Linux-Advocacy Digest #432, Volume #31 Sat, 13 Jan 01 06:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: You and Microsoft...
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux misseery cont. ("James")
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:20:27 -0600
"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > > What about Word98?
> > > >
> > > > Word98 is for the Mac, All Mac versions of word have had different
> > formats.
> > >
> > > Is there any particualr reason for that still being the case?
> > > Not trolling, genuinely curious.
> >
> > Well, most likely it's the endian issue, not to mention that things like
OLE
> > an structured storage are different between PC and MAC.
> >
> What does endian have to do with it? Changing endian on reading files
> between Intel and Motorola format takes at about 5 lines of code. I do
> that all the time.
Word has traditionally stored binary data structures in it's file format.
This means that, unless you always convert endianness when loading and
unloading documents, the file formats (even if otherwise identical) will not
be the same for data content. More likely, Word only does endianness
conversion when using filters for a non-native file format.
> > > IIRC, the Mac version of Word was developed from an earlier version
> > > of Word for DOS and included a lot of WYSIWYG (as we used to call
them)
> > > capabilities which were independently redeveloped in WinWord. I would
> > > have expected convergence in file formats.
> > > Excel was developed on the Mac and certainly used the same format, at
> > > least as far as Excel 5.
> >
> > Excel 5 for the PC uses BIFF format in a OLE structured storage compound
> > document. I'd be surprised if the native Mac excel version was the same
as
> > the PC version (especially given FPU differences between the
architectures).
>
> That still doesn't seem reasonable. The problem of converting between
> FPUs formats has been solved hundreds of times and doesn't require
> enough code to justify new file formats.
Fine. Store a binary floating point number from an Intel machine in a file,
read the binary format back in on a Mac and shove it back into the FPU.. see
if it works correctly without massaging the data. Why massage the data for
your native file format? That makes no sense.
> Can you give a reason why either of those problems justifies changing
> file formats?
The only way the formats can be identical on both platforms is if one
platform stores their data in the other platforms format. Why would a
native Mac word document store it's data in PC format when such
interchangeability is not necessary very often (especially not when the file
formats were created 10 years ago).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 13 Jan 2001 16:37:02 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On 13 Jan 2001 06:59:02 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>And what, pray tell, is "the standard PC architecture"? And if anyone
>>gets to decide what it is, shouldn't it be IBM?
>It is....
>AT ISA bus....
I see. So all those "legacy free" PCs are non-standard, and thus one
shouldn't reasonably be able to expect to run (and reboot) Win98 on them
without hassle?
I guess Linux' time has truly arrived, then ;-))
Bernie
--
If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens,
how incapable must Man be of learning from experience
George Bernard Shaw
Irish playwright, 1856-1950
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 13 Jan 2001 16:48:05 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On 13 Jan 2001 06:47:16 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>What you *really* meant to say was along the lines of
>>
>> ``Your machine actually reads the ID pins on the SIMMs, and interprets
>> the results according to the standard. It then goes on to *believe*
>> what the SIMMs send back.
>> This turns out to be a very unfortunate thing to do in a world awash
>> with badly or not-at-all ID'ed SIMMs. What makes it even more
>> unfortunate is that most motherboard and/or BIOS manufacturers
>> simply ignore the ID pins, and thus ignorant users will often
>> "test" that their SIMMs work OK by putting them on another motherboard,
>> and then blame the PS/2 for not working with the "obviously OK" SIMMs.'',
>Wrong, I said your machine uses non-standard SIMMS...
I know what you *did* say. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt
as to what you really *meant* to say. Because what you *did* say was just
so much hogwash.
>>Actually, the current problem is that the silly machine will not reboot
>>properly.
>Probably because you don't know what you are doing.......
YES! We are back at the point where I first mentioned this machine.
See, you posted
That's because you don't need it. But, if you insist you can still use
the boot disks later on to pretty much do what you wish.
I then detailed what I wished to do (namely to get the bloody thing to
reboot). Yes, I openly admit not knowing much about troubleshooting under
Windows --- there is a reason Linux machines outnumbers Window machines
by 10:1 in my house, and by 100:1 in terms of raw computing power. I know
squat about Windows, or how to make it tick. I have gone through the
"install --- troubleshoot --- give away" cycle just often enough for friends
to know that it often does weird things with standard and/or common hardware.
I still want back the hours of my life that I spent trouble-shooting my
http proxy setup, only to finally realize that it was working just fine, and
that instead Win95 was dropping packets like crazy from an RTL8029A card.
The same card, of course, showed no dropped packets at all under Linux...
>>It has all supported hardware in there. The disks are IBM, the SIMMs
>>are properly ID'ed full parity Fast Page Mode, the SVGA card is original
>>IBM, and Windows98 *does* run on the machine. It just doesn't reboot without
>>first going through a "Safe Boot".
>Is it on the HCL list?
Is the machine the shop across the street would build if I went over there
and asked them for a Win98 PC? If not, does that mean I shouldn't expect
it to work properly, either?
Bernie
--
Nothing is illegal if one hundred well-place business men decide to
do it
Andrew Young
American Democratic politician, 1932--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 13 Jan 2001 17:04:14 +1100
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Clue for the clueless...trying to install a "back-door" into the
>"ls" (list directory) command won't get you anywhere worthwhile.
Well, if you install a trojan, though, you are in business. Imagine
sneaking an
chmod("/tmp/aaronrkulkis",0x0fff);
into ls somewhere. Any machine where root even occasionally runs ls and on
which you have a user account would be yours.
Of course, this would be spotted easily. Even more importantly, in a true
open-source-from-the-start project, once spotted, the witchhunt would
begin. People would pull out Changelogs, diffs and old versions, and would
find out exactly when and by whom this code was added.
And that would be the end of that programmer's reputation. Poof, gone.
No one will accept patches from her anymore, no one will work on open source
with her, few people will be willing to run code she puts out. And even
finding a job might not be all that easy, either.
While open source might not fulfill the bean counters ideals of
accountability (i.e. "if something goes wrong, we can blame someone else"),
it *does* usually fulfill the paranoid sys admin's needs, which are more
along the lines of "If anyone does the nasty, can I find out who it was
and make their life a living hell?".
Bernie
--
The chief distinction of a diplomat is that he can say no in such
a way that it sounds like yes
Lester Pearson
Canadian Prime Minister 1963-68
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:56:31 -0000
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:05:14 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"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?
Sure it can. All it needs to do is to deposit a binary somewhere
on the disk and tell the bootloader where to find it.
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:04:27 GMT
In article <lHQ66.26328$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Ironically, back as early as 1991,
> > > X11 would let you read e-mail or
> > > browse newsgroups while applications
> > > went through the initialization
> > > process, back in the days of 5 MIPs
> > > machines and 18 ms SCSI drives,
> > > you could read several pages while
> > > you waited. The Windows 3.1
> > > approach left the user "Hostage to
> > > the Hourglass" during the entire
> > > initialization sequence.
> > > Of course, both systems took almost the same
> > > amount of time to initialize the real
> > > applications, but with Windows you
> > > could either stare at the screen or
> > > "get a pencil and paper and make
> > > some phone calls".
> >
> > Windows 3.1 used cooperative multitasking.
Correct. And SunOS and Linux and FreeBSD and SCO all
provided real-time multitasking AND excellent support for
multiple overlapping windows, back when Windows 3.0 was
still trying to get overlapping windows to work. It was
marginal at best.
> > It meant applications had to
> > yield to achieve multitasking.
Yup It's called "busy/wait" multitasking. It was obsolete back in the early
1980s, but Microsoft revived it for Windows.
> > Any particular reason you're referring to Windows 3.1 here?
Keep in mind that clear back in 1993, Windows advocates were trying to tout
the "Vast Superiority" of Windows 3.1 over UNIX and Linux. Microsoft spend
$4 billion in advertizing from 1983 to 1984. Any publication that endorsed
UNIX or Linux was punished by Microsoft who pulled ads, and even pulled OEM
ads (since their Co-op agreement permitted them to pull any co-op sponsored
ad if they objected to the placement).
> > Windows
> > 95/98/ME/NT/2000 are all pre-emptive multitasking.
True but the multitasking is still sigificantly inferior to
Linux or UNIX. Windows 2000 was substantially improved, but
all of the applications would have to be redisigned and reimplemented
to exploit the improvements.
3rd party developers can invest millions trying to accomodate the limitations
of the various versions of Windows, or they can leverage the core structures
provided by Linux and UNIX. But there isn't much profit in Windows.
> > They don't hold you hostage any more.
Partially true. Most of the office applicaitons
and IE tend to keep taking back the focus as they
initialize. It's just for the pop, and you can go back
to your "B task", but you will get pop-ups.
> > > > > It has the edge compared to Win95A the last version of Windows that
> > > > > Porter has run, by his own admission.
> > >
> > > I've used Windows 2000, Windows NT (WS and Server), Windows 9x,
> > > Windows 3.51, 3.11, 3.1, and 3.0. Mandrake pretty much has the edge
> > > over all of them.
> >
> > In what sense?
Star Office is slow but tolarable. Most of the applications that are unique
to Windows run under WINE, and what's left runs under VMWare.
Windows 2000 isn't bad, but I'm waiting for either SP2 or SE.
Windows 2000 just isn't worth $300.
> > If you're talking about Linux and the CLI,
> > I would agree
CLI, Scripts, the ability to quickly script applications and put GUI
front-ends on them to launch them. In fact numerous front ends.
> > with you. If you're referring to Linux + KDE then I'd disagree.
KDE is one of several graphics packages, and each package provides a
different blend of performance and "eye candy".
Windows 2000 has lots of Eye Candy and really snappy displays (assuming you
have enough RAM and Video RAM to support it.
Of course, there are features on Linux/UNIX that can only be imitated
(poorly) on Windows. Multiple desktops, remote access to GUI programs,
support for multiple GUI users, and a display geared to support hundreds of
real-time events are just a few.
> > > Windows 2000 has a nasty habit of getting
> > > into a state where the only
> > > way to fix it is to reinstall the software.
> > > In some cases, it won't
> > > even reboot. Fortunately, this only happens
> > > every 8-10 weeks, but it's
> > > still very annoying.
> >
> > I've not seen this.
I've had it happen about 4 times since the first production releas
(which I bought 2 weeks after the announcement.
> > > > > Just bringing up any one of the file managers for example.
> > >
> > > But file managers are essentially launching applications.
> > > See the discussion above. Windows Explorer might pop
> > > up that first "Application
> > > Started Icon" much faster, but you might
> > > have something better to do.
> > > you could be using it to do something
> > > interesting like read the latest
> > > quotations from Chairman Bill.
> >
> > Windows explorer across a 10MBit
> > network does not display the icons until
> > all the file names are known. KDE
> > konqueror tries to display the file names
> > as it goes, and consequently takes longer.
This may partly be because Windows deals with
the entire result set as a single object. UNIX deals
with the result as a stream of results. As a result,
you can begin displaying what might be a result set
of several thousand files (remember back in the days
with FAT 16 would only let you have 256 files per
directory). When you have to treat the entire response
as a single object, you must allocate memory for the entire
object, and allocate process space and kernel space for
the entire object. When the objects are huge, the situation
can get pretty ugly.
> > Looks like Windows developers
> > have learnt something the KDE guys haven't yet.
> >
> > > > Apache runs much, much faster.
> > >
> > > Actually, nearly everything runs faster on Linux once it's fully
> > > initialized and running. And since it's so easy to hop from screen to
> > > screen and application to application, and since there are almost no
> > > unanticipated direct interactions between applications, the system can
> > > easily handle that load.
> >
> > What I observed was everything ran about the same speed, perhaps faster on
> > Windows. I've yet to see anything run faster on Linux.
This is probably true. Bits only move so fast. There are ergonomic
principles that often involve a number of trade-offs. I don't agree with
every trade-off made by GNOME or KDE. And if you really want an ugly but
fast interface TWM is ugly fast. Which won't impress anybody when you are
using a 600 mhz Pentium, but can be very nice on Windows 100.
> > --
> > Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
I think we agree that GUI preferences are a matter of personal preference.
Windows 2000 gives you ONE option. Linux just happens to give you your
choice of about 6 (more if you count the styles).
Microsoft wants you to ues VB because you can't put it elsewhere. Microsoft
doesn't want you to use PERL, JAVA, TCL, or any other "cross platform"
environment, because you might stop paying 10 times the production cost for
Microsoft products. And Microsoft wouldn't be able to get 50% profit on
revenue.
--
Rex Ballard - Sr I/T Systems Architect
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is easier to install than windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:14:00 GMT
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:24:03 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
> 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.
You must sit for hours conjuring up statements that are circular,
never address the point and rarely provide a solution other than "it
works for me".
You talk in rhymes and riddles, almost like DR. Seuss,
spewing forth paragraphs of words that while lengthy, don't really say
anything?
I think you have the gift of being a Poet.
Have you ever thought about writing a book?
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux misseery cont.
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 12:16:29 +0200
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93ktu0$66$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In article <93kghb$2kj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> >> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > In article <93ijun$rj4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
> >> >>LINUX ANONYMOUSE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>> It amases me every time that someone tends to object to linux that
> >> >>> everyone insults him. I personally use slackware linux and
> > sometimes
> >> >>> find it very annoying to configure as well. As for the GUI I
> > totally
> >> >>> agree..... AKA IT SUCKS. I have yet to find a GUI that is easy to
> >> >>> configure linux, click and point easy, and very user friendly.
> >> >>
> >> >>Then dont use linux. If you want pointy-clicky, stick with windows.
> >> >>
> >> >>See ya.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> > No NO NO no no no...
> >>
> >> > If you want pointy-clicky you need GNOME installed on your Potato!
> >>
> >> > Use Debian.
> >>
> >> Dammit, stop using my favorite distribution against me. I concur.
> >>
> >> :P
> >>
> >> -----.
> >>
> >>
>
> > Gnome is far from being point and clicky easy such as windows. i don't
> > mean to affend you but I still think Gnome has a way to go.
>
> To be usable by the retarded, braindead, lazy, worthless masses.
>
> I agree completely. But I dont think that its gnome that has the long
> way to go, its the masses that do.
I sincerely hope this attitude is not shared by Gnome, KDE, or other GUI
developers. Is so, Desktop Linux is doomed to remain a system with less
than 1% audience !!!
>
>
>
>
> -----.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:19:13 GMT
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:46:52 GMT, "szzzz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why do you need girlfriends?? You will be so busy getting screwed by bill
>gates your backside will be real sore.
>Now get lost troll
Hardly.
Haven't you heard of Win-Oil?
A bottle comes with every box of Windows and the sticker on the bottle
says to give it to a Penguinista so that when he installs Linsux, and
he knows he has been fsk'd, he can apply the Win-Oil (tm) and sooth
his worn a$$.....
There is also more than enough for him to give to his boss when he
tells him how the entire corporate network is down and not functioning
because he decided to convert to Linsux.
That Bill is quite a guy looking out for the health and welfare of the
Penguinista's.
>
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: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:24:57 GMT
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:51:12 GMT, "Kyle Jacobs"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I keep watch over Linux, to see if anything changes.
Your slipping Kyle, I think the latest version has about 14 new text
editors and 12 different front ends for kernel compilation.
>I find so little, it's scary. Same, obvious functionality missing. Same
>dumb problems persist.
See above.
>I see people like you who keep Linux stagnant, then I see people like
>Michael Tiemann making headway into a world where Linux doesn't suck donkey
>balls.
Take a look at www.planet-love.com for russian women doing donkey's
pictures.
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: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:26:54 GMT
On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:13:18 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> 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.
Please tell me what kind of controlled substance you are taking?
> Fully functional quarterly point releases are really quite
> handy in this respect.
And a collection of applications which if all of the version numbers
were added together collectively, you wouldn't get 1.0 in total.
Nope.... I wouldn't bet my business on Linux junk....
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:29:52 GMT
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:33:11 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim
Richardson) wrote:
>Are you running the accelerated X server?
I dunno.
Mandrake detected the card, sort of, and installed whatever was
necessary to make it work.
>Run seti@home, look at the work units, also the distributed.net RSA cracker.
I'll try it.
>Gvim on windows Vs Linux, faster on linux. Staroffice is at the moment, a
>bloated pig.
Notepad/Wordpad is all I need. I'm not a programmer :)
>
>how is Gvim featureless? how is Xemacs crude?
For a home user?
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
