Actually, you were first.
>>
>> OTOH, you can get a nice distribution that includes those things
>> for you allowing you to avoid extra work. I'll state that last
>> bit again so that you might have a chance of comprehending it:
>> AVOID EXTRA WORK.
>>
>> While you're trying to act as white knight for those that have
>> meagre computing skills, you demonstrate that you are quite out
>> of touch with them. Many end users either don't want to or are
>> unable to manually futz with downloading things from the web
>> even assuming they have a network connection at all.
>
>Congratulations on finally seeing my point.
You have no point.
The best you can do is try and lie about Linux causing the
end user more work when it infact does not. It's actually
structured to save the novice end user work and aggravation.
Fully functional quarterly point releases are really quite
handy in this respect.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:19:17 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Actually CLI's are from the mid 90's.
???
> The term WinDOS isn't just an attempt to be cute. It's actually
> an accurate and recent description of the state of things in the
> Microsoft dominated novice computing market.
WinDOS is fair enough, but LoseDOS isn't.
> CLI's are only "from the 70's" if you were bold enough to ignore
> Microsoft prior to 1995.
Let me see, what was I using at EMI and Digital before then. Gasp! A CLI!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:19:42 -0000
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:23:39 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The XFree86 4.0.2 input autoprobe derives much of it's ability to detect
>preconfigured devices (ie: GPM already supporting my mouse, and not scanning
>the USB subsystem for devices).
In computer science that is generally refered to abstraction
and modularity. There is no good reason why xfree should need
bother with the internal details of a particular wire protocol.
[deletia]
A USB mouse can even be set up at the kernel level to appear as
/dev/psaux if the distributor is so inclined.
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:24:03 -0000
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:28:49 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>One wonders if you will EVER admit there is a problem.
>
>XFree86 4's probing system SUCKS. It's dumb, period. It doesn't really
>"probe", it "queries". And takes NOTHING from other autoprobe schemes that
>DO work.
Beyond attempting to confuse low level wire protocols with something
that an application level facility should muck about with, you
really haven't demonstrated anything.
>
>Where I sit, this is called a "Design flaw", and because XFree86 and Linux
>are so closely tied hand-in-hand, this doesn't help Linux to stop sucking.
[deletia]
My wheelmouse, my usb mouse and my Matrox card don't seem to
have these problems that you seem to think imply a design
flaw of some kind.
[deletia]
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:26:39 -0000
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:44:53 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Lewis Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93m7ef$ol5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Ok here we go, WTF do you need a USB mouse? that's as stupid as a USB
>> keyboard. Those devices have no need of a faster port than what they're
>> attached to. I hate all these devices they're attaching to a USB port just
>> because they can. A camera? That make sense. a camera can take advantage
>> of it. A mouse? please the mouse has not changed much in the past 10
>> years. What you need a boomslang?
>> NT can't use ANY USB devices.
>
>I own a USB mouse. I like my USB mouse. Optical mice only come in USB, and
>I don't see a need for the USB-ps/2 converter. The kernel supports USB, GPM
Are you speaking of some dongle or the that bit of the kernel
that makes the first USB mouse appear as a psaux device?
>supports it, but XFree86 can't DETECT it...
So? It's simply not necessary for that functionality to be
replicated yet again.
[deletia]
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:28:27 -0000
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 05:41:42 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Very few people mastering CD's outside of the sort of enviroment
>> > where there would be a special machine dedicated to the purpose
>> > stress machines to the level where it should be an issue.
>>
>> Just kick of a kernel compile.
>
>I compile the kernel and browse mail/news/web while
>burning CDs on linux - what's the issue?
He's merely speaking from total ignorance.
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:30:48 -0000
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:19:17 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Actually CLI's are from the mid 90's.
>
>???
>
>> The term WinDOS isn't just an attempt to be cute. It's actually
>> an accurate and recent description of the state of things in the
>> Microsoft dominated novice computing market.
>
>WinDOS is fair enough, but LoseDOS isn't.
>
>> CLI's are only "from the 70's" if you were bold enough to ignore
>> Microsoft prior to 1995.
>
>Let me see, what was I using at EMI and Digital before then. Gasp! A CLI!
Since when has Microsoft ever sold timesharing systems?
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:33:28 -0000
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:11:32 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This gets better!
>
>I reinstalled because I wanted to use ReiserFS, the journaling file system.
>That all went smoothly and everything seemed to be working.
>
>I moved the machine backup upstairs, plugged it into my network and
>*oopsie* can't talk to the other machine! I can see the lights flashing on
>the hub but they can't see each other.
>
>Oh dear, now what I have done wrong?
>
>Linux is SO much better than Windows!
Well considering that you just have to enter the little
numbers into the little boxes much like you would do for
WinDOS or NT, the obvious conclusion would be operator
error.
Depending on what was done wrong, WinDOS wouldn't provide
any better tools for diagnosing the problem.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to
build their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:48:39 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
J Sloan wrote:
> Could you explain again why we should pay a small fortune for
> this "deluxe" pc server OS that can't match the performance
> of a free webserver running on a free Unix?
See, that's one of many things wrong with Microsoft. Win 2000 is so
damned expensive. If it were $99 for the full-blown server version,
then it would be priced pretty close to the quality of the product.
But, I can see why MS products are so pricey. You have to pay all those
developers, I guess...
I think $99 is enough for the full-blown version of Win 2000, don't you
think? I mean, $199, that's a little steep. A lot of people can't
afford Win 2000, and even then, it still falls short of Linux in various
tests, as J. Sloan already pointed out.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: 13 Jan 2001 08:36:21 GMT
Kyle Jacobs was heard ranting about
<N_P76.55259$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in alt.linux.sux on 12 Jan
2001
>"Lewis Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93m7le$ol5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >It can't even identify my PS/2 port Logitech Wheelmouse correctly
>> >(Mandrake 7.2).
>>
>> Found mine fine, Red Hat 7. Tip don't use crapy distribs like
>> Mandrake, which I'm sure that will start a war. But yes I know
>> Mandrake is based on Red Hat, but they fuck the installer.
>
>First, Mandrake 7.2's installer suplments the XFree86 probing system by
>pre-configuring the mouse at pre-install time. The mouse settings from
>install are transfered to XFree86.
>
>Same with RH7, GPM is configured by Anaconda, XFree86 is configured FROM
>GPM (typically by Anaconda).
And? It still detected my Logitec Wheel mouse. And it works fine in X.
>> again, it identified my Matrox fine... didn't auto detect the 3D labs
>> card, but I tossed in a cheap STB got the drivers then installed it.
>> Fine.
>
>This is NOT a soulition.
What's not? Installing a driver is not a solution? That sounds pretty ass
backwards. sounds exactly like a solution. Something that solved the
problem of the video card not displaying viideo.
>> >>Can it even probe for those devices AND accomidate WITHOUT prompting
>> >>the user?
>> >
>> >A concept totally foreign to Linux users.
>>
>> A concept totaly unwelcome.
>
>Because you like your piddling minutia, overcomplication and wasted
>time.
No it's not. It's control. I don't have shit installed on my system I don't
want. It's all this integration and not asking permision that allows for
the existence of shit like the I Love You VBS virus, or the various Macro
viruses in windows. You'll please notice that those viruses don't affect
Linux. You have to write something a little more complicated than a
glorified batch file. And then if I choose to run a script without reading
it frist, shame on me. So I say the time spent fixing the follow up to
stupid viruses is more of a waste of time than me answers yes or no at the
least for everything. *I* am the decision maker, the computer is a slave.
--
l8r
-LJM
a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
a.k.a. MrBobaFett
"Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
-- Eric Draven, The Crow
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Date: 13 Jan 2001 08:41:57 GMT
Kyle Jacobs was heard ranting about
<VaQ76.55324$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in alt.linux.sux on 12 Jan
2001
>"Lewis Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93m7ef$ol5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Ok here we go, WTF do you need a USB mouse? that's as stupid as a USB
>> keyboard. Those devices have no need of a faster port than what
>> they're attached to. I hate all these devices they're attaching to a
>> USB port just because they can. A camera? That make sense. a camera
>> can take advantage of it. A mouse? please the mouse has not changed
>> much in the past 10 years. What you need a boomslang?
>> NT can't use ANY USB devices.
>
>I own a USB mouse. I like my USB mouse. Optical mice only come in USB,
>and I don't see a need for the USB-ps/2 converter. The kernel supports
>USB, GPM supports it, but XFree86 can't DETECT it...
Optical mice only come in USB? I have a hard time believing that, since I
had an optical trackball on ps/2, I would assume they can do the same for a
mouse...
And yes USB is good, but wasted on a mouse.
>> umm. it detected an old STB Velocity 128. besides write your own
>> driver.
>> :)
>
>Are you trying to be an idiot? Please say yes.
No, I'm trying to be humorus, but with a twist of reality. Because hey,
ppl do it. And ya know what, that's part of the idea of Linux if it doesn't
work, You make it work. Or just don't use it. Go BUY something, They will
be happy to do the work for you, if you will give them the motivation (the
money).
>> >Can it even probe for those devices AND accomidate WITHOUT prompting
>> >the user?
>>
>> I would hope not, when my computer stops asking me before it does
>> anything I didn't tell it to do directly, I will be upset. Thanks I
>> like to knoe what is happening on my machine.
>
>At the general cost of other, critical functionality? No thanks.
At the cost of critical functionality? What are you talking about?
--
l8r
-LJM
a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
a.k.a. MrBobaFett
"Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
-- Eric Draven, The Crow
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:05:14 -0600
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> >
> > No, but the kernel itself has to be. A Linux install kernel has to be
able
> > to run on a 386. MS's install kernel is both multiprocessor and 486
> > optimized (for NT4, P5 optimized for 2000).
>
> Not true. Redhat comes with multiple kernel rpms (386, 586, 686) and
> installs the one optimized for your machine. Mandrake ships with a
kernel
> optimized for 586. Both have separate rpms for smp which are
automatically
> installed if you have an smp.
Read again. The *INSTALL* kernel. We're talking in the context of a Linux
installation which never reboots from the original kernel loaded off the CD
or install floppy. Red Hat can't install an optimized kernel if it's not
running yet, now can it?
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:47:58 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Very few people mastering CD's outside of the sort of enviroment
> > where there would be a special machine dedicated to the purpose
> > stress machines to the level where it should be an issue.
>
> Just kick of a kernel compile.
>
>
>
>
Well, just to try out if my SCSI-only system would stand the strain, I did
exactly that -- I made a CD AND did a kernel recompile while at the same
time browsing the net.
Guess what, kernel was OK, as was the CD.
Only browsing through c.o..l.a wasnt that good, too many rants from people
like EF, flathead and other win-trolls who have nothing better to do than
telling us that, although doing stuff like above (replace kernel compile by
compile if BIG app) would result in a badly toasted CD, it still is WAYYYYY
better than sliced bread ehh linux. At least the burner proggy looks GOOOD,
and that is it's main value, looking good.
And who needs a computer staying up any longer than a few hours (at all,
one needs sleep).? So don't mind if windows crashes, it a FEATURE to remind
you to go to bed, not a fault, no no.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:52:06 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Right. First, remote rural areas can't get 56K, thus you were connecting
> at
> speeds of under 33.6, probably under 28.8. Let's just say 28.8. Since
> there are 10 bits in each byte over modem (8 bits, 1 start, 1 stop bit)
> that's 2880 bytes a second. To download 100 meg would take 9.6 hours.
> Even a basic Linux machine will be at least 300 Meg, so that's over 27
> hours, or
> more than a day. Not "overnight".
>
Sure, Windows would do that MUCH faster.
And what if I live in a city and have DSL (which I have).
This is at least 40 times as fast as your scenario above.
But even then, windows will fail
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:09:35 -0600
"Bones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <93h3n3$63q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stuart Fox wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Crap. Windows NT has been able to change the IP address without
> > rebooting since about SP4.
>
> I'm not trying to exacerbate the situation here, but honestly, what am I
> missing with an SP6 machine that refuses to change IPs on the fly? (No DNS
> or DHCP involved)
Just change the IP and ignore the request to reboot.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a non-starter at CES
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 17:03:34 +0800
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <93h8fj$g4v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Todd wrote:
> >
> >
> >And it's going to be a tragedy ending for MS haters.
> >
> >-Todd
> >
>
>
> That is until the breakup is ordered.
We'll see. In the meantime, I'm keeping all of these posts so I can remind
you of how wrong you will be. :)
-Todd
>
> 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
******************************
