Linux-Advocacy Digest #610, Volume #31 Sat, 20 Jan 01 12:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: KDE Hell ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (Karel Jansens)
Re: Definition: Desktop, Workstation, Server. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux ("Tom Wilson")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:19:49 GMT
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94brfa$h2d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> . wrote in message <94bm7v$5ov$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:94a0ud$lqs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> : - Import the video from firewire (usually 3:1 or 5:1 with good capture
> >>> : cards)
> >>> : - Load the video into Premiere or whatever app they're using for
> editing
> >>> : - Save raw video file for posterity.
> >>> : - Perform edits, insert audio, stills, etc
> >>> : - Save edits to video file
> >>> : - Resize video to internet video size (192x144)
> >>>
> >>> Alarm bells went off when I read this. How long is this video that
> >>> it takes 2 GB at 192x144 size?? Does the video last all day?
> >
> >
> >> Well, thank you for clipping the part that answered your own question.
> >
> >> By the time its resized, it's rarely 2GB. However, we did have some
> >> videos that, when resized to 192x144, were still over 2GB (they were
> >> 30-45 minutes in length). This was before heavy amounts of
> >> compression.
> >
>
>
> Stored as 192x144 bitmaps, with 3 bytes per pixel, at 25 frames per second,
> a 45 minute video would take 5.6 GB (192x144x3x25x60x45). Why anyone would
> use that format, I don't know (even assuming you want to avoid lossy
> compression, there should be no problem reducing that to a fraction of the
> size using lossless compression). With lossy compression, MPEG4 can get a
> full DVD onto a single CD without noticeable reduction in quality - are
> these college lecture videos taken with such brilliant camera work that DVD
> quality just does not them justice?
>
> I was under the impression that this was a low budget system - the hard
> disks must have cost a fortune.
This is great. Now, rather that admitting the problem and working to solve it
you attack the process.
For the sixth time now, I will explain the obvious to lay people who seemingly
have never processed a large video in their life.
We have a video which needs to be cut to 192x144. At each stage in the
video process, we need to save and archive the video because we have made
errors or changes later and we would need a video from a specific stage
(whether starting all over, or picking up from the middle).
We use Media Cleaner Pro to take the original video (640x480 IIRC) and
cut to 192x144 with minimal lossless compression. This typically produces
a video smaller than 2GB, but occassionally it does. Like I have said
four times now, this isn't where the problem is, the problem is at a higher
level.
Yes, we wanted to keep unecessary costs down. Unfortunately, temporary
drive space and archiving tapes and drivers are not unecessary. However,
if we could get a free OS, we could remove that cost. Unfortunately,
Linux couldn't handle this and to use Linux would've doubled or trippled
our time and therefore our costs.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:32:33 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 19 Jan 2001 13:14:06 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:17:27 GMT, Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> >>If you want a vivid example of that, just take a look at the JPEG
group's
> >>source code. I'm still debating whether the programmer was a genius,
> >>masochist, or simply insane.
> >
> >Probably all three. And the same is true for pretty much anyone who
> >does OO in C
>
> Sure, if you get carried away and try to implement inheritance and
> virtual member functions. I did that once. It was a blast and I
> learned a lot. I don't plan to ever do it again.
Sounds familiar. It just seems so tricky, yet elegent, when you first put it
together. Your opinion changes when you happen across that code after a
couple of years...
"WHAT WAS ON WHEN I WROTE THIS?" <g>
>
>
> >There's a lot of messy C code out there that does this kind of thing.
>
> OTOH, one can make good use of some OO ideas in non-messy C code. One
> doesn't need to get into Macro Masochism to use some OO-style techniques
> in C. The Information Hiding idea in particular is easy to do in C
> without getting all ugly (the static keyword is underused, IMO). The
> idea of accessing instances via an opaque pointer is also easy to do and
> quite useful.
C++'s method overrides are so much better and more readable, though.
Although I'm still a dyed-in-the-wool C fan, I've come to appreciate C++'s
strengths in that area. I share your opinion where static declarations are
concerned.
<snip>
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:21:00 GMT
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Steve Mading wrote:
> >
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > : - Import the video from firewire (usually 3:1 or 5:1 with good capture
> > : cards)
> > : - Load the video into Premiere or whatever app they're using for editing
> > : - Save raw video file for posterity.
> > : - Perform edits, insert audio, stills, etc
> > : - Save edits to video file
> > : - Resize video to internet video size (192x144)
> >
> > Alarm bells went off when I read this. How long is this video that
> > it takes 2 GB at 192x144 size?? Does the video last all day?
>
> No, from what I can understand he claims that they performed
> all editing on the full size video, and resized only as a
> final step. Maybe it's not the smartest way to do it, but if
> you want to prove that Linux sucks, you don't care about
> doing it efficiently.
That's not the case. We digitized at full size, resized to a medium
size (for CDROM videos) performed edits, compressed. Resized to
192x144 (for Internet video), compressed.
We had to keep the video state at each stage for later edits,
corrections or motif changes.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:38:16 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> If he will install windows, he will need a LILO boot disk, because RH
> wouldn't boot because Windows will overwrite the MBR.
> He will have to reinstall LILO in the MBR if he wish to use Linux.
Or make a Linux boot file using the dd command, and putting on a floppy,
installing windows, then putting the linux bootfile somewhere and adding
it to the list in boot.ini.
Chris
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:54:43 -0100
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>Everyone goes on about how Linux offers me the 'choice' of which desktop I
>can use, unlike Windows. However, choice here does not equate to consistant
>style.
>
>If I want all my file save/open dialogs to all look the same - like the KDE
>style, or MOTIF or Gtk, can I do that with the Linux desktop? No I can't -
>my choice is restricted here to whatever toolktip the application is
>created with.
>
>If I restrict myself to KDE only applications then I lose certain system
>configuration tools as there isn't one written for KDE (that's certainly
>true of the Mandrake distribution). Linuxconf is one example, it can run in
>text mode or GUI - but uses the Gtk toolkit.
>
>It is true that on Windows, application do use different styles of file
>open/save dialogs - however, there is a system wide _standard_ that 99% of
>applications use. Unfortunately, you can't change this standard - like have
>different shapes buttons etc. (and this is what I would call a "choice" -
>not the varying standards Linux offers).
>
>--
>Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
>PS: Now, before someone starts a discussion on semantics about how Linux is
>not X or KDE, when I say Linux, I mean "Linux + X + KDE" or "Linux + X +
>your favourite Window Manager".
I have, until today, only encountered _one_ PC operating system with a
thoroughly consistent user interface, and that was the OS/2 Warp family. And
even there, some programs 'chose' not to follow the rules and do it their own
way (StarOffice happens to be one of them, at least in their post-3.1
incarnations).
What I have seen of Windows 9x, gave me the impression that someone tried to
copy the 'look and feel' of the WPS (*), without bothering with the OO
foundations. The result was utterly frustrating for someone who had actually
used an OOUI (Objext Oriented User Interface), since the Windows 9x desktop is
littered with inconsistencies.
I really did miss the WPS when I switched to Linux, but at least I don't have
to wade through a half-arsed copy of it if I don't want to. I stick to IceWm (+)
and run the apps I need, be they GTK, Qt, Motif or whatever based.
My point is this: If you want to discuss consistency of the user interface,
please don't compare anything to Windows, because that is very silly. If indeed
you would have used a good interface previously, Linux would be a step back.
But the only good interface you could have used is the one of an operating
system that is on its way out anyway (which, according to many, we have
Microsoft to 'thank' for), so you might as well swallow and get on with it.
Regards,
Karel Jansens
(*) OS/2 Warp 3 came out before Windows 95. It was actually really funny to see
the UI of Chicago evolve into a WPS lookalike.
(+) Until I discovered dfm (dfm.online.de) that is. This little gem really goes
a long way to recreate the spirit of the WPS.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Definition: Desktop, Workstation, Server.
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:39:28 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:17:13 GMT, Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Bones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > In article <XjV86.428$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tom Wilson
wrote:
> [deletia]
> >> If I were to segregate computers by role, I would pick stand-alone,
> >> workstation and server as the categories. I attach nothing in terms of
> >> expected reliability or user interface to any of these roles. They
should
> >> all by rock-solid reliable, and flexible enough to trim down unneeded
> >junk
> >> if extra power is needed for offering services.
> >
> >I still think workstation denotes a singular place on a network where
> >applications are developed or executed. I guess it doesn't matter since
you
>
> I don't think it necessarily implies that the machine is
> on a network but that merely the user or usage is well
> known and understood. The user has a better understanding
> of what their computing needs are and those needs are
> often demanding.
This is just a vivid example of everyone having different conceptions, yet,
knowing exactly what the others are talking about. Workstation does indeed
denote a more serious use and intent for the machine thusly named. I guess
my views come from the "station" part - A link in a proverbial chain.
>
> >say either "dekstop" or "workstation" and cause the same mental image of
a
> >CPU box, display, and keyboard.
>
> Same idea, different intent.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:41:42 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Lewis Miller wrote:
> >
> > Aaron R. Kulkis was heard ranting about <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
> > alt.linux.sux on 16 Jan 2001
> >
> > >Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> > >> news:e4996.2831$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>
> > >> > news:tR396.84229$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> > > Way to snip the part about this being a WORKSTATION conversation
> > >> > > genius.
> > >> >
> > >> > (Alruight then. Fair enough. Smartass mode off)
> > >> >
> > >> > Honest question: Do you really find crashing of even that sort
> > >> > (Workstation) to be acceptable and do you find those who don't to
be
> > >> > unreasonable?
> > >>
> > >> I find that people complaining about "crashing workstations" to be
> > >> primarily caused by the use of Microsoft's Windows 95 & 98 operating
> > >> systems. Neither of which I have much respect for. As for claiming
> > >> that Windows NT 4 "bluescreens every half hour" are caused by
> > >> lackluster administrative policies. Windows NT had stability
> > >> problems, but Service pack 4 hammered most stability problems out,
> > >> from then on it was securty problems until 6a, when it was
> > >> discontinued in favor of 2000, which seems to be showing a lot of
> > >> technological advancement on Microsoft's part.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Translation...
> > >the $200 product [Lose9x] crashes every couple of hours
> > >the $1000 product [LoseNT] crashes only once/week.
> > >The $25 product [Linux] will stay up for months.
> > ^^^
> > $25?!?! Damn you're gettin ripped off.. last I checked Linux was free.
:)
> > I've never paid for it. Even my CD versions.
>
> It's nice having the manuals around, for distribution quirks/features
> so that you can loan it to a friend with some degree of confidence that
> they will return your linux disks within a reasonable amount of time.
>
> > Besides forget NT get 2000 if you're going to run a Windows box.
>
> Why would i want to do something as stupid as that?
If you're forced to run a Windows box for whatever reason, slapping 9x on it
is even more stupid. Unless, of course, you're a gamer. In which case, buy a
damned Nintendo! <g>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:44:55 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On 18 Jan 2001 04:48:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >The first computer I laid hands on was around that time actually,
> > > >and was a commodore PET. (I cant remember which model). We wrote
> > > >BASIC programs that made little ascii rockets fly up the screen.
> > >
> > > Did you key in the Balloon Program from the Commodore System Guide
> > > (the fat spiral bound book I forget it's name) ?
> > >
> > > Everyone did that one with all the sprites and things.
> > > That was for the 64 though.
> >
> > The PET really didn't have anything like that as it was more primitive
than
> > even the VIC-20. The only thing being in the book, as I remember it, was
> > instructions on how to use the built-in machine language monitor.There
were
> > a few ASCII shoot-em-up games and I recall a textual version of StarTrek
> > being really popular. The funny thing is remembering how blown away you
> > were the first time you saw something that "high-tech" <g>
> >
>
> Ever play AppleTrek?
A couple of frieinds in college used to play it. I never did as I was a bit
of an anti-Apple snob. The only thing cool about them was that Super Bowl,
Big Brother commercial. That my opinions of them have improved in recent
years has more to do with an anti-Microsoft sentiment than anything.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:47:07 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:945sil$gcj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>I was in middle school (east coast lingo; that would be "junior
high"
> > > >>for most other north americans) in 1982.
> > >
> > > > I was in college. Netscape? What Netscape?
> > > > Hell, we didn't even have a graphics-capable terminal, except
> > > > for a Tektronix emulator in a Vt100. It worked, but
> > > > it wouldn't have been too good for modern web browsing. :-)
> > >
> > > The first computer I laid hands on was around that time actually,
> > > and was a commodore PET. (I cant remember which model). We wrote
> > > BASIC programs that made little ascii rockets fly up the screen.
> >
> > There was a neat little hack you could write for those that toggled the
> > cassette motor control relay back and forth at a high rate, eventually
> > burning it out. Its' one of the few, non-monitor related, cases I can
thnk
> > of where software could seriously damage hardware.
>
> There are stories of a program that would order disk-seeks, slowly
> reducing the number of tracks, so that the frequency of the disk-head
> motion would eventually match a harmonic frequency of the chassis,
> thereby causing destruction of the computer as the energy accumulates
> faster than the chassis can dissipate it.
>
> On the other hand, it might just be a physics joke.
I'm inclined to think so...<g>
Copy protection routines for C64's actually did a lot to damage the 1541
floppy drives. That was indicative of the drive's bad design more than
anything, though.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:53:35 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:42:00 GMT, "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >They instructed the applications not to rip audio.
> >
> >You oughta try that.
>
> So you tell me then how do you instruct kscd (whatever the included
> kde cd player is) how to not rip audio?
>
> Specfic instructions please.
>
> I'm waiting.
>
Honestly, i've no idea. I listen to my CD deck. I'm just picking on you.
What they're saying makes sense though because some of those image
generating toys actually need access to the audio stream to "keep time".
Personally, I couldn't care less about it. My Polk Monitor 12's and 300 watt
amp give my all the multimedia excitement I can handle. (The visual parts
come from all the crap rattling and "walking" across my desk).
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:03:08 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ZzX96.252$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:VSR96.3041$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > > Oh you mean the heavily inflated web server thing? The grossly
> > unscientific
> > > > misrepresentative web server thing? Where every virtual host is
counted
> > > > as a sever thus doubling or trippling the server numbers?
> > >
> > > Websites are websites, and should be counted as such.
> > >
> > > The crux of your complaint is this:
> > >
> > > Many windows pc servers are combined to power a single
> > > website, while a single Unix server is capable of powering
> > > many websites
> > >
> > > If I understand you correctly, you're complaining that the Unix
> > > web servers have an unfair advantage because they are more
> > > robust, higher performance, thus capable of hosting many more
> > > websites than windows pc servers?
> > >
> > > So, in your eyes it would be more fair if each unix system was
> > > limited to a single website? what would be the point of that? In
> > > some sense they might as well be running windows, if all they
> > > could host is a single website -
> > >
> > > I think you are whining unnecessarily here.
> >
> > Its' called grasping at a very tenuous straw.
> > That and beating a dead horse.
>
> http://www.biznix.org/surveys/
>
> Call it whatever you want.
>
> It's obvious that the Netcraft numbers are grossly misleading.
You'll recall that my only posts to the Netcraft debate were to call the
whole practice silly. Numbers of any sort can be misrepresented by either
side of a debate. In the end, the best way to see what's out there is to
take a gander at a bunch of port 80's and see what they answer. I see a LOT
more Apache's than IIS's. This should be a surprise to no-one. It's free and
it works very well. Except the Windows version...I played with it a bit and
wasn't impressed at all. It just didn't port very well.
>
> Perfect for the sensational-minded Penguinista not interested
> in facts.
>
> -Chad
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.linux.slakware
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:07:26 GMT
"Kevin Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson once wrote:
> >
> >"ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:942ii8$ev5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > It doesn't have to be VBasic, for me. However, a VBasic for
> >> > Linux should be possible -- there's already a
> >> development/emulator/something
> >> > for Solaris that allows for the running of Microsoft VBasic;
> >> > its main problem is calling [D]COM/ActiveX/whatever things.
> >> And that's the point. The beauty of js,vbs is it's ability to interact
> >with
> >> the system through COM!
> >> (you can't even write a decent script-virus with linux)
> >
> >And this is a BAD thing???
> >
> >I hope this is a joke...
> >
> >
>
> I always like c:\com\com .....
Viruii are always a sore spot for me. I wrote one just as a programming
exercise back in the olden DOS days. Forgot to clean up after myself and
BLAMMO, bye bye C: drive.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
