Linux-Advocacy Digest #651, Volume #31 Mon, 22 Jan 01 08:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Curtis)
Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice ("Bobby D.
Bryant")
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows ("Jan Johanson")
Re: OpenSource Question ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Why "uptime" is important. ("kiwiunixman")
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows (pip)
Re: KDE Hell ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:14:25 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Charlie Ebert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 17 Jan 2001
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >Karel Jansens wrote:
> >>On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karel Jansens wrote:
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>>>Oh, I don't know. I had a 386sx with a whopping 6 megs and a craayzy
40
> >>>>meg - Yes, folks, that 40 as in four-oh! - hard disk. It could have
run
> >>>>Excel.
> >>>>
> >>>>It didn't. I preferred Quattro Pro for DOS. Call me stubborn. Back
then
> >>>>it was 123 or Quattro anyway; if you mentioned Excel to serious number
> >>>>crunchers, they'd say: "What?" and susequently refuse to buy you beer
> >>>>anymore.
> >>>>
> >>>>Ahhh, those were the days...
> >>>
> >>>123 is still faster.
> >>>
> >>Heretic!
> >>Apostate!!
> >>Worshipper of Satan!!!
> >
> >Yes yes yes! That is me.
> >
> >>Oh... <G>, obviously.
>
> I don't get it. Of course 123 is still faster. What am I missing?
Agreed. It is. It still have v1.0a around here somewhere....
> <g>
> >>>>As a sidenote, I believe both Excel and Word (1) entered the Windows
> >>>>scene at about the same time: the same magazine had a review of Word
as
> >>>>well.
> >>>
> >>>Word was ahead of Excel by a year or more.
>
> Actually, Excel was ahead of Word by close to a year, at least. Excel
> was sold with Win386 bundled months before Win3.0 was released. Word
> for Windows 1.0 was released at the same time (and 2.0 came out with
> Win3.1) Word for DOS was an entirely separate code-base (and mostly,
> but not entirely, a different program.) It went from 2.0, I think, when
> they bought it, to 4.0, and was a respectable alternative, if not quite
> a competitor, to WordPerfect. True to form, the last version, 5.0, was
> released just before Word for Windows, and sucked royally.
>
> Did anybody else notice Microsoft's habit of coming out with a really
> pathetic 'last version' when they have a forced upgrade path in mind?
> Look at WinME or NT SP6.
The surprising thing to notice is how consumers kept falling for it.
>
> >>I've never bothered to follow the (d)evolution of Word. In fact, the
only
> >>version I have is Word 2, which came on a ROM card with my Omnibook 425.
It
> >>also had Excel 4 and Windows 3.1. (weirdly enough, Windows 3.1 on XIP
ROM does
> >>not seem to be any faster than on a spinning disk based machine - go
figure)
>
> Word 2.0 was without a doubt the best version of Word Microsoft ever
> made. Sure, it was buggy, but aren't they all? It was, I swear to god,
> almost a really good wordprocessor. The version after that (Word 6.0, I
> believe) didn't completely suck rocks, either. But Word 2.0 was
> really... bearable. And being a bearable GUI wordprocessor on the PC
> was damn attractive. I gave up WordPerfect for DOS for Word 2.0. And I
> got screwed for it.
I decided to go the AmiPro route. Better than WordPerfect and not an MS
product.
>
> >Umm.. I speak the truth bwana.
>
> Mmm. Me too.
>
> [...]
> >>Ahem. I happened to be a DR-DOS and Geoworks fan. I would have been a
DesqView
> >>fan if I could have afforded the hardware.
> >
> >I've used DesqView and I like it. In fact, somewhere around here
> >I still have my licensed copy in a box!
>
> Put it on E-bay. I bet you'll make a bundle! (Let me know when...)
Dibs! No, wait, I have IT around here too....
(One of these days, I might post my Altair to see what it'll fetch.
I also have a Burroughs Mini-computer I need rid of. (THEY have to pay
shipping for THAT) :)
>
> >That was some wild working
> >stuff wasn't it. DesqView would be the closest thing I could grab
> >a hold of as a memory to what I see Linux as today, console mode.
>
> Yes! DesqView would probably have been a very popular product, and
> would have been a defining development in PC computing. Linux would
> have gone on from there, of course. DesqView... that stuff was
> *dangerous*. I think its a mark of just how dangerous it was that it so
> swiftly and without ceremony disappeared from the market. I can just
> imagine the emails on *that* one.
You can only extend MS-DOS so far. That's the main reason Windows up to 3.11
were so unworkable. DesqView was pretty sweet nonetheless. I ran a dual node
BBS with it and it worked quite dependably.
>
> >It had the reliability. It has an easy to master ncurses like
> >desktop. It has the functionality. It had the uptime.
> >
> >Novel had some server software which would sequence your memory
> >writes with the cylinders on your harddrive in sweeps! Remember
> >that! It had the performance.
> >
> >I used that for probably 5 years at work.
> >
> >Then Windows finally turned from novelty into a competitor and
> >Windows took our Novel performance boxes away forever.
> >
> >We never had good service from that point forward.
>
> Ain't that the truth.
They pollute everything they touch. Especially if it was pristine when they
got it.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:29:56 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 13 Jan 2001
> 06:59:02 +1100;
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 10 Jan 2001
> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >>>>It's a Microchannel based IBM PS/2
> >>>
> >>>Indeed. That is "nonstandard"? It strikes me as a very well defined
standard.
> >
> >>No, "Microchannel" was an attempt to wrest back the PC platform from the
> >>open market; it was a proprietary bus implemented only by IBM.
> >
> >It was not implemented only by IBM. It was also a standard --- not a free
> >one, but one which you had to license, granted... but that doesn't make
> >it any less of a standard. Quite the opposite, really.
>
> Well, let's not stir up the "what is a 'standard'?" question again. It
> isn't a standard, the way the word was intended. It was a proprietary
> specification. Now, IBM had a 'standard' use of the proprietary
> specification, but that doesn't make it a "standard", though if you were
> to use the phrase "the Microchannel standard", I doubt anyone would find
> it incomprehensible, though some few pedantic ones might argue the
> point.
This whole debate is a bit pedantic. It was a standard so far as it was a
specific hardware protocol and implementation. In that, it was as much a
standard as ISA and S-100 were. The only thing "non-standard" about it was
the draconian liscensing costs IBM inflicted on third party manufacturers. I
think the wording "widely-accepted-and-implemented-standard" would more
acurately describe what MicroChannel wasn't.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:34:39 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:11:53
> GMT;
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> What's so obsessive about it? It's no different than the various
> >> sites out there specifically dedicated to similar tweaks for
> >> WinDOS. He probably spent less time setting this up than the
> >> average WinNovice takes downloading and installing a single
> >> themepack.
> >
> >The fact that the END USER has taken the time, and effort to perform the
> >task of programming to accomplish such an insignifigtant task of rotating
> >the desktop background. Seems a tad obsessive.
>
> Actually, it seems a tad efficient. Particularly considering Aaron
> could now sell or give this code away, sparing the rest of the user base
> from having to be as obsessive.
>
> Software; ain't it a miracle?
Fun way to make a living, anyway <g>
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 06:51:43 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] posted:
>> And last but not least, I never read a cotton picking thing to use
>> Windows. In fact it is rare that I even read the read me files that
>> come with the programs I use.
Wow! You don't do much then, do you? I have to read a lot to use WinNT
and now 2k. I have to read help files for the apps that I use. I
couldn't do otherwise to do what I do.
>> You see Chris, I use applications, lot's of them unlike the
>> bit-twiddling Penguinista that spends time compiling kernels.
Lousy advocacy, if I've ever heard it.
You just lost all credibility with that post. I don't doubt you've
done this before.
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ROT13 scrambled)
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.help,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:59:48 -0600
Jeff Silverman wrote:
> Hi. I am an experienced Linux/UNIX sysadmin and I am getting ready to teach a class
>on Linux for
> the Communications Workers of America and WashTech.
We should start developing an "open syllabus" for introductory courses on Linux. The
university here
is going to offer a 1 hour class on Unix next fall and I have already suggested that
they use Linux,
since that's the "Unix" that most people will encounter first, and they one that they
are most likely
install at home.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: 22 Jan 2001 06:08:21 -0600
It took you a full minute?
takes half that long with windows and no reboot is required for W2K (you
xposted to a NT advocacy forum, not win9x)
"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I recently opened an new account with earthlink. After placing the
> order, I waited for an hour, edited a kppp script, logged in and was up
> and running within 1 minute. Today I got the package earthlink sends out
> to all new users. It includes a CD and "Quick Start" guide. The last
> line of the instructions for 95/98/Me is to reboot the computer.
>
> So much for MS operating systems being easier to use than Linux.
> --
> Russ
> <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> Not powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OpenSource Question
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 06:06:23 -0600
Adam Warner wrote:
> > most importantly, when my company has been firmly established such that
> > possesion of this product by competing companies would not introduce a
> > significant threat to the well being of our company.
>
> You are entitled to do so. If you are building the product upon GNU software
> you will have to abide by the GNU licensing restrictions. The point where
> you want to distribute the program is the point where you must make the
> source available to anyone you distribute the program to.
Actually, if they write it from scratch (and thus do not inherit any GPLness
for existing GPL'd components), they could distribute it as closed source until
they were ready to go GPL with it, and then switch licenses. You usually have
to be careful about relicensing things, but since the company would wholly own
the work of their employees, they could relicense it however they please when
the time comes.
> > Would this be a bad way of doing OpenSource development, counter to the
> > intentions of OpenSource?
>
> I don't think it is open source development. It is in-house development
> built upon open source software.
It wasn't clear from his original post that he intended to use existing OSS as
a base. If he does, then that will indeed have an impact on what he can and
can't do with it.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: 22 Jan 2001 06:17:56 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Lose98 can NOT stay up 216 hours continously, especially not IN USE 24x7.
Four of our NT4 boxes are running SQL server 7 and run continuously 24x7 and
sometimes running near 90-100% for days on end. We replaced a hotswap hard
drive during that time - THAT is how reliable we've found NT4 to be. How
long? Nearly 8 months now - since these are not public facing servers we do
not need to apply security patches so we have no planned reboots. We haven't
upgraded these four boxes because they have been running non-stop for 8
months now (and the reason for that reboot was updating SCSI BIOS and
drivers).
Our two W2K boxes that have never been rebooted since Feb 20th and, although
I'm sure it's coincidence, not even had a hard drive pop yet. We haven't
applied SP1 or security patches cause these are internal servers.
Our three external facing W2K boxes we reboot when a security patch requires
it so looking at their "uptime" report in netcraft would make them appear
unreliable when in fact they stay up without fail. Period. Our solaris box
we've retired and I can say not soon enough, we were tired of it crashing
all the time. The only copies of linux in this shop are those tucked safely
away in VMWare virtual machines and most definately not attached to the net.
Thankfully when linux pukes we can just recycle the virtual machine.
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:31:46 GMT
no problem at my bank, they still use dumb terminals and a centralised
server, only one outage with in the four years I banked there, and that was
due to an upgrade that was taking place (y2k preperation).
kiwiunixman
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> At eastern bank, in Massachusetts, today. There was a teller trying to
> get information to a customer. Just as she was looking up the info,
> (remember their is a line of people waiting) she says to the customer,
> "I'm sorry, can you wait until I reboot my machine? It always does
> this."
>
> I asked what they used and the teller told me "Windows." I dropped my
> head in disgust.
>
> The world has been sold a bill of goods that is a fraud. Windows isn't
> usable. It is not a viable platform for any purpose for which you would
> use a computer.
>
> If you had a VCR that had to be rebooted half way through a movie, you'd
> return it.
>
> If you had a Microwave that stopped at 1 minute instead of 2 and a half,
> and needed to be reset, you'd return it.
>
> If you had a car that stopped in the middle of the highway, and had to
> be restarted, you'd have it fixed.
>
> Now, why during the middle of a work day, a teller has to restart her
> computer, and keep customers waiting, does this seem acceptable?
>
> It really is time to expose the all powerful wizard of Gates to be the
> side show huckster that he is.
>
> Whilst the Winvocates defend the horrible MTTF numbers on all windows
> platforms, I think the real core issue needs to be addressed. If you
> want to play games on your computer, it doesn't really matter much what
> you use. If you use your computer for work. You should hold it and the
> operating system which it runs under the same scrutiny as you would any
> office equipment, such as a fax machine or a copier.
>
> This information must be made public, not just to the techies, but
> everyone. People that don't want to know about cars, still know about
> anti-lock brakes and fuel injection, because it is important for their
> purchasing decisions.
>
> 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.
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:52:13 +0000
Russ Lyttle wrote:
>
> I recently opened an new account with earthlink. After placing the
> order, I waited for an hour, edited a kppp script, logged in and was up
> and running within 1 minute. Today I got the package earthlink sends out
> to all new users. It includes a CD and "Quick Start" guide. The last
> line of the instructions for 95/98/Me is to reboot the computer.
>
> So much for MS operating systems being easier to use than Linux.
>
Like everything in life: it's easy if you know how :-)
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 13:00:29 GMT
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94cdt4$mvg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 19 Jan 2001
> > 13:42:25 GMT;
> > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 18 Jan 2001
> > >> 14:11:00 GMT;
> > >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >> > Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >> Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Indeed. That's why I usually suggest Python. It's OO, but
> it's not
> > >> >> > we-will-force-OOP-on-you-until-we-can-OOP-no-more OO.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> How about Perl's implementation of OOP? Yipe! Perl is great
> for a lot
> > >> >> of things, but IMO its idea of OO is pretty scary. I've never
> tried
> > >> >> Python, but I've heard people say it can do the same stuff Perl
> can do.
> > >> >
> > >> >Pretty much. It has its quirks (like using indentation to control
> > >> >flow) that drive some people nuts (hey, we are supposed to indent
> anyway! ;-)
> > >>
> > >> For clarity, though, not for syntax!
> > >
> > >Do you know any situation where it is convenient not to be clear?
> > >If you don't, why add the unneeded ugliness of block separators?
> > >
> > >for (x=a;x<b;x++)
> > >{
> > > do_stuff;
> > >}
> > >
> > >for x in range(a,b):
> > > do_stuff
> > >
> > >The python versions are usually simpler, clearer, with less unneeded
> > >punctuation.
> >
> > Indeed, if you use stuff for clarity, not syntax, in the first example
> > (is that C?)
>
> Yes.
>
> > Wouldn't
> >
> > For (x=a;x<b;x++)
> > {do_stuff;}
> >
> > be syntactically identical?
>
> Yes.Except for the uppercase F ;-) In fact, the brackets are not
> mandatory in that case, so
>
> for (x=a;x<b;x++)
> do_stuff;
>
> or even
>
> for (x=a;x<b;x++) do_stuff;
>
> work.
> > I know its not the conventional way, so you
> > must think it is less clear, but I will, as always, point out I'm not
> > interested in professional-level programming, just getting stuff done.
>
> First rule of programming style: have a style.
> Second rule of programming style: use your style, always.
Third rule: Be very consistant in obeying rules one and two if others will
have to maintain it in future. (Pet Peeve)
>
> The rest is personal preference.
>
> > However, I will admit that the comments I've seen do belay some of my
> > concerns about using indents for syntax, not clarity. Perhaps I just
> > need to get used to the idea; we all know I don't actually use either
> > one. The last language I used was BASIC, unless you count a couple
> odd
> > (brain-dead) shell scripts and a modification of a perl script or two.
> > I never quite understood the point of the bracketing convention to
> begin
> > with.
>
> It makes it easier to grasp at birds-eye view the flow of the code.
> In python the flow is WYSIWYG. On C it�s not :-)
// Simple MFC recursive function example that
// follows no convention of any sort and therefore defies
// debugging attempts.
void RecurseDrive(CString Dir);{ WIN32_FIND_DATA SRec; HANDLE Result; BOOL
FilesExist=TRUE; CString FileName; char *buf; int SLen; if (_chdir(Dir)!=-1)
{ Result=FindFirstFile"*.*",&SRec); if (Result!=INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE){while
(FilesExist){if (SRec.dwFileAttributes & FILE_ATTRIBUTE_DIRECTORY){ if
(SRec.cFileName[0]!='.')
RecurseDrive(SRec.cFileName);}else{FileName=SRec.cFileName;FileName.MakeUppe
r(); if (FileName=="MSCREATE.DIR"){ buf=(char *)malloc(MAX_PATH);
_getcwd(buf, MAX_PATH);FileName=buf;free(buf);SLen=FileName.GetLength();if
(FileName[SLen-1]!='\\')
FileName+="\\";FileName+=SRec.cFileName;FileList.AddTail(FileName);}}FilesEx
ist=FindNextFile(Result, &SRec);}_chdir("..");}}FindClose(Result); }
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
