Linux-Advocacy Digest #630, Volume #31 Sun, 21 Jan 01 03:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (Donn Miller)
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (Pete Goodwin)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (J Sloan)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. ("Lloyd Llewellyn")
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windows curses fast computers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows curses fast computers ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 05:50:39 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:16:35
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:94bvv0$cq7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >Yes, well, they were naive. Truth is, it requires government action to
>> >prevent monopolization. That's why they made it illegal, more than a
>> >hundred years ago.
>> >
>> One of the reasons we have laws and governments to enforce them is
>> to prevent abuse by those who will not behave decently without being
>> forced.
>
>And this is hindering Linux in what way? Microsoft doesn't OWN The PC
>platform, they just run it. Linux can also run it, but people don't like
>Linux as much.
>
>Is ANYONE putting the burn on to remedy this?
Well, yes, Kyle. Only the fucking FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
[...]
>DEVELOPERS who aren't smart, savvy or rich enough to do their own market
>analysis deserve the market they get.
Let's save the second-guessing for when we get to point out how stupid
and incompetent you are.
>> Think of penguins on the edge of the Antarctic ice with the terror of
>> sea lions in the shallow waters just off shore. Once beyond the
>> shallows they can outmaneuver the salons but getting there
>> requires running the gauntlet and the first few might not make it.
>
>Really? Here's how I see it.
>
>Penguins are standing at the edge of the Antarctic rim, staring at some kind
>of golden land beyond the tundra, there is a small land bridge that can be
>crossed, but powerful penguins are preaching that the world for penguins is
>better in the tundra than "the golden land" could ever be. Of course this
>is just an excuse, but it seems to be catchy among the penguins.
A strikingly accurate analogy, as well. I'm assuming the tundra is
Windows and the "golden land", separated by a small land bridge, is
Linux, right? So why are you lauding how "catchy" the deception is?
>> Once the first one takes the plunge the others scramble to get out
>> as quickly as possible because the last few are just as vulnerable
>> as the first.
>
>See prior paragraph.
I'm still trying to figure it out, frankly.
[...]
>> That is because what most people refer to as "the network effect"
>> is just the monopoly refusing to interoperate.
>
>Really? StarOffice is 90% Microsoft Office format compatible, yet no one is
>using it. Why?
Because there's no reason for the missing 10% accept to prevent
interoperability?
>Well, the horrible interface, the overcomplicated
>documentation and the amazing lack of performance is seems to have acquired
>on all platforms.
Or maybe the lack of commercial development. Give it the budget of
Office, and we'll see how good it gets, eh?
>I don't see Microsoft FORCING StarOffice a shitty product.
I do. So does Ed.
>> Interoperation would lead to comparison and choice. M$ cannot allow
>> that.
>
>Except there is more interoperability NOW then there ever has been in
>computing.
Again proving something which we all know quite well already, that
Microsoftheads don't have the first clue what the term
"interoperability" means.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: 21 Jan 2001 00:43:33 -0600
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I asked what they used and the teller told me "Windows." I dropped my
> head in disgust.
Hmmmm. Musta been a bad driver in there someplace. Or, maybe it was just
mis-configured.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:15:46 +0000
J Sloan wrote:
> Your examples are ridiculous, and have no connection with
> Petes' pet peeve wanting all X apps to use a single widget set.
I thought they were spot on.
> In contrast to your example above, gtk, qt, motif and xlib based
> programs all exhibit the same behavior, serve the same functions
> & can interoperate quite nicely.
But they don't quite work the same, do they? There are differences. And
it's those differences that make it annoying to switch between different
apps using different toolkits.
To give you an example of the difference, take a look at the GIMP. It's
File -> Open is very different from KDE. It's very similar to MOTIF style,
the old style.
Windows added the explorer style to file -> open/save. Did KDE copy it, did
StarOffice copy it? Don't know who came first here. But it's so different
in the way it works.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:26:38 +0000
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) 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.
>
> There are a number of different programming languages,
> would you want to forfeit all PERL utilities, or Python,
> or TK/TCL?
No of course not. That's why I know C, C++ and Object Pascal.
> > 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?
>
> I've tried several different look and feel themes,
> and each has it's advantages an weaknesses. I like
> KDE, the BeOS lookalike, the Gannymede theme, and several
> other themes.
My point here is that there is no standard. The file open/save dialogs look
different and act differently. The MOTIF style is similar to Gtk and can be
defeated by a directory with a large number of files (Netscape takes ages
to display the dialog). KDE style works better but insists on display icons
even when all the files aren't known. It's different again. Is it so much
to ask that these dialogs are consistant, instead of at least three styles
that I can think of on Linux?
> The core controls are pretty consistent. You may have
> different positioning, or a different ICON. It takes a
> second or two to learn what the decorations mean.
Yes the core controls pretty much are, but I'm talking about the
combination of core controls.
> > No I can't -
> > my choice is restricted here to whatever
> > toolktip the application is created with.
>
> Keep in mind there are different legal, financial,
> and performance issues related to any toolkit.
> The first lesson of programming is that there are
> at least 5 ways to do any task, and the "best" is
> a function of constraints that are subjective as well
> as technical.
I'm sorry, I don't quite see your point here?
> Developers who aren't willing to fork over $6000 per programmer for
> the right to publish Qt programs (KDE toolkit) often chose to program
> for GNOME. Others who just wanted something quick and dirty wrote
> code in Python or Perl/TK or TCL/TK.
Qt has been free for free software for some time now.
> On the other hand, there are actually about 40 different configuration
> tools that have been developed to manipulate these files. Which one you
> like best is a matter of personal taste.
Which one is the KDE equivalent of linuxconf? DrakConf, DiskDrake etc.?
> > 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.
>
> And there abligations and up-front expenses
> that are included with each of these. Microsoft
> charges $400 for Visual Basic Professional,
> $600 for Visual C++. MSDN Enterprise edition costs
> nearly $1500 per person per year.
Which is interesting but not relevant to my point.
> The choice of which car is right for you depends on how far
> you drive, which roads you drive, what the weather is like,
> your income, your tax status, and some regulatory issues.
But if the cars come with the pedals arranged in a different order instead
of the one standard we have now, does that not make cars a pain to drive
when you change model?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:29:40 +0000
Joseph T. Adams wrote:
> The Wintrolls are trying to come up with ways to convince key people -
> primarily developers - to avoid switching to Linux just yet. Doing so
> if successful would slow the demise of Winblows and give Mafia$oft
> more time to perfect its plans to expand the monopoly via .NET.
Not me. I'm waiting for Kylix to appear. I have an application I want to
port to Linux and it's written in Delphi. When Kylix appears, I'll convert
to that.
> The problem is, even the smartest Wintrolls are nowhere near as
> informed or as intelligent as the average software developer.
Gee thanks.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:28:42 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Which one is the KDE equivalent of linuxconf? DrakConf, DiskDrake etc.?
The kde equivalent of linuxconf is linuxconf.
jjs
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:35:16 +0000
J Sloan wrote:
> Typical nonsense from kyle - can you produce a single post
> where a Linux user said anything remotely like that?
I doubt it.
I think he's referring to the strong feeling of "don't use a GUI, use the
command line" that comes across sometimes.
And the insult that "a typical Windows user can't get anywhere unless
there's a wizard" and that HAS been said, although by someone not worth
listening to.
> > GUI's are a mess under Linux,
[snip]
> Not to say that there is no room for improvement, but to say
> the Linux GUI is "a mess" is just plain idiotic.
But true.
You have at least three different toolkits for widgets - now that's fair
enough in itself, but take file open/save dialogs. Gtk and MOTIF are
similar, KDE is similar to Windows. They work differently, enough to be
confusing and distracting when you try to use the desktop on Linux. That's
the "mess" I mean and the one I think Kyle is referring to.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:43:03 +0000
J Sloan wrote:
> The kde equivalent of linuxconf is linuxconf.
Huh? Linuxconf is built with Gtk. So how is that the KDE equivalent?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:44:42 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Ah, but then I started as a Electronics Engineer at EMI, then switched
> > to software. That's one reason in my favour when I took my current job
> > writing audio device drivers.
>
> I must say that some of the best software engineers that I have worked
> with were electronic engineers who made the transition to softwae. What
> went wrong in your case?
Nothing.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:47:09 +0000
spicerun wrote:
> I suspect, in his case, he wasn't an Electronics Engineer long enough to
> really understand devices (and got very frustrated)
> ....in fact, that's probably the reason he switched to Software, so that
> he wouldn't have to understand Hardware.
Naaah.
I did design and build my own 6809 machine, write my own bios, create a 64k
dynamic RAM board and it worked first time, put together a floppy disk
controller (hardware and software)...
You seem to be equating Windows fan with inferior mind.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:51:27 +0000
mlw wrote:
> > I know how it works, and I'm a Microsoft developer.
>
> I suspect this is an anomaly.
8)
Am I the only one?
> > Ah, but then I started as a Electronics Engineer at EMI, then switched
> > to software. That's one reason in my favour when I took my current job
> > writing audio device drivers.
>
> Similar to my background. I started as a tech, moved into hardware
> design, then into software. I have had to actually write drivers for my
> hardware design of the prototypes I built. Talk about a painful
> engineering lessons. How many engineers can use a signal generator,
> oscilloscope, and a kernel debugger at the same time to test a driver
> and board at the same time? I suspect, perhaps, many, but not too many.
>
> My VCR still blinks 12:00. :-(
I created a 6809 machine from scratch. Originally it had a bank of switches
to enter memory. Writing code was *so slow* at the start. Then I hand coded
the BIOS (no assembler yet!), created the VDU card (oh boy that was a pain!
Oscilloscope on standby!), added 64k of dynamic memory with my own custom
built RAS/CAS decoder and address multiplexor, added a floppy disk
controller (turn the pot to the left until it breaks, then to the right...
put it in the center, hey it works!).
Oh, I seem to understand how to program VCR's. I like reading stereo
instructions!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Lloyd Llewellyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:49:28 GMT
> Understanding "quality" as it applies to operating systems is just as
> important for purchasing decisions on computers as understanding anti-lock
> brakes, fuel injection, and vehicle warrantees are for cars.
>
> An educated customer would choose anything but Windows.
In case this is related to the thread "it's not all about up-time" - let me
start by saying that I'm pretty much in love with Linux (as a concept at least).
I didn't say that up-time isn't important. I just said that I felt it was a
mistake to focus on up-time as the raison d'etre of Linux. It's quite obvious
that there are other things that a lot of people feel are more important than
up-time numbers.
Like application availability. I've spent the last couple of days looking for a
WYSIWYG web page editor so I don't have to boot into Win2K to use FrontPage or
Dreamweaver. Yes, yes, I know - those kinds of tools give you dirty HTML, and
real men code their web pages using vi / emacs / etc. Still, I just want an
interface where, say, I can select a range in an HTML table and move it
elsewhere in the table, and see immediately what the result is.
Is it more productive to have a desktop OS that I have reboot a couple times a
week, but that has applications like Dreamweaver, or is it more productive to
use an OS that *never* goes down, but that I have to use a text editor to design
a web page?
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:52:31 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I thought USA companies were a bit more ruthless in this. I'm sure in the
> USA you have a probation period when you start a new job. Either party
> can terminate the contract within a short period during the probation.
> In Europe the probation time is a joke. Once you have the job, unless you
> are completely clueless, the probation period means a small pay rise once
> it is completed. In other words it is a waste of time. This is one of the
> few things I thought the USA was superior in. Perhaps not.
Digital had me on six months probation when I started in the UK. The next
company had three months and the next six.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:56:02 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > Shouldn't the OS wait until the drive signals it's written it's cache?
>
> Drives don't do this. There is no documented way for the OS to know.
Someone has already posted details from the spec you mentioned indicating a
way around this.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:03:47 GMT
On 19 Jan 2001 15:22:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry R) wrote:
>Gotta love this:
>
>http://www.msnbc.com/news/517823.asp
I see MS has received a hammering from the Unix advocates over a
rather obscure problem.
Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that the Linux NFS
server daemon fails to work correctly across platforms - it works fine
if you NFS mount a file system between Linux machines but fails if you
serve out an NFS to say a Solaris box.
My experience with Unix tells me that NFS sharing between different
Unix platforms has been a standard feature for at least 10 years.
Is this still a problem with Linux? If so how does an OS being
released with this type of problem compare with the Win98 problem
discussed in this thread?
I also understand that the auto mount daemon does not function
correctly with Linux. If you wish to create a tar file from an NFS
served by a remote client you must first 'cd' to the mount point to
kick the auto mount daemon into life. If you don't perform the cd
into the target mount point then you will find the tar file will be
all but empty containing just the mount point directory and nothing
else.
I know this is not the case with Solaris - the tar command alone is
enough to trigger the auto mount daemon.
Is this second problem still active in Linux? If so how does
releasing an OS with this sort of problem compare with the Win98
problem described in this thread?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 02:09:58 -0600
"Peter K�hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Actually, FreeBSD's halt command calls Sync, which is documented to have
a
> > bug which allows it to return before buffers are completely flushed, and
> > causing a shutdown. Further, FreeBSD's "reboot" function in it's kernel
> > calls a function called poweroff_wait() which merely waits 5 seconds
> > before powering off the computer.
> >
> > You can see it for yourself here:
> >
> >
>
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/~checkout~/src/sys/kern/kern_shutdown.
> > c?rev=1.91&content-type=text/plain
> >
> > So, do you then think that FreeBSD is also "shit" engineering?
> >
> No, not if it works properly. could you just make a small computation in
> mind HOW MUCH the drive can write in those 5 seconds? It is at least 30
> times as much as the LARGEST caches you get on drives. So they wait enough
> to make sure the drive has time enough.
Have you not been following mlw's commentary that such a solution is "shit
engineering"?
> Wintendo, on the other hand, shuts power off almost at once. This pisses
me
> off because my daughters computer (a 450MHz) manages to shut off too fast
2
> out of 3 times. So, scandisk runs the next time.
Sorry, but the problem only occurs on machines > 800 Mhz and with on-drive
write caches of 512K, neither of which your daughters computer has.
> Then 1 out of 3 times that
> blasted thing manages to find a new Ethernet card and installs it a second
> time, rendering Network inoperable. You have to remove those bogus entries
> AND install that damn card again.
This sounds like a flaky PnP or ACPI bios to me. Windows uses the BIOS to
detect the hardware. If the BIOS is telling windows there's a new card
there, it'll try and detect it.
> Well, this has no direct connection with
> shutdown, but would not occur if MicroShit had done their job a little
> better. But then again, why do they have to do that FUCKING hardware
> detection every power on??
Because you might have added new hardware? That's kind of the point.
> It is plain dumb to do it that way. I know a lot
> of people who call me and ask what in hell that damned computer is up to
> because it finds "new" hardware where none was installed.�
Strange that this is so common among your friends. I've seen it, but only a
few times in 5 years, and it was always a poor BIOS. Upgrading the BIOS
fixed the problem.
> But, back to the drives.
> Your statement that it was the drives fault is even dumber than that, and
> by now you have probably realised it. You should at least say so, there
are
> (even here on advocacy) people who manage to say "here I was wrong".
> Even Flatfish did it, he escaped the killfile that way (I had enough of
his
> rantings, but he was at least once grown up enough to admit error).
> You have not done so, at least I have never read a statement from you to
> that effect (and no, it's nearly impossible to be always right, and you
> know that. It's quite easy to recall something wrong)
And when have you admitted you were wrong?
I did it just a few hours ago (2 hours before you posted your message even.
If you had bothered to read my responses, you'd know) when someone pointed
out that Linux and FreeBSD do power down systems.
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=718397179&fmt=text
I had never used that feature and wasn't aware of it. Strange, that for so
many people that claim to never shut their machines off, they know how their
machines act when they do.
You certainly have a talent for putting your foot in your mouth. For
instance, you posted this message shortly after I made string of responses.
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=718396893&fmt=text
You should really stop trying to make snide remarks, since they always seem
to blow up in your face.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
