Linux-Advocacy Digest #668, Volume #32 Tue, 6 Mar 01 06:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux on it's way back to (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? (Stuart Krivis)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Stuart Krivis)
Re: Cuts both ways ("Edward Rosten")
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Stuart Krivis)
Re: The GPL if you are curious. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Stuart Krivis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 08:23:06 -0000
In article <9764pi$7ab$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> But you don't have to use the other drivers. I'll admit that to me it
> seems silly.
Well, it defaults to postscript, which is what I printed the first time,
until I selected The Gimp's EPSON driver.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 08:34:36 -0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> > I have no interest in the raw workings of the machine I am using.
> > Consider this - whilst driving your care, are you aware of what is
> > happening in the engine? Is it relevant to you as you turn into
> > somewhere?
> >
> I do like to have the occasional peek at RPM, engine temp, fuel level,
> oil pressure and amps of the battery. Not constantly, mind (that would
> mean my car trip would be quickly over), but it _is_ nice to know
> everything is hunkadory under the hood.
Whilst I'm driving it, I don't pay too much attention to what's going on
under the hood.
> So, I suppose you just drive around in your car until it stops, and then
> you call a mechanic, right?
Pretty much. I like to use the thing, not spend hours tinkering with it.
> Or buy a new car?
Funny, I did just that!
> > So we jump from 'cryptic' to 'learning stuff'. I see.
>
> Heh. _Everything_ is cryptic until you learn what it means. (you could
> at least put a man between your goal posts)
After learning what it does, it is still cryptic.
> > And can I buy such a system ready made?
>
> Depends on how much you're willing to pay for one...
The same price as a Windows machine!
> But as it is linux you are criticising, the proper question would have
> been: "And can I easily build such a system?"
I ask ze questions!
> > I switched from the Archimedes RISC OS to Windows for a couple of
> > reasons: (i) floating point hardware on the Intel chips and (ii)
> > applicatons.
>
> Does that mean that there was an application you needed to run that
> wasn't available for the Archimedes, or did you just switch "because
> Windows has more applications"?
The most popular platform always has more applications.
> The former is what I said; the latter is naff.
You may not like it, but the most popular platform always had more
applications. It's naff in that respect, but that's life.
> > > The measure of success are viri, spam and monopolies????
> >
> > Unfortunately, yes.
>
> Does it happen often to you that you let a marketing department hand you
> definitions of words?
I've never let a marketing department hand me definitions of words. You
do realise I was being sarcastic, no?
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 08:28:29 -0000
In article <9814hq$q67$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> > Does the Professional version have this? Will the consumer version of
> >> > Whistler have this? No?
> >>
> >> It seems to me that you are pointing out how a lack of features is a
> >> good thing.
> >
> > Changing the subject I see?
>
> The most advanced versions of Windows are becoming more like UNIX. The
> cheaper ones are still feature poor.
"Feature poor" is a debatable point.
> > Why should being a public workstation be a restriction?
>
> Because I can't install it.
Because you're not allowed to? How is that a problem with Windows!
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 08:42:04 -0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> > "A picture paints a thousand words".
> >
> > Ever tried to edit a graphic with a CLI?
>
> Have you ever run Autocad?
Nope, can't say I have.
Ever tried to edit a graphic with a CLI?
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 08:40:59 -0000
In article <981308$pk0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> No. You think it is cryptic. It isn't cryptic for me, so it isn't cryptic
> in general.
I see, delusions of grandeur. If it isn't cryptic for you, therefore it
isn't cryptic for anyone else. How long have you held these delusions?
> >> There are plenty of apps to choose from in Linux. In fact there are
> >> more than enough to meet my current needs.
> >
> > Your needs?
> >
> > What about the rest of the world???
>
> What about my needs? I have enough to meet my needs, that's why I use it.
And your needs express everyone elses? It gets worse! Put your analyst on
standby, baby!
> >> > Who gets the devices and drivers designed first, huh, Linux or
> >> > Windows?
> >>
> >> So why does Win2K have an HCL, then?
> >
> > Wassat got to do with anything?
>
> Not all hardware works under windows.
True, but even less works on Linux.
> >> Why is all my hardware fully supported under Linux?
> >
> > Why is mine "supported" but doesn't actually work without manual
> > intervention?
>
> Why do you assume that your bolloxed[*] install in the norm?
Because other people have complained of the same problems!
> >> Why did it all work first time?
> >
> > Why didn't mine?
>
> Why did mine every time I have installed Linux?
Why does Windows install perfectly every time I do it?
> Er, no. I just told X to start in a higher res mode. I didn't do any
> futzing with moniter properties. I am fortunate enough to have now had 2
> moniters that ren't damaged by bad screen modes. I switched off the
> protection ages ago so I could play with it. So, no, no futzing with
> moniter drivers.
Funny, in order to get my monitor to work on Linux, I had to at least
give it a basic specification.
> Oh, and why didn't the moniter come with drivers for the Mac? because
> MacOS isn't too brain dead to comply to a standard such as VGA and so on.
Perhaps because the list of monitors that work with MAC are much reduced?
> Why didn't it provide drivers for solaris (despite supporting SUN's od
> screen modes)? Same reason.
See above.
> It's just a fscking moniter. Moniters do not need drivers.
The OS needs to know what kind of monitor you have attached. Same thing.
> > What have upgrades to do with games? 8)
>
> Try playing unreal tournament on a P133 w/ RIVA128 chipset.
It works. Slowly, but it works.
> >> Yep they show it all right. Fresh, clean design. Skinnable, all the
> >> modern features, working, now.
> >
> > I meant buggy and unstable.
>
> Well, I meant what I said.
Fresh and clean appears to equate to "buggy and unusable".
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: 6 Mar 2001 10:26:53 GMT
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 08:40:59 -0000, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>In article <981308$pk0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> > Why is mine "supported" but doesn't actually work without manual
>> > intervention?
>>
>> Why do you assume that your bolloxed[*] install in the norm?
>
>Because other people have complained of the same problems!
Done several Linux installs, on about 25 different hardware configurations,
including laptops, custom builds, Dell machines, and dreaded laptops.
Never had hardware problems with supported hardware.
>> Why did mine every time I have installed Linux?
>
>Why does Windows install perfectly every time I do it?
Probably because you use hardware that works well with Windows.
>Funny, in order to get my monitor to work on Linux, I had to at least
>give it a basic specification.
Only sync and resolution (and if you overspecify, modern monitors will
shutdown automatically.)
>> Oh, and why didn't the moniter come with drivers for the Mac? because
>> MacOS isn't too brain dead to comply to a standard such as VGA and so on.
>
>Perhaps because the list of monitors that work with MAC are much reduced?
No, the Mac supports 15", 17", 19" and 21" monitors just like the PC. And
all PC monitors will work with a Mac (you need an adaptor)
>> It's just a fscking moniter. Moniters do not need drivers.
>
>The OS needs to know what kind of monitor you have attached. Same thing.
Not exactly. It needs to know the resolution and the sync rate. Actually,
if you tell the OS the size of your monitor, it should be able to guess
some suitable modes (for example, any decent 19" monitor can do
1280*1024 @ 75 )
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 10:32:24 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
>
> > > "A picture paints a thousand words".
> > >
> > > Ever tried to edit a graphic with a CLI?
> >
> > Have you ever run Autocad?
>
> Nope, can't say I have.
>
> Ever tried to edit a graphic with a CLI?
"Have you ever run AutoCad?" translates to...
"Yes, I have"
PS: You're feeling a bit feisty as of late, no? :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux on it's way back to
Date: 6 Mar 2001 10:40:42 GMT
On 06 Mar 2001 09:29:30 +0100, Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
>just a Server system?
>
>I'm one of the bigger fans of Linux, but I'm afraid Linux will loose
>more and more ground on the desktop because it's lacking some decent
>software for the Business area.
How will it "lose" ground on the desktop ? I mean from its current base
that isn't likely to happen. From what I've seen, it appears to be
growing.
>And some other things have happened which seem to show that the Linux
>area is a difficult one for "some application areas"
>
>- Corel (now it seems they will go out of the Linux Market)
Corel made the mistake of thinking that Linux would save them. It didn't.
Corel were in trouble before they did anything with Linux. FYI, Corel
WP has been around (for several years) even though Corel haven't always
been the maintainers. So the chance of their office suite on Linux being
maintained are still reasonably high. As for their distribution, well
who cares ? Distributors come and go, the good ones tend to stick around,
the wannabees get the boot.
>- Adobe (no FrameMaker for Linux)
OTOH, the server side apps don't seem to be going away.
>some applications I'm missing on Linux are
>- software for accounting
>- software for stock exchange
>
>so at least IMHO in the area of business applicatons Linux is very
>bad.
I think the problem is that most of the user base aren't really very
interested in these kinds of applications. Until there's more interest,
we won't see the software.
I suspect that another problem is that Linux hasn't been deployed on the
corporate desktop, and *that* is where money for these applications
come from. Home users are cheap, even more so for a sizeable chunk of
the Linux user base (since a lot of users are students) The big dollars
need to come from the corporate users, and until then, the Linux market
is a dry well.
I don't think Linux will be a great business application platform for a
while.
>Linux shines especially for
>- all the Internet stuff
>- programming tools (although there are just a few comparable offering
>to all the Visual stuff (either from Microsoft and/or IBM ....). Sorry
>I can't comment on Kylix (maybe someone else can). For a lot of other
>languages there are still "visual oriented" tools for Windows but
>hardly for Linux. (Exception are e.g JBuilder, LispWorks etc)
Well, there's glade/libglade for GUI building. Roberto says Qt will
have the same functionality very soon. There are also IDEs.
Re Visual stuff, "Visual Age for Java" is available on Linux. So it looks
like there are some decent choices for java development materialising.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Date: 6 Mar 2001 05:48:55 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 22:46:54 -0800, Sean Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It is built on the 2000 kernal, so it will be much better than ME, 95, or
>98. My 2000 machine can stay up for a month.
Should we be impressed?
sgk@poof sgk]$uname -a
SunOS poof.apk.net 5.8 Generic_108528-01 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-1
sgk@poof sgk]$uptime
5:47am up 87 day(s), 21:59, 8 users, load average: 1.02, 1.08, 1.31
--
Stuart Krivis
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 6 Mar 2001 10:49:23 GMT
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:17:39 +0100, David Brown wrote:
>
>There is certainly more, but not that much more. There are no significant
>architectural differences between ME and the original Win95, which was
>available on around 12 floppies IIRC (maybe 20 MB or so). Newer programs
>like "movie maker" and IE5 take more space, but there really is not that
>much more substance.
If you're familiar with any Web browser development process (which, thanks
to KDE and Mozilla, you may well be), you would be aware that quite a
lot of "substance" needs to go into development of a web browser.
Developing the kinds of APIs you need to make a web browser is a lot
of work, and if you can do it in such a way that a lot of your code is
reusable, you also add value to your platform by providing good APIs
to other developers (who then provide better applications to the users)
One might dismiss work on GUI components, APIs and applications as "fluff",
but it's fluff that the average end user appreciates, and it's fluff that
takes a lot of time and hard work to develop.
Finally, regarding architecture: it's a waste of time trying to improve
the architecture of such a hideous monstrosity as Win 9x. It's already
a frankenstein as it is. The last thing we need is another arm sewn onto
what is essentially Dos with a whole lot of stuff tacked on. MS are doing
the right thing by focusing on their NT product line.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: 6 Mar 2001 10:54:14 GMT
On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 07:18:51 GMT, J Sloan wrote:
>JS PL wrote:
>I don't know anybody who's had this experience.
>
>Are you sure we're not fibbing, just a little, now?
>
>2/3 of the people I've introduced to Linux are now
>using it as their main platform.
The problem is that "the set of people I know" is not a representative
sample of the population. So most of us are going to find that results
of these unscientific statistical samples of those we know personally
will re-enforce our own convictions.
My experience -- a lot of people start Linux, and most who do adopt it as their
main platform. But then, about half the people I talk with on a day to day
basis have PhDs in Math/Science.
I suspect that some churning occurs, but it's hard to say how much, and
it's unlikely that the truth will be discovered in an advocacy group,
where everyone has a personal interest in bending the facts to suit their
own conclusions.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 6 Mar 2001 05:55:22 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 24 Feb 2001 23:05:18 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What's even worse, some of the people that work on the project
>seek to insult and mock those who raise concerns.
They may insult and mock _you_. :-)
>
>Is this how security is treated in the Open Source realm? With
>childish insults and assinine comments and no real concern?
Sounds more like the MS realm.
--
Stuart Krivis
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Cuts both ways
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 10:56:10 +0000
>> > Does it also emulate linux stability? <g>
>>
>> No, however, Micoros~1 have come up with a new innovation they call
>> stability in Win XP: it can stay up for more than 4 hours on the trot.
>>
>> I think they have filed a patent on this one :-)
>>
>> -Ed
>>
>
> ATTN: Linux idiots he was joking.
No shit, Sherlock!
-Ed
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.security.ssh
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 6 Mar 2001 05:57:02 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:24:37 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I have shown nothing but concern. In fact, the only reason I still
>post to this thread is because I'm concerned that there are thousands
>of people out there happily using SSH1 and are completely unaware
>that it is "fundamentally flawed".
So why don't you attempt to constructively alert them to these "flaws?"
>
>Whereas some of the creaters are just immature jerks.
Aw, did Theo hurt your feelings?
--
Stuart Krivis
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The GPL if you are curious.
Date: 6 Mar 2001 10:57:50 GMT
On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 06:28:22 GMT, Mike wrote:
>
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>GPL is only a few pages long. I suggest that anyone who says something like,
>"GPL states that..." also publish the paragraph where it says "that". That
>would end half the speculation.
I more or less agree with this sentiment, though where interpretation is
possible, I would also consider a quote from RMS as an authoritative
source on the *intended* meaning.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 09:38:24 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
> On 5 Mar 2001 06:13:10 GMT, Andres Soolo wrote:
>
> However, forcing everyone to give away their software would be an act of
> dispossesion parallel to that which took place in communist revolutions.
It would be. But no-one advocates that force should be used.
Suggesting that the use of the GPL is the same as using force
is about as correct as saying that Microsoft forces you to
buy Windows at gun-point.
>
>>Actually, FSF doesn't seem to have a problem with software on very
>>narrow vertical markets--like a programmer is hired specifically to
>>a single company.
>
> But they have a problem with selling software.
They have not. The GPL even stipulates that it's not concerned
with the price, only with the continued availability of the
source code, and all the derivative works of the source code,
if these are distributed. You can consider the requirement to
make the source code of derivative works available a kind of
monetary compensation, even.
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: 6 Mar 2001 11:02:02 GMT
On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 01:23:24 -0500, JS PL wrote:
>
>Typical "not" free situation:
>I don't know anyone with the exception of myself who would download a cd
>distribution 600-1200mb of Linux. Therefore they simply pick it up off the
>shelf at a retail outlet.
Your "therefore" does not follow at all. It can be purchased cheaply over
the web. Most people who even think about installing Linux are already
savvy enough to use a web browser (god help them if they aren't!!!)
[ snip ]
I dont' agree with all your comments, but the argument that it's worth
$200- to save the trouble has some merit.
However, Linux also gives you the option of buying yourself out of trouble,
by purchasing an OEM machine with Linux preloaded. (isn't that what users
do with Win 9x, get it preloaded ?)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: 6 Mar 2001 06:02:50 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:50:33 +1100, Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Chad, I don't think you are concerned about ssh security
>> flaws, mainly because there is no windows ssh server.
>>
>
>The really funny thing about this is that there *is* at least one Windows
>ssh server version. There is a port of the ssh 1,2,x sshd which runs with
>Cygwin (it only needs cygwin.dll, not the entire package). Data Fellows
>*may* have an ssh server for Windows as well (it is US-only if there is one)
Vandyke software has a very good sshd called VShell. I am a cheerleader
for Vandyke because they really have a good line of products. SecureCRT
is the best Windows SSH client I've found. Their support and customer
service is quite good too. They're one of the best software vendors I've
had contact with.
--
Stuart Krivis
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
