linux does NOT suck
Leigh Preston
employee being paid by bill gates to spred anti-linux propagandi!
If brute force doesn't work you are not using enough...
Santa Warlord
"Leigh Preston" <dark...@lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSU.4.30.001213...@adore.lightlink.com...
> Anyone who posts here about linux sucking is in my opinion a microsoft
> employee being paid by bill gates to spred anti-linux propagandi!
>
> If brute force doesn't work you are not using enough...
>
LOL!...oh wait, you're serious....ROFL!
--
"One by one the Penguins steal my sanity." (found printed on a T-shirt)
Default User
"Leigh Preston" <dark...@lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSU.4.30.001213...@adore.lightlink.com...
Default User
Kyle Jacobs
Chaoz
hell ... I only used it for a couple of days, after that slackware was back
:)
besides ... if you don't know why linux is good - don't use it. You're shure
to have less troubles with windows 98/me/2k.
for me ... windows are good only for internet browsing, mail and playing
games (plus a few programs that don't have a match in linux OS - like 3d
studio etc.)
good luck to you.
MH
"Chaoz" <rok.k...@campus.fe.uni-lj.si> wrote in message
news:91j6v3$fof$1...@planja.arnes.si...
There it is --what the lin-advocates can't see to save their lives.
What millions of people think and say everyday, myself included.
Why do these zealots persist in saying linux is better than everything else
for everything?
I can only come to the conclusion that they are idiots.
> good luck to you.
and good luck to you too sir!
rnb...@my-deja.com
Linux is for people who either know, or want to know/learn more about
computers. It is also a network server oriented platform that is
stable and quick and FREE. Consider,
a) most of MSN.COM runs on linux and freebsd
b) google.com, argueably the fastest search engine around runs on a
2000 node linux cluster.
c) almost half of internet sites run on Apache
Linux is not for people who are unwilling or unable to take the time to
learn how something works. If you're a)looking for plug and play
instant gratification and b) willing to pay for it or steal it or c)
dont mind rebooting every two days....then stick with Windows.
I concur that it is not good for games, however, that is not what it is
designed for.
In article <GKP_5.9355$BN1....@news2.mia>,
"Default User" <defau...@spam.com> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0063_01C0676F.FB1BAE60
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="Windows-1252"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> I've been dickin around with Linux RH 7.0 for a couple of weeks.
Getting =
> just the f***n USB-printer to print is a major hassle. Installing the
=
> Printer Drivers for the GIMP magically made the printer work, then =
> suddenly it would not work.
> There's a news server just for LINUX PRINTING, people, attesting to
=
> the challenges of printing under Linux news.linuxprinting.org with =
> plenty of info. After buying a few thick volumes on Red Hat, and
other =
> Linux books I could still not find a remedy. Trying a bunch of
commands =
> at random under lpc> finally yielded results. The redirect command =
> returned a message that forwarding was off. Then printing worked =
> normally. Getting the USB-optical scroll mouse to scroll in ALL =
> applications is not automatic. A special .Xdefaults scriptfile with
all =
> the right commands needs to reside in your "/home/<useraccount>" =
> directory for it to work in Netscape. My Diamond MX-300 soundcard was
=
> not listed as supported on the RedHat web-site. I found a driver, but
=
> the install failed. The cause was a missing kernel package that the =
> INSTALLER missed, by design. The INSTALLER puts in all kinds of C++
and =
> other development shit into the install, but not fundamental library
for =
> installing hardware. That sucks. Much time wasted here. One geek =
> suggested removing the Kernel-headers package, not a good idea.
>
> Initially getting my 3C509 NIC to work was hard, the PnP feature had
to =
> be disabled in the ROM of the card via a DOS-utility. Then with a
normal =
> install the card would not automatically on "activate" under DHCP,
which =
> had to be done manually, from "root". Later i found "EXPERT" install
=
> that gave me the option of picking a SCSI card and Network card.
> Giving the install the base address and IRQ made it fail. These
settings =
> had to be autodetected. Then I could ask the installer to "activate"
the =
> card "at boot".
>
> Installing the updated drivers for my GeForce DDR card from Nvidia
gave =
> error messages: "wrong kernel version.." Well the drivers were made
for =
> RH7.0 and they still did not work. That's bullshit. The Soldier of =
> Fortune Demo ran at 3 fps with the default OpenGL drivers. Any Unreal
=
> game looks like crap with OpenGL, DX-7 is much better. Any DX-7 for =
> Linux, huh?
> I got my Epson USB-scanner to work with Linux, but with less than the
=
> full set of features. Finding an updated "backend" (driver) for it =
> without instructions how to install them was of no help.
>
> IDE-CD-RW requires editing of a couple of files, lilo.conf and =
> modules.conf, no biggie, but finding the info on HOW-TO was taking =
> quite some time.=20
> Packet-writing under Linux, keep on dreaming.=20
> My 12x10x32x8x CD-RW also plays DVD, which hopefully would only
require =
> an upgrade of the kernel. (?) I tried to re-compile the RH-7 kernel a
=
> couple of times with baaad results, I ended up just re-installing the
=
> whole shebang. I should have made a back-up kernel.=20
>
> Often many HOW-TO's refer to older kernels, wrong distribution, or =
> plainly don't work at ALL.
>
> The INSTALL of the OS does not check for ALL hardware, including my =
> Ultra ATA-66 Promise card and all the USB-devices. Moreover, the
install =
> does not ask for the role of the machine other than a work-station or
=
> server. A work-station connected to the internet via a bridged =
> connection rather than PPPoE may make it look like it is on a local =
> network, with some Admin upstream doing Firewalling et cetera, baaad =
> idea. Firewall is a must for a persistent connection, this the
INSTALL =
> should know to figure out. I don't feel like spending 18 hours on =
> reading up on how to set up packet-filters, protocols and shitt.
>
> Eventually I may figure out how to get the Kernel to accept DVD-
playing, =
> automatically start the /dev/usb/lp0 without a root # insmod command,
=
> get the sane-backend for the scanner installed (and working), get
Nvidia =
> to issue a rh7 driver that works for rh7, get a firewall working
without =
> blocking my browser, getting Java to work under StarOffice 5.2, get
the =
> Frames per Second up to a playable level, get CD-R packet-writing,
have =
> an easy utility for changing Refresh Rate on my monitor (default to
85 =
> Hz, it will work at 117 Hz), .
>
> Getting this to work is too much of an effort. This is what happens
when =
> Geeks rule the world. Guys like these were pummeled with a stick over
=
> their ass by Steve Jobs. He had some very good ideas on how PC's
ought =
> to work (then happily copied./refined by Bill Gates).=20
>
> Yes, Win98 is not perfect, neither is Linux.=20
>
> If Win98 crashes, why not blame the buggy software you install?=20
>
> Why not check the news-groups for bug-reports about the software
before =
> installing it?
>
> Eventually Linux will be as good as Win98 is today, by then Win2005 =
> with still make Linux look like SHIT. =20
>
> "Default User" <defau...@spam.com> wrote in message =
> news:TEO_5.9353$BN1....@news2.mia...
> > Linux for games suck. Big Time.
> >=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > "Leigh Preston" <dark...@lightlink.com> wrote in message
> > news:Pine.GSU.4.30.001213...@adore.lightlink.com...
> > > Anyone who posts here about linux sucking is in my opinion a =
> microsoft
> > > employee being paid by bill gates to spred anti-linux propagandi!
> > >
> > > If brute force doesn't work you are not using enough...
> > >
> >=20
> >=20
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0063_01C0676F.FB1BAE60
> Content-Type: text/html;
> charset="Windows-1252"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
> charset=3Dwindows-1252">
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=3DGENERATOR>
> <STYLE></STYLE>
> </HEAD>
> <BODY>
> <DIV>I've been dickin around with <STRONG>Linux RH 7.0</STRONG> for a
=
> couple of=20
> weeks. Getting just the f***n USB-printer to print is a major hassle.
=
> Installing=20
> the Printer Drivers for the GIMP magically made the printer work,
then =
> suddenly=20
> it would not work.</DIV>
> <DIV>There's a news server just for LINUX PRINTING,
people, =20
> attesting to the challenges of printing under Linux=20
> <STRONG>news.linuxprinting.org</STRONG> with plenty of info.
After =
> buying=20
> a few thick volumes on Red Hat, and other Linux books I could still
not =
> find a=20
> remedy. Trying a bunch of commands at random under=20
> <STRONG>lpc</STRONG>> finally yielded results. The =
> <STRONG>redirect</STRONG>=20
> command returned a message that <STRONG>forwarding</STRONG> was=20
> <STRONG>off.</STRONG> Then printing worked normally. Getting the =
> USB-optical=20
> scroll mouse to scroll in ALL applications is not automatic. A
special=20
> <STRONG>.Xdefaults</STRONG> scriptfile with all the right commands
needs =
> to=20
> reside in your "/home/<useraccount>" directory for it to work
in =
> Netscape.=20
> My Diamond MX-300 soundcard was not listed as supported on the RedHat
=
> web-site.=20
> I found a driver, but the install failed. The cause was a missing
kernel =
> package=20
> that the INSTALLER missed, by design. The INSTALLER puts in all kinds
of =
> C++ and=20
> other development shit into the install, but not fundamental library
for =
>
> installing hardware. That sucks. Much time wasted here. One geek =
> suggested=20
> removing the Kernel-headers package, not a good idea.</DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>Initially getting my 3C509 NIC to work was hard, the PnP feature
=
> had to be=20
> disabled in the ROM of the card via a DOS-utility. Then with a normal
=
> install=20
> the card would not automatically on "activate" under DHCP, which had
to =
> be done=20
> manually, from "root". Later i found "EXPERT" install that gave
me =
> the=20
> option of picking a SCSI card and Network card.</DIV>
> <DIV>Giving the install the base address and IRQ made it fail. These =
> settings=20
> had to be autodetected. Then I could ask the installer to "activate"
the =
> card=20
> "at boot".</DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>Installing the updated drivers for my GeForce DDR card from
Nvidia =
> gave=20
> error messages: "wrong kernel version.." Well the drivers were =
> made for=20
> RH7.0 and they still did not work. That's bullshit. The Soldier of =
> Fortune Demo=20
> ran at 3 fps with the default OpenGL drivers. Any Unreal game looks
like =
> crap=20
> with OpenGL, DX-7 is much better. Any DX-7 for Linux, huh?</DIV>
> <DIV>I got my Epson USB-scanner to work with Linux, but with less
than =
> the full=20
> set of features. Finding an updated "backend" (driver) for it =
> without=20
> instructions how to install them was of no help.</DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>IDE-CD-RW requires editing of a couple of files, =
> <STRONG>lilo.conf</STRONG>=20
> and <STRONG>modules.conf</STRONG>, no biggie, but finding the
info =
> on=20
> HOW-TO was taking quite some time. </DIV>
> <DIV>Packet-writing under Linux, keep on dreaming. </DIV>
> <DIV>My 12x10x32x8x CD-RW also plays DVD, which hopefully would only =
> require an=20
> upgrade of the kernel. (?) I tried to re-compile the RH-7 kernel a =
> couple of=20
> times with baaad results, I ended up just re-installing the whole =
> shebang. I=20
> should have made a back-up kernel. </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>Often many HOW-TO's refer to older kernels, wrong distribution,
or =
> plainly=20
> don't work at ALL.</DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>The INSTALL of the OS does not check for ALL hardware, including
my =
> Ultra=20
> ATA-66 Promise card and all the USB-devices. Moreover, the install
does =
> not ask=20
> for the role of the machine other than a work-station or server. A =
> work-station=20
> connected to the internet via a bridged connection rather than PPPoE
may =
> make it=20
> look like it is on a local network, with some Admin upstream doing =
> Firewalling=20
> et cetera, baaad idea. Firewall is a must for a persistent
connection, =
> this the=20
> INSTALL should know to figure out. I don't feel like spending 18
hours =
> on=20
> reading up on how to set up packet-filters, protocols and shitt.</DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG>Eventually</STRONG> I may figure out how to get the
Kernel =
> to=20
> accept DVD-playing, automatically start the =
> <STRONG>/dev/usb/lp0</STRONG>=20
> without a root # <STRONG>insmod</STRONG> command, get the sane-
backend =
> for the=20
> scanner installed (and working), get Nvidia to issue a rh7 driver
that =
> works for=20
> rh7, get a firewall working without blocking my browser, getting Java
to =
> work=20
> under StarOffice 5.2, get the Frames per Second up to a playable
level, =
> get CD-R=20
> packet-writing, have an easy utility for changing Refresh Rate on my =
> monitor=20
> (default to 85 Hz, it will work at 117 Hz), .</DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>Getting this to work is too much of an effort. This is what
happens =
> when=20
> Geeks rule the world. Guys like these were pummeled with a stick
=
> over their=20
> ass by Steve Jobs. He had some very good ideas on how PC's ought to
work =
>
> (then happily copied./refined by Bill Gates). </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>Yes, Win98 is not perfect, neither is Linux. </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>If Win98 crashes, why not blame the buggy software you =
> install? </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>Why not check the news-groups for bug-reports about the =
> software=20
> before installing it?</DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>Eventually Linux will be as good as Win98 is today, by
then =
> Win2005=20
> with still make Linux look like
<STRONG>SHIT</STRONG>. </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV> </DIV>
> <DIV>"Default User" <<A=20
> href=3D"mailto:defau...@spam.com">defau...@spam.com</A>>
wrote =
> in message=20
> <A=20
> href=3D"news:TEO_5.9353$BN1....@news2.mia">news:TEO_5.9353
$BN1.75116@ne=
> ws2.mia</A>...</DIV>>=20
> Linux for games suck. Big Time.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> =
> "Leigh=20
> Preston" <<A=20
> href=3D"mailto:dark...@lightlink.com">dark...@lightlink.com</A>>
=
> wrote in=20
> message<BR>> <A=20
> href=3D"news:Pine.GSU.4.30.0012131435460.21391-
100...@adore.lightlink.com=
> ">news:Pine.GSU.4.30.0012131435460.21391-
100...@adore.lightlink.com</A>..=
> .<BR>>=20
> > Anyone who posts here about linux sucking is in my opinion a=20
> microsoft<BR>> > employee being paid by bill gates to spred =
> anti-linux=20
> propagandi!<BR>> ><BR>> > If brute force doesn't work you
=
> are not=20
> using enough...<BR>> ><BR>> <BR>> </BODY></HTML>
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_0063_01C0676F.FB1BAE60--
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Terry Porter
>A very sensible post here..
>
>"Chaoz" <rok.k...@campus.fe.uni-lj.si> wrote in message
>news:91j6v3$fof$1...@planja.arnes.si...
>> maybe you should try slackware instead of RH7.0, which is truly buggy like
>> hell ... I only used it for a couple of days, after that slackware was
>back
>> :)
>> besides ... if you don't know why linux is good - don't use it. You're
>shure
>> to have less troubles with windows 98/me/2k.
>> for me ... windows are good only for internet browsing, mail and playing
>> games (plus a few programs that don't have a match in linux OS - like 3d
>> studio etc.)
>
>There it is --what the lin-advocates can't see to save their lives.
what we want.
>What millions of people think and say everyday, myself included.
Ubercat the spokesman for planet earth!
>Why do these zealots persist in saying linux is better than everything else
>for everything?
We dont, your the one making these claims.
>I can only come to the conclusion that they are idiots.
Of course you do.
>
>
>> good luck to you.
>
>and good luck to you too sir!
>
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 1 day 1 hour 55 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
MH
"Terry Porter" <tjpo...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrn93th3g....@localhost.localdomain...
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:01:05 -0500, MH <ube...@sprynet.com> wrote:
> >A very sensible post here..
> >
> >"Chaoz" <rok.k...@campus.fe.uni-lj.si> wrote in message
> >news:91j6v3$fof$1...@planja.arnes.si...
> >> maybe you should try slackware instead of RH7.0, which is truly buggy
like
> >> hell ... I only used it for a couple of days, after that slackware was
> >back
> >> :)
> >> besides ... if you don't know why linux is good - don't use it. You're
> >shure
> >> to have less troubles with windows 98/me/2k.
> >> for me ... windows are good only for internet browsing, mail and
playing
> >> games (plus a few programs that don't have a match in linux OS - like
3d
> >> studio etc.)
> >
> >There it is --what the lin-advocates can't see to save their lives.
> We dont need to save our lives Ubercat, our Linux boxes are happily doing
> what we want.
You never really answer a question, do you?
Typical to a fault.
> >What millions of people think and say everyday, myself included.
> Ubercat the spokesman for planet earth!
At least I'm on planet earth.
> >Why do these zealots persist in saying linux is better than everything
else
> >for everything?
> We dont, your the one making these claims.
Oh my. Here it is again. That would be * you are*, or *you're*.
Do you get it yet?
> >I can only come to the conclusion that they are idiots.
> Of course you do.
Logical conclusions are just that. Logical.
Terry Porter
never improve ?
>
>> >What millions of people think and say everyday, myself included.
>
>> Ubercat the spokesman for planet earth!
>
>At least I'm on planet earth.
At least you think you are :)
>
>> >Why do these zealots persist in saying linux is better than everything
>else
>> >for everything?
>
>> We dont, your the one making these claims.
>
>Oh my. Here it is again. That would be * you are*, or *you're*.
>Do you get it yet?
Oh I get it, I even enjoy it. However it looks like your the one
missing out, Uberspeller.
>
>> >I can only come to the conclusion that they are idiots.
>
>> Of course you do.
>
>Logical conclusions are just that. Logical.
What does this have to do with *your* conclusions, or lack thereof
Ubertroll ?
>
>
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 days 20 hours 57 minutes
Kyle Jacobs
What IS Linux designed for, anyway? Is it a workstation platform? Linux
zealtot's seem to think so.
Is it a Server platform? IBM, Intel and RedHat are betting the "farm" that
it is.
So, why isn't Linux doing a very good job at either? I'd sooner take a
FreeBSD server over a Linux one, and as for the desktop, Linux doesn't even
hold a candle to Windows, and probably never will, and if it even does, I
will THEN drop my objections entirely to Linux.
Apache is multiplatform, and a quality server at that (but I still prefer
Netscape/Sun's iPlanet)
<rnb...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:91l59u$kh9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Kyle Jacobs
news:91nnnc$pea$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> Logical conclusions are just that. Logical.
Logic isn't a concept these Linu-obsessive's get.
Donn Miller
> By the time Linux catches up to Windows 2000, Windows will be at
> Windows 2100 and then some.
>
> Linux is a pile of junk.
Looking forward to the day when Microsoft goes Open Source.
-----= 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! =-----
je...@pyromania.mishnet
>Ah yes!
>
>The joy of Linux, once again illustrated for all to see.
...sounds much like Win2000 on a Blade 3D based system actually.
>
>By the time Linux catches up to Windows 2000, Windows will be at
>Windows 2100 and then some.
>
>Linux is a pile of junk.
>
>
>
>
>On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:53:41 -0500, "Default User"
><defau...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>I've been dickin around with Linux RH 7.0 for a couple of weeks. Getting just the f***n USB-printer to print is a major hassle. Installing the Printer Drivers for the GIMP magically made the printer work, then suddenly it would not work.
>>There's a news server just for LINUX PRINTING, people, attesting to the challenges of printing under Linux news.linuxprinting.org with plenty of info. After buying a few thick volumes on Red Hat, and other Linux books I could still not find a remedy. Trying a bunch of commands at random under lpc> finally yielded results. The redirect command returned a message that forwarding was off. Then printing worked normally. Getting the USB-optical scroll mouse to scroll in ALL applications is not automatic. A special .Xdefaults scriptfile with all the right commands needs to reside in your "/home/<useraccount>" directory for it to work in Netscape. My Diamond MX-300 soundcard was not listed as supported on the RedHat web-site. I found a driver, but the install failed. The cause was a missing kernel package that the INSTALLER missed, by design. The INSTALLER puts in all kinds of C++ and other development shit into the install, but not fundamental library for installing hardware. That
>>sucks. Much time wasted here. One geek suggested removing the Kernel-headers package, not a good idea.
>>
>>Initially getting my 3C509 NIC
This I rather doubt actually. Although, there is always bits
of ISA to make our lives interesting. Although, I have network
hardware currently running that Linux treated well and Win/DOS
treated poorly.
[deletia]
>>
>>IDE-CD-RW requires editing of a couple of files, lilo.conf and modules.conf, no biggie, but finding the info on HOW-TO was taking quite some time.
This only reflects badly on Bughat, not Linux in general.
Others handle the same hardware with no hassle.
>>Packet-writing under Linux, keep on dreaming.
>>My 12x10x32x8x CD-RW also plays DVD, which hopefully would only require an upgrade of the kernel. (?) I tried to re-compile the RH-7 kernel a couple of times with baaad results, I ended up just re-installing the whole shebang. I should have made a back-up kernel.
That's odd, Redhat 6.1 liked my 10x Pioneer DVD drive just fine.
>>
>>Often many HOW-TO's refer to older kernels, wrong distribution, or plainly don't work at ALL.
>>
>>The INSTALL of the OS does not check for ALL hardware, including my Ultra ATA-66 Promise card and all the USB-devices.
I had the same problem under Win2K, actually.
[deletia]
>>If Win98 crashes, why not blame the buggy software you install?
>>
>>Why not check the news-groups for bug-reports about the software before installing it?
>>
>>Eventually Linux will be as good as Win98 is today, by then Win2005 with still make Linux look like SHIT.
If you don't like apps that crash and generally try to take
over the whole system, Linux surpassed Win98 quite awhile
ago.
[deletia]
OTOH, I've had hardware be testy under Win95,Win98,NT4 and NT5.
My favorite was the DirectX upgrade required by a tuner card
install that trashed the previous video driver configuration.
Things like that drive end users to patch kernel modules.
--
Regarding Copyleft:
There are more of "US" than there are of "YOU", so I don't
really give a damn if you're mad that the L/GPL makes it
harder for you to be a robber baron.
|||
/ | \
Randy Galbraith
>>I've been dickin around with Linux RH 7.0 for a couple of weeks. Getting
just the f***n USB-printer to print is a major hassle. Installing the
Printer Drivers for the GIMP magically made the printer work, then suddenly
it would not work.
There's a news server just for LINUX PRINTING, people, attesting to the
challenges of printing under Linux news.linuxprinting.org with plenty of
info. After buying a few thick volumes on Red Hat, and other Linux books I
could still not find a remedy. <<
[snip other hard-time-to-get-things-working comments]
What you say is true, Linux can be a real challenge to install and
configure. My experience is that it is getting easier with each new release
(I've only installed RedHat, so I can't speak to other releases). I think
people with a Windows (or worse Mac) background are going to be surprised
(and obviously frustrated) by this. However, is ease of install the most
important quality of an operating system? This is where the Windows rub
really comes in, since most users of Windows have it pre-installed for them,
very little effort is required in order to first use Windows. However, when
things start to go wrong, Lord help you, because your operating system
won't.
If you substitute a different OS everywhere you said Linux, you'll see my
point, as in.... "I just bought the open source version of IBM's OS/390,
installed it on my laptop and couldn't get the mouse to work, therefore
OS/390 must suck!" Windows treats you like a baby and tries to spoon feed
you everything you need. In contrast Linux treats you like an adult, and as
such demands more of you, but at the same time, it gives more as well. Keep
with it, and in a few months you'll suddenly see the light, then you'll
wonder why you ever ran Windows!
- Randy Galbraith
Philip Neves
I just finished installing my linux distrubution from scratch and I must
say that the more I learn about this system the more I like it. I've been
using linux for 5 years and I have to say that the things that make people
complain about the OS is also the things that give it so much power. Take
for instance the print software that everyone complains about. It allows
you to create multiple printer services. I can have a queue and have Two or
more printers service that queue. I can place security mesures into the
system to insure that people don't abuse the system. This is stuff that you
need to purchase special software for to do under windows. Plus I can
service different types of print jobs as well. If a job comes in from a Mac
and another comes in from a PC. There's no problem my print queue takes
care of this. Linux print software was designed for heavy typefacing
applications and therefore has a huge number of features. This makes it
difficult to install and get set up. Once it is installed however the print
software is more reliable then its windows counterpart.
Yatima
>Ah yes!
>
>The joy of Linux, once again illustrated for all to see.
>
>Windows 2100 and then some.
>
>Linux is a pile of junk.
How many aliases are you at now
Steve/Heather/Claire_lynn/Swang/Flatfish/Robin and Jimmy etc ad nauseum?
Just curious.
--
yatima
Kyle Jacobs
read?
"Yatima" <yat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrn94bsuc....@d141-158-211.home.cgocable.net...
Yatima
>Tell me, do you actually go around reading the headers to EVERY post you
>read?
Tell me, do you every address any of the points raised by the poster in
your followups?
BTW, I didn't need to read the headers. Steve's posting style (as well
as the content) is very consistent.
--
yatima
Kelsey Bjarnason
"Randy Galbraith" <randy.g...@pegs.com> wrote in message
news:920kcv$10gl$1...@freepress.anasazi.com...
> DefaultUser,
> What you say is true, Linux can be a real challenge to install and
> configure. My experience is that it is getting easier with each new
release
> (I've only installed RedHat, so I can't speak to other releases). I think
> people with a Windows (or worse Mac) background are going to be surprised
> (and obviously frustrated) by this. However, is ease of install the most
> important quality of an operating system?
No, but ease of installation and ease of modification - eg adding new
hardware later on - often go hand-in-hand.
> This is where the Windows rub
> really comes in, since most users of Windows have it pre-installed for
them,
Except that for many devices (sound cards, network cards, video cards, etc,
etc, etc) it is usually the at least semi-clueful who are installing the
devices. Anyone can plug in a printer, but it takes a little more skill to
get an internal card mounted properly. (Not much more, perhaps, but the
real novices don't generally even contemplate opening their boxes.) Such a
person can, I think, be expected to have at least some idea of installing
drivers and the like. It's a hell of a lot easier first to find drivers,
then to install them, under Windows than under Linux, as a rule.
> If you substitute a different OS everywhere you said Linux, you'll see my
> point, as in....
As in "I just dropped a new video card into my Mac, and with the provided
driver CD, installation was a complete snap"?
> "I just bought the open source version of IBM's OS/390,
> installed it on my laptop and couldn't get the mouse to work, therefore
> OS/390 must suck!"
If it were a single device, a single incident, the conclusion would be
ridiculous. It's not, though, generally a single device. Let's see:
1) ATA-100 drives. Not even _detected_ by Mandrake's install.
2) SB Platinum Live! 5.1 - sort-of supported, but with limited
functionality.
3) Matrox G400 dualhead. Semi-supported.
4) DVD: supported as a data drive only. Forget video, apparently.
5) SB Platinum remote center unsupported.
6) MS optical USB wheel mouse... semi-supported. Drops out regularly.
7) USB webcam unsupported.
8) IBM extended functionality keyboard... semi-supported.
9) Intel EtherPro 10/100 - supported, but networking non-functional without
significant customization.
Now, compare that to, say, WinME, which detected and supported all those
devices. In some cases it required extra drivers/apps in order to get full
functionality, but they were provided with the hardware, and at the very
least I could actually install the OS because, unlike Linux, it actually
admitted my hard drives existed.
> Windows treats you like a baby and tries to spoon feed
> you everything you need. In contrast Linux treats you like an adult, and
as
> such demands more of you, but at the same time, it gives more as well.
Such as?
As it stands now, my hardware, under Linux, is at best semi-functional.
With XFree86, I have the option of using an older version which supports 3D
acceleration, or a newer version which doesn't, but does support other
features of my video card. Unlike Windows, which supports all the features.
Under Linux, I have, as far as I can tell, no support for playing DVD movies
at all, let alone over the Matrox's second video connector - which I have
under Windows. The SB Live!'s remote center seems to be completely
unsupported, even by Creative. Oh, they do have some Linux drivers - in
beta - but apparently not even beta drivers for the platinum or the remote
center.
Is Linux more stable? Probably. Does it consume fewer resources?
Probably. Does it allow heavier customization? Probably. As a user, do I
care? No; I want to _use_ my machine. I have the machine to let me run
applications to perform tasks; I do not have the machine for the prime
purpose of catering to it's particular whims. Two of us spent about 15
hours setting up Linux, and it still only half worked; one of us spent less
than an hour setting up Windows, and it worked just fine. Those 14 extra
hours under Linux bought nothing, and are 14 hours I _could_ have spent
doing real work, playing games, reading news, or whatever suits my fancy;
those hours were a net reduction in my use of the machine.
If your goal in life is to cater to the machine, Linux seems great. If your
goal in life is to make the machine as invisible as possible, so that you
can simply do what you want to do, Linux does not seem to be the ideal way
to go. In much the same way I don't want to rebuild an engine just to drive
to the store, I don't want to rebuild a kernel just to run my word
processor; the very notion is ridiculous. Maybe that's what the Linux
community considers the "adult" approach to software, but some of us have
better things to do with our lives.
Chris Ahlstrom
>
> Except that for many devices (sound cards, network cards, video cards, etc,
> etc, etc) it is usually the at least semi-clueful who are installing the
> devices. Anyone can plug in a printer, but it takes a little more skill to
> get an internal card mounted properly. (Not much more, perhaps, but the
> real novices don't generally even contemplate opening their boxes.) Such a
> person can, I think, be expected to have at least some idea of installing
> drivers and the like. It's a hell of a lot easier first to find drivers,
> then to install them, under Windows than under Linux, as a rule.
I think you have that backwards.
> 1) ATA-100 drives. Not even _detected_ by Mandrake's install.
You can use hdparm to get them detected. Windows and Linux install
the most conservative configuration for hard-drive parameters.
You can tweak them using hdparm, then make them permanent by editing
/etc/sysconfig/harddrives (under RedHat, at least).
> 2) SB Platinum Live! 5.1 - sort-of supported, but with limited
> functionality.
Do they have a full-support driver for this card for Win 2000 yet?
> 3) Matrox G400 dualhead. Semi-supported.
I have no info about this one!
> 4) DVD: supported as a data drive only. Forget video, apparently.
Yeah, 2600 got an injunction slapped on them to prevent the distribution
of the DeCSS video decoder code for the DVDs.
> 5) SB Platinum remote center unsupported.
Redundant complaint? (See 2 above).
> 6) MS optical USB wheel mouse... semi-supported. Drops out regularly.
> 7) USB webcam unsupported.
> 8) IBM extended functionality keyboard... semi-supported.
Oh, these are biggies. The web-cam sounds bad, though.
> 9) Intel EtherPro 10/100 - supported, but networking non-functional without
> significant customization.
This makes no sense at all.
> Now, compare that to, say, WinME, which detected and supported all those
> devices. In some cases it required extra drivers/apps in order to get full
> functionality, but they were provided with the hardware, and at the very
> least I could actually install the OS because, unlike Linux, it actually
> admitted my hard drives existed.
Well, just run WinME then. Bill Gates loves you!
> As it stands now, my hardware, under Linux, is at best semi-functional.
> With XFree86, I have the option of using an older version which supports 3D
> acceleration, or a newer version which doesn't, but does support other
> features of my video card.
I think you need to do a little more research, lazybones.
> Is Linux more stable? Probably. Does it consume fewer resources?
> Probably. Does it allow heavier customization? Probably. As a user, do I
> care? No; I want to _use_ my machine. I have the machine to let me run
> applications to perform tasks; I do not have the machine for the prime
> purpose of catering to it's particular whims. Two of us spent about 15
> hours setting up Linux, and it still only half worked; one of us spent less
> than an hour setting up Windows, and it worked just fine. Those 14 extra
> hours under Linux bought nothing, and are 14 hours I _could_ have spent
> doing real work, playing games, reading news, or whatever suits my fancy;
> those hours were a net reduction in my use of the machine.
And you learned nothing in those 14 hours, apparently. And quit co-opting
the phrase "real work" to denote whatever crap /you/ think is important.
> If your goal in life is to cater to the machine, Linux seems great.
My Linux box caters to me. Works very well. My particular box doesn't
do everything I'd like it to do, but I could easily buy the couple remaining
pieces of hardware for less than the price of Win 2000 Pro (and no, I would
never, ever buy ME, that piece of crap. The DOS-dependent versions of Windozzzz
are a definite dead end.)
> If your
> goal in life is to make the machine as invisible as possible, so that you
> can simply do what you want to do, Linux does not seem to be the ideal way
> to go. In much the same way I don't want to rebuild an engine just to drive
> to the store, I don't want to rebuild a kernel just to run my word
> processor; the very notion is ridiculous. Maybe that's what the Linux
> community considers the "adult" approach to software, but some of us have
> better things to do with our lives.
You're full of prunes. Your experience is valid, but you are stupid and
foolish to generalize from your experience to then say "what Linux Is".
But hey, it's your right to enjoy Windows. Just don't try to fob your
prejudices off as the final story on Linux.
Chris
--
Are you sure you want to read this message?
Click Okay to continue, and Cancel to okay
this dialog.
Kyle Jacobs
More often then not, users have THE EXACT SAME problem with their Linux
experiences. Their hardware is just not supported 100%, features and
functionality are MISSING or not implemented yet.
It's a typical example of Linux playing "catch-up" with Windows (on the
desktop). Most people don't buy HARDWARE to accommodate their SOFTWARE .
It's the other way around, and Linux may claim "support" but more often then
not, true functionality is either not yet available under Linux, or is
available in "beta form" in either test-kernel modules, Beta releases of
XFree86 or some other questionable piece of software not included "out of
the box".
Most people evaluating Linux aren't in the mood to either learn the minutia
of information needed just to UPGRADE the components (let alone compile
them). But instead of creating a GUI based compiler which also tracks
dependencies to compiled projects, Linux programmers just chalk the whole
thing up to "learning curve", and do nothing about it.
Clearly you can claim the "functionality exists, you just don't know how to
do it." Fine, claim it. Do they (The community) do anything to resolve it
(see aforementioned recommendation)? No. How long will it be until Linux &
XFree86 supports the same device interworkings that Apple's Quartz
multimedia layer has? Months? Years? Never?
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A47E358...@home.com...
Donovan Rebbechi
>It's a typical example of Linux playing "catch-up" with Windows (on the
>desktop). Most people don't buy HARDWARE to accommodate their SOFTWARE .
You are dead wrong here. How many Windows users buy SPARCs ? Why do gamers
buy fancy gaming hardware and spend money on powerful video cards ? The
hardware performs the same function as the operating system --
* It is a platform on which to run applications *
Buying a Windows machine so that you can run Linux is almost as stupid as
buying a SPARC based machine so that you can run Windows.
>It's the other way around, and Linux may claim "support" but more often then
>not, true functionality is either not yet available under Linux, or is
You are claiming that "Linux" is somehow lying here, but in practice, the
level of support is usually made fairly clear.
>Most people evaluating Linux aren't in the mood to either learn the minutia
>of information needed just to UPGRADE the components (let alone compile
>them). But instead of creating a GUI based compiler which also tracks
>dependencies to compiled projects, Linux programmers just chalk the whole
>thing up to "learning curve", and do nothing about it.
(1) Compilers are for developers, not for end-lusers. Windows end-lusers
would whine if they were expected to buy and use visual studio to
compile their software. For developers, well it's not like the idea
of using make, and having required headers installed should be overly
confusing.
(2) GUI tools for software installation are and have been available for at
least 4 years.
(3) For developers who want tools designed to make compiling easier, there
are GUI tools such as Kdevelop.
>Clearly you can claim the "functionality exists, you just don't know how to
>do it." Fine, claim it. Do they (The community) do anything to resolve it
>(see aforementioned recommendation)? No.
Bullshit. Typically, new functionality requires work if it's not enabled
in a distribution, because the user has to worry about doing a job that
the distributor would normally handle. The distributors try to resolve
these issues as quickly as possible.
> How long will it be until Linux &
>XFree86 supports the same device interworkings that Apple's Quartz
>multimedia layer has? Months? Years? Never?
Not sure precisely what functionality you are referring to, but the
comment does beg the question, if Apple's quartz is so good, why not
just use that ?
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
Chris Ahlstrom
>
> I think your missing the point in this post.
>
> More often then not, users have THE EXACT SAME problem with their Linux
> experiences. Their hardware is just not supported 100%, features and
> functionality are MISSING or not implemented yet.
>
> It's a typical example of Linux playing "catch-up" with Windows (on the
> desktop). Most people don't buy HARDWARE to accommodate their SOFTWARE .
> It's the other way around, and Linux may claim "support" but more often then
> not, true functionality is either not yet available under Linux, or is
> available in "beta form" in either test-kernel modules, Beta releases of
> XFree86 or some other questionable piece of software not included "out of
> the box".
Less often than not, you mean. You always exaggerate greatly to make
your point seem stronger.
In any case, Linux and the BSDs seem to be about the only systems
making any progress in catching up with Windozzzzzzz since Bill
succeeded in choking off almost all other competition.
> Most people evaluating Linux aren't in the mood to either learn the minutia
> of information needed just to UPGRADE the components (let alone compile
> them). But instead of creating a GUI based compiler which also tracks
> dependencies to compiled projects, Linux programmers just chalk the whole
> thing up to "learning curve", and do nothing about it.
There are GUI-based compilers. But there are great advantages to makefiles.
> Clearly you can claim the "functionality exists, you just don't know how to
> do it." Fine, claim it. Do they (The community) do anything to resolve it
> (see aforementioned recommendation)? No. How long will it be until Linux &
> XFree86 supports the same device interworkings that Apple's Quartz
> multimedia layer has? Months? Years? Never?
I know nothing about Apple. Maybe some day.
Kyle Jacobs
demanding software. Linux doesn't claim to be a specialty platform, it
claims to be a comprehensive platform. Linux isn't locked into using the
hardware provided by commercial UNIX vendors (like Solaris, and Sun's SPARC
platform).
Linux claims "support", period. Distro makers (the largest source for Linux
on earth) claim to support products. To the consumer, this means that
"it'll work". This may be a somewhat naive assumption, but distro makers
are somewhat (gasp) responsible for making good on their overly generic
claims.
Linux hardware support is pretty bad. (THIS IS WHY I ALWAYS FULL QUOTE:
YOU'D KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINAL POST WAS) Which was the point of the original
post! Linux's desktop level hardware support is terrible!
Hence, this is why Linux 'sux'.
My second point, compilers are REQUIRED in the Linux computing world because
precompiled binary distro files (rpm, deb) are not as popular as source code
files are for independent programmers, making the end users need to deal
with compiling the software.
GUI compilation tools aren't a solution either. Until you can execute the
"KDE Application Manager" which will locate tarballs, decompress and
automatically compile AND install them, the aforementioned process has GOT
to be simplified.
"Donovan Rebbechi" <elf...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:slrn94g2kf....@panix6.panix.com...
Kyle Jacobs
the people I test for also have perfect experiences.
I don't use Linux in a professional environment. I hope to, one day. But
now, Linux is just a crappy plaything. My personal problem is it's not
getting better. On the desktop, it sucks. As a server? Only a few
distro's are even worth my 10 minutes. And god help me if I call tech
support.
I test Linux releases. Constantly, waiting for one to crop up and say "I'm
different, Really!" so far, the results have been pretty disappointing.
As for Bill choking off the competition, I'd love to see the competition
come up with something as impressive as Windows 2000, let alone Windows 98.
As far as getting things done went, the products are superior.
GUI based compilers won't solve the problems plaguing Linux, or the software
installation system. It'd be nice to have a uniform package format,
something that all Linux's would have. From uniform packages would
inherently come simpler software installation.
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A481E86...@home.com...
Donovan Rebbechi
>Only gaming enthusiasts buy hardware to accommodate their ridiculously
>demanding software.
Like I said, hardware, like an operating system, is a platform for running
applications.
Users choose their applications, then they choose an operating system, then
they choose hardware. Therefore the hardware is chosen for the operating
system. This is why Windows users do not buy SPARCs, and would not buy one
even if they were convinced that the SPARC was better hardware.
> Linux doesn't claim to be a specialty platform, it
>claims to be a comprehensive platform.
Linux doesn't "claim" anything. It's an operating system.
>Linux claims "support", period.
No, it doesn't.
> Distro makers (the largest source for Linux
>on earth) claim to support products.
Which they do. But the alleged "support" does has certain boundaries
and limitations, like any support.
> To the consumer, this means that
>"it'll work".
No, it means that "it'll work". It means that "it'll work" subject to
certain boundaries and limitations. (This is why Windows users do not
expect Windows to work on SPARCs or on a Macintosh -- it is outside the
bounds of support)
> This may be a somewhat naive assumption,
No, it's a false assumption.
> but distro makers
>are somewhat (gasp) responsible for making good on their overly generic
>claims.
Can you give us an example ?
>My second point, compilers are REQUIRED in the Linux computing world because
>precompiled binary distro files (rpm, deb) are not as popular as source code
>files are for independent programmers, making the end users need to deal
>with compiling the software.
See www.rpmfind.net. I've never had trouble finding binaries.
Kelsey Bjarnason
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> >
> > Except that for many devices (sound cards, network cards, video cards,
etc,
> > etc, etc) it is usually the at least semi-clueful who are installing the
> > devices. Anyone can plug in a printer, but it takes a little more skill
to
> > get an internal card mounted properly. (Not much more, perhaps, but the
> > real novices don't generally even contemplate opening their boxes.)
Such a
> > person can, I think, be expected to have at least some idea of
installing
> > drivers and the like. It's a hell of a lot easier first to find
drivers,
> > then to install them, under Windows than under Linux, as a rule.
>
> I think you have that backwards.
>
> > 1) ATA-100 drives. Not even _detected_ by Mandrake's install.
>
> You can use hdparm to get them detected. Windows and Linux install
> the most conservative configuration for hard-drive parameters.
> You can tweak them using hdparm, then make them permanent by editing
> /etc/sysconfig/harddrives (under RedHat, at least).
Sorry, I'm playing typical end-user here. What menu option is hdparm
selected by?
> > 2) SB Platinum Live! 5.1 - sort-of supported, but with limited
> > functionality.
>
> Do they have a full-support driver for this card for Win 2000 yet?
Well, I have full surround and the remote center works, so look like.
>
> > 4) DVD: supported as a data drive only. Forget video, apparently.
>
> Yeah, 2600 got an injunction slapped on them to prevent the distribution
> of the DeCSS video decoder code for the DVDs.
Works under Windows.
> > 5) SB Platinum remote center unsupported.
>
> Redundant complaint? (See 2 above).
Nope; this is the remote center; the SB! Live Platinum was short a few
options, the remote center was completely non-functional.
> > 6) MS optical USB wheel mouse... semi-supported. Drops out regularly.
> > 7) USB webcam unsupported.
> > 8) IBM extended functionality keyboard... semi-supported.
>
> Oh, these are biggies. The web-cam sounds bad, though.
The mouse sure is, if you're a GUI type person.
> > 9) Intel EtherPro 10/100 - supported, but networking non-functional
without
> > significant customization.
>
> This makes no sense at all.
No? Let's see. Windows, install with the card in, voila, that's it.
Linux, install with the card in, oops, nothing. Fart around with DHCP
settings. Nope, no network support. Four hours later, discover that
disabling the ATA-100 bus re-enables networking support.
>
> > Now, compare that to, say, WinME, which detected and supported all those
> > devices. In some cases it required extra drivers/apps in order to get
full
> > functionality, but they were provided with the hardware, and at the very
> > least I could actually install the OS because, unlike Linux, it actually
> > admitted my hard drives existed.
>
> Well, just run WinME then. Bill Gates loves you!
I rather doubt he knows me from a hole in the ground, actually.
>
> > As it stands now, my hardware, under Linux, is at best semi-functional.
> > With XFree86, I have the option of using an older version which supports
3D
> > acceleration, or a newer version which doesn't, but does support other
> > features of my video card.
>
> I think you need to do a little more research, lazybones.
Why? Windows is smart enough to get it right; Linux, the super-hyper-ultra
system, isn't. Research time: about 15 hours, to determine that no, Linux
is simply not functional in this configuration. Resolutions: don't use
Linux, or use the machine in a semi-functional state until sometime, maybe,
someone comes up with working drivers. I chose to go for a functional
sstem.
> > Is Linux more stable? Probably. Does it consume fewer resources?
> > Probably. Does it allow heavier customization? Probably. As a user,
do I
> > care? No; I want to _use_ my machine. I have the machine to let me run
> And you learned nothing in those 14 hours, apparently.
Not true at all; I learned that Linux was more work for less result.
> And quit co-opting
> the phrase "real work" to denote whatever crap /you/ think is important.
I see; my work, the stuff that's actually important to me, is "crap". So,
anything other than catering to the vagaries of Linux is crap, eh? Sorry,
some of us use the machines for fun, work and other things... and that's
real work, doing real tasks, rather than catering to a half-functional OS.
> > If your goal in life is to cater to the machine, Linux seems great.
> My Linux box caters to me.
Good. Mine doesn't. So I turfed it.
> > If your
> > goal in life is to make the machine as invisible as possible, so that
you
> > can simply do what you want to do, Linux does not seem to be the ideal
way
> > to go. In much the same way I don't want to rebuild an engine just to
drive
> > to the store, I don't want to rebuild a kernel just to run my word
> > processor; the very notion is ridiculous. Maybe that's what the Linux
> > community considers the "adult" approach to software, but some of us
have
> > better things to do with our lives.
>
> You're full of prunes. Your experience is valid, but you are stupid and
> foolish to generalize from your experience to then say "what Linux Is".
I can only go by my experience; I can't go by yours, or the guy next door's.
My experience says that Linux is a waste. When I try it again in another 2
years, that might be different; obviously strides are being taken along
those lines, but it ain't there yet. Give it time.
J Sloan
> Just because you've had a picture perfect Linux experience doesn't mean all
> the people I test for also have perfect experiences.
>
> I don't use Linux in a professional environment. I hope to, one day. But
> now, Linux is just a crappy plaything. My personal problem is it's not
> getting better. On the desktop, it sucks. As a server? Only a few
> distro's are even worth my 10 minutes. And god help me if I call tech
> support.
You seem pretty clueless about the server capabilities of Linux -
For instance, did you know Linux walks all over windows nt/2000
as a webserver, with the performance gap widening as you add
CPUs? (I know, saying it beats windows isn't saying much, but if
I told you it beats AIX you'd probably get this blank stare - OTOH
I know you can relate to windows!)
For a heads-up, check out the specweb 99 benchmarks at
spec.org. Sort all submitted results to date, and you will see
that in fact windows 2000 is the "crappy plaything", while Linux
owns the high end.
> I test Linux releases. Constantly, waiting for one to crop up and say "I'm
> different, Really!" so far, the results have been pretty disappointing.
I doubt that you'd have any meaningful way to evaluate them,
coming from your windows centric background.
> As for Bill choking off the competition, I'd love to see the competition
> come up with something as impressive as Windows 2000, let alone Windows 98.
> As far as getting things done went, the products are superior.
Linux mops up the floor with windows on the server side.
But the desktop is all you're concerned about, right?
Well, have patience - things are developing, but these
things take time. Give it say 5 years, and then we'll see.
jjs
CJ
>
> Just because you've had a picture perfect Linux experience doesn't mean all
> the people I test for also have perfect experiences.
>
> I don't use Linux in a professional environment. I hope to, one day. But
> now, Linux is just a crappy plaything. My personal problem is it's not
> getting better. On the desktop, it sucks. As a server? Only a few
> distro's are even worth my 10 minutes. And god help me if I call tech
> support.
>
> installation system. It'd be nice to have a uniform package format,
> something that all Linux's would have. From uniform packages would
> inherently come simpler software installation.
You must be a young tike. I seem to remember when Win 3.x came out.
No uniform package installer, DOS apps you had to fight with to get
working. Or they wouldn't work at all. There were very few true Win apps
at the time. Most were DOS based running under Win.
Why does Linux have to break out of the gate all grown up?
It took Win awhile to get were it is today. And MS didn't make that
happen.
This company did.
I just went to there page. Why don't you go there and look down at the
bottom of the page.
Under the title "Featured News". It looks like your argument will be
moot soon.
CJ
MH
>
> But the desktop is all you're concerned about, right?
>
> Well, have patience - things are developing, but these
> things take time. Give it say 5 years, and then we'll see.
God, where have we heard this before?
As for your rant, does the word "Mindcraft" have any meaning to you?
Reputable benchmarking, look into it.
Chris Ahlstrom
>
> >
> > But the desktop is all you're concerned about, right?
> >
> > Well, have patience - things are developing, but these
> > things take time. Give it say 5 years, and then we'll see.
>
> God, where have we heard this before?
Microsoft???
>
> As for your rant, does the word "Mindcraft" have any meaning to you?
> Reputable benchmarking, look into it.
That stuff is ollllllllllllllld and now obsolete.
Ayende Rahien
"Kyle Jacobs" <ple...@dont.spam.me.org> wrote in message
news:ddW16.67214$7g.74...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> Just because you've had a picture perfect Linux experience doesn't mean
all
> the people I test for also have perfect experiences.
>
> I don't use Linux in a professional environment. I hope to, one day. But
> now, Linux is just a crappy plaything. My personal problem is it's not
> getting better. On the desktop, it sucks. As a server? Only a few
> distro's are even worth my 10 minutes. And god help me if I call tech
> support.
As a server, I find all the distributions of Linux useless, as I can get a
BSD for the same price, get a higher quality product and lose nothing in the
process.
Chris Ahlstrom
Not that I'm anti-BSD... I'd love to try it if I had a spare CPU.
But what is better about it? I understand that OpenBSD code is well
scoured of insecurities, but what other advantages does BSD offer?
And what do you see as any disadvantages to BSD for the linux geek?
Thanks!
Chris
J Sloan
> As a server, I find all the distributions of Linux useless, as I can get a
> BSD for the same price, get a higher quality product and lose nothing in the
> process.
Those harsh words indicate a lack of understanding,
and are typical of a bsd bigot - I notice they tend to
hate Linux with am intractable, bright green jealously.
Perhaps you learned bsd and now don't want to learn
anything new? I have run bsd servers also, and while
solid, bsd is not the end all and be all of OSes. - bsd
is certainly no Linux killer, either on the server side or
on the workstation side.
All things considered, I prefer Linux.
jjs
Donovan Rebbechi
>Just because you've had a picture perfect Linux experience doesn't mean all
>the people I test for also have perfect experiences.
>
>I don't use Linux in a professional environment. I hope to, one day. But
>now, Linux is just a crappy plaything. My personal problem is it's not
>getting better.
Really ? Not getting better over what time frame, 1 week ? How long have
you been using it ?
> On the desktop, it sucks. As a server? Only a few
>distro's are even worth my 10 minutes. And god help me if I call tech
You obviously haven't looked into it very hard as a server OS. It's
a first rate server OS.
>As for Bill choking off the competition, I'd love to see the competition
>come up with something as impressive as Windows 2000, let alone Windows 98.
>As far as getting things done went, the products are superior.
Depends on what you want to do with them. If you're trying to say that
they are superior as server operating systems, I'd say that's false (and
in the case of Win98, laughably so)
>GUI based compilers won't solve the problems plaguing Linux, or the software
>installation system.
Well duh ! That's sort of obvious. I don't think anyone besides you has
even proposed such a stupid idea.
> It'd be nice to have a uniform package format,
>something that all Linux's would have. From uniform packages would
>inherently come simpler software installation.
RPM is used for most distributions, so it's close to uniform. Certainly,
every major software release for Linux includes an RPM version.
Donovan Rebbechi
>God, where have we heard this before?
>
>As for your rant, does the word "Mindcraft" have any meaning to you?
>Reputable benchmarking, look into it.
Reputable ? Hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
J Sloan
> >
> > But the desktop is all you're concerned about, right?
> >
> > Well, have patience - things are developing, but these
> > things take time. Give it say 5 years, and then we'll see.
>
> God, where have we heard this before?
I have no idea what you might have heard -
But if you see no progress on the Linux desktop it is
because you determined not to see any.
> As for your rant, does the word "Mindcraft" have any meaning to you?
"rant" is probably not the term, but whatever turns you on...
Ah yes, the discredited mindcraft, an organization funded by
microsoft, whose sole job is to report on benchmarks performed
in microsoft labs, showing that windows nt is faster than any
other OS - Linux, Solaris, netware...
Get real - do you think those microsoft guys busted their
but to get good results from Linux?
No, mindcraft is just a one-sided propoganda firm, why don't
we condsider a legitimate benchmark controlled by a third
party - and there is just such an organization, you might
have heard of them - spec.org.
Go to www.spec.org and take a look at the specweb 99
benchmarks. Take all submitted benchmarks to date and
sort on performance, with highest first.
Now THAT's reputable benchmarking.
jjs
Donovan Rebbechi
>
>As a server, I find all the distributions of Linux useless, as I can get a
>BSD for the same price, get a higher quality product and lose nothing in the
>process.
The BSDs are nice, but Linux does have certain advantages. It's easier to
use, it has better hardware support (including support for SMP, for example).
OpenBSD is nice, but its ports collection is very limited and it has no
SMP support. And your warranty on superior security is null and void the
moment you install any services outside the core.
I suppose it really depends on what you intend to do with your server.
Pete Goodwin
> This company did.
>
> http://www.installshield.com/
>
> I just went to there page. Why don't you go there and look down at the
> bottom of the page.
>
> Under the title "Featured News". It looks like your argument will be
> moot soon.
Waahaay! InstallShield for Linux! I'll have to see that one.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
Erik Funkenbusch
news:3A48F3E6...@pobox.com...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > As a server, I find all the distributions of Linux useless, as I can get
a
> > BSD for the same price, get a higher quality product and lose nothing in
the
> > process.
>
> Those harsh words indicate a lack of understanding,
> and are typical of a bsd bigot - I notice they tend to
> hate Linux with am intractable, bright green jealously.
The reason BSD users dislike Linux is multi-faceted.
1) They don't like the license. This is not really that big of a deal, but
to some it is.
2) They dislike the conflicts with different libraries. Which version of
glibc is installed, and how is it built? This app needs glibc built
differently than that app does.
3) All forms of BSD use similar directory and file configurations. This is
totally different in Linux depending on which distro you have.
4) The BSD's have a much more stringent authorized changed policy. This
gives them much greater control over the quality of the product.
There are other reasons, but these come off the top of my head.
> Perhaps you learned bsd and now don't want to learn
> anything new? I have run bsd servers also, and while
> solid, bsd is not the end all and be all of OSes. - bsd
> is certainly no Linux killer, either on the server side or
> on the workstation side.
>
> All things considered, I prefer Linux.
Linux is much more cutting edge, which makes you bleed a lot more.
MH
> > 1) ATA-100 drives. Not even _detected_ by Mandrake's install.
>
> You can use hdparm to get them detected. Windows and Linux install
> the most conservative configuration for hard-drive parameters.
> You can tweak them using hdparm, then make them permanent by editing
> /etc/sysconfig/harddrives (under RedHat, at least).
Uh-huh. Some of us have gone the hdparm route. I'll bet this poster doesn't
even know it is there, and if he finds it he'll have to know not only how to
enter the proper parameters at a prompt, but make the config stick by
editing a config file. Hmm...does this sound like the days of sys.ini and
win.ini?
Let's by all means go back 10 or 12 years in time for the best way to
configure our pc's.
Question: If upon install my cpu is detected as P2 class then why should the
install also assume I'm running an ide drive capable of only the slowest
access mode? What, I've spent > $400 for motherboard & cpu but only dropped
$15 for a 1988 170mb quantum drive? Or better yet, I've dropped the big
bucks on a new dell or gateway P2... we ALL know they come with drives only
capable of 16 bit access.
Yeah!
Not that it makes any difference. Bumping up to 32 bit access buys you
minimal increase under linux. Must be that optimized for a 386 thing again.
Aaron R. Kulkis
What is it under Microsoft Windows?
[Hint: none!]
>
> > > 2) SB Platinum Live! 5.1 - sort-of supported, but with limited
> > > functionality.
> >
> > Do they have a full-support driver for this card for Win 2000 yet?
>
> Well, I have full surround and the remote center works, so look like.
>
> >
> > > 4) DVD: supported as a data drive only. Forget video, apparently.
> >
> > Yeah, 2600 got an injunction slapped on them to prevent the distribution
> > of the DeCSS video decoder code for the DVDs.
>
> Works under Windows.
How about some simple 1970's technology like remote login...
Linux gets all of its drivers loaded right THE FIRST TIME...
no 17 reboot process to do a system install
NO rebooting to install an application.
Oh...and Linux *NEVER* loses drivers like Windows is wont to do...
You have demonstrated that your sole purpose in life is to
act out the role of Bill-Gates' mind-controlled droid.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
Kyle Jacobs
"CJ" <send_fil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3A4884B4...@hotmail.com...
Kyle Jacobs
Linux ANY DAY.
But, I am not personally in need of a data server. But my clients are.
So, I suggest a nice IS/IT contracting firm to send out an administrator,
with a commercial UNIX server, and voile! Reputable service, respectable
efficiency and scalability. Two of the three things mentioned are not
possible under Linux.
"Ayende Rahien" <Aye...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:92ahed$g9g$3...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
Kyle Jacobs
Well, to the Linux geek (who is only using Linux to be different, and could
care less about functionality) nothing.
To the professional, looking for a unified, UNIX solution for their
business...
FreeBSD offers a lot of advantages on all fronts, but most noticeably as a
server platform.
FreeBSD may be for Intel platforms, but this advantage is not lost on
features as:
1.The BSD file system is journaling, providing quality throughput on
operations
2.The FreeBSD Virtual memory "slice" is far more efficient and advanced then
the Linux Swap partition. Speed and efficiency when psychical RAM is
limited is noticeable.
3.The unified administration system provides a foundation for more advanced
admin tools to function off of (beginning with UNIFORM FILE PATHS)
4.The methods used to perform processes like Kernel upgrades are SIMPLE not
complicated. You visit the ports collection, and get your newer, stable
kernel.
5.Standards: FreeBSD has more standards for it's operation than Linux ever
had. Uniformity makes your system more supportable.
6.The "Ports" collection. Visit the name of your desired program, type
"make" and "make install", and ALL the program's DEPENDENCIES and LIBRARY
files are COMPILED, INSTALLED and CONFIGURED automatically. Try this in
Linux, it's a PROJECT not a task. This makes component upgrades easier.
7.Security: Flaws in FreeBSD's Kernel and default services collection are
addressed quickly by the FreeBSD team. Linux security flaws are addressed
rapidly, but implementation is hindered by complication inherent in the
platform. FreeBSD has no such complication factors (except for it's UNIX
standing, but a trained admin can work with it.)
8.No claim to "workstation" fame. FreeBSD is a service platform, and makes
NO shame of it. FreeBSD has the ability to serve AS a workstation, but the
administrator / installer has the option of selecting and tuning
appropriately to the task. If a server is required, install your desired
services through the installer, and get about your business configuring it.
Don't hem and haw over revision compatibility, worry about downtime, and
work endlessly on "incompatible upgrade" problems with your pre-compiled
binary collection (rpm's and to a lesser extent, deb's.)
FreeBSD is uniform, and therefore supportable by 3rd parties. Linux is NOT.
Linux is seriously 'forked'. Something that Linux advocates swore would
never happen.
This is why FreeBSD is superior.
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A48DA07...@home.com...
Kyle Jacobs
And I still see the horrible RedHat Linux "Control Panel" is still
lingering.
Although there are some advantages to the Control Panel, Linuxconf has
pretty much overridden it in functionality and features, making the Control
Panel items useless.
"Donovan Rebbechi" <elf...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:slrn94htga....@panix6.panix.com...
Donovan Rebbechi
>Five years.
>
>And I still see the horrible RedHat Linux "Control Panel" is still
>lingering.
>
>Although there are some advantages to the Control Panel, Linuxconf has
>pretty much overridden it in functionality and features, making the Control
>Panel items useless.
Ah-huh. So you've offered at least one example of Linux improving, since
they didn't have Linuxconf five years ago (-;
They didn't have KDE or GNOME five years ago either. You don't think these
represent advances in usability ? How about added support for true type
fonts, 3d hardware acceleration, automatic detection of sound and video cards,
configuration tools such as linuxconf and YAST, GUI based installs and
easy default installs ? How about font anti-aliasing (still very new, works
with XFree 4.02) I think there have been a bunch of substantial improvements.
Kyle Jacobs
None of these programs offer INTERFUNCTIONALITY.
When I thought the platform was changing, (mistakenly apparently) I got hold
of Afterstep. I thought it was great, it was customizable, it was
intuitive. But it lacked functionality. Sure, I had a thousand different
file managers. And I had Linuxconf, but were they working together? NO.
Could Linuxconf configure my Afterstep WM? NO! Could it configure XFree86
at ALL? NO!!!
Could I use either one to configure my Afterstep applications? NO! I did
use the embedded configuration tool, but I hit the bugs and the general lack
of true configurability it had, and got fed up with it.
I then tried Gnome & "e". The results LOOKED decent, almost intuitive, and
the integrated file manager (GMC) was great. But it lacked stability. My
GNOME programs (and user session) would crap out repeatedly. I got fed up
with this as well.
KDE came out, and I thought I was finally ready to embrace Linux. Nope.
The interface was an improvement, but true functionality was missing. Sure,
it integrated the user interface into a single, comprehensive program (doing
away with numerous small programs all doing numerous, small tasks). But the
file manager was awful, the central admin tools were pathetic, and it just
wasn't complete. I read the "documentation" finding more missing pages then
a pre-burnt novel.
XFree86 Hasn't come very far in a while. Sure, new hardware has been added,
and version 4 positions XFree86 in a more easily configurable package (like
doing away with abundant configuration tools, and replacing it with full
autoprobing) but functionality is still absent.
I've seen the antialiasing, How long has MacOS had this? And Windows?
Windows 95 & Plus had screen font antialiasing for five (going on six) years
now. Linux is just getting these features out NOW??!
YaST is a powerful, but underfeatured administration system. Featuring
nothing but token configuration options for the top 10 most configured items
in Linux. Great, Linuxconf does this. And YaST has the same problem.
Update a single YaST configurable component manually, and loose the ability
to configure under YaST.
But they aren't substantial. The underlying problem still persists, ease.
It's not easy. And desktop computing MUST be easy, that is why it's the
DESKTOP. WORK has to be done on it, and spending hours configuring and
reconfiguring software is unnecessary, and tedious.
When all those true innovations begin working with EACH OTHER to configure
everything WITH EASE and all function as ONE COMPONENT, then we can call
Linux "a good desktop OS." Till then, MS and Apple got you beat.
TIP: Begin ripping off innovations from Apple's OSX.
"Donovan Rebbechi" <elf...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:slrn94idah...@panix6.panix.com...
Chris Ahlstrom
>
> And they ALL are still missing the point.
>
> None of these programs offer INTERFUNCTIONALITY.
>
> When I thought the platform was changing, (mistakenly apparently) I got hold
> of Afterstep. I thought it was great, it was customizable, it was
> intuitive. But it lacked functionality. Sure, I had a thousand different
> file managers. And I had Linuxconf, but were they working together? NO.
>
> Could Linuxconf configure my Afterstep WM? NO! Could it configure XFree86
> at ALL? NO!!!
At the risk of being called a troll... you're stupid.
> Could I use either one to configure my Afterstep applications? NO! I did
> use the embedded configuration tool, but I hit the bugs and the general lack
> of true configurability it had, and got fed up with it.
You're impatient.
> I then tried Gnome & "e". The results LOOKED decent, almost intuitive, and
> the integrated file manager (GMC) was great. But it lacked stability. My
> GNOME programs (and user session) would crap out repeatedly. I got fed up
> with this as well.
What kind of crap are you running? You seem incapable of installing a
system. How can anyone have such a litany of problems? You must
be obstinately stupid.
> KDE came out, and I thought I was finally ready to embrace Linux. Nope.
> The interface was an improvement, but true functionality was missing. Sure,
> it integrated the user interface into a single, comprehensive program (doing
> away with numerous small programs all doing numerous, small tasks). But the
> file manager was awful, the central admin tools were pathetic, and it just
> wasn't complete.
I don't care much for KDE, but it is surely better than your description.
You must be troll, pure and simple.
> I read the "documentation" finding more missing pages then
> a pre-burnt novel.
Now that is true. However, intuition works quite well in Gnome, and, I
assume, KDE.
> XFree86 Hasn't come very far in a while. Sure, new hardware has been added,
> and version 4 positions XFree86 in a more easily configurable package (like
> doing away with abundant configuration tools, and replacing it with full
> autoprobing) but functionality is still absent.
Such as????
> I've seen the antialiasing, How long has MacOS had this? And Windows?
> Windows 95 & Plus had screen font antialiasing for five (going on six) years
> now. Linux is just getting these features out NOW??!
Oh, that obviously means Linux is bad, for sure. Get hammered, asshole.
> YaST is a powerful, but underfeatured administration system. Featuring
> nothing but token configuration options for the top 10 most configured items
> in Linux. Great, Linuxconf does this. And YaST has the same problem.
> Update a single YaST configurable component manually, and loose the ability
> to configure under YaST.
>
> But they aren't substantial. The underlying problem still persists, ease.
> It's not easy. And desktop computing MUST be easy, that is why it's the
> DESKTOP. WORK has to be done on it, and spending hours configuring and
> reconfiguring software is unnecessary, and tedious.
Man, you are in a different world than many Linux users. Are you a
troll?
> When all those true innovations begin working with EACH OTHER to configure
> everything WITH EASE and all function as ONE COMPONENT, then we can call
> Linux "a good desktop OS."
Now you've got it entirely backwards. Monolithic components are the
most breakable of all.
> Till then, MS and Apple got you beat.
Sure they do.
> TIP: Begin ripping off innovations from Apple's OSX.
TIP: Ignore Kyle. He likes to jerk the chains of linux users.
Chris
Chris Ahlstrom
>
> Five years.
>
> And I still see the horrible RedHat Linux "Control Panel" is still
> lingering.
>
> Although there are some advantages to the Control Panel, Linuxconf has
> pretty much overridden it in functionality and features, making the Control
> Panel items useless.
I use them a lot. Linuxconf doesn't let you control the
background
panel
screensaver
theme selector
window manager
MIME types
URL handlers
Window manager behavior (and its 11 items)
User interface.
Do you really /use/ Linux?
Les Mikesell
"Ayende Rahien" <Aye...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:92ahed$g9g$3...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
>
Have you tried the VALinux-modified RH distributions? You can get them
preinstalled on VA hardware or from under
ftp://ftp.valinux.com/pub/software/VALinux/. There are more ways to
go wrong with Linux, but a correctly configured Linux is more than a
match for the *bsds.
Les Mikesell
lesmi...@home.com
Chris Ahlstrom
>
> What advantages?
>
> Well, to the Linux geek (who is only using Linux to be different, and could
> care less about functionality) nothing.
Can you determine who is such a user?
> To the professional, looking for a unified, UNIX solution for their
> business...
How does Linux differ from the UNIX solution?
> FreeBSD offers a lot of advantages on all fronts, but most noticeably as a
> server platform.
Such as????
> FreeBSD may be for Intel platforms, but this advantage is not lost on
> features as:
>
> 1.The BSD file system is journaling, providing quality throughput on
> operations
Never heard of reiserfs, ext3, and about four other journalling file
systems?
> 2.The FreeBSD Virtual memory "slice" is far more efficient and advanced then
> the Linux Swap partition. Speed and efficiency when psychical RAM is
> limited is noticeable.
I truly would like to learn why the FreeBSD timeslice is more advanced.
I won't say "more advanced that the Linux Swap partition", because that is
different than, though related to, time-slicing.
> 3.The unified administration system provides a foundation for more advanced
> admin tools to function off of (beginning with UNIFORM FILE PATHS)
Which UNIX supports this, and what is it. I want to learn.
> 4.The methods used to perform processes like Kernel upgrades are SIMPLE not
> complicated. You visit the ports collection, and get your newer, stable
> kernel.
Explain, please.
> 5.Standards: FreeBSD has more standards for it's operation than Linux ever
> had. Uniformity makes your system more supportable.
As opposed to OpenBSD and NetBSD?
> 6.The "Ports" collection. Visit the name of your desired program, type
> "make" and "make install", and ALL the program's DEPENDENCIES and LIBRARY
> files are COMPILED, INSTALLED and CONFIGURED automatically. Try this in
> Linux, it's a PROJECT not a task. This makes component upgrades easier.
Actually, RPM's seem to handle this quite well. But they don't compile.
Sounds like a concept worth learning.
>
> 7.Security: Flaws in FreeBSD's Kernel and default services collection are
> addressed quickly by the FreeBSD team. Linux security flaws are addressed
> rapidly, but implementation is hindered by complication inherent in the
> platform. FreeBSD has no such complication factors (except for it's UNIX
> standing, but a trained admin can work with it.)
I thought OpenBSD was better for security.
> 8.No claim to "workstation" fame. FreeBSD is a service platform, and makes
> NO shame of it. FreeBSD has the ability to serve AS a workstation, but the
> administrator / installer has the option of selecting and tuning
> appropriately to the task. If a server is required, install your desired
> services through the installer, and get about your business configuring it.
Sounds cool.
> Don't hem and haw over revision compatibility, worry about downtime, and
> work endlessly on "incompatible upgrade" problems with your pre-compiled
> binary collection (rpm's and to a lesser extent, deb's.)
Sounds like a straw man.
> FreeBSD is uniform, and therefore supportable by 3rd parties. Linux is NOT.
> Linux is seriously 'forked'. Something that Linux advocates swore would
> never happen.
I think I see what you mean. I'll have to branch out from Red Hat and see
what happens. But it sounds like you're comparing the effects of a single
BSD distribution with the effects of a multifarous Linux distribution set.
> This is why FreeBSD is superior.
I promise to get into the BSDs one day. I really appreciate the solid
leads you've given here, Kyle.
Forget anything I said about you being stupid.
Chris
Chris Ahlstrom
>
> > > 1) ATA-100 drives. Not even _detected_ by Mandrake's install.
> >
> > You can use hdparm to get them detected. Windows and Linux install
> > the most conservative configuration for hard-drive parameters.
> > You can tweak them using hdparm, then make them permanent by editing
> > /etc/sysconfig/harddrives (under RedHat, at least).
>
> Uh-huh. Some of us have gone the hdparm route. I'll bet this poster doesn't
> even know it is there, and if he finds it he'll have to know not only how to
> enter the proper parameters at a prompt, but make the config stick by
> editing a config file. Hmm...does this sound like the days of sys.ini and
> win.ini?
> Let's by all means go back 10 or 12 years in time for the best way to
> configure our pc's.
As opposed to the crystal clear Registry?
> Question: If upon install my cpu is detected as P2 class then why should the
> install also assume I'm running an ide drive capable of only the slowest
> access mode? What, I've spent > $400 for motherboard & cpu but only dropped
> $15 for a 1988 170mb quantum drive? Or better yet, I've dropped the big
> bucks on a new dell or gateway P2... we ALL know they come with drives only
> capable of 16 bit access.
> Yeah!
How does Windozzzzzzzz do it? I'd like to know! My machine at work is
in sore need of speeding up!
> Not that it makes any difference. Bumping up to 32 bit access buys you
> minimal increase under linux. Must be that optimized for a 386 thing again.
hdparm: -c gets you the 32-bit, which makes a difference of roughly a factor
of 2.
-d for DMA can buy some more speed.
There are a few other switches. Do 'man hdparm', or search for
hdparm to find some nice articles at oreillys.com.
By the way, my distribution installed itself as optimized for 686.
You're sarcasm is lost on me.
Chris
I'm surrounded by assholes!
--
Are you sure you want to read this message?
Click Okay to continue, and Cancel to okay
this dialog.
Chris Ahlstrom
>
> The reason BSD users dislike Linux is multi-faceted.
[xnip]
Thanks for that analysis, Erik. It is very helpful.
(No sarcasm whatsoever; it was very helpful.)
Chris
Chris Ahlstrom
I like installshield, but I wonder how it will handle compiling
for different machines and distros?
Les Mikesell
'Window manager' behavior? Which window manager? Are you recommending
forcing everyone to use a single window manager or teaching Linuxconf to
configure all possible window managers? Do you really have a hard time
finding the place to control these in KDE or GNOME?
Les Mikesell
lesmi...@home.com
J Sloan
> This is what I constantly tell people on this NG, I'd take FreeBSD over
> Linux ANY DAY.
>
> But, I am not personally in need of a data server. But my clients are.
>
> So, I suggest a nice IS/IT contracting firm to send out an administrator,
> with a commercial UNIX server, and voile! Reputable service, respectable
> efficiency and scalability. Two of the three things mentioned are not
> possible under Linux.
"Reputable Service":
Let me get this straight, IBM Global Services supports
Linux, and that's nowhere near as reputable as the support
you can get for bsd, right? Just who is this incredible bsd
support organization, we're quite curious!
"Respectable efficiency":
Linux is about as efficient as it gets, no point in belaboring that.
"Respectable Scalability":
Let's see, google.com is 4000 CPUS, not scalable enough for you?
jjs
Martin Eden
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 18:34:38 +0200, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
>
> >As a server, I find all the distributions of Linux useless, as I can get
> >a BSD for the same price, get a higher quality product and lose nothing
> >in the process.
>
> The BSDs are nice, but Linux does have certain advantages. It's easier to
> use, it has better hardware support (including support for SMP, for
> example).
This must be a joke. You are kidding, right?
>
> OpenBSD is nice, but its ports collection is very limited and it has no
> SMP support. And your warranty on superior security is null and void the
> moment you install any services outside the core.
I used OpenBSD for a few weeks (playing around) and have used FreeBSD since
2.2.x at home. Performance on my Dual Celeron (running 4 Stable) is worlds
beyond what it has ever been on linux. It is the SMP support in Linux which
_Does NOT_ work. (though they promise it will in 2.4, I will believe it
when I see it).
Remember that just because you don't have a cutesy GUI program like XConfig
to hold your hand as you build a kernel, doesn't mean that the
functionality is not there. Just add this to your next build, make world
and see what I mean.
options SMP
options APIC_IO
options NBUS=4
options NAPIC=1
options NCPU=2
options NINTR=24
That's off the top of my head early in the morning...there is plenty more
but that will get you started. Tweak to taste and watch your hardware start
flying.
Pete Goodwin
> 2) They dislike the conflicts with different libraries. Which version of
> glibc is installed, and how is it built? This app needs glibc built
> differently than that app does.
Sounds like the "DLL hell" people moan about on Windows.
Martin Eden
Hate to disagree with you Kyle, but a couple of points...
> 2.The FreeBSD Virtual memory "slice" is far more efficient and advanced
> then
> the Linux Swap partition. Speed and efficiency when psychical RAM is
> limited is noticeable.
I have built kernels for both platforms and when one knows which switches
to flip the memory management works pretty much the same (in my
experience). Which is to say: well.
> 3.The unified administration system provides a foundation for more
> advanced admin tools to function off of (beginning with UNIFORM FILE
> PATHS) 4.The methods used to perform processes like Kernel upgrades are
> SIMPLE not
> complicated. You visit the ports collection, and get your newer, stable
> kernel.
Ummm, hmmm. While this is certainly practiced it really isn't prudent
unless you are an expert. FreeBSD is much, much more tightly integrated
than any distribution of Linux. Linux is just a kernel with a hodgepodge of
apps thrown on top...everyone hoping they will work together OK. In such a
system it is easy just to throw in a new kernel. On FreeBSD you really
should save yourself a thousand headaches and use the upgrade script on
your new CD. Or CVSUP or whatever.
> 6.The "Ports" collection. Visit the name of your desired program, type
> "make" and "make install", and ALL the program's DEPENDENCIES and LIBRARY
> files are COMPILED, INSTALLED and CONFIGURED automatically. Try this in
> Linux, it's a PROJECT not a task. This makes component upgrades easier.
Actually it is called pkg_add. It's an app that works in a similar way to
the debian "apt". Both of which work much better than rpm.
Speaking of Debian, there are so many bizarre similarities that I often
have a hard time discerning whether I am on my potato machine or my 4Stable
machine. I hardly think it is a coincidence, though I am sure no Debian
programmer would ever publicly admit that it's not. There are actually far
more _external_ differences between Caldera and Debian than there are with
Debian and FreeBSD.
>
> 8.No claim to "workstation" fame. FreeBSD is a service platform, and
> makes
> NO shame of it.
It has always made a great workstation for me. I wouldn't trade it for
anything.
John Travis
:Kyle Jacobs wrote:
:
:Hate to disagree with you Kyle, but a couple of points...
:
:> 2.The FreeBSD Virtual memory "slice" is far more efficient and advanced
:> then
:> the Linux Swap partition. Speed and efficiency when psychical RAM is
:> limited is noticeable.
:
:I have built kernels for both platforms and when one knows which switches
:to flip the memory management works pretty much the same (in my
:experience). Which is to say: well.
Very true, they page out somewhat differently but both are _very_ efficient.
<snip>
:Actually it is called pkg_add. It's an app that works in a similar way to
:the debian "apt". Both of which work much better than rpm.
:
:Speaking of Debian, there are so many bizarre similarities that I often
:have a hard time discerning whether I am on my potato machine or my 4Stable
:machine. I hardly think it is a coincidence, though I am sure no Debian
:programmer would ever publicly admit that it's not. There are actually far
:more _external_ differences between Caldera and Debian than there are with
:Debian and FreeBSD.
Not so much bizarre as a good working solution I would say :-). Being part of
mailing lists for both it isn't *strictly* coincidence either. You were very
correct about the install routines for the two...basically identicall (well now
that I have working potato discs anyway).
:It has always made a great workstation for me. I wouldn't trade it for
:anything.
I quite liked it myself. Too bad I needed the space I had given it :-(. It
will be back on shortly though. My only concern is that a good portion of the
"desktop" that I used was from the ports collection, so why not just use
Debian... ;-).
jt
--
Debian Gnu/Linux [Sid]
2.4.0-test12-ReiserFs|XFree4.0.2|Nvidia .95 drivers
You mean there's a stable tree?
MH
> > > > 1) ATA-100 drives. Not even _detected_ by Mandrake's install.
> > >
> > > You can use hdparm to get them detected. Windows and Linux install
> > > the most conservative configuration for hard-drive parameters.
> > > You can tweak them using hdparm, then make them permanent by editing
> > > /etc/sysconfig/harddrives (under RedHat, at least).
> >
> > Uh-huh. Some of us have gone the hdparm route. I'll bet this poster
doesn't
> > even know it is there, and if he finds it he'll have to know not only
how to
> > enter the proper parameters at a prompt, but make the config stick by
> > editing a config file. Hmm...does this sound like the days of sys.ini
and
> > win.ini?
> > Let's by all means go back 10 or 12 years in time for the best way to
> > configure our pc's.
>
> As opposed to the crystal clear Registry?
I rarely, if ever, have to edit the registry on windows. Device manager and
msconfig have everything you need to address > 90% of the problems under
windows.
You don't address the issues again. Glad you haven't changed.
> > Question: If upon install my cpu is detected as P2 class then why should
the
> > install also assume I'm running an ide drive capable of only the slowest
> > access mode? What, I've spent > $400 for motherboard & cpu but only
dropped
> > $15 for a 1988 170mb quantum drive? Or better yet, I've dropped the big
> > bucks on a new dell or gateway P2... we ALL know they come with drives
only
> > capable of 16 bit access.
> > Yeah!
>
> How does Windozzzzzzzz do it? I'd like to know! My machine at work is
> in sore need of speeding up!
Now you're being a dolt --plain and simple. You have a winpc that isn't
using 32bit access?
That would be easy to check as you would be using dos compatibilty mode.
Do you see a list box with text under tab 3 (like arrays in c, begin at 0)
when you open sysdm?
Or is the listbox not there, and instead you see "your system is configured
for...."
Imbecile.
> > Not that it makes any difference. Bumping up to 32 bit access buys you
> > minimal increase under linux. Must be that optimized for a 386 thing
again.
>
> hdparm: -c gets you the 32-bit, which makes a difference of roughly a
factor
> of 2.
>
> -d for DMA can buy some more speed.
>
> There are a few other switches. Do 'man hdparm', or search for
> hdparm to find some nice articles at oreillys.com.
I'm well aware of the drill. Thanks anyway.
> By the way, my distribution installed itself as optimized for 686.
> You're sarcasm is lost on me.
^^^^^^^^^
Bug -hat doesn't, and it's the most popular linux distro.
> I'm surrounded by assholes!
Maybe. But at least the assholes can use a contraction.
Chris Ahlstrom
>
> You don't address the issues again. Glad you haven't changed.
Thank you. Likewise.
> > > Question: If upon install my cpu is detected as P2 class then why should
> the
> > > install also assume I'm running an ide drive capable of only the slowest
> > > access mode? What, I've spent > $400 for motherboard & cpu but only
> dropped
> > > $15 for a 1988 170mb quantum drive? Or better yet, I've dropped the big
> > > bucks on a new dell or gateway P2... we ALL know they come with drives
> only
> > > capable of 16 bit access.
> > > Yeah!
> >
> > How does Windozzzzzzzz do it? I'd like to know! My machine at work is
> > in sore need of speeding up!
>
> Now you're being a dolt --plain and simple. You have a winpc that isn't
> using 32bit access?
> That would be easy to check as you would be using dos compatibilty mode.
No, this is NT.
> Do you see a list box with text under tab 3 (like arrays in c, begin at 0)
> when you open sysdm?
What is "sysdm"?
> Or is the listbox not there, and instead you see "your system is configured
> for...."
I've look in Control Panel\System, MS NT Diagnostics, and at the drive properties.
I can't find any dialog that talks about 32-bit access, UDMA properties,
etc. You'll have to be a little more specific.
> Imbecile.
That's not nice.
> I'm well aware of the drill. Thanks anyway.
You're welcome.
> > By the way, my distribution installed itself as optimized for 686.
> > You're sarcasm is lost on me.
> ^^^^^^^^^
> Bug -hat doesn't, and it's the most popular linux distro.
>
> > I'm surrounded by assholes!
>
> Maybe. But at least the assholes can use a contraction.
Good point. I'll have to bow to your superior typing skills.
Thanks for making fun of my dyslexia.
Chris
Chris Ahlstrom
Not sure what your beef is here. I have no trouble controlling anything.
I was merely retorting to the statement above that linuxconf has
made the Control Panel items useless. Makes no sense to me.
In my control panel, sawfish has apparently inserted some
configuration menus.
Man, people go out of their way to hassle you here!
Chris
net...@my-deja.com
like the tides. One day, results with OS Foo are on top, the next, OS
Bar is right up there. OS Baz waiting in the wings. And so, without
desiring to promote any one side over any other, here are the top three
SPECweb99 results from www.spec.org as of about 9 AM Pacific time on
12/27/2000:
System Result HTTP Version # CPU
PowerEdge 8450/700 7500 TUX 1.01 8
PowerEdge 8450/700 7300 IIS 5.0 and SWC 3.0 8
IBM eServer pSeries 680 7288 Zeus 3.3.6 12
who knows which will be in the top tomorrow :) As with any benchmark,
there are a plethora of details, too many for me to be willing to type
and discuss, but I'm sure the most fervent supporters of either side
will be able to find if they read the disclosures.
rick jones
http://www.netperf.org/
--
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not
want them anyway... :)
feel free to email, or post, but please do not do
both...
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
J Sloan
> Of course, benchmark leadership is a fluid thing - ebbing and flowing
> like the tides. One day, results with OS Foo are on top, the next, OS
> Bar is right up there. OS Baz waiting in the wings. And so, without
> desiring to promote any one side over any other, here are the top three
> SPECweb99 results from www.spec.org as of about 9 AM Pacific time on
> 12/27/2000:
>
> System Result HTTP Version # CPU
>
> PowerEdge 8450/700 7500 TUX 1.01 8
> PowerEdge 8450/700 7300 IIS 5.0 and SWC 3.0 8
> IBM eServer pSeries 680 7288 Zeus 3.3.6 12
Well, that's interesting - ms has obviously been working hard
to catch up to Linux.... and with all their resources, they have
almost done so - unfortunately for them, Linux will not simply
sit there and wait for them to catch up! I expect the Linux kernel
engineers will get soon back to putting some more distance
between Linux and windows...
jjs
Kyle Jacobs
using the precursor to GNOME and Afterstep for my WM.
This was a long time ago.
"Les Mikesell" <lesmi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:nHf26.52320$Y6.11...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
Kyle Jacobs
transfers outside of the BIOS handling it.
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A4A2091...@home.com...
Kyle Jacobs
kernel!!!!
"Martin Eden" <m...@dev.null> wrote in message
news:fWj26.25367$RC1.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Ayende Rahien
"J Sloan" <j...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:3A4A3E01...@pobox.com...
Please note that TUX is possibly the worst web server you can choose.
It run in kernel space, if it goes down, you system goes down as well.
It can't handle dynamic content.
I'm not familiar with Zeus, can it compare to IIS or Apache, the current
market leaders?
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 07:54:12 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Kelsey Bjarnason" <kel...@telus.net>) wrote:
>
> >> You can use hdparm to get them detected. Windows and Linux install
> >> the most conservative configuration for hard-drive parameters.
> >> You can tweak them using hdparm, then make them permanent by editing
> >> /etc/sysconfig/harddrives (under RedHat, at least).
>
> >selected by?
>
> Why do you want a menu?
Because he's fucking stupid.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
Chris Ahlstrom
>
> Please note that TUX is possibly the worst web server you can choose.
> It run in kernel space, if it goes down, you system goes down as well.
> It can't handle dynamic content.
Just goes to show that benchmarks are just marks on a bench.
Chris Ahlstrom
>
> I should probably point out that Windows NT has no official support for UDMA
> transfers outside of the BIOS handling it.
I could swear I saw a link to software or Registry settings that would
allow one to have these special disk features used by NT. Dang.
Where did I see that??? I got a noticeable speed up on my Linux box, and
would like to do the same for my work's Win box.
Chris
John W. Stevens
>
> I think your missing the point in this post.
>
> More often then not, users have THE EXACT SAME problem with their Linux
> experiences. Their hardware is just not supported 100%, features and
> functionality are MISSING or not implemented yet.
But this is also true of Windows.
1) We've had this discussion before: I could not successfully
install Win98 on a Linux box, because Windows did not support
my hardware.
2) Windows comes pre-installed, and pre-configured on hardware
chosen specifically to run Windows, while Linux is all to often
installed on Windows-hardware by a newbie.
Catch the apples to oranges comparison there . . .
3) Windows can support some hardware that Linux cannot, and will
never support, because the hardware specs, protocols, or interfaces
are not open to the public.
> It's a typical example of Linux playing "catch-up" with Windows
No, it's the usual "apples to oranges" comparsions that newbies make,
without even realizing how unreasonable that comparison is.
Buy a pre-built, pre-installed, pre-configured Linux box, use it
for a while, *THEN* tell us how much it sucks, and you might actually
be listened to seriously by the few remaining readers who haven't
already kill filed you.
> (on the
> desktop). Most people don't buy HARDWARE to accommodate their SOFTWARE .
Wrong. Most people *DO* buy hardware to accomodate their software . . .
that's why they buy pre-installed Windows boxen.
> It's the other way around, and Linux may claim "support" but more often then
> not, true functionality is either not yet available under Linux, or is
> available in "beta form" in either test-kernel modules, Beta releases of
> XFree86 or some other questionable piece of software not included "out of
> the box".
Hardware manufacturers will send pre-release specs, hardware and
information to commercial organizations like MS . . . they won't
release such information to the Linux developers, so your complaints
are equivalent to saying that, in a 100 yard dash race where one
runner is required to wait ten seconds after the starting gun
before being allowed to start, that that runner is the slowest of
all.
It's not that Linux is slower, it's that the race is rigged.
> Most people evaluating Linux aren't in the mood to either learn the minutia
> of information needed just to UPGRADE the components (let alone compile
> them).
They don't need to learn this . . . all they need to do is buy their
Linux box exactly the same way they buy a Windows box . . .
pre-installed
and pre-configured on hardware that was assembled to run their
software.
> But instead of creating a GUI based compiler which also tracks
> dependencies to compiled projects, Linux programmers just chalk the whole
> thing up to "learning curve", and do nothing about it.
It is superior to *TEACH* a man to fish, than to give him a fish.
> Clearly you can claim the "functionality exists, you just don't know how to
> do it." Fine, claim it. Do they (The community) do anything to resolve it
> (see aforementioned recommendation)? No.
Actually, the proper answer is "yes". The Linux Documentation
Project is "something done to resolve this problem".
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
jste...@basho.fc.hp.com
John W. Stevens
>
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > 6.The "Ports" collection. Visit the name of your desired program, type
> > "make" and "make install", and ALL the program's DEPENDENCIES and LIBRARY
> > files are COMPILED, INSTALLED and CONFIGURED automatically. Try this in
> > Linux, it's a PROJECT not a task. This makes component upgrades easier.
>
> Actually, RPM's seem to handle this quite well. But they don't compile.
Actually, RPM's *DO* compile . . . if they are source RPM's, you can
download 'em, then rebuild 'em. Same is true for Debian packages, too.
> I thought OpenBSD was better for security.
It is.
John W. Stevens
> > Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> > >
> > You can use hdparm to get them detected. Windows and Linux install
> > the most conservative configuration for hard-drive parameters.
> > You can tweak them using hdparm, then make them permanent by editing
> > /etc/sysconfig/harddrives (under RedHat, at least).
>
> Sorry, I'm playing typical end-user here. What menu option is hdparm
> selected by?
Right Click on Root --> XTerm
type:
man hdparm
then construct the appropriate command.
> Not true at all; I learned that Linux was more work for less result.
Really? Do you really not see the simple fact that you set yourself
up to have these problems? That you, in effect, set yourself up to
fail?
> Sorry,
> some of us use the machines for fun, work and other things... and that's
> real work, doing real tasks, rather than catering to a half-functional OS.
I almost never spend time "catering" to my OS, and I do use it for
fun, work, and other things.
You set yourself up to fail, then blame Linux . . .
> > My Linux box caters to me.
>
> Good. Mine doesn't. So I turfed it.
No, that's not true. You chose your hardware so that it wouldn't
run Linux, installed Linux on it, then complained bitterly that Linux
wouldn't support your hardware.
Spot the self-delusion in this! ;-)
> I can only go by my experience;
Not True.
> I can't go by yours, or the guy next door's.
False. You *CAN* go by my experience, or the guy next doors . . .
Step 1: Buy Linux compatible hardware. When you're done with that,
come back and talk to me again.
I can give you a hardware list that, if you purchased this hardware,
you will be able to install a complete, working Linux system in under
a hour, and then just start using it.
> My experience says that Linux is a waste.
You made it be a waste.
My experience is that Windows 98 is a waste (see my posting about
re: Windows would not even INSTALL on my box).
> When I try it again in another 2
> years, that might be different;
No, it won't be. You'll still be able to set yourself up
to fail.
Kyle Jacobs
that allow the NT kernel to communicate with the disk access layer AND
provide UDMA throughput to IDE devices.
But Windows NT can defer to the BIOS interface to the IDE controller when
write operations are performed (as I recall).
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A4A83E0...@home.com...
Aaron R. Kulkis
Chris Ahlstrom
>
> Les Mikesell wrote:
> >
> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A49828D...@home.com...
> > >
> >
> > 'Window manager' behavior? Which window manager? Are you recommending
> > forcing everyone to use a single window manager or teaching Linuxconf to
> > configure all possible window managers? Do you really have a hard time
> > finding the place to control these in KDE or GNOME?
>
> Well, he *IS* a retard...
I thank you for taking the time to post this noisome message concerning
my intelligence quotient. It makes me feel.... needed. If I can
provide even such joy unto a few otherwise melancholy users, I consider
my life worthwhile. And if not, there is always....
.... oblivion.
Okay, kids, time to parrrrrrrrrrrrrrty! Tap that keg!!!!!!!
Chris, parte' animal' extraordinaire
Chris Ahlstrom
>
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
> No, that's not true. You chose your hardware so that it wouldn't
> run Linux, installed Linux on it, then complained bitterly that Linux
> wouldn't support your hardware.
The weird thing is I've gotten Linux to run on:
o Sam's Computer box using ABIT BX-440 motherboard
o Cyrix P166 box I bought from a friend
o Dell Optiplex at work
o Enpower laptop, basically a Mitac
The only real trouble I've had (apart from a lite SCSI card not
being detected) is on the laptop. I have to install RedHat 6.0
first, in order to get the VGA to work properly under RedHat 7.0.
Chris
J Sloan
> Please note that TUX is possibly the worst web server you can choose.
strong words from someone who knows so little about the subject!
>
> It run in kernel space, if it goes down, you system goes down as well.
I'm sorry, you ust be confusing Linux with windows -
Tux can run in kernel space, but the specweb benchmarks
were churned out by a userspace version of Tux.
Anyway, I've never seen tux take the kernel down, and it's
been hammered on severely...
> It can't handle dynamic content.
You probably need to read up on specweb 99 -
it's all about dynamic content, and tux obviously handles it...
> I'm not familiar with Zeus, can it compare to IIS or Apache, the current
> market leaders?
Zeus is very very fast, featureful and easy to manage, but it
has never caught on because of the $1600 price tag.
jjs
Les Mikesell
"Martin Eden" <m...@dev.null> wrote in message
news:fWj26.25367$RC1.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> I used OpenBSD for a few weeks (playing around) and have used FreeBSD
since
> 2.2.x at home. Performance on my Dual Celeron (running 4 Stable) is worlds
> beyond what it has ever been on linux.
Running what?
> It is the SMP support in Linux which
> _Does NOT_ work. (though they promise it will in 2.4, I will believe it
> when I see it).
What version of Linux did you use and what made you think SMP did
not work? I've never been able to see much difference and too
many strange things go wrong on *bsd to suit me.
Les Mikesell
lesmi...@home.com
Les Mikesell
What you said just didn't make any sense. I think you have confused
the 'RedHat Control Panel' with the KDE control panel which is
an entirely different beast. The RedHat Control Panel dates back
to version 4.0 or so and controls the network setup, printers, and
a few other things that are now handled by Linuxconf. It has nothing
to do with any window manager.
Les Mikesell
lesmi...@home.com
Craig Kelley
TUX has it's place: serving static content, like images for
example.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- kell...@isu.edu
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
Chris Ahlstrom
>
>
> What you said just didn't make any sense. I think you have confused
> the 'RedHat Control Panel' with the KDE control panel which is
> an entirely different beast. The RedHat Control Panel dates back
> to version 4.0 or so and controls the network setup, printers, and
> a few other things that are now handled by Linuxconf. It has nothing
> to do with any window manager.
I'm actually talking about the Gnome Configuration Tool, also called
the Gnome Control Center. In my incarnation of it, I see a section
devoted to the sawfish window manager. A plug-in?
I haven't use KDE for awhile, so don't count on me knowing diddly
about it!
Chris <grin>
net...@my-deja.com
> Please note that TUX is possibly the worst web server you can choose.
> It run in kernel space, if it goes down, you system goes down as well.
> It can't handle dynamic content.
The SPECweb99 benchmark has a 30% dynamic content requirement, so
certainly something on those systems was dealing with those requests.
> I'm not familiar with Zeus, can it compare to IIS or Apache, the
> current market leaders?
I suspect that Zeus feels so. Their web site would have details about
their ability to drop-in for Apache, and their support for ISAPI and
such. Certainly until TUX was cooked-up, Zeus was the benchmark of
choice for SPECweb9X on Unix platforms going back to the beginnings of
SPECweb96 in (surprise :) 1996. Even now it seems to be doing pretty
well against kernel accelerated platforms.
rick jones
Steve Mading
: What you said just didn't make any sense. I think you have confused
: the 'RedHat Control Panel' with the KDE control panel which is
: an entirely different beast. The RedHat Control Panel dates back
: to version 4.0 or so and controls the network setup, printers, and
: a few other things that are now handled by Linuxconf. It has nothing
: to do with any window manager.
As a side question: Does linuxconf have as nice print config
tool as the old redhat "control panel" printer config tool yet?
I still use the old redhat printer configurator because it has
those great options for "two pages on one", "four pages on one" and
so on. These seem to be driven my some redhat-specific filter scripts
an I haven't found any other GUI tool that gives access to them.
Kyle Jacobs
extentions in it? Why CAN'T You configure XFree86, GNOME and KDE through
Linuxconf?
Because IT WOULD MAKE SENSE. That's why.
"Les Mikesell" <lesmi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:duB26.52427$Y6.11...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
Kyle Jacobs
because GNOME supports multiple WM's.
This makes sense.
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A4B5E62...@home.com...
Les Mikesell
"Steve Mading" <mad...@baladi.bmrb.wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:92g2d2$ql6$5...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
I don't think so, but I avoid linuxconf in general because it is sort
of an 'all or nothing' choice. If you make any changes in linuxconf
it will try to 'fix' everything else that doesn't match it's idea of
how things should look. For example I set up a system so it
ran sendmail as a non-root user, then tried to have someone
else manage the users with linuxconf. Until I patched up the
scripts it kept changing the mail files back to root ownership
and breaking everything whenever it was run.
I agree that the old redhat printer tool was nice - it always
got the filtering right and hooked up smb-shared printers as
easily as anything else.
Les Mikesell
lesmi...@home.com
Les Mikesell
KDE has something similar, but neither has any relationship to the
old RedHat control-panel.
Les Mikesell
lesmi...@home.com
Roberto Alsina
"Kyle Jacobs" <ple...@dont.spam.me.org> wrote:
> I was orignially speaking that it should. Why can't Linuxconf have
> XFree86 extentions in it? Why CAN'T You configure XFree86, GNOME
> and KDE through Linuxconf?
There is no reason why it can't be done.
Oh, well, actually there are.
XFree86: XFree86 has to work on OSs other than linux. So, the nice
XFree guys write config tools for it. Once we have a nice,
functional config tool, why add it to linuxconf? So you
can have another thing that can fail?
KDE: The default GUI interface for Linuxconf is based on GTK+.
KDE doesn't require GTK+ at all. Yeah, let's require a whole
separate program and GUI library that is not required, so you
can config KDE!. Not to mention that writing KDE control
modules is a lot easier for a KDE programmer than writing
Linuxconf extensions! Oh, and KDE has to work on non-Linux
too, so you have to write the KDE config tools anyway.
GNOME: Pretty much the same as KDE, really.
In other words: it's technically possible. It's also monumentally
silly.
> Because IT WOULD MAKE SENSE. That's why.
No it wouldn't. It would suck. A lot.
If you really are so desperate to have fully integrated system config into a
single program, I could write a KDE control module integrating the web
interface to linuxconf. It would be a completely useless piece of software,
but it COULD be done.
--
Roberto Alsina
Roberto Alsina
I personally am switching wherever I can to CUPS. It can connect to SMB
printers just as easily, allows better configuration of the printers, has a
larger driver list (as long as you explore linuxprinting.org a bit ;-), and
supports jetdirect, which I have run into (and is a pain to configure in
printtool).
It also gives better printing feedback and has a nice GUI tool (KUPS) if you
dislike the web interface.
Les Mikesell
"Kyle Jacobs" <ple...@dont.spam.me.org> wrote in message
news:EIP26.67661$7I.79...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
> I was orignially speaking that it should. Why can't Linuxconf have
XFree86
> extentions in it? Why CAN'T You configure XFree86, GNOME and KDE through
> Linuxconf?
>
> Because IT WOULD MAKE SENSE. That's why.
Why just those? Why not every window manager known to man?
Les Mikesell
lesmi...@home.com
Kyle Jacobs
"Les Mikesell" <lesmi...@home.com> wrote in message
news:fhU26.52499$Y6.11...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com...
Ayende Rahien
Why not make a file like RPM, so each application can have, which will
contain its configurations and will be openable by some common program.
And no, I'm talking about
pico/ed/whatever-other-text-editor-you-had-in-mind.
XML would do nicely here.
Les Mikesell
"Ayende Rahien" <Aye...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:92h7sc$mqn$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
>
> > >
> > > > Because IT WOULD MAKE SENSE. That's why.
> > >
> > > Why just those? Why not every window manager known to man?
>
> Why not make a file like RPM, so each application can have, which will
> contain its configurations and will be openable by some common program.
> And no, I'm talking about
> pico/ed/whatever-other-text-editor-you-had-in-mind.
> XML would do nicely here.
XML is just syntax. It saves you from writing a parser or reusing
any of the more free-form parsers already done, but nothing
else. This is not unreasonable for new programs but the
people who have copied the same config files from machine
to machine for the last 20 years and know how to read and
type them aren't going to be happy if they suddenly are forced
to make them ugly and unreadable. XML is easy for the
computer to parse but I'm not sure it makes sense these days
to make it harder for the human and easier for the CPU.
Les Mikesell
lesmi...@home.com
Ayende Rahien
The advantage XML has is in that it's both human & machine readable. And
building a program that would be able to read & change every program's
setting that I can think of would not be a problem.
And you could probably add a switch to turn the application to the old
config method instead of XML, so old fashion guys who like text files could
still have them.
The advantage a common syntax to all config files would be that a single
tool can handle them all, making tools such as LinuxConf so much easier to
user.