Linux-Advocacy Digest #597, Volume #31 Sat, 20 Jan 01 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: I just can't help it! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin ("kiwiunixman")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Poor Linux (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:58:39 GMT
In article <bvR96.682$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Nobody said that. What we're saying is that typical desktops *ARE* shut
>> > down at night. This is in contradiction to people who talk about
>> > how their
>>
>> No they aren't. Typical Windows desktops maybe. Does typical mean
>> Windows in your world? I take it that you, like Microsoft, think
>> these are good results?
>
>Typical desktops are shut down to conserve power. Only recently has power
>management become useable in Linux and other OS's.
>
So 1997 is recently to you?
Humm.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:02:23 GMT
In article <ia2a6.913$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Seriously, Winvocates have zero credibility left. If Microsoft can't
>> get NT to stay up on average better than 38 days, how are we expected
>> to believe all these claims that have been made over the last few
>> years about NT staying up indefinately? How are we expected to
>> believe the current claims made about W2K?
>
>Microsoft did not conduct the study. Why do you people always distort the
>truth?
>
I thought you went back to FreeBSD?
What are you STILL doing here?
Your worse than a cockroach.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:02:37 GMT
version 5 of redhat included the brand new libc, which caused some problems,
until applications were modified to work with it, however, that was an
advance, thus a good move, however, when compared to the clusion of gcc
2.96, the think tank behind including it should be given a public flogging.
Ever since 5.2, Redhat has been shit quality and poorly intergrated when
compared to the likes of SuSE or Caldera, which provide a more intergrated
solution. However, no distro is as bad as Turbo Linux! what a fscking joke!
kiwiunixman
"Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam> wrote in message
news:94aeg2$567$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Well, here we go.
> >
> > I've got the "Linux Desktop" on order, from a company listed on
> > linux.org. Its an 850MHz Athlon with 128 Meg of ram and a 40G ATA 100
> > drive. CD-writer, printer, Logitech wheel mouse, PCI modem and a cheap
> > Ethernet card; 19 inch monitor. RedHat 7.0, and I paid the extra bucks
> > for the Deluxe box.
>
> RH 7.0 ?
> On general, you should stay away from RH, and especially from .0 releases.
> RH tend to put all sorts of bleeding edge stuff in those things, stuff
that
> will make you bleed.
> Most notable example is gcc in RH 7, I remember that there was some
problem
> with 5.0, can't recall if there was something of the like in 6.0
>
> > It should be here next week. I didn't get the dual-boot option, but I
> > plan to install 95, and maybe NT, once its up and running. So here we
> > have a real-world comparison, taking into account and reflecting on the
> > monopoly, pre-load, and ease of installation. The Win-whiners aren't
> > going to agree, of course, but I think seeing just how easy it is to
> > install 95 or NT on a box that has Linux preloaded is going to be very
> > instructive. I've said I'd never build a PC from scratch again, and
> > would prefer an OEM earned their profit by integrating the system for
> > me. But in this case, the exact same hardware is supported by the same
> > vendor as a dual-boot option, (can you believe it? an OEM selling
> > dual-boot), so I don't think I'm going out on a limb. Plus which, if
> > Windows for some reason is too much of a hassle to get up, I'll still
> > have a functional system, so that might help eliminate the 'frustration
> > and desperation factor' which so badly reflects on the monopoly in the
> > typical scenario.
>
> Be sure to have a LILO boot disk around, you'll need it to reinstall LILO
> (or your boot manager of choice) on the MBR after you install Windows.
>
>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:04:21 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:53:49
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >There is no reason
>> >Linux has to be just like UNIX WAS, and the movers and shakers are
>changing
>> >this, whilst you, the typical zealot insist upon not only keeping the
>"glory
>> >days" of Linux, but revel in it's useless oversophistication.
>>
>> Perhaps you mistook the message; it was surely not 'live with it', but
>> rather 'learn from it'. There are certainly better ways to do things
>> than Unix does. As soon as we figure out what they are, of course,
>> we'll make sure Unix does them. I'm not a big fan of the 'useless
>> oversophistication' bit, but I'm not silly enough to unilaterally
>> declare what is useless. In many ways, its nice to know that if you
>> need such sophistication, it will be there. But certainly; improve on
>> it, by all means. This is why I like Linux so much, and don't really
>> consider it any sort of "bastard" Unix, but rather, now, the de facto
>> standard Unix. It is not even just open source, but GPL (viral) open
>> source.
>
>How UNIX does things has clearly not been popular to the desktop.
What UNIX has done so far has not been on the desktop. (So to speak; if
we are to take such liberal advantage of hyperbole. Truth is, Unix has
always ruled on the desktop; it just hasn't been common.)
>So,
>therefor, the only other models available are WIndows & Mac OS.
And by that, I suppose you mean Mac.
> Both use
>"point-and-click" and "no brainer" interfaces, which seem to be the mark of
>Satan according to those Linux zealots. A UNIX that does things the Mac and
>Windows way has finally been done with Apple's OSX, which shows
>technological advancement over the idiotic, and unnessecary stereotypical
>UNIX interface.
You mean a command shell? ;-)
>Think about it.
>
>Darwin, Quartz (multimedia), Aqua.
>
>All integrated on a UNIX kernel. It just MAKE SENSE.
I wouldn't know, I've never heard of them.
>If it were for Intel
>platforms, it would blow Microsoft out of the water.
Yea, sure. How convenient.
[...]
>> >Your denying the problem exists, by calling him a liar.
>>
>> No, I am not. What gave you that impression? I think I was pretty
>> specific in saying quite precisely the opposite; that it wasn't whether
>> the problems existed that he was lying about.
>
>This is possible; "jedi" likes to obsessively and routinely call
>"Swango,Flatfish,Claire," a liar whenever s/he brings up issues reguarding
>Linux's imperfection.
Yes, its rather noticeable.
>Rather than admit to problems, or just not saying
>anything, there is old, reliable "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" with a post that can
>be summed up in four, simple words: "I think your lying". I could have
>mistaken his words for yours, and for that, I'm sorry.
No; I might easily have said the same thing. I just don't do it nearly
as often as jedi.
[...]
>> >Yes, the market is called A TECHNICAL WRITER, it's a nice job for people who
>> >can understand technical references and translate that into end user (or ANY
>> >user) readable writing. It's how documentation is made. These people
>> >should HIRE ONE For god sake.
>>
>> Well, like I said, there needs to be, as you observed, a little cash
>> flow transaction stuff going on, there. Illegal monopolies have a way
>> of kind of you know "restraining trade". Happens.
>
>I don't see Microsoft putting a strain on the resources of Technical
>writers, how about the people who created the FreeBSD documentation? Are
>they also too busy? The state of Linux documentation is in serious
>dissaray.
Well, you expose the truth when you use the term 'disarray'. In fact,
Linux documentation is extremely extensive and complete. The biggest
problem with it, which occurs very quickly and in particular with such a
'community' project, is being able to find the information you need.
Rest assured, its all documented somewhere; the only thing separating
you from the source code, if nothing else, is your ability to understand
what you're reading. And that reveals the issue; it doesn't have
anything to do with money. What needs to happen is people need to start
*reading* it all, so they can sort out where everything is, and what
might, by chance, be missing.
Now, there might well be big money in doing that, and we'll see a lot of
the wonderful 'arrayed' documentation you desire. But there needs to be
a lot of investment first, and that takes free capital, and that takes a
competitive open market. Which brings up back to the monopoly, which
just happens, by the way, to both encourage and feed off of the
ignorance of the user, and discourages, even ridicules, the obvious,
plain, and perpetual necessity to learn what it is you're doing.
>> >The point-clicky thing works just fine for Windows,
>>
>> Oh, p'shaw, if it didn't suck balls, we wouldn't want to get rid of the
>> shit, y'know? ;-)
>
>Except the mentality of this is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Well, babies are rather useless, by themselves, you see, and they get
annoying REAL quickly, especially when they bug you OVER AND OVER AND
OVER, or interrupt something important.
Yea, knife the baby sounds like a REAL good idea, sometimes. I'm
looking forward to getting a truly integrated desktop which doesn't
expect me to put up with clicky-clicky bullshit.
>All the "innovations" in the Linux GUI front are coming at the expesne of a
>very obvious, underlying problem; functionality. Sure, there are good
>looking interfaces, but when things like GNOME programs have no ability to
>recognize KDE assoications, and KDE menu's aren't GNOME menu's, and the K
>control panel has no ability to configure real system wide settings (like
>administrative level settings), this is where we hit a problem, caused by
>the STRUCTURE of Linux.
Well, unless you're going to be using KDE and GNOME at the same time,
and want your configuration to be the same (even though you're
configuring different things), I don't see the issue. Running GNOME
doesn't stop you from using KDE apps, and I'll bet neither GNOME nor KDE
require the application to be specifically one or the other to be
associated. I'm not sure what 'integration' functionality might be
missing if you run a KDE app under GNOME, or vice versa, but it just
seems like you're putting buckshot in a billboard and bitching, not
detailing any 'structural' problems with Linux functionality.
You might just be grappling with a "its better to have only one way to
do things" argument, but you're not able to get it out because you know
it wouldn't stand up.
[...]
>The X Windowing system has been updated in commercial X servers, why can't
>XFree86 catch up? Because it's free? Commercial X servers have substantial
>structural changes that make it easier for the end user to do things in,
>XFree86 in comparison is a dinasour. XFree86 is the structural backbone of
>any Linux desktop system (because I don't think ANYONE owns that Commercial
>X server for Linux, of which the name I cannot remember...)
Well, yea. You want better, buy it; where's the problem again? You
want XFree86 to get better; there's the source code, go to it.
>> Can't quite match that "middleware" thing, but that's a different issue,
>> as I'm sure you'll be entirely ignorant concerning.
>
>"middleware"? Are you refering to the "component" status of XFree86 in the
>hirarchy of Linux "things"?
No, it was Win32 I as referring to. GNOME and KDE would be closer to
middleware on Linux. But they're not, even, yet.
[...]
>> >http://www.linux.com/news/articles.phtml?sid=93&aid=10678
>> >
>> >PROPAGANDA.
>> >
>> >Read the "Are you KIDDING" comment at the bottom. I loved this one.
>>
>> You mean the "Are you joking?" comment?
>>
>> "Claiming that Linux is easier and more user friendly than Windows is
>> pathetic, and it is maybe to people which "favorite accounting program
>> [is] (GNUCash)". But for 99% of other people windows is faaaaar more
>> user friendly,"[...]
>>
>> Obviously, to the author. The 98.99999999% of other people may wish to
>> speak for themselves.
>
>But this answers the evidence requirement showing that Linux.com is nothing
>more than a loud propaganda source, sorta like PC World Magizene for
>Microsoft.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. This shows that someone posted something
you believe shows excessive zeal for the platform. It hardly
characterizes the entire site, and I didn't see much in my brief trips
to linux.com to lead me to believe it is entirely representative in that
regard. Still, it would seem obvious from a casual examination of the
domain name that linux.com would positively and enthusiastically endorse
and encourage the use of Linux.
As for PC World and Microsoft in comparison, linux.com is not a
journalistic site, I would expect (again, not the '.com'), nor is Linux
a commercial enterprise itself. Meanwhile, PC World is a sock puppet
pretending to be objective spewing propaganda about a monopoly.
>> >And RedHat is just as in tune with they're own bugs, right? So, when RedHat
>> >shits on their customers it's Ok?
>>
>> Oh, heavens yes. Well, with me, anyway, unless I'm a Redhat customer.
>> Uh-oh.
>
>And that's when it hits you...
Guffaw. Gotcha. If RedHat shits on me, I'll just go to Debian. Or
better yet, Mandrake. :-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:04:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Donn Miller wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> > It's complex layer upon complex layer. It's fast becoming a house of
>> cards.
>>>
>>> No, it's SIMPLE AND RELIABLE LAYER upon SIMPLE AND RELIABLE LAYER...
>
>> I hate to tell you this, but X is not a "simple" layer. Looked at the X
>> reference manuals lately? In fact, X's complexity is the main reason for
>> toolkits like QT, gtk+, etc..
>
>Right. In theory, unix is a great operating system because everything is
>done in layers. In theory, desktop environments are about 3 or 4 layers
>deep. This sounds like a good idea. In practice, and I hate to mention this
>because I'm a unix guy, it kind of sucks. Why? Just take a look at the
>library dependencies. There's so many dynamically linked libraries. This
>hurts performance in practice, because there's a chance that those libs the
>app is dynamically linked to are scattered in different memory segments. When
>you have only a couple DLLs, or the app is statically linked, there is a
>greater chance all your runtime libs fall within the same memory segment.
>Also, note that with a proliferation of runtime library dependencies, there's
>a chance some of those dynamic libs are in swap, while others aren't.
>
Humm. If I had the choice between being concerned about a new libc
or being concerned about the complete re-write of a Windows OS,
what path would cause me the least concern????
You have a whole minute to thing about this now.
>Also, with more library layers, there's a greater chance that one or more
>libraries falls inside a different page of memory than the others, which
>would degrade performance.
>
>It's true. So that's why you have to look at the whole "in theory" vs. "in
>practice" scenario.
>
>
>-----= 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! =-----
Hope this helps.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:06:21 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:19:54
GMT;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:54:25
>> [...]
>> >Who knows how many back doors are in OpenSource software. It took them
>> >6 months just to find this one in this product. There are thousands
>> >in Linux that they're finding all the time.
>>
>> Lie.
>
>Not really. When the (false) news came out about Win2K having 65k
>bugs, Debian's bug list had somewhere in the 12-13k area. And that
>was just Debian alone. Yes, I know Debian != Linux, but some of those
>were generic Linux related.
But you don't know which. Nor is it accurate to say they're 'finding
them all the time'. It didn't take them six months to find this one,
either; it took six months before they looked. Once they looked, they
found it immediately, because it is open source. Nor is the report of
W2K having '65,000 bugs' actually false, though it might be regarded as
misleading.
So, yes, really.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:09:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>http://www.soundblaster.com/drivers/
>
>So where did they hide them?
>
>Oh, now I see it:
>
>"The driver section here only contains drivers for our Sound Blaster
>line of audio cards. If you are looking for drivers for our other
>products, e.g. graphics cards, please visit the driver section"
>
>Gee I thought the Live was an Audio card?
>Funny they even have drivers listed for OS/2.
>
>Golly gee, I just found them, buried in the Beta driver section with a
>date of 4/30/99.
>
>http://www.creative.com/support/files/download.asp?prod=sblive&OS=Beta®=0&select=Get+Files
>
>I can see how committed Creative is to Linux... :(
>
>Ha! Ha!
>
>You are not a very good liar Charlie, and an even worse Linvocate.
>
>What you SHOULD have replied was that there are OSS drivers available,
>but they cost money and while it looks like they FINALLY have S/PDIF
>working there are other limitations.
>Come already the card has only been around for about 3 years or so.
>
I believe if you hunt around on the SB site you will find the link.
But as for the driver, it's on every Linux distribution sold.
You just load the module EMU10K1.o
And with this driver loaded, I have two debian boxes playing
XMMS or Napster just about all the time.
Saw Richard Stallman on the RealPlayer tonight.
Giving his sermon.
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
