Linux-Advocacy Digest #721, Volume #31 Thu, 25 Jan 01 10:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Stuart Krivis)
Re: Games? Who cares about games? (Darren Winsper)
Microsoft "INNOVATES" again! ("Lloyd Llewellyn")
Re: Getting first W2K server ("Lloyd Llewellyn")
Re: Getting first W2K server ("Lloyd Llewellyn")
Re: Microsoft "INNOVATES" again! (mlw)
Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up? (.)
Re: Poor Linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (Roberto Alsina)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe ("Chad Myers")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ("Chad Myers")
Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4 ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance ("Chad Myers")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft "INNOVATES" again! ("Lloyd Llewellyn")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Edward Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: 25 Jan 2001 06:11:48 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:38:37 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hate to break this to you, but resier has been shipping for some time.
>
>Really? This must have been within the past month or two, because we
>were just having this debate about that time.
>
>What is the shipping version, and what distributions are using it
>as their default filesystem?
"Default" filesystem? I'm not sure this makes much difference. Win NT
installs defaulted to FAT, IIRC. Is FAT the "default" filesystem? Does that
make NT evil?
--
Stuart Krivis
------------------------------
From: Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:24:20 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> That's what I thought when I bought my Voodoo 5500. Yet when I mention
> this card here I get told "why buy that card when the GeForce is faster?".
I know the feeling. The irony is, most of my friends who have a
GeForce2 haven't tweaked its settings so my Voodoo5 outperforms it anyway.
> I've tried the GeForce and on some setups it's very jerky. The Voodoo
> series at least is pretty smooth.
It's a shame Rampage will never see the light of day. Full DirectX8
support and low-cost FSAA, sweet :)
------------------------------
From: "Lloyd Llewellyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Microsoft "INNOVATES" again!
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:42:31 GMT
Microsoft has proved its superior INNOVATION skills once again by coming out
with a new, highly secret feature in Whistler!
This new exotic feature is a kind of "skin" or "theme" system that can change
the look and feel of the entire interface of the operating system! Oh my god,
that is so revolutionary! I can barely comprehend it! I'll bet those Linsux
Lusers will be drooling over this! They will have to admit defeat now!
http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2678102,00.html
"But Microsoft has clamped down in recent days, to the extent that it is not
allowing testers to view the code and interfaces of the most recent updates in
order to keep the interface changes from leaking out, according to testers.
Despite Microsoft's precautions, word is quickly leaking out about the intended
changes.
One tester said Microsoft is changing the Whistler desktop interface by
introducing some type of "extensible shell," or graphical user interface, based
on Microsoft .Net. Microsoft also is readying some type of new Windows desktop
user theme, code-named Luna, as part of its revamp, according to several
testers.
Desktop themes are user-selectable settings that affect the look and feel of all
elements of a user's desktop, from the background wallpaper to the cursor.
Microsoft provides a number of themes as part of Windows. Some third-party
software makers, such as Stardock, also provide a variety of themes, or skins,
for Windows."
------------------------------
From: "Lloyd Llewellyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Getting first W2K server
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:45:40 GMT
>I and
> programming and admins are wondering what ugly surprises is lurking for us in
> running W2K in this situation.
Well, we just moved a system from AIX to Win2K two days ago. Worked fine under
AIX, but now print jobs max out the CPU (like, 100%) when printing to a text
printer on a local LPT port. Easily enough solved by putting the printer on
its own box, but why is that an issue in Windows? It shouldn't be.
------------------------------
From: "Lloyd Llewellyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Getting first W2K server
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:47:53 GMT
> I ran a suite of systematic tests and plotted the results vs. parameter
> settings. When I plotted the a graph I got a sawtooth pattern that strongly
> suggested that some integer variable was wrapping around because it did not
> have enough bits.
I must say, sounds pretty ingenious.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft "INNOVATES" again!
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 08:00:40 -0500
Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:
This is a joke, right? How is this an "innovation?" X window managers have been
doing this for years.
>
> Microsoft has proved its superior INNOVATION skills once again by coming out
> with a new, highly secret feature in Whistler!
>
> This new exotic feature is a kind of "skin" or "theme" system that can change
> the look and feel of the entire interface of the operating system! Oh my god,
> that is so revolutionary! I can barely comprehend it! I'll bet those Linsux
> Lusers will be drooling over this! They will have to admit defeat now!
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2678102,00.html
>
> "But Microsoft has clamped down in recent days, to the extent that it is not
> allowing testers to view the code and interfaces of the most recent updates in
> order to keep the interface changes from leaking out, according to testers.
>
> Despite Microsoft's precautions, word is quickly leaking out about the intended
> changes.
>
> One tester said Microsoft is changing the Whistler desktop interface by
> introducing some type of "extensible shell," or graphical user interface, based
> on Microsoft .Net. Microsoft also is readying some type of new Windows desktop
> user theme, code-named Luna, as part of its revamp, according to several
> testers.
>
> Desktop themes are user-selectable settings that affect the look and feel of all
> elements of a user's desktop, from the background wallpaper to the cursor.
> Microsoft provides a number of themes as part of Windows. Some third-party
> software makers, such as Stardock, also provide a variety of themes, or skins,
> for Windows."
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Microsoft keep their web servers up?
Date: 25 Jan 2001 13:12:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> MS's 4 DNS servers were at:
> DNS4.cp.msft.net internet address 207.46.138.11
> DNS5.cp.msft.net internet address 207.46.138.12
> DNS6.cp.msft.net internet address 207.46.138.20
> DNS7.cp.msft.net internet address 207.46.138.21
> Now, think of what a netmask of 255.255.255.240 (or /28) does to those IP's.
Tell me, do you even understand why its bad to put all your domain
servers on the same subnet?
=====.
--
"It's natural to expect there might be people doing stupid things
with computers"
---Michael Vatis, director of the FBI's national infrastructure
protection center commenting on Y2K concerns about hacker attacks
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:10:04 +0100
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux does not have the ability to auto-reneice applications based upon
> activity. My GIMP process tree doesn't get priority level neicing when
Sure it does. That's what the scheduler is doing the whole time. And if
you want to change the scheduler policy, just choose a different one when
you compile your kernel. Aren't these things modules nowadays?
Peter
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:15:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 24 Jan 2001
> [...]
> >If everyone actually implemented the ICCCM standard, no WM could
> >support keyboard shortcuts.
>
> Why is that?
Because the ICCCM says so? Check for example what the blackbox author
says at http://blackbox.alug.org/ (the "Near complete ICCCM
compliance") part.
I can't find a ICCCM copy in the net, but I have not looked hard.
> >The ICCCM is on one hand too narrowly focused, and on the other
hand,
> >kinda broken.
>
> Kinda how? I'm really interested in knowing.
Kinda broken, as in that example. Too narrowly focused because it
provides no standard for a bazillion useful things. For examples, check
the NET WM standard. All the things there are not in the ICCCM.
That includes: how a window can specify on what desktop it is, how
an application can know how many desktops are, how does a WM know an
app is starting and what app it is, to provide feedback, and so on.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:22:03 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94nnig$8o8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:94kpnb$13e0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>
> :> : Not only would they have less performance, less reliability, and
> :> : less remote management capability (Win2K terminal services rocks),
> :>
> :> Anyone who thinks Windows has better remotability than UNIX is
> :> either ignorant or lying.
>
> : Have you seen Windows terminal services?
>
> : Didn't think so. You would agree with me if you had.
>
> I don't need to see it. It isn't possible to get better than 100%.
> EVERYTHING in Unix is remotable. The best anyone can do is to match
> that, but it isn't physically possible to actually beat it.
Windows Terminal Services + Microsoft Management Console provides
better than telnet remotability.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:22:57 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94nl5c$8o8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
Which are the Fortune 500, I've established that.
Nice try.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:24:40 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94nlej$8o8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
Ah, so these companies who are making billions of dollars have
a few things to learn from Amazon who's 20 or so million in the
hole, or Red Hat who's a couple million in the hole, right?
*Riiiggggghhhhttt*
Regardless of how you wish to BS about it, the web has become
an integral part in most, if not all the Fortune 500 businesses.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:27:21 GMT
"Peter K�hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> >
> >
> Nothing
>
> If I've ever seen someone even more of an asshole than Chad Myer, this has
> to him.
>
> Plonk
Darn you Conrad, telling the truth, forcing me to remove my head
from the sand! Darn you!
*PLONK*
Not really.
-Chad
Keep telling the truth. It's amusing to watch these idiots
get all huffed.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparison: Installing W2K and Linux 2.4
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:30:59 GMT
"Daniel Tryba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94nne6$dgg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Only if you are used to Windows.
Sit a brand new user down at Windows, and one at Linux.
The Windows user will be productive in a matter of minutes, the Linux
one? Well, try back in a few days.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:32:56 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > I'm merely discrediting them because it's obvious they have a huge
> > bias, in fact a grudge. They can't be any more trusted than, say,
> > Linux.com or similar.
>
> Now look who's twisting things -
>
> You are saying that any reviews not sponsored
> by microsoft, then, are corrupt? Isn't it the other
> way around?
I'm not going to debate Mindcraft, I've already said that.
If you wish to discredit them (albeit ignorantly), then
go ahead, it still doesn't change the outcome of my original
point.
-Chad
P.S.- sponsoring an independant benchmark does not necessarily
taint the findings, otherwise every drug in America we take would
be tainted
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:34:36 GMT
"Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam> writes:
>
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:58:01
> > > >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> > > Linux is not at all at fault in this scenario. You have issues
> > with the
> > > >> > > limitations of one filesystem. Exactly like the limitations of FAT
> > or
> > > >> > > NTFS (I know NTFS can handle larger files than ext2, but that
> > doesn't
> > > >> > > mean it doesn't have its limits).
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The only real limitation of NTFS I'm aware of is slow new-file
> > creation when
> > > >> > dealing with orders of tens of millions of files.
> > > >>
> > > >> There are limitations on file sizes and numbers, as there must be...
> > > >> luckily, the max filesize with NTFS is huge, but it wont be long before
> > > >> people are hitting that limit too (if they haven't already).
> > > >
> > > >16 Exabytes ???
> > > >16 billion Giga byte.
> > > >
> > > >I'm not sure exactly *what* you can put into a file to get into that
> > size.
> > >
> > > Precisely what they said about the 2 Gigabyte limit. ;-)
> > >
> > > And they were really sure *they* were right, too. ;-)
> >
> > Difference is in the size.
> > And the 2GB limit in what exactly? FAT has it (actually, it's a partition
> > limit, but that is beside the point) but it's justifiable, FAT was designed
> > in the 70s.
> > Linux on 32bit has(d) it, it's not justifiable, because need for such files
> > exist for a long time,
>
> i agree. linux should move to 64 bit size_t for files regardless of
> processor. linux-2.4 will do large files, but C is a cranky beast
> sometimes and updating software can be cumbersome.
>
> > I can assure you that there was no need for 2GB files
> > in the 70s, when FAT was designed.
>
> unix style filesystems with the inodes &c were also designed in the
> 70s. however, it's not the age of the filesystem design. it's the
> also competence of the design and the goal of the design. FAT was
> made for floppies and tiny systems. unix filesystems were made for
> hard drives and larger systems. it's still MS's fault for keeping
> such a bad design as FAT and trying to keep it going where it doesn't
> belong, but age is not the issue.
It's interesting then, now that FAT has moved on, whereas ext2fs
has not. (NOTE: I realize FAT sucks, I'm not trying to claim it's
better than ext2fs, just more updated).
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Lloyd Llewellyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft "INNOVATES" again!
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:07:26 GMT
> This is a joke, right? How is this an "innovation?" X window managers have
> been doing this for years.
Well, joke on my part of course, but the article is for real. Read it yourself
(see orig for url).
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:52:02 +0000
>> >People prefered Works.
>>
>> SOME, a few did I'm sure. Most ppl know it is worthless.
>
> Sure, now. "Back then" Microsoft Works was a fantastic suite. WP users
> had training (remember Word Perfect classes?) Works required none.
> People just understood, and having a well made instruction manual didn't
> hurt either.
Oddly enough, I've never seen a good version of works. It was always the
cheap (and not great) budget package.
>> > Eventaully. Word Perfect was everything BUT until it finaly came to
>> > Windows. Even then, Microsoft Office & Works was pushing it off the
>> > desktop. Hmm, wonder why so many people prefered Works over WP?
>>
>> OK also don't mention Office and Works in the same sentence. Because
> Office, is
>> an office package a collection of programs. Works, is one program, that
> sucks.
>> Now if you want to compare Word to WP. that's fair and I could even see
>> competition. But Works, not even.
>
> WP is older than office. Back in "the day", MSDOS based WP was the
> "professional rage" even though it didn't come to Windows for quite some
> time. Even then, the Win version was terribly slow, and majorly buggy.
> Of course people prefered Office.
I remember using a version of WP in about 1994 (or 3?) for Win3.11. It
was one of the best word processors I have ever used. I'll still stick by
that comment, even when its compared to Word 2000.
> StarOffice isn't free. StarOffice is a commercial prodcut. StarOffice
Star office is free. It's now also open office, and open source as well
as free.
> is a terrible product, on any platform.
Not the best, but by no means terrible.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
