Linux-Advocacy Digest #449, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 06:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows ("Steven Brangers")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Donn Miller)
Re: Two Thumbs up for the AntiTrust Movie and Open Source (David Steinberg)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Edward Rosten)
Re: The real truth about NT ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 08:14:55 GMT
AND it comes with an intelligent installer!
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Lewis Miller wrote:
>
> > Hmmm.. never tried Enterprise. It's got to be better than IIS. What OSs
> > does it run on?
>
> Last I heard it ran on Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, and even windows nt.
>
> jjs
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 08:07:42 GMT
In article <93rf4o$pcr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Patricia Flickner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> AMEN to that! Even at home, I can leave
> my linux up for weeks at a
> time. The only time I seem to reboot
> is a) if one of my dogs stepped
> or laid on the power switch (moved
> to higher ground, now) or b) when I
> decide to install some new hardware.
> The longest I've ever managed to
> keep Windows up without any errors,
> including my ultra-modern state-of-
> the-art system at work, is three days.
Both of these numbers seem a bit short. Linux can run for
Months at a time between reboots. Windwos NT generally
requires a "General Maintainance reboot at least oncee a week.
Windows 2000 is advertized as having 99.999% availability. But
when you read the fine print in the agreement, this excludes
down-time for weekly scheduled maintainance, downtime due to
any form of malicious behavior. It also excludes any nonstandard
configuration. It also excludes failures due to hardware.
The warranty is limited to assistance in investigating the cause of the
failure up to discovery either the actual cause to a disqualification listed
above.
Furthermore, the availability requires a very hardware intensive
solutions (twin SMP systems with shared RAID drives).
> It amazes me how linux products
> which counter Microsoft products,
> such as Star Office, don't seem to
> require something running constantly
> in the background, like findfast
> (oooo, THAT was someone's brilliant idea).
It makes sense when you realize that these
measures were needed to make up for deficiencees
of Windows NT. Rapid indexet directories and
location were built into the Linux file systems.
> And when I converted my sisters
> website from NT to linux (cheap
> RedHat), it outperformed NT AND
> was rebooted ONLY when the place where
> our server was kept had electrical problems,
Yup! Need a 1 hour APS and gas generator to get "full"
availability. Some folks use laptops as servers. You can
do that with Linux. That gives you up to 8 hours.
> which happened twice in
> two years. So much for linux' inferiority.
People who claim the superiority of Windowns NT Reliability are
either uninformed or ignorant (ignoring evidence). The fact is
that Linux is more popular as a server BECAUSE it is much more
reliable than NT. Linux 2.2 is only deminished by full-blown UNIX
flavors such as Solaris, AIX, HP_UX, and so on. Many unix-heads
also prefer *BSD to Linux.
Much of the effort behind Linux 2.4 was to bring Linux up to
the performance, reliability, and capacities of the other
versions of UNIX.
Microsoft admitted the deficiency of NT when they announced the superioor
reliability of Windows 2000. In fact, most of the Windows 2000 server
licenses sold have been to replace overloaded and crash-prone Windows NT
machines that couldn't be converted to UNIX.
You can also see camparative uptimes by following the Netcraft web sites.
But even Windows 2000, with it's vastly improved mean time between failures,
pales when uptimes are compared to Linux and UNIX systems.
If both Linux/UNIX and Windows 2000 were to "start from scratch",
with no prior market, and equal advertizing budgets, Windows 2000
wouldn't stand a chance. Instead, Microsoft is trying very hard
to push Windows 9x and Winodws NT users into Windows 2000.
> Pat
>
> In article <93qs8k$bggq7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >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.
Keep in mind that it is Linux/UNIX that has over 70% of the server market,
and Windows NT/2000 that struggles, using $Billions in ads, to retain 20-27%
of the server market (depending on which niche you are checking).
> > Don't you mean when the Corporate
> > network is down because he forgot
> > to give the NT server it's weekly
> > reboot - linux has uptimes measured in
> > years, NT resets it's counters after 49
> > days but it took until recently for
> > anyone to manage to keep an NT server
> > running long enough to find
> > the problem.
Actually, the problem was discovered and known
clear back in 1997, but Microsoft squashed
the story. I don't think the story even made
it to a print version.
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
--
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: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 08:25:53 GMT
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> J Sloan wrote:
>
> > Not at all - X is way overkill for 95% of the users, who
> > really don't need a network-transparent, client/server
> > windowing system. A simple local GUI, similar to what's
> > on a windows pc, would likely suffice.
>
> I agree. How many desktop users even need to run X11 apps on a remote
> server? Most Linux desktop users just run everything on the "local"
> display, i.e., on the console. It also would simplify things for a
> desktop environment. Because you (possibly) would have the widgets
> built-in, it would make programming the API much simpler, and would
> eliminate all the toolkit-clashing you normally see on unix boxes
> running X11.
>
> No offense, but the only way to get a consistent look and feel on X11 is
> to have all your apps linked to the same X toolkit. Secondly, you'd
> have to convince people that this "one true" toolkit is the best to use.
>
> My position on X toolkits is that they all pretty much suck in one area
> or another. FOr example,. Qt is very easy to use, but it requires use
> of the dreaded "moc" compiler in certain situations. In my experience,
> Motif has been the easiest to program, but Motif apps have too damn many
> lines of code. Also, Gtk produces nice apps, but, no offense again, the
> API looks kinda like a hack.
>
> Write one nice non-X11-based GUI system for unix, and give it a super
> API everyone could agree on. Then, if people like it, it could always
> be ported to X11 as an API layer.
>
> No doubt I'll be blasted into the ionosphere with all the flames I'll
> get.
> 8-)
Flames? Its' the first intelligent Linux GUI comment I've heard in a while.
X is overkill unless you need the remote display capabilities. A smaller,
local GUI system would be a wonderful thing. It isn't going to make major
inroads into the desktop market without one, IMO.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Steven Brangers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 10:16:02 +0100
Hi Patricia,
My general idea is:
Ignore people who are telling stuff like 'Linux is inferior to
Windows'
Rebooting and all other consequences are their problem.
Greetings,
Steven Brangers -- dba/UNIX sysadmin
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:48:24 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Write one nice non-X11-based GUI system for unix, and give it a super
> > API everyone could agree on. Then, if people like it, it could always
> > be ported to X11 as an API layer.
> Flames? Its' the first intelligent Linux GUI comment I've heard in a while.
> X is overkill unless you need the remote display capabilities. A smaller,
> local GUI system would be a wonderful thing. It isn't going to make major
> inroads into the desktop market without one, IMO.
See, X is inefficient for certain types of drawing. There's always ways
around it. But, AFAIK, X11 always uses TCP/IP streams, even if your
display is local. Because it is designed to be a networked and
remotable windowing system, X likes to bundle certain drawing requests
into a little "package". The reason is that over a network, it makes
sense to do things this way. However, not everyone is on a network.
I also think that Xlib tends to scare potential games developers away.
For one, the Xlib API is lower level then more popular windowing
systems, like Windows' GDI. Also, you have to program your Xlib apps
such that the graphics will display exactly when you want them to,
because Xlib likes to buffer drawing requests into little "packages" for
optimum network performance. So, you may call a certain Xlib drawing
function, but you may not get the output at the exact time you want it
to. How often this actually happens in practice, I don't know.
Second, there's the problem of "which toolkit should I use"? Hmmm, this
is a tough one, because, IMHO, they all pretty much suck in one aspect
or another. Also, developers may not like the fact that diverse X11
window managers tend to behave differently under certain circumstances.
Under Windows, for example, there is only one window manager to worry
about, so developers can expect the window manager to manage their
windows operations exactly how they expect. There's just so many
toolkits out there. It probably makes developers uneasy, not knowing
which toolkit to use. Furthermore, how is one to know that toolkit will
be around in the next 2-3 years, as there is no "official" X toolkit?
With one very well thought-out API, developers can be sure that the look
and feel is consistent across all apps. Also, when you restrict the
developers to just one API, they spend less time worrying about which
toolkit is best, because that decision is already made. Also, it would
eliminate the X11 toolkit wars we are having now.
This windowing system would access the HW directly. If all goes well,
and people like it, the all-in-one Windowing system / GUI could be laid
directly on top of X, as most toolkits already are, and use Xlib calls
instead of direct HW calls. So, you wouldn't be at a total loss in the
event that you still wanted to use X for network windowing apps and
still use this new windowing system.
Disclaimer: the above is only my opinion, and is correct to the best of
my knowledge! If it appears to be misleading, it is only my opinion and
is correct to the best of my knowledge. Hopefully, I was right about
the dilemma with X11, networking, and buffering drawing requests over a
network.
====== 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] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Two Thumbs up for the AntiTrust Movie and Open Source
Date: 14 Jan 2001 10:10:13 GMT
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: It was also very well researched. Some of the quotes were
: streight from "The Road Ahead". The thinly veiled attempt
: at a Disclaimer:
: "Doesn't Bill Gates have one like that?";
: "Who? Oh him, his is much more primative";
Actually, Gary Winston's reply was, "Bill who?"
In all seriousness, I really enjoyed the movie, in spite of its many
tecnical goof-ups, not to mention non-technical problems in the
plot. I'll try not to give away too much, but let's just say that, while
Ryan Phillippe might think otherwise, Open Source was the star of this
film. To me, that was surprising and very enjoyable.
But, I have to wonder, could this movie be considered anti-Microsoft
propaganda? The similarities are obvious between Winston and Gates,
between NURV and Microsoft. But, NURV commits some pretty blatant crimes,
including murder, that we have no reason to believe Microsoft is guilty
of.
Is that unfair to Microsoft?
I think it is. Does it even matter whether a fictional Hollywood movie is
unfair to Microsoft? That, I'm not so sure about.
: But there wasn't much question. I'm just curious how
: they got the great shots of the Lake Washington estate.
They didn't. That wasn't Gates' house. It was entirely CGI, and then
pasted on top of some pretty shots looking onto Georgia Straight. The
movie was actually set in Oregon, but filmed in Vancouver, BC (where I
live). The arial shots of the NURV Campus were shot at Simon Fraser
University, and all of the action was shot at MY school, the University of
British Columbia. Woo hoo! :)
: Actually, I got a kick out of the Linux displays,
: complete with LS listings and BASH.
I did, too. I especially enjoyed the cryptic command line options on
every command Milo typed. And how he was able to do all this (on a
secret system that he just discovered) without ever checking a man page or
using "--help". :)
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 10:18:51 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Here is a question for all us Linux people.
>>
>> If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
>> others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
>> consider it?
>
>
> The problem is that X is so entrenched in Linux that it would be damn near
> impossible. Already there are FrameBuffer versions of QT and GTK+, but
> they're only used for embedded applications where X would not be a good
> choice.
>
> Unless Quartz ran on top of X, or vice versa, I don't see how it would work.
I don't see any obstacle for X running on top of quartz. It can already
run on top of DOS, Windows (most flavours), MacOS and probably many others.
However, I wouldn't like to see a bunch of new apps for Linux based on
quartz, simply because I make quite heavy use of the whole remote
display stuff. I'm sure other people do too, and this would prevent its
full adoption.
If, however, Quartz ran on top of X (again, I see no insurmountable
obstacle for this, seeing as Win32 (ish) can run on top of X) I wouldn't
hesitate to use Quartz apps.
Then the quartz apps could be linked against quartz only libraries (ie
not via X) for small devices. I think the number of people wanting to
run apps on palmtops, but displaying on their desktops is fairly limited.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? | u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies | @
| eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:53:27 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >The key word here is SCSI. Most people burn IDE CD-R's (and those are
the
> >ones they burn coasters on when heavy disk activity causes them to get a
> >buffer underrun)
>
> ATAPI interfaces are SCSI EF.
A wise man once said, it's best to remain silent and thought a fool, than to
open ones mouth and remove all doubt.
ATAPI is *NOT* SCSI. Not even close.
> Geezus you are stupid son.
That's nice. Now go away and play with the other morons.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:59:13 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <lz486.138$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Let me show you just how big a 3 year old Erik Fukenbush can be here!
>
> >"Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:Y7486.4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:_YK76.1170$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > But they ALSO don't want to have to bluescreen and reboot at
> >> > > unpredictable and frequent intervals;
> >> >
> >> > That's bullshit. Most people don't have frequent bluescreens under
> >Win9x.
> >> > Unpredictable, perhaps, but then how predictable is a kernel panic?
> >>
> >> No, *that's* bullshit. I had a freaking BSoD this morning when I booted
> >this
> >> box up. It hadn't even finished booting (take two was more sucessful).
> >BTW,
> >> I find Windows crashes/freezes/BSoDs very regular: every 4 hours. I'm
glad
> >> I've got LM7.2 working on the other partition, it won't take me much to
> >> switch over full time (damn games...).
> >
> >And you're "most people"? My girlfriend's 98SE machine crashes about
once a
> >month, and it's on 24x7.
>
> So 98 does crash at your girlfriends house. I thought you just said
> it never crashed. Does your girlfriend even know how to use a
> computer EF or is it just another rather expensive nightlight for her?
I never said any such thing. I said most people don't have frequent
crashes. If, in your halucinagenic haze you somehow think that this equals
to "it never crashes", then you're a moron.
> >> That's not true. The big things get fixed quicxkly because they are
more
> >> important. That said, most problems get sorted soon enough, because
almost
> >> every problem is interesting/easy to someone.
> >
> >Then why has it taken 7 years to get a decent package management system
> >(apt-get)?
> >
>
> Why you stupid asshole. Debian has been in existance for only 7 years!
Sure, and how long has apt-get been available?
> What a fucking dipshit!
More pot calling something else black.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:00:42 -0600
"Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:RVb86.28$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:lz486.138$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You're funny!
> > "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:Y7486.4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > And you're "most people"? My girlfriend's 98SE machine crashes about
once
> a
> > month, and it's on 24x7.
>
> That obviously doesn't include freezes, BSODs, etc. Only crashes.
Obviously it does.
> > Reinstalling does not remove your existing applications. They're still
> > there and they still work. IE would need to be reinstalled, but just
run
> > the damn setup out of the download directory.
>
> Oh. What about my carefully crufted registry that every app (except the
GNU
> stuff) requires to survive? Damn, methinks I need to reinstall the vast
> majority of my apps, then.
The registry is not replaced. All your registry entries stay there when you
reinstall. You don't need to reinstall your apps.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:03:16 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <MrK76.1164$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 10 Jan 2001
> >> >Word 2000 and Word 97 use the same format. The files are
> >interchangeable.
> >>
> >> What about Word98?
> >
> >Word98 is for the Mac, All Mac versions of word have had different
formats.
>
> Funny but just 3 days ago you said that Word 2000 and Word 98 were
compatible
> formats. You said there were NO incompatible Word formats in this series.
No, I said Word 2000 and Word 97 were compatible. Wake up and pay
attention.
> Now this.
>
> Again! How much proof from the MANS OWN WORDS do we need before we
> just stamp "DUMBSHIT" across his forehead and cut this man loose.
You're the dumbshit that can't even keep an argument straight.
> Does anybody listen to this idiot?
Clearly you don't listen to anyone.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:08:08 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Pp886.389$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> >That's an interesting point. Many times, the Windows drivers will enable
> >accelerated or other functionality that the basic Linux drivers don't,
> >causing them to use more power than they would otherwise and stressing
the
> >power supply more.
>
> ALERT! ALERT ALL GOVERNMENT INSTALLATIONS WORLD WIDE!
>
> LINUX STRAINS POWER SUPPLIES. LINUX WILL SHORTEN THE WORLDS
> OIL SUPPLY AND CRAP OUT ALL POWER SUPPLIES!
More examples of Charlie failing to read.
> I hope this finally clears up the FACT that Erik Fukenbush is
> a total loonatic.
That would be lunatic, not loonatic. Moron.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
