Linux-Advocacy Digest #503, Volume #25 Sat, 4 Mar 00 13:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Darwin or Linux (Re: The decline of VA Linux) ("Charles W. Swiger")
Re: Giving up on NT (Joseph)
Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Dell picks Linux over Windows 2000 for dellhost.com (fred)
Re: Giving up on NT ("Paul 'Z' Ewande©")
Innovation: The Play (WaRtHaWg)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!!
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 17:05:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Edward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Fri, 03 Mar 2000 20:28:11 -0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <89pp8f$dgc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, proculous
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Compare feature for feature with the Windows version and see how they
>> compare.
>
>Let's See:
>
> Windows Linux
> --------------------------------------------------
>Windowing System X X
>Needs Technical X X
> Knowledge to
> Run/Debug
>DOS X
>Slow X
>Blaoted X
>Buggy X
>Braindead Registry X
>Only One Desktop X
> Environment
>Kludged 32-bit code X
>Kludged PMT X
>Proprietary FS X
>Visual Basic X
>Continuous Upgrade X
> Treadmill
>ActiveX Controls X
>Macro Viruses X
>Back Orifice X
>Bill Gates calling X
> the shots
>Must do clean-reinstall X
> every 6 months to
> maintain stability.
>Wizards X
>That PaperClip guy in Word X
>Costs ~$80 and up X
>Hell-bent on monopoly X
>General Flakeyness X
> and Crashes
>
>WOW! You're right! Microsoft is *WAAAYYYYYY* ahead of Linux on all
>these *IMPORTANT* "features!"
Bear in mind that it's also ahead of Linux in the number
of applications -- some of which of course are to "fix"
or to work around these "features", such as Norton's
Disk Doctor and Execsoft's Diskeeper, and others which
are merely buggy or non-standard, such as Outlook.
One would hope Linux will catch up, if only because it is
a very stable platform from which to launch applications.
However, Windows NT, while not quite as stable as Linux,
is also far more stable than Win9x -- different design
criteria -- and Microsoft has been wanting for a long time
now to replace the DOS+Win architecture (Win9x) with a true
NT architecture, which requires a different set of internals
and may not give as much access to the hardware, frustrating
game developers.
Linux has similar problems in exposing hardware, of course.
(Actually, they are features, as they add to the stability. :-) )
>
>> Problem is you Linux Nuts are so used to using inferior software that
>> requires an MSEE to operate that you don't know the difference.
>
>Well why waste that MSEE as an unpaid technician for Microsoft? Why
>waste brain cells learning about the registry and fighting just to keep
>your system stable when you can use those same brain cells to learn
>something truly useful (PERL, regex, EMACS, piping) on a system that
>is *already* stable? Doesn't take a GED to figure that one out!
I'll admit, there's a number of things I can do out of the box
on Linux that I miss on NT. The simplest one is: "vi".
Now I know that there's a war on (vi vs emacs vs pico vs Notepad vs...),
but vi is just there, it gets the job done, and gets out of the
way when it's finished. And every Unix system since I don't know
when has it. (Emacs also is available on most Unix systems,
and is vi's "big brother", as it has quite a few more features
and memory usage -- and a different syntax [embedded LISP].)
Actually, I miss "grep" even more, as well. As far as I know,
NT simply doesn't have this capability, although one could write
one up in Visual Basic, I suppose.
>
>Edward
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Charles W. Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Darwin or Linux (Re: The decline of VA Linux)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 17:17:29 GMT
In comp.sys.next.advocacy John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jonathan Hendry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>: Or it could be that BSD-based OSes aren't as hyped, so you don't
>: *hear* about who's using them.
>
> Is sharing at the character-based OS level sufficient for excitement?
Depends on the context, doesn't it? I don't think FreeBSD is doing too
badly by hosting the world's busiest FTP server....
> Besides, I think BSD OSes running X11 have more in common with Linux than
> they do MacOS X.
Neither Mach nor the Linux kernel are particularly related to the FreeBSD
kernel. The BSD layer in MacOS X is fairly directly derived from the BSD 4.4
Lite and *BSD; Linux owes more to GNU and an admixture of SysV. As for X11,
it runs on pretty much every OS out there, which makes it not very useful to
OS comparisions.
-Chuck
Chuck 'Sisyphus' Swiger | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Bad cop! No Donut.
------------------------+-------------------+--------------------
I know that you are an optimist if you think I am a pessimist....
------------------------------
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 09:19:37 GMT
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 3-3-00, 9:13:10 PM, "Paul 'Z' Ewande<?ANSI(169)>"=20
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: Giving up on NT:
> josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a =E9crit dans le message :
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > How about being proactive.
> >
> > Explain why MS is NOT using Win9x as a multimedia OS. It's a mature=
,
> > stable codebase is it not and it's good for multimedia so why not us=
e=20
what
> > is already has developed and established in the marketplace?
> That doesn't make it automatically a bad multimedia OS. It makes NT/2K=
> better.
Not using Win9x and killing future development is evidence it is a bad=20=
OS for multimedia - or that MS management is insane. We can also add=20=
the technical books tell us what Win9x is a weak OS for multitasking,=20=
reliability and hard to maintain. =20
NT Windows2000 are not replacements. Neither Win9x or NT/Windows2000=20=
are good OSs for consumer multimedia for different reasons. =20
> > I can tell you why - so can the CEO of BeOS who said it far funnier =
than
> > I. Win9x is a crummy OS for multimedia. He said it's akin to putti=
ng=20
a
> > tight dress and lipstick on a grandma and sending her to a disco to =
"get
> Ooooh. The CEO of a competing OS disses Windows9x, what a shock ! And =
yes i
> do believe that BeOS [with the proper hardware and software] is a=20
better
> multimedia platform than Win9x, after all, it's a specialist, Win9x is=
=20
a
> generalist.
Ooooh a MS advocate refuses to acknowledge common sense. Win9x is a=20=
crummy OS for multimedia. It can be said dryly, or entertainingly. =20=
> > lucky". When people blame QT they implicitly recognize that Win9x=20=
isn't
> > preempting QT and copeing with the network download. Showing the Ma=
c=20
to
> I don't. Windows9x multitasking is closer to NT/Linux/UNIX than to
> MacOS8.x/9. Now if running QT degrades the network perfomance, IMO, QT=
=20
must
> be doing something really, really bad.
What does preemptive multitasking mean? It means the OS preempts ALL=20=
applications and doesn't let one dominate system resources. You want=20=
to blame QT then blame QT. Let us say that Win9x is a good OS for=20
multimedia but QT is a bad technology. =20
The question is why is a OS that is good at multimedia screwed up by a=20=
multi media application hogging system resources? The answer is the=20=
Win9x OS sucks and should preempt QT and not let QT interfere. =20
> On my system, encoding or compressing archives have a really=20
negligible
> impact on my download speeds.
> Now, you are sure that a poorly coded application could not degrade=20=
the
> performance of an NT/Linux/UNIX system ?
Yes. Such a robust OS has Preemptive multitasking. It also explains=20=
why LINUX and BSD can perform on lower resource systems where hardware=20=
cannot compensate for short comings of the OS.
> > be worse doesn't fix Win95 and we all know OS X is a BSD based OS=20=
which
> > does have great multitaksing.
> Wai-wai-wai-wait !. The original claim was Win9x is worse at=20
multimedia
> than MacOS because under QT, the MacOS behaves better.
No sir - the original claim was Win9x was a crummy OS for multimedia -=20=
PERIOD. I saw my G3 Mac perform better at running QT and maintaining=20=
the download than my Win9x system. Mac OS is a bad OS too which is=20
why Apple is replacing it with a BSD based OS called OS X.
> This I take issue with, since IMO, QT doesn't define multimedia, it's =
just a
> subset and IME I have no problems whatsoever multitasking when using=20=
other
> multimedia apps [Windows, MediaPlayer, WinAmp, XingMpeg Encoder,...].=
QT is a significant part of PC multimedia and therefore ANY OS good=20
with multimedia would run QT and downlaod content well. If an OS=20
passes QT it hasn't been shown to be good for all mutlimedia but=20
failing QT shows it to be bad for multimedia.
> > QT is one example - IMHO a leading example but let's just call it on=
e
> Leading example ? Says who ? .MPG or .MP3 encoding/listening/watching =
isn't
> ? Windows Media Player doesn't fit the bill ?
Find a better format and content than QT for video and sound quality. =20=
.MPG ? .MP3? Windows Media Player=20
> > example that is better in size and quality than streaming video whic=
h=20
such
> > crap that it's often untolerable. Disagree - show us a few examples=
=20
of
> > streaming content that rival Apple's QT trailers.
> I don't know, what's so special about them ? I've never have any=20
problem
> streaming videos with Windows Media Player.
The content sucks in both quality is small.
> I gave many example of other sets of multimedia activies and I/O=20
stuff, that
> my Win98SE handles nicely.
A OS good at multimedia woud be good at ALL multimedia and not let=20
even ONE application ruin it's behavior since a good OS multitasks well.=
=20
...
> Maybe, maybe not. Now, Windows Media Player, Winamp, XingEncoder,..., =
File
> compression, file decompression, PCTV Vision don't have this problem, =
even
> Photoshop. What can I say ?
Sound is less demanding than sound with video. Streaming video is=20
small in size and crummy in quality - in part due to limitations of=20
Windows9x so it is a bad example. If you disagree you are free to=20
point me to a site with better content than the Apple trailer site. =20=
The QT video I offered is large and high quality therefore it stresses=20=
the OS and is a great example. Listing 1 or 100 less demanding=20
examples doesn't address the shortcomings. Windows9x doesn't scale well=
.=20
All you need is one failure to show the OS has problems and we can=20
explain why the failure is the OSs fault so were not guessing. We can=20=
justify that QT is important because the size and quality are in par=20=
with what a consumer would want. But step back and look - MS is=20
killing Win9x's code base - what can I say? =20
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy.
Date: 4 Mar 2000 17:28:00 GMT
On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 01:18:53 GMT, proculous wrote:
>For the latest in deviant homosexual behavior:
>
>http://www.cruisingforsex.com
The funny thing about some homophobes is that they're obsessed with the
fine details of homosexual acts, as well as gay pornography. This guys
obsession with gay pornography would appear to suggest a repressed
homosexual tendency.
Personally, it never occurs to me to even think about homosexual acts
or gay pornography -- I'm too busy thinking about girls.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dell picks Linux over Windows 2000 for dellhost.com
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 17:29:08 GMT
On Sat, 04 Mar 2000 04:24:19 GMT, "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I bought my Dell last October. Linux was an available option then. Their
>deals with Red Hat are old news. Do you have anything new to report here?
>
>-- M
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:89l08g$u66$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In a stunning blow to Microsoft, Dell has picked Linux over
>> Windows 2000 for dellhost.com
God, is petilon still trolling?
I would have thought showing himself to be a moron in the Great
Windows 2000 Bug thread would have been enough to embarass himself.
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 19:15:45 +0100
"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 3-3-00, 9:13:10 PM, "Paul 'Z' Ewande<?ANSI(169)>"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: Giving up on NT:
> > josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > How about being proactive.
> > >
> > > Explain why MS is NOT using Win9x as a multimedia OS. It's a mature,
> > > stable codebase is it not and it's good for multimedia so why not use
what
> > > is already has developed and established in the marketplace?
> > That doesn't make it automatically a bad multimedia OS. It makes NT/2K
> > better.
> Not using Win9x and killing future development is evidence it is a bad
> OS for multimedia - or that MS management is insane. We can also add
What the ? It means that they want to go full 32 bit, because 16/32 was
useful while facilitating the transition from Win16 to Win32.
> the technical books tell us what Win9x is a weak OS for multitasking,
> reliability and hard to maintain.
The experience show that while not as good as NT, it's not that far behind,
regarding multitasking ability. Of course, I don't expect you to believe me.
> NT Windows2000 are not replacements. Neither Win9x or NT/Windows2000
> are good OSs for consumer multimedia for different reasons.
I'll be real curious to know what is your good consumer OS. Can you disclos
it's name ?
> > I can tell you why - so can the CEO of BeOS who said it far funnier than
> > I. Win9x is a crummy OS for multimedia. He said it's akin to putting a
> > tight dress and lipstick on a grandma and sending her to a disco to "get
> > Ooooh. The CEO of a competing OS disses Windows9x, what a shock ! And
yes i
> > do believe that BeOS [with the proper hardware and software] is a better
> > multimedia platform than Win9x, after all, it's a specialist, Win9x is a
> > generalist.
> Ooooh a MS advocate refuses to acknowledge common sense. Win9x is a
> crummy OS for multimedia. It can be said dryly, or entertainingly.
***Fatal Exception in lexical parser. Segmentation Fault. Core dumped.***
Since you apparently have a monopoly on common sense, multimedia definition
and get to derogatory comments, I must admit defeat.
Your undisclosed superior at multimedia consumer OS, Windows any version
suck at it, you win.
<SNIP> Some stuff corrupted by the lexical parser crash </SNIP>
Paul 'Z' Ewande
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: WaRtHaWg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Innovation: The Play
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 11:58:21 -0600
One day, three or four months ago, Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates were sitting
around puzzling over their latest quandry: how to get a clue. Suddenly, Bill
came unslouched from his chair, tried to snap his fingers a few times, then
blurted out "I've got it, Steve!"
Ballmer blinked slowly as the reptilian lids slid back from over his eyeballs.
He had seen this sort of excitement in Bill before, and it meant only one
thing. Trouble. Prepared for the worst, fully expecting something random,
Steve queried carefully: "You've got what, Bill?"
"We'll innovate our way into Clue Land!" shouted Bill with glee. Then he went
on to explain how he would innovate a board game, and call it Cloo Two. Gates
described how he would include with every copy of the game he sold a complete
deck of Clue cards. "Just imagine," he grinned, "we need never be called Clue
Free again!"
A press release was hurriedly put together to announce this great corporate
breakthrough and soon it appeared on the MS website. Its opening paragraph
read:
"Microsoft announced today another chapter in their long and brilliant history
of innovation. Bill Gates, working hand in glove with Steve Ballmer,
personally has achieved a solution to that dread condition known as
Cluelessness. Microsoft's newly released W2K contains a board game with its
own deck of clue cards, thereby guaranteeing a ready supply of that scarce
resource."
The announcement drew considerable scorn and derision from the non-Windowed
world. Joe The Unbeliever did the unthinkable and said that such a game
already existed, and that for MS to claim their clone as an example of
innovation was a sad and pathetic thing. Others said much the same thing.
The press release was bringing MS attention, alright, but not the sort that
they had hoped for. So much attention that their most senior spinmeisters
were hurriedly thrown into action to do damage control.
"What's the situation here, Dale?" Bill Mattox asked worriedly over their
secret secure symbolic link. "It's bad, Bill, very bad." Dale replied. They
agreed that in a critical situation like this, a single response template
would probably not suffice. In fact, they were already seeing the first
symptoms of that dread condition known in the trade as "spin lock."
This called for massive doses of double-dipping: one dose from Template A and
one from Template B. So it was agreed, and so the parallel synchronized knee
jerk swim team went into action.
Mattox began the defense by pointing out that by the very act of doubting what
Gates the Great had claimed, Joe The Unbeliever proved he was of doubtful moral
fiber. The drum upon which he was beating is well-worn. Only losers,
wannabes, or missed the boat non-conformists ever disagree with or
doubt THE WORD ACCORDING TO REDMOND. About anything, whether that word be
cooked benchmarketing of products six months to a year from seeing the light
of day or press releases trumpeting MS "innovation."
Dale followed with a cunning cross-examination. "Did you read the rest of the
story?" he demanded. Tim joined in and the two held hands as they began the
high-kicking chorus of "We're queer for Bill, and we read it til, THE END!"
Joe The Unbeliever asked if a careful reader of history would read all the way
to the end if the opening paragraph of a tome explained that the world was
flat. Dale blinked. Tim paused. But neither could quite grasp the
probem or its significance, so they ignored it.
"Joe The Unbeliever, you have been found guilty of disbelief. Further, you
did not consume the entire text as prepared for you by Microsoft public
relations and as explained to you by your assigned "readers." Therefore in all
matters you are wrong, and your feet stink."
The tribunal's verdict was sealed. The matter was closed.
Microsoft was pleased. They knew they had a big hit on their hands. What
they never quite grasped was that although the cast thought they were doing
a drama, the audience thought they were watching an absurd comedy.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 18:00:17 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:17:47 -0500, someone claiming to be mlw wrote:
>Roger wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 12:33:15 -0800, someone claiming to be Bob Lyday
>> wrote:
>> >Actually a worse problem now is M$ pressuring HW makers to
>> >support only their platform -- this will get worse with Lose2K. Of
>> >course it's illegal but what do they care?
>> Of course, it's not happening, but what do you care -- you'll still
>> make the claim without any proof...
>Actually it is happening, but it is much more subtle. Better breaks,
>better internal MS QA support, incusion of drivers with distribution,
>etc. The term "pressure" is an appropriate term.
<looks>
Still don't see any proof...
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 18:00:18 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 23:51:27 -0000, someone claiming to be Nigel
Feltham wrote:
>Roger wrote in message ...
>>On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 12:33:15 -0800, someone claiming to be Bob Lyday
>>wrote:
>>>Actually a worse problem now is M$ pressuring HW makers to
>>>support only their platform -- this will get worse with Lose2K. Of
>>>course it's illegal but what do they care?
>>Of course, it's not happening, but what do you care -- you'll still
>>make the claim without any proof...
>Quite a few hardware products are already windoze only, such as the nasty
>winmodems and GDI printers.
And the proof that this is due to pressure from MS is ... ?
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
