Linux-Advocacy Digest #463, Volume #31 Sun, 14 Jan 01 18:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (J Sloan)
Re: Windows 2000 (Gary Hallock)
Re: The Server Saga (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: One case where Linux has the edge (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away (Mig)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: One case where Linux has the edge ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Server Saga (pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:38:44 GMT
In article <0op86.2941$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:93t5k1$5c7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:3rns39.13o.ln@gd2zzx...
>> >> In article <usj86.2348$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:Rrj86.2343$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We tried it on Linux, but it performed less than half as well as the
>> >> >> Solaris and Windows 2000 implementations.
>> >>
>> >> Why do I feel this is just a downright lie?
>> >>
>> >> > Bottom Line:
>> >> >
>> >> > Linux isn't enterprise ready. It may do static web serving well (not
>> >> > the best, but well and cheap) but it doesn't cut it for doing big-boy
>> >> > tasks.
>> >>
>> >> Strewth, are we living on the same planet? Linux has proven that it is
>> >> enterprise ready.
>>
>> > Not really. Scalability is an issue, and still is.
>>
>> Oh I see. Tivo to S/390 isnt good enough for you? Tell me, exactly how much
>> does windows scale?
>
>Ah yes. A token linux installations runs in a virtual machine on S/390 and
>suddenly Linux is hugely scalable. In fact, they have to run thousands of
>them to accomplish what S/390 or Win2K Datacenter Server could do by itself.
>
So a 390 can be whipped by Datacenter?
Well thanks for setting us straight here Chad.
>Not to mention that Linux doesn't even appear ANYWHERE on the TPC marks.
>Even NT 4.0 < Sp3 at least held some respectable positions in the
>price/performance
>category. Since you argue that LInux has such a low TCO, you'd think Linux
>would dominate that position. But instead, something like the top 150 p/p slots
>are held by Windows.
>
Well you HAVE to have a COST to be officially registered and
since Linux is FREE this is impossible.
>The top 4 and 5 of the top 10 slots for performance (which is the real prize)
>are held by Windows 2000. Linux... nowhere to be found.
>
>The only real contenders are Windows 2000, HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, and OS/400.
>Linux couldn't hold a candle to any one of those OSs.
I knew there HAD to be a reason why they ported Linux to the 390!
All the top executives at IBM are obviously mere morons when
compared to the shrewd business mind of Chad Myers.
To compare IBM's 50 years business experience to Chad's is totally
unheard of!
This happens everyday folks. Major mainframe companies
porting software to their TOP platforms which couldn't
hold a candle to any other OS on the planet!
In Chad's own words, Windows 3.11 beats Linux.
>
>> > Performance is an issue
>> > especially with the brain-dead ext2 filesystem.
>>
>> Chad is lying again; he has never been able to come up with any evidence to
>> support this.
>
>Hmm, doesn't support >2GB files, doesn't even journal meta-data, has no
>concept of transactions and roll-backs, flakes out with even the smallest
>glitch or power outtage, must be continually fsck'd because consistency
>routinely goes out of whack... what more do you need?
>
This entire paragraph is utter bullshit.
>>
>> > There is no enterprise-level
>> > journaling large-file-capable filesystem for Linux
>>
>> There are three.
>
>None of which is released, tested, and ready for prime-time.
>
Utter bullshit again! Reiser has been out for years.
Postgres and MySql has been out for years.
Linux has been used on the net to conduct business
since 1994.
Linux has been used in primetime for the duration of
Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000.
Clearly these three operating systems have had less
coverage in the business market than Linux in terms
of time in service.
>
>> > (except for a few beta ones).
>>
>> One of them is out of beta.
>
>Which? Reiser? Please post URL(s).
>
>>
>> > Linux's security is laughable with the elementary permission-bits scheme.
>>
>> You forgot about chattr, but you wouldnt know about that, having never, ever
>> used linux once in your life.
>
>It's still not DAC. Linux uses a 30-some year old security scheme which is
>non-flexible and not very secure. In fact, DAC is a requirement for the
>enterprise and for highly secure installations. Linux couldn't be considered
>even if it tried.
>
>-Chad
>
>
A 30 year old security scheme which Windows is slowly integrating
in everything they have. Clearly Windows is getting more *nix'ed
every release made.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:40:19 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Why is printing over a network such a pita with Linux?
I do network printing with Linux all day every day -
works like a dream. BTW it's always a 30 second
drill to add a network printer, if I really take my time.
OTOH setting up a printer in windows is a PITA,
requiring one to click through a number of dialog
boxes, locate the install CD, and click through some
more menus and dialog boxes.
Score 1 for Linux
> How about reading news offline?
There are a number of off line news readers available.
>
> A decent browser?
>
netscape works quite well for me, and uses my truetype fonts.
> Fully supported hardware instead of making do with the features that
> are supported currently while the others get worked on?
All my hardware is supported, thank you.
> Consistency between distributions?
>
> I can set up ICS and have each PC on the network dial out (I'm on a
> modem) by checking one box under Windows 2k.
I can do something similar in Red Hat with the control panel.
> I can setup a firewall by clicking on setup.exe but yet I can modify
> it later any way I wish. Sure I paid $29.00 for it but how much have I
> spent on Linux? Much, much more overall not even counting time.
> All and I mean ALL of my hardware works to it's full capacity under
> Windows.
All my hardware works to full capacity under Linux. Your point?
> Again, Linux on the desktop is such a poor alternative to Windows it
> is not even close.
Funny, I switched 100% from windows pc to Linux workstation -
because I much prefer Linux, and it allows me to get on with
the work, where ms windows is a hindrance.
jjs
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 17:39:19 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Yes, there was a long history of such in the scientific and perhaps even
> banking industry, but not the *PC* industry.
6502? 6800? 68000? 68030? Of all the microprocessors available at the
time the only ones that I can think of that were little endian were Intel or
Intel compatible.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:52:50 +0000
Joseph T. Adams wrote:
> Also, the higher security levels require that you manually edit
> hosts.allow and/or hosts.deny, among other files, if you want to run
> any kind of server (including inetd and/or telnetd). That is because
> Mandrake is marketed primarily to home users, who generally don't run
> servers, and anyone capable of running servers securely would
> certainly know how to edit these and the other necessary config files.
On my workstation my host.allow and hosts.deny are both empty. Telnetting
into it works just fine.
On the server machine, telnetting to it resulted in "Permission denied".
Now, this used to work before the new big drive, and I don't remember
editing that many files apart from using linuxconf to fire up telnet daemon.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:51:23 GMT
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:40:19 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>
>> Why is printing over a network such a pita with Linux?
>
>I do network printing with Linux all day every day -
>works like a dream. BTW it's always a 30 second
>drill to add a network printer, if I really take my time.
Sure if your network is all Linsux and your printers are PS or one of
the few non-PS printers that are supported.
Otherwise, do the Samba dance.
Why ARE there SO AMNY webpages devoted to setting up Samba?
Maybe because it is just so simple to do?
Doubtful.
>OTOH setting up a printer in windows is a PITA,
>requiring one to click through a number of dialog
>boxes, locate the install CD, and click through some
>more menus and dialog boxes.
Wrong.....
>Score 1 for Linux
Subtract one if you don't have PS printers, and how many home users
do?
>> How about reading news offline?
>
>There are a number of off line news readers available.
Name 3 that are even close to Agent in ease of use and pan is so
unstable it can't be counted...
Mind you, Offline news means you don't need a news spool program like
Leafnode.
Only one I can think of is krn which is ok,
>>
>> A decent browser?
>>
>
>netscape works quite well for me, and uses my truetype fonts.
Even Windows users loathe Netscrape.
>> Fully supported hardware instead of making do with the features that
>> are supported currently while the others get worked on?
>
>All my hardware is supported, thank you.
Good for you. The other 98 percent of the world won't be so lucky.
>> Consistency between distributions?
>>
>> I can set up ICS and have each PC on the network dial out (I'm on a
>> modem) by checking one box under Windows 2k.
>
>I can do something similar in Red Hat with the control panel.
No you can't without screwing with Dial On Demand scripts and so
forth..
>> I can setup a firewall by clicking on setup.exe but yet I can modify
>> it later any way I wish. Sure I paid $29.00 for it but how much have I
>> spent on Linux? Much, much more overall not even counting time.
>> All and I mean ALL of my hardware works to it's full capacity under
>> Windows.
>
>All my hardware works to full capacity under Linux. Your point?
You are in the minority, or you are just plain lying.
>> Again, Linux on the desktop is such a poor alternative to Windows it
>> is not even close.
>
>Funny, I switched 100% from windows pc to Linux workstation -
>because I much prefer Linux, and it allows me to get on with
>the work, where ms windows is a hindrance.
Good for you.
I have a friend that still uses a sliderule because he thinks pocket
calculators are the devils tools and are inaccurate.
>jjs
>
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:54:23 +0000
J Sloan wrote:
> I've never encountered a Linux system where telnet
> and nfs "didn't work". Could you explain how you have
> attempted to activate those services, and what was the
> result?
I used linuxconf to activate nfs. It still resulted in "permission denied".
As for telnet, it appeared not to be installed (despite my selecting it).
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Didn't the Gartner group say don't move to W2K straight away
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:50:31 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:9fns39.13o.ln@gd2zzx...
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/16075.html
>
> This is a driver issue only, not a problem with Win2k (unless you count
> poor 3rd party drivers to be a problem with the OS, in which case Linux
> has even more problems there).
>
> The other point brought up in the article about lack of certified software
> is also a red herring. Software doesn't have to be certified to run
> flawlessly. I think most companies are simply waiting for Whistler to
> certify to save money.
Weeeeellllll... so vendors dont even bother to release drivers for the "top
OS".. Uhh... did someone mention "tremendous learning curve" and "cost"
and "complex" and "availability" and "interobility problems"..
Man those real users must be smoking something.. ehhh Erik
Ahh.. its probably the "fast find" program again
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:59:56 +0000
Mig wrote:
> Yes you are Pete. Like the rest of the Wintroll crowd, you claim that this
> was so easy to do with Windows... and that youre such experienced users
> and amazingly you never have things work when you try Linux.
Please explain why running the same installation procedure on two different
machine results in two completely different setups. I could accept what you
say, but I'm not doing anything unreasonably different.
In each case, I pick "Custom" setup and "Development" machine. Then I get a
list of about ten major modules. From this list I either select everything
(which is what I did for my main machine), or I cut back on the list to try
to leave out GUI stuff - it's a server after all.
This type of action doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Yet, what do I find? Major differences after the installation. What works
"out of the box" on the main machine is dead on the new one.
> Why just not waste your time and go for W2K.. or maybe even try FreeBSD
> (have fun partioning your disks) ?
The server is now running Windows Millenium.
--
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: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:01:11 +0000
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> Your correct Pete. I'm a slave and I'm fucked.
>
> Now what.
You tell me Charlie.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: One case where Linux has the edge
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:00:22 GMT
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:54:23 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I used linuxconf to activate nfs. It still resulted in "permission denied".
>As for telnet, it appeared not to be installed (despite my selecting it).
Well you have confirmed my bug report that the Mandrake installer has
a mind of it's own.
Can I ask a question Pete?
Why on earth are you wasting so much time trying to make Linux do for
you what it seems incapable of doing?
For me, I would LOVE to see digital audio programs that run under
Linux and are open source, because I am tired of the upgrade mill and
the cost of these vertical applications.
But, in my case it isn't even close, and just using Linux to read
news, browse, write letters, read mail, listen to music and so forth
is a real PITA compared to Windows. It really is a major annoyance
using Linux and that time wasted is not compensated by the fact that
Linux is free.
I never screw with Win2k as far as the OS is concerned. First of all I
am new at Win2k and secondly I don't need to. It just works, right out
of the box and any idiot can set it up and use all of it's features
without telnetting and screwing around with different file systems and
such.
And at least if you ask it to install something, it does and it will
do the same consistently each time.
I see Linux as a crude compromise between cost and time.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:03:05 +0000
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> Alright! It's 9:25 PM there Sunday Jan 14th.
>
> At midnight we purge!
Er, how do I purge?
Oh, yeah, a rusty knife will do it. Oh yeah, do you have any children?
Gotta get rid of all those genes!
Let's see...
shutdown -h 00:00
8)
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:04:16 GMT
On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:59:56 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Please explain why running the same installation procedure on two different
>machine results in two completely different setups. I could accept what you
>say, but I'm not doing anything unreasonably different.
Same thing here.
It is some kind of a bug and I have reported it to Mandrake.
>In each case, I pick "Custom" setup and "Development" machine. Then I get a
>list of about ten major modules. From this list I either select everything
>(which is what I did for my main machine), or I cut back on the list to try
>to leave out GUI stuff - it's a server after all.
Depending upon where you select "Everything" results in different
results.
Also when the 2nd CD is called for you MUST use the MOUSE to click on
the OK box after you install the CD or you will NOT get any packages
from subsequent CD's 2 and 3. This is despite the fact that the OK box
(not the cancel box) is highlighted and pressing Enter should make it
use OK.
I reported this to Mandrake as well.
>This type of action doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Not for Linux it isn't.
>Yet, what do I find? Major differences after the installation. What works
>"out of the box" on the main machine is dead on the new one.
Yep. Inconsistant like I said in the original thread.
>> Why just not waste your time and go for W2K.. or maybe even try FreeBSD
>> (have fun partioning your disks) ?
>
>The server is now running Windows Millenium.
No comment on ME :)
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:05:17 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> One more thing I forgot to add...
>
> Bottom Line:
>
> Linux isn't enterprise ready. It may do static web serving well (not
> the best, but well and cheap) but it doesn't cut it for doing big-boy
> tasks.
>
First example coming to my mind. Just check this:
http://www.akamai.com/
And then this:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=AKAMAIINT-11-15,212.133.25.128,212.133.25.159
Maybe they know how to set up Linux!
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:07:20 +0000
David Utidjian wrote:
> Well all other abuse aside (personal and otherwise)...
Indeed.
> If I have this correctly you were trying to install MDK to a new HDD...
> then building the kernel to support ReiserFS, yes? Then running the new
> kernel with ReiserFS, yes?
Um, the kernel appears to have ReiserFS support built in. I selected it in
DiskDrake during installation.
> Did you make or convert the ext2fs partitions to any ReiserFS
> partitions? It is not as simple as it looks. It is a different
> filesystem than ext2fs ya know.
I went straight to ReiserFS.
> I don't use MDK on servers.... and I certainly don't run X on any of my
> servers... no point.
I agree. That's what I was trying to do. I succeeded once, yet when I ran
the same installation process for Linux Mandrake, I got different results.
> Does MDK-7.2 have support for ReiserFS built in? I
> don't think it does.
Actually it does.
> Your networking problems are another issue.... what does the the command
> "/sbin/route -n" give you?
Too late, it's a Windows Millenium machine now.
> Anyhow.... most installs and configs of machines are usually quite
> simple and if you stray from the default path it is still usually pretty
> simple but it may take quite a bit more reading and understanding than
> you currently have (done). Not your fault, but it will require a bit
> more effort to get it right.
What I don't understand is why choosing slightly different settings during
installation gets such wide results.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:07:10 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Conclusions
> -----------
>
> Linux Mandrake is a very nice package for someone who doesn't want to get
> into the bowels of UNIX style configuration... but falls apart if you want
> to do something other than install everything. I don't really see the point
> in installing a GUI on a machine that'll be used as a file server. I'd
> rather log into it remotely, rather than locally - hence the interest in
> Linux. However, Linux Mandrake made it difficult to install consistantly,
> something I'd noticed before.
>
Well Linux does take some learning. As for telnet and ftp, make sure
that
there are server programs for the service you want (find what is
expected in inetd.conf). When I installed mandrake it did not included
a daemon for ftp or telnet rather surprisingly. They can be installed
from
the rpm's on the cd.
Try another distro (I still prefer RH - even with the monkey work in 7).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
