Linux-Advocacy Digest #709, Volume #31 Wed, 24 Jan 01 18:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up? (jtnews)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Steve Mading)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Steve Mading)
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 (Mig)
Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up? (J Sloan)
Re: M$ websites down again ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: M$ websites down again ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Steve Mading)
Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up? (J Sloan)
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 (Philip Van Hoof)
Re: Does Code Decay
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (Steve Mading)
Re: Does Code Decay
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:35:03 -0500
From: jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up?
what's wrong with the fonts on cnet in netscape?
I use netscape all the time in linux and it looks
fine.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:42:48 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Too bad CNET doesn't understand the difference between a DNS failure and a
> >server being down.
>
> It wouldn't matter to the Penguinista's anyhow.
>
> Have you ever tried looking at the CNET web site using Netscape under
> Linsux?
>
> The text is either way too small or way too large depending on how you
> set the fonts in NutScrape.
>
> Maybe that's why they have all those editors for Linsux, so they can
> copy the text into their editor, massage it a little so they can read
> it?
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: 24 Jan 2001 22:32:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Despite what Bobby would have you believe, I never considered the
: Hot100 irrelevant in general, just not for this thread. I was
: talking about businesses who have a significant investment in
: the web and who have large capital and profits.
No you weren't. You were talking about the Fortune 500.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: 24 Jan 2001 22:37:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:94koo1$13e0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> Compare this with something that actually is 100%
:> web based like Amazon or Google).
: And who make USD$0 every year (or USD$-20m or so for Amazon)
Some people believe that being a big business making big money
makes one more accountable to keep things working right. Your
argument might work to convince such a person. That person
would not be me. The bigger the business, the more momentum
it has. A downed website would not matter as much to a company
for which the website was an AFETRTHOUGHT, and not their core
reason to exist.
--
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:43:11 GMT
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:58:58 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It appears as though he's experienced it firsthand...
>
>jjs
Appearances can sometimes be deceiving. I'm going to try the oem
version tonight and see what happens. I have the full version at home
but I'm going to a UG meeting tonight.
We have a guy coming in to give a presentation on Linux. This is at a
Windows user group meeting. Should be interesting, but the people are
nice and he will be welcome.
I'm bringing my Thinkpad to see if he can get Linux Mandrake to
install on it.
I can't get X working properly no matter what setting I choose.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:39:07 +0100
Wonder if this nonsens is just to hide the fact that MS screwed up their
DNS so their sites is unvailable at the moment
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> OK, lesse...
>
> W2K:
> Insert CD into a CD ROM and turn on computer. It boots and begins to
> install. Enter your CD key, name and answer a few default prompts and
> shortly thereafter you have the a very massively feature packed OS with a
> familiar GUI up and running with all your hardware ready to rock. HTTP,
> FTP, Media Server, Journaling file system, DirectX hardware acceleration
> of every device, OpenGL running at the right refresh for that autodetected
> monitor and video card and the list goes on. Browser ready, wordpad ready,
> mediaplayer supporting pretty much every format (and others are a codec
> autodownload away), graphics editor and viewers, handicapped accessiblity,
> communications programs, telnet, ftp, massive network support - the list
> just goes on and you can just sit back and watch it load
A) Forgetting at least 2 or 3 reboots
B) Not all hardware is detected (and drivers are at least 6 months beyond
development and probably 1 year)
C) I would like DirectX accelaration on my modem :-)
D) Keep off OpenGL - the screesavers that use it crash the machine
eventually
E) Few programs available
> ==========
>
> ok, now, how to do a BAREBONES Linux 2.4 install, no real apps, just
> command line crap:
> ==========
BS... Linux and the *BSD have loads of applications compared to NT/W2K and
especially have loads of professional quality apps for free. Among those
are the apps that make the Internet work.
[CUT kernel nonsens]
There is no need to recompile the kernel unless you want to tinker with it.
Just wait for your favorit distro to include the latest kernel and be sure
that everything works. I never did it because i never needed to and 99% og
users dont need it too... remenber Conrad is a Windoze guy - i am also at
work - and is used to upgrade all kinds of programs just to keep up with
the latest virus or the latest screensaver BSOD.
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:44:58 GMT
On 24 Jan 2001 20:52:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>Have YOU ever run a DNS server, claire?
>
>I didnt think so. You may crawl away now.
No, but I have looked at the CNET webpage using Netscape under Linux.
Looks terrible, and that was the part of the message you snipped...
>
>-----.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:46:29 GMT
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:58:08 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> Too bad CNET doesn't understand the difference between a DNS failure and a
>> server being down.
>
>To joe 6-pak, there's no difference where the failure
>technically occurs, he can't see the website anymore.
ouch...where did I hear that one before :)
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up?
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:47:27 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:58:08 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> >> Too bad CNET doesn't understand the difference between a DNS failure and a
> >> server being down.
> >
> >To joe 6-pak, there's no difference where the failure
> >technically occurs, he can't see the website anymore.
>
> ouch...where did I hear that one before :)
>
heh - shoe's on the other foot...
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ websites down again
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:47:43 GMT
On 24 Jan 2001 20:54:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>Tell me, claire, why is it a bad idea to put all your domain name servers
>on one segment?
I dunno?
What does that have to do with the fact that the CNET page looks like
shit under Netscape and Linux?
>
>
>
>-----.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M$ websites down again
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:50:10 GMT
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:03:27 +0100, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dont you think you have to explain a bit about segmentation and netmasks
>first?
What is it with you yo-yo's?
I'm talking about looking at a website and you are talking about
building one?
No wonder Linux is going down the drain on the desktop.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: 24 Jan 2001 22:42:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: People on your side have been claiming that Linux is taking over
: the Desktop market and that MS should be scared, which, as you know,
: is a big pile of BS. You just reiterated my statement, for the most
: part.
If you had any amount of honesty, you'd admit that what is really
happening is that you are arguing with *different* people, and
they are not a unified front. BFD.
--
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up?
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:52:21 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2001 20:52:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
> >Have YOU ever run a DNS server, claire?
> >
> >I didnt think so. You may crawl away now.
>
> No, but I have looked at the CNET webpage using Netscape under Linux.
>
> Looks terrible, and that was the part of the message you snipped...
Because it's bogus - I looked at it and it's fine.
It's doubtful that you actually looked at it with netscape
it in Linux, and if you did, it's likely that it was fine and
you're saying it wasn't.
Of course, if it actually did look bad, perhaps you didn't
realize that netscape lets you can select font preferences.
Of course, if you did realize that, you might well have configured
them so as to look bad, as a faked example of how supposedly
awful Linux and netscape look.
There, did I cover all the bases?
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:57:31 -0000
On 24 Jan 2001 16:28:08 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>OK, lesse...
>
>W2K:
>Insert CD into a CD ROM and turn on computer. It boots and begins to
>install. Enter your CD key, name and answer a few default prompts and
>shortly thereafter you have the a very massively feature packed OS with a
>familiar GUI up and running with all your hardware ready to rock. HTTP, FTP,
>Media Server, Journaling file system, DirectX hardware acceleration of every
>device, OpenGL running at the right refresh for that autodetected monitor
>and video card and the list goes on. Browser ready, wordpad ready,
...if you lucky.
Otherwise, you're then going to have to install the driver for
your vidcard, modem, soundcard & NIC separately. You may or may
not even find that they are supported.
>mediaplayer supporting pretty much every format (and others are a codec
Short of Quicktime (for which you need to use QT itself wrapped
in mediaplayer), Linux can handle those as well. This is an
interesting side effect of the wine project.
>autodownload away), graphics editor and viewers, handicapped accessiblity,
>communications programs, telnet, ftp, massive network support - the list
>just goes on and you can just sit back and watch it load.
>
>==========
>
>ok, now, how to do a BAREBONES Linux 2.4 install, no real apps, just command
>line crap:
>==========
...like StarOffice, Corel Perfect Office, Gimp, CorelDraw, Maya,
Blender, Freeamp, SimCity 3000, Unreal Tournament & Opera.
[FUD deleted]
Or just install the RPM that your distributor provided.
Alternately, just wait a few weeks and get their whole 2.4 based
distro. It's not like an upgrade is a 'required' sort of thing
anyways.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Philip Van Hoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:58:41 GMT
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> OK, lesse...
>
> W2K:
Get yourself a Pentium 3 @ 800 Mhz minimum and a cdrom and a licence (a
few hundred dollars)
> ==========
> ok, now, how to do a BAREBONES Linux 2.4 install, no real apps, just command
> line crap:
> ==========
Why the latest kernel? Why not for example Redhat 6.2 and upgrade your
kernel? Or Mandrake if you like easy installs. (since you use Windows NT
you don't care about shitloads of crab on your harddisk.. so mandrake is
perfect)
Lets get another example..
We are talking about servers eh. (Windows 2k, Linux. So not desktop)
Let's make a simple NAT (Masquerader)
Linux :
debian
- 60 MB harddisk
- i386
- +- 8 MBRAM
Coyotelinux
- floppydrive
- floppydisk
- i386
- +- 12 MBRAM
Mine
- Redhat 6.0
- 200 MB hd
- 486i
- 8 mbram
- uptime : 89 days
- I have a cable connection which doesn't slow down behind the masq.
- Network installation (so no cdrom needed to install. Everything was
free)
- Cheap and old ISA networkcards (lets say two or three dollar per NIC)
Now Windows 2000:
- Pentium 3 at 800 Mhz
- At least 10 gig harddisk
- A few hundred dollars for licence
- A cdrom to install
- Non ISA (non cheap) network cards
- ...
Now lets do the installation
This is the situation.
* We did a low level format on the harddisk
* We have NO operating system installed. NONE
* We have NO partitions
Linux (for example mandrake/redhat):
-One boot
* Installation over internet
* Installation from harddisk
* Installation from cdrom
* Installation over local network (nfs)
-Easy way to make partitions. In mandrake you
can even resize like partition magic does
IN the setup program (ps. I dislike mandrake
so no distro flamewars here please)
-It first asks all steps before it writes anything
-It copies and configures everything
-It ASKS you if you want to install a bootloader
-Reboot and it works
Now Windows (for example windows 98)
-Boot one (noticed the difference?)
* Oeps.. I dont find partitions
-> execute a difficult program (fdisk)
-Boot two
* Set some simple settings, fill in stupid
key (everybody has 50 illegal keys, oh well)
* It OVERWRITES YOUR MBR, whitout asking ANYTHING
- If your BIOS has virus warning enabled then
then windows setup will crash here (try it)
* It copies some crab (WAY to much shitload)
-Boot three
* It searches for plug and play
-Boot four
* It searches for other devices
* It sets some configs
-Boot five
* Your first windows session
> ahahahahahahahahaah - I love this ... Linux 2.4 for the masses - YEA RIGHT!
> This is an upgrade?
2.4.0 is not yet for the masses. 2.4.5 will be more likely a kernel that
will be used by the masses. Probably when RedHat starts using the 2.4.x
series ... 2.4.0 is actually the real first test kernel of the 2.4.x
series.
--
Philip van Hoof aka freax _/_/_/
http://www.freax.eu.org _/_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
Microsoft OS are bad, and _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/
their morals are even worse _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
(Linus Torvalds 8 Sept.1996)_/_/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:59:32 -0000
On 24 Jan 2001 13:58:17 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes and no. Code itself doesn't decay, but it's associations can.
>> >
>> > For instance, an interface the code uses can be changed, and thus the
>code
>> > breaks despite no actual decay in the program itself.
>> >
>> > Over time, architectures become clouded and brittle when there are many
>> > changes. We've all seen a house that's had addition after addition
>added on
>> > to it, and after a while it looks like a frankenstein's monster. The
>same
>> > is true of code that is hacked or patched but not rewritten.
>>
>> Oh, wait. Lets let just of brief silence punctuate the humor. ready?
>ready?
>>
>> OK, I have code that is almost 10 years old that still compiles and works
>for
>> console DOS and UNIX.
>
>gee, maybe cause console DOS hasn't change in 10 years? And perhaps the
>existance of the same libraries in unix makes that code still operation?
People whine about all versions of DirectX being supported
by Microsoft. Why can't the same be true of Win16 and Win32?
[deletia]
>> One of the reasons Microsoft only makes crap is because they do not design
>> before they write. They hack an interface and change is constantly making
>it
>> virtually impossible to build a stable code base. Most UNIX code can
>remain
>> untouched for a decade or more and still be usable. The same can't be said
>for
>> Windows.
>
>gee, perhaps cause unix is still ancient and hasn't advanced any in a decade
>or more. Text mode is still text mode.
Despite the fact that Unix had a GUI capable of using overlapping
windows before Microsoft did... <snicker>
[deletia]
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: 24 Jan 2001 22:53:57 GMT
salvador peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve Mading wrote:
:>
:> The psychology of the drivers is irrelevant to the question of
:> how inherently safe the vehicle is. It's not my fault that others
:> drive SUV's badly, thinking them better than they are, and it has
:> no bering on how safe the car is for ME.
: Ya gotta learn how to smile, Steve. There are simply not enough
: opportunities in life to bash texan and californian drivers. Especially
: if you've ever had to share the road with drivers from either group in a
: snowstorm.
:
:> The point is that with a lower ground clearance, it is irrelevant
:> how good your traction might be if your bottom starts touching
:> the snow with only a few inches of cover on the ground. If the
:> bottom rests on the snow, the weight isn't on the wheels and you
:> lose friction.
: In 10 years of driving in snow, that only ever happened to me once.
It depends on the snowplowing budget in your municipality. It
happenned to me a *lot*. My previous car (Citation) had only
3" of ground clearance due to sacked-out springs, and that was
part of the reason. Perhaps the decision to get a car
with 1 foot of clearance was a case of overcompensation for
that previous experience on my part.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: 24 Jan 2001 22:57:17 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
:> I recompiled Netscape to disguise what platform I'm *actually* using.
:>
:> Security through obfuscation.
: AH! That explains why 99% of your posts are pure noise! Of course! That's
: it!
There is a legitimate reason to do what Aaron did. There are some
websites out there that check the browser type and alter their
behavior accordingly. Some of them don't account for the existance
of Linux, and as such deny a Linux browser even when there's no
technical reason it woudln't work.
Of course, this means Aaron is contributing false figures to website
logs at those sites he visits, and thereby helping the myth that Linux
doesn't exist on the desktop. That's why I refuse to do such a thing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:01:23 -0000
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:29:24 +1100, Bennetts family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:3a6f334c$0$21342$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[deletia]
>> > So why has Windows changed so much?
>>
>> because it keeps improving instead of staying stagnant like unix.
>
>Unix could stay pretty stagnant for a very long time, with only bugfixes and
>driver updates/additions) and kick the crap out of Windows for a very long
>time. Windows is a lousy design, that needs to keep in touch with 20 year
>old bodge fixes (FAT, etc). Unix did things a much better way right from the
>start. I predict that in 20 years time, Windows will still be on a FAT
>derived FS, and suffering miserably from it.
"Progress" is just something you use to kid yourself
into not realizing that it was botched it the last time.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
