Linux-Advocacy Digest #554, Volume #31 Thu, 18 Jan 01 16:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: The Server Saga (Pete Goodwin)
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Server Saga (Pete Goodwin)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Ballmer says Linux is Microsoft's No. 1 Threat ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
CD DAE problem fixed! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:27:10 +0000
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> A bad wintroll in need of a Linux job.
I thought you were the one in need of a Linux job, o NT supporter?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:24:28 -0600
sfcybear wrote:
> In article <ekl96.134$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > No, it means that MS is being realistic. Linux fails too, and I'd bet
> it's
> > MTTF is about the same as Win2k's, that is if you'd bother to be
> realistic.
>
> Based on nubers from Netcraft and Uptimes I would find this claim hard
> to believe. Just guessing without documentation to back it up is hardly
> being realistic.
You'll notice that the astrotrolls post all kinds of broad generalizations
over and over again, but they never reply to posts that quote actual
statistics. Presumably because the statistics always refute what they're
saying.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:25:21 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 18 Jan 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >So I think E.F. is right -- today. Tomorrow might be another matter,
>> >especially if Java takes off (it's doing pretty darned well already).
>>
>> I think its just as likely you're talking yesterday. ;-)
>>
>> There are no "issues" which need to be "addressed"; this is a market,
>> not a project! There is production and purchasing and complaining and
>> changing that needs to go on, sure. And that will start happening as
>> soon as there is a free market. In fact, its kind of automatic. Until
>> a monopoly shows up to point it out, we hardly even notice it.
>
>No "issues" eh?
Thousands of them. Possibly millions. It only matters when someone
*else* is having a problem with something if you're forced to use it as
well, as in monopolization. In a free market, nobody really cares if
there's "issues" with a particular product (except, obviously, the
producer), because they can always just buy from a different producer if
the 'issues' make it unsuitable for their needs. As for ways that Linux
itself can be improved, there are no 'issues', no. Only opportunities.
>Let's take file sharing. Setting up your system to share with someone else
>(outside of ftp and such). If that's a Windows machine, you use Samba, and
>configuring this isn't too bad, but way out of reach of the average user of
>today. God forbid they should want to change what they share.
A) Samba is easier to set up and reconfigure than Windows; that's rather
obvious almost by definition, since everything in Linux is easier to set
up and reconfigure than Windows. In Linux, you go directly to the
configuration files, and deterministically define what you want the
software to do. In Windows, you point and click in dialog boxes and
cross your fingers.
B) Its Microsoft's fault, not anyone else's that NFS isn't ubiquitously
available on Windows as it is on Unix.
C) That the average user is no more capable of comprehending and
trivially configuring network file sharing is not evidence that Windows
is easy, but rather that it doesn't provide the ability to comprehend
and trivially configure network file sharing in a consistent and
reliable enough method for users to learn.
>No, it's not rocket science, but it's still too much for most users.
You're right; most users don't set up server systems, or change their
client configurations, either. Changing shares on a Windows desktop,
though, works exactly the same whether the server is Samba or NT, should
they ever wish to do that, though.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:28:05 +0000
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> For what purpose?
>
> If you like strawberry ice cream, does the existance of chocolate
> ice cream threaten you? does the fact that other people PREFER
> chocolate ice cream threaten you so much that you have to go around
> claiming that chocolate is poisonous?
If it only were about personal preference.
> How about trying this, Pete.
>
> Sit down, and SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Nope.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:27:04 -0000
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:21:25 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Aaron Ginn wrote:
>
>> Why should we do that? Linux _is_ better than Windows: for _me_. How
>> many times do we have to go over this? Linux _is_ great, BTW. Just
>> because you can't seem to figure it out doesn't mean everyone else is
>> in the same boat.
>
>But nobody actually says "Linux is great for me". They say "Linux is great"
>or "Linux is easier to install than Windows". There's no "for me
>qualification".
Now here, you are simply indulging in lying. It is this
sort of bald lying that is really annoying. Quite a few
of us (myself included) will freely admit that the troubles
you will have with a PC OS is relately largely to what
random collection of spare parts you happen to have.
My bookpc was a real nuisance under NT5 for example.
OTOH, a crufty old Compaq had less trouble. As with
Linux, NT benefited from "lag time". Although, some
things NT simply handles in a braindead fashion.
At least Linux exposes information rather than hiding it.
>
>> > I'll disparage ANY effort that I find to be inferior compared to a
>> > product that it claims to be better than.
>>
>> Better in what way? Linux _is_ better than Windows for many. Now
>> you're the one that seems to think that your needs are more important
>> than mine.
>
>My needs are always more important to anyone else - to me!
So?
That doesn't mean that other OSes are generally crap because
they don't suit your magic combination. You're not necessarily
typical.
--
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.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:33:06 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >This is of course, but what I was trying to allude to here, was to get
> >anything like a desktop similar to say Windows ME, you need something as
> >heavyweight as KDE.
>
> No you don't.
>
> All you need is a good file mangler.
It's more than that. Is KNode a file mangler? Is KMail a file mangler?
> No, you demand that a certain set of processes be running.
>
> Unix doesn't require that to compete with the Likes of Windows.
No, I prefer a desktop that is consistant with itself (within certain
limits). A Linux desktop consists of KDE apps, GNOME apps and a few others.
> >"Stuck" with one unified and easily managed desktop as opposed to the
> >slight mess that appears on Linux as a cobbled together desktop with KDE
> >apps, GNOME apps et al?
>
> ...where setting the domain name is nowhere near where you
> configure the rest of the network settings and where the
> OS won't tell you what hardware it has detected or make it
> obvious that there's a driver available for it and already
> installed in the system.
The network configuration is in a bunch of tabbed dialogs all in the same
place. And where may I ask are the Linux definitions. /etc/hosts is just
for the list of hosts. hostname sets the name of the machine. ifconfig the
address... etc. etc.
> Your "unified" management has always been nothing more than
> a collection of separate programs packaged in the right way.
Yes, but you can't see it, can you.
> You don't even understand how Windows works, much less Linux.
You deliberately don't want to see what I'm talking about do you?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:33:15 -0600
Kevin Ford wrote:
> Chad Myers once wrote:
>
> >Neither have you. You assert that CSS is less secure, but you really have
> >no basis for that claim. I'm merely feeding you some of your own.
> >
>
> attrition.org
What he said, Chad. I quote stats here all the time, and you ignore them.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:35:41 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 18 Jan
>On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:51:21 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>>Let's take file sharing. Setting up your system to share with someone else
>>(outside of ftp and such). If that's a Windows machine, you use Samba, and
>>configuring this isn't too bad, but way out of reach of the average user of
>>today. God forbid they should want to change what they share.
>
> Since when is pointing and clicking on menus outside of the
> reach of today's users?
>
>>No, it's not rocket science, but it's still too much for most users.
>
> No, you're just indulging in slander.
>
> Besides, many users wouldn't get how to share files under
> Windows even with it's current shiny happy tools anyways.
>
> That's one part of the situation Lemmings like you just fail
> to admit; that even Windows isn't quite suited to Microsoft's
> current target userbase.
My brother is something of a hobbyist. He's a grade school science
teacher, but he's fiddled with computers since the C64 days. He's got
this PC that he bought years ago, that has slowly had every component
replaced except the case (and he generally doesn't have the case on).
He recently got a Netgear ethernet LAN for the two computers in his
house, and despite having cut his teeth on editing CONFIG.SYS files, and
having used Windows routinely for more than five years and becoming
quite knowledgable, he could not figure out after repeated attempts how
to share files between the two systems.
We finally managed to get it to work, intermittently. I mentioned one
of the reasons its dicey was because he was using 95, and she was using
98. Despite my rampant insistence, he decided to try out 98. We've had
hours of fun laughing at how utterly routine the failures are,
literally.
He'd be using Linux in a heartbeat, indeed he tried it very briefly last
year. But the fact is he's an avid gamer, and MS has the whole industry
monopolized entirely. DirectX has done more to lock in the monopoly
than Office ever did. (Of course, Office is a revenue engine, so
Microsoft is more concerned with making it a separate monopoly than
using it to defend the OS monopoly.) He even uses WordPerfect. Lots of
people in professional fields, schools and lawyers and doctors, still
use WordPerfect. But if they want to go into Best Buy and have the
full, overwhelming selection of popular games, they use Windows, because
they haven't any choice.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ballmer says Linux is Microsoft's No. 1 Threat
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:36:13 GMT
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:07:22 -0600, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
>
>> Why do people think the Windows GUI is so important to mimic?
>
>Nothing amazes me more than seeing a screenshot of a Linux box running a Windows
>look-alike theme.
I agree, that is why I liked the Enlightenment WM and even WindowMaker
is pretty cool.
At least they are different and innovative.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:38:47 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 18 Jan 2001 05:12:06
>On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:31:48 GMT, Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>>>I think E.F. is right on this one. Until some issues are addressed --
>>>mostly in terms of ease of use out of the box -- Linux can't be
>>>a direct plug-in replacement for Windows. (Remember that most businesses
>>>can't swap out all of their infrastructure at once; they do it a
>>>piece at a time.)
>>
>>Utter crap! In the mainframe world this kind of move is done all
>>the time.
>
>What on earth are you talking about ? Are you saying that companies
>just overhaul their mainframe systems whenever they fell the urge ?
>
>> And before there were Windows and PC's people did things
>>the old manual way with pen and paper.
>>
>>How did we get from pen and paper to the PC?
>
>Gradually.
>
>Nobody overhauled their entire infrastructure overnight.
Well, that's the point. Nobody ever said that any 'entire
infrastructure' had to be overhauled at all, let alone overnight.
That's got nothing to do with replacing Windows with Linux on the
desktop. Nothing.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:47:28 GMT
Said KLH in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 18 Jan 2001 05:38:19 GMT;
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
[...]
>> There is the possibility that a company might be able to replace
>> NT SMB providers with SAMBA servers [*], though; NT webservers would
>> then be replaced by Apache units, and the users switch from
>> Microsoft Outlook to a POP-based Netscape setup. Or perhaps
>> they use StarOffice.
>
>Here you are generalizing too much. What the company actually does is a very
>pertanent question. Maybe they are outsourcing their web page. Maybe they
>just use an external mail server. Maybe they use their software just for
>accounting and email?
Actually, it doesn't matter. Whether they are outsourcing their web
page, they can use Linux to access it (unless they're locked in to
FrontPage, in which case they should immediately get rid of it as soon
as feasible, regardless of anything else). If they use an internal mail
server, either the server or clients can be changed and it will still
work (unless they're locked in to Exchange, in which case they should
immediately get rid of it as soon as feasible, regardless of almost
anything else). If they use an external mail server, then their clients
can be reliable Linux, or legacy Windows, and it won't make any
difference to the Linux server. If they use their software for just
accounting and email, they can replace either clients or servers with
Linux; if they are not, they can replace either clients or servers with
Linux.
There really doesn't seem to be any 'circumstance', besides either being
locked in to an illegal monopoly, or not having enough information, in
which Windows would be better than Linux.
>In order to make any sort of statement, you need to be more specific in your
>examples in order to play the "if *I* was in charge of transision..." game.
I think you mean to say that regardless of our imaginary desires, there
are going to be remnants of the application barrier preventing
migration, at least for the next couple years.
[...]
>There certainly is a form of rivalry between GNU/Linux and Windows. As
>Windows improves, so does GNU/Linux. There is no doubt about it, we're in it
>for the long haul.
I think what you mean to say is that its very easy to mistake Window's
churn, and its encompassing of additional functionality to deter threats
to its monopoly, with actual technological development as epitomized by
Linux. But Microsoft is going to be split up, soon, so I don't think
we'll have to wait long for the return of the free market to point out
the flaw in your thinking.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:50:03 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 18 Jan
[...]
>>> Doesn't the extra speed also come from restricting the length
>>> of the line?. I imagine that those older estimates are with
>>> more pessimistic assumptions.
>>
>>You're thinking DSL, though you always have a greater likelihood of
>>negotiating a better speed with a shorter line length.
>
> Well, I know it's a hard requirement for DSL. However, I thought
> it might also help the older type of serial modem that the only
> copper left in the phone network is on the "last mile".
Yes, certainly. Most people don't actually get the 53.3Kb/s that "56K"
modems are capable of providing due to the length and low quality of the
subscriber line.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: CD DAE problem fixed!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:57:29 GMT
This is a weird one, but I have found the solution.
First the problem, as you know by now is that the CD PLayer in my
system does DAE when PLAYING CD's, meaning the sound is transferred
over the IDE channel via the flat IDE cable. Unplug the digital or
analog cable between the sound card (SBLive)and CD and you still have
sound.
Under Windows 2k in the control panel properties for the CD there is a
box that says "use digital audio for this device", if this box is
check ALL APPLICATIONS PLAYING CD's will send data via the IDE
channel. EVERY APPLICATION including the basic Win2k CD Player.
I usually have that box unchecked because I have the analog and
digital cables installed and I don't need to hog bandwidth.
It turns out that if I check that box, and then restart Win2k but at
the boot manager select Linux, the setting somehow survives the boot
and Linux operates in DAE mode!!
If I un check the box and restart, but boot Linux, it operates
correctly and I don't get the DAE mode.
It appears that the SBLive card/CD for some reason remembers the
previous setting and survives a soft boot into Linux?
I never noticed this before, and in fact didn't even know that switch
was there under Win2k until recently. With a top of line Denon and
Tascam CD player on my system I usually don't play CD's in the
computer anyhow.
So I guess Linux is off the hook in this case.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:01:10 GMT
On 18 Jan 2001 18:46:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
>Yes, the PETs did not have sprites.
I think I was using my Trash-80 around that time. I came aboard the
Commodore a little late, like when the 128 was almost released.
Great machine.
>
>
>
>-----.
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
******************************
