Linux-Advocacy Digest #570, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 05:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why Hatred? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Why Hatred? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (J Sloan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:00:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
I said:
> >> >I never said "Linux sucks". I did say "Linux lags behind Windows
> >> >(desktop)".
To which you replied:
> >> You don't even know what that is.
What are you talking about here?
You then go onto say:
> >> You're just an ignorant liar.
I've never said "Linux sucks". I may have said it in response to
"WinBlows" or some other insult, but I have never said it _first_.
I am assuming that you're calling me a liar because I said I never said
"Linux sucks".
> Nope. I just don't tolerat lies and slander very well.
Neither do I. Can you show one example of where I said "Linux sucks"
before someone else started a silly "Winblows"/"Wintroll" type discussion?
> You can neither accruately describe Linux, nor can
> you accurately describe Win2k. Yet you continue to
> represent these ramblings as truthful and meaningful.
I can, but you seem to be able to obscure things so much I don't know
what you're talking about.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:02:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >>I shall ignore you from now on. Of course, I'd killfile you, but KNode
> >>doesn't have that feature.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=knode
> http://knode.sourceforge.net/
> http://knode.sourceforge.net/docu.php
> http://knode.sourceforge.net/doc_en_0.3.2_online/index.html
>
>
http://knode.sourceforge.net/doc_en_0.3.2_online/using-knode.html#KNODE-FILTER-SETTINGS
>
> >
> > You're probably wrong about that too.
>
> ...and I wasn't disappointed.
And you're right.
There isn't a killfile in KNode. There doesn't need to be - there's a
filter instead.
I took what I thought was the statement of a KDE expert who said "there
is no killfile in KNode". He didn't go on to say "but there are filters".
I was wrong about that one. I apologise.
However, I'm not wrong about anything else!
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:03:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If given the choice, would it be KILL FILE or YELLOW FUNNEL AT DAWN!
How's about we slap each other to death with a large wet haddock?
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:11:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not so sure. You need to remember that you are probably installing
> *many* more packages with mandrake than with a winstall. I found the
> Mandrake 7.x installs to be as easy or easier to install than windows,
> esp. when you factor in the number of programming languages, servers,
> databases, security tools etc. that you can include with the install.
> Disk partitioning is certainly no more difficult in mandrake or redhat (
> at least it is an option, which is not always the case on windows ).
I might agree with you except for me recent experience where things
didn't quite work the way I expected.
> Is that anything like using Ctrl-F to find something in wordpad, but
> needing to go to the dropdown menu in notepad because Ctrl-F simply
> doesn't work? Compare that with regex's. The ones that I use in perl
> are identical to the ones i use in vi, python etc. Throw in a lotus
> Notes client on your win desktop, and you run into the same problem on
> windows that you complain about in linux. Build a windows application
> using Tk and you run into the same problem.
Take a look at the File -> Save style between KDE, GNOME and Netscape
(MOTIF?). They all work differently. In Netscape's case, if you try to
save an image, and move directory, it looses the filename. It's this
kind of thing I'm referring too.
> Write a text file in bbedit on a mac. save as text. Open that file in
> wordpad or notepad in windows. How much garbage do you get because the
> winEditors don't recognize the fact that mac's use a different EOL
> character. Now, open the same file in the advanced text editor that
> comes with the kde utilities. Select mac as the source file. Voila!
> no garbage.
PFE on Windows can do much the same thing.
> Do you see any advantage in that philisophical difference?
Since such things exist on Windows, it's all the same.
> In any case, I disagree with your critique to the extent that there is
> nothing stopping you from installing only packages built with qt rather
> than gtk or vice versa. The only reason to install tools built using
> different toolkits is because you see value in having and using those
> tools.
My problem is not the different toolkits or tools but that they operate
differently. Take a look at my File -> Save example. They ought to at
least operate similar to each other, not be so different that you have
to remember those differences and act accordingly.
> This is all about choices, and no one is holding a gun to your head and
> making you install gnome tools to run in your kde desktop or vice versa
> ( or Xt or Tk, etcetcetc ). Moreover, having different widget sets
> gives the application developer a choice to select an appropriate set
> for the job at hand.
I don't think it's about choice. I think it's varying standards that are
making life awkward.
> By choosing to install elements built with both toolsets ( I use gnome
> for my desktop but include the kde network tools and kde utilities ),
> you are making the implicit statement that the elements you have
> selected ADD rather than detract from the "orthagonal whole".
Unfortunately, tools are available in either KDE or GNOME but not both.
A lot of tools are Gtk based. They work on KDE but there are differences
when you get to menus and the save dialogs. I'd agree if they just
looked different and had something that distinguished them, but they
_operate_ differently, and that's a problem as far as I can see.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:19:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I never said "Linux sucks". I did say "Linux lags behind Windows
(desktop)".
>
> You might not have used those words, but that has been your message.
You might chose to interpret it that way, but I've never used such
insulting language about Linux (at least not first!).
Linux sucks to me suggests that Linux is no use for anything. I don't
believe that's true. I believe Linux is _less_ than Windows. It could
very easily overtake Windows. If it really sucked, then it would have no
chance in hell.
> > > Linux doesn't "claim" anything, it simply is.
> >
> > Is what?
>
> is, period.
Linux itself (giving it a personality?) doesn't make any claims, but
many people do make such claims on its behalf.
> > Is greater than Windows? No it isn't!
>
> That's your opinion -
and I've provided facts to back up my opinion.
> > Is easier to install than Windows? No it isn't!
>
> I find it much easier - I got my wife a new system for
> Christmas, and installed Red Hat 7.0 on a partition at
> the end of the disk, as a sanity check. As usual, it all
> went smoothly, all hardware was recognized and duly
> configured first time.
Judging by my recent experience, I found Windows to be easier to install.
> Anyone who thinks windows was easier to install
> is in denial of reality.
You've cited one example. So have I. What does that mean?
> I'm not sure what you mean by "mutliple mess", could you explain?
Some applications are built with Gtk, some with Qt/KDE, some MOTIF. File
-> Save works differently in each case. In Netscape's case, it forgets
the file name of an image as you move around the directory tree. It also
takes a long time with a load of files. KDE doesn't do any of this and
is a bit quicker. Gtk has a dialog with list boxes that start scrolling
when you don't expect it.
It's the lack of standards here I call a "multiple mess".
> It's not only personal taste that causes me to prefer Linux
> to windows, it's tangibles like viruses, blue screens, random
> crashes - it's seeing my little girl lose all the documents she
> had stored on the computer because windows decided to
> scribble all over the disk.
And the worm that is now taking out some web servers is... Redhat based.
> It's seeing difference at work when I go back and forth
> between the windows desktop and my Linux desktop,
> which is like a breath of fresh air after the silliness of ms
> windows, let me tell you.
That's interesting. I see Linux as the silliness with all the mess I
mentioned above, and Windows as the breath of fresh air.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:27:19 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3iw96.281$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >So I think E.F. is right -- today. Tomorrow might be another matter,
> > >especially if Java takes off (it's doing pretty darned well already).
> >
> > I think its just as likely you're talking yesterday. ;-)
> >
> > There are no "issues" which need to be "addressed"; this is a market,
> > not a project! There is production and purchasing and complaining and
> > changing that needs to go on, sure. And that will start happening as
> > soon as there is a free market. In fact, its kind of automatic. Until
> > a monopoly shows up to point it out, we hardly even notice it.
>
> No "issues" eh?
>
> Let's take file sharing. Setting up your system to share with someone
else
> (outside of ftp and such). If that's a Windows machine, you use Samba,
and
> configuring this isn't too bad, but way out of reach of the average user
of
> today. God forbid they should want to change what they share.
>
> No, it's not rocket science, but it's still too much for most users.
There are add-on tools out there such as WebMin that make it frightfully
easy to set shares up. The main problem is that these tools aren't given
the prominent position they should have.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:31:09 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:URG96.454$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
< snip >
> > Since when is pointing and clicking on menus outside of the
> > reach of today's users?
>
> Have you actually tried to setup and configure nfs or samba through those
> interfaces? They're not much better than configuring the files manually.
> There is virtually no help and there are a number of parameters that most
> users wouldn't even have a clue about.
I have. And the tools, WebMin in particular, are more than adequate and
require next to no thought. I never even had to open a config file.
<snip>
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:30:19 +0200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> USB works just fine under Linux.
You qouted 6KB(!!!) just to say this? WTF?
Read how to post before you actually do it, please.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:43:23 +0200
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:O1Q96.110652$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If you have to reinstall Windows NT or 2000 more than a few times when
> "something" goes wrong, you are an incompetent administrator.
If he had to reinstall 2000 he is an incompetent administrator.
Yes, if you have a problem, and don't want to learn how to fix it,
reinstalling (over what you already have) is the most hassle-free option
you've. There are other, better ways to do this.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:44:14 +0200
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:YXQ96.119$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:948hkn$n89$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Linux is not at all at fault in this scenario. You have issues
with
> > the
> > > > > limitations of one filesystem. Exactly like the limitations of
FAT or
> > > > > NTFS (I know NTFS can handle larger files than ext2, but that
doesn't
> > > > > mean it doesn't have its limits).
> > > >
> > > > The only real limitation of NTFS I'm aware of is slow new-file
creation
> > when
> > > > dealing with orders of tens of millions of files.
> > >
> > > There are limitations on file sizes and numbers, as there must be...
> > > luckily, the max filesize with NTFS is huge, but it wont be long
before
> > > people are hitting that limit too (if they haven't already).
> >
> > 16 Exabytes ???
> > 16 billion Giga byte.
> >
> > I'm not sure exactly *what* you can put into a file to get into that
size.
> > Hell, you can probably put the Internet in one such file with room to
spare
> > including all the warez sites (anyone knows how much data is on the
> > internet? Last I checked was about two years ago, and it was in the
order of
> > TBs only.)
> >
> > > > Sometimes ago someone mentioned ADS as an NTFS exploit, but I've
found
> > > > absolutely no information about this.
> > >
> > > ADS?
> >
> > Alternative Data Streams
> >
> > appear in the form of:
> >
> > filename:ADS
> > ":" is the ADS delimitor.
> >
> > Possible documentation you would like is Linux Kernal mailing list,
search
> > for NTFS streams.
> > (Check out Linus' idea about "Everything, but I mean *everything*, is a
> > file", btw.)
> >
> > They are also called Named Streams, btw.
> > Currently they are mainly being used for Macintosh compatibility (much
> > better than what Linux has at the moment, btw).
>
> Actually, Data streams are being used more now than ever in Windows 2000.
>
> You know when you right-click on a file and bring up its properties
> and click on the Summary tab and you and edit the file's title, author,
> etc? Those are all in streams. You can have many streams per file all
> with relevant data to the file. While this isn't a new thing to NTFS5,
> streams have a much better implementation on NTFS5. Microsoft was
> encouraging developers to use streams to provide more data about their
> documents to the OS and to users to allow them to sort and arrange
> documents more logically than by just filenames, dates, etc.
I know about this, but I also know that office documents has the same
feature in win9x, how is it done there?
I understand that windows check the headers of the files before it run them,
to check if it's an office document or not, does it store this data in the
file as well?
The main problem I've with ADS is that there are so few ways to deal with
them if you aren't a programmer.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:28:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
I said:
> >> >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".
And here you accuse me of lying:
> >> 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.
I then go onto post examples of topics that show I'm not lying:
> >Then take a look at the titles for various posts, and tell me if I'm
lying:
> >
> >"Linux *has* the EDGE" (not Linux has the edge for me)
And now you conveniently change the subject:
> From a historical perspective, this is actually a
> VERY supportable assertion. Linux has against MS
> what MS had against Apple when Microsoft was only
> selling DOS.
You accused me of lying. Now when I show you the error of your
statement, you neatly sidestep it!
> >As for the "random collection of spare parts", what? You mean Linux
can't
> >cope with it? Despite the fact Windows has no problems at all with it?
>
> No x86 OS can, not even BeOS.
I'm talking about my PC166 box. What are you talking about?
BeOS installed on it with no difficult. Same with Windows 98 SE. Same
with Windows ME. I got different results with Linux Mandrake.
> Neither can Win2K incidentally.
I've not tried Windows 2000 on my 166MHz PI with 32Mbytes of RAM.
> >Did I say Linux is crap? Please don't put words into my mouth.
>
> You implied that the classic Unix commandline tools and
> BSD configuration files were the only way to configure
> Linux for networking. You lie about the fact that w2k
> does not infact keep all of it's networking config in
> a single place.
Huh? As I look at Windows 2000 I find all the networking details in one
place. In one set of dialogs. Same with Windows 98 SE and ME. What on
earth are you talking about?
Unless perchance you were referring to the Registry? Or to the HOSTS
file etc.? I know what I'm talking about, do you?
> One has to seriously wonder if you've used EITHER OS.
I'm beginning to wonder about you. You don't seem to have a clue about
what you're talking about.
>
Even Hewson probably has more of a clue by now.
Who the hell is Hewson and what does he/she/it have to do with the price
of beer?
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:08:11 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Linux sucks to me suggests that Linux is no use for anything. I don't
> believe that's true. I believe Linux is _less_ than Windows.
My experience with servers says very strongly that
windows is far, far behind Unix in general, and that of
course includes linux.
> Judging by my recent experience, I found Windows to be easier to install.
That means you have spent years becoming a microsoft
pc expert, but did not want to invest any time in learning
something new, like Linux.
> Some applications are built with Gtk, some with Qt/KDE, some MOTIF. File
> -> Save works differently in each case.
If that's troublesome to you, stick with one widget set.
Nobody is forcing you to mix and match.
>
> It's the lack of standards here I call a "multiple mess".
I call it the convergence of many streams. Eventually
the cream will rise to the top, but there are many excellent
concepts in competition here.
>
>
> > It's not only personal taste that causes me to prefer Linux
> > to windows, it's tangibles like viruses, blue screens, random
> > crashes - it's seeing my little girl lose all the documents she
> > had stored on the computer because windows decided to
> > scribble all over the disk.
>
> And the worm that is now taking out some web servers is... Redhat based.
Nope, the worm hasn't taken out any servers - read up on it.
it's a minor nuisance, easily detected, and easily prevented.
quit a different matter than windows suddenly and without
warning destroying the data on disk - with reliability like that,
who needs worms?
> > It's seeing difference at work when I go back and forth
> > between the windows desktop and my Linux desktop,
> > which is like a breath of fresh air after the silliness of ms
> > windows, let me tell you.
>
> That's interesting. I see Linux as the silliness with all the mess I
> mentioned above, and Windows as the breath of fresh air.
I have no idea how you can feel that way, but I tell myself
there's no accounting for taste. It makes no sense otherwise.
I guess I am too busy using my systems to worry about things
like what other widget sets there might be out there, and how
they might differ from what I'm using....
jjs
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
