Linux-Advocacy Digest #587, Volume #25 Fri, 10 Mar 00 21:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (Donn Miller)
Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux) (Donn Miller)
Re: XFree86 v. 4.0 hits the street. (Donn Miller)
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian (JEDIDIAH)
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! (Multi_OS)
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! (Multi_OS)
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! (Multi_OS)
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! (Multi_OS)
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian (JEDIDIAH)
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! (George Marengo)
Re: Why post? (William Adderholdt)
Re: A little advocacy.. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: A little advocacy.. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Lion)
Re: A little advocacy.. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: A little advocacy.. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: A little advocacy.. (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux)
Date: 10 Mar 2000 18:03:57 -0600
In article <8abrmp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So.... don't use it.
>> Use vi or joe or ed or pico or NOTEPAD.EXE under Wine. You could even
>> be a Real BSD Man(tm) and pipe together some head and tail.
>
>Use it on what file? The dotfile the makefile creates? Is that guaranteed
>to be even semi-sane when you upgrade the kernel?
Yes, but then you should 'make oldconfig' which will let you
select 'yes/no/module' for only the new features that have been
added to the kernel since you created the old .config. How do
you do that with a bsd build?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:09:59 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux)
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> Huh? Just because there is a target for 'make xconfig' to
> get a nice point-n-click set of choices with help available
> doesn't keep you from doing 'vi .config' instead. And now
> at least redhat style distributions can do a 'make install'
> to put everything in the right place and run lilo for you.
I wonder if BSDi has a menu-style kernel configuration. Or, is it the
same as the other BSD distros? As you may know, Walnut Creek is
merging with BSDi. FreeBSD and BSDi will (attempt to) shares the same
codebase. That would be interesting, wouldn't it? Will FreeBSD's
quality increase or decrease? Remember when Fisher Audio was bought
out by Sanyo some years back? Fisher stereos came down in price and
quality, but the Sanyos increased in quality. So, there's this "meet
at halfway" point when two products/companies merge.
- Donn
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:20:28 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: Kernels (Was: Re: BSD & Linux)
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> Yes, but then you should 'make oldconfig' which will let you
> select 'yes/no/module' for only the new features that have been
> added to the kernel since you created the old .config. How do
> you do that with a bsd build?
Probably by saving the original LINT and GENERIC files to new files,
and running diff. =) Yes, BSD likes to do things the old-fashioned
way. Really, though, I kind of like the BSD kernel config file
method, because I can just eyeball it up, and tell what's supported
without having to go through a whole bunch of cascading menu items.
This is possible because the kernel config is pretty well-documented
(most of the time, anyways) with comments. Yes, the comments are real
important in the BSD kernel config file.
But, I wouldn't complain too much about the Linux way of configuring
the kernel. I don't prefer it; Linux is geared more toward beginners
anyways. I really never complained - you've just got to do what's
required to configure the kernel. I "just do it".
An aside - what kind of kernel config utility do you think Microsoft
used to configure the Windows 2000 kernel, huh? I'll bet Winvocates
didn't even know Windows had a kernel. Winvocates would die if they
went into a room of Windows developers and saw them configuring the
W2K kernel. "What????!!?? Windows has a kernel???!!?? They have to
configure and compile a kernel?????!!!!?? *Thunk!*"
- Donn
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 19:41:25 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XFree86 v. 4.0 hits the street.
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
> XFree86 v. 4.0 just hit the streets a few hours ago.
Anyone get DPMS working? I've done an "xset +dpms" while in XFree86
4.0, and so far it hasn't kicked in yet. :( DPMS didn't work in any
of the 4.0 snapshots for me, either, and I saw where Linux people had
this problem as well.
Oh well, no big loss. I think the dpms screen savers are most usesful
when I'm using the console only anyways, and the console has dpms
blanking. You figure, when you're at the console, you're usually
doing long compiles or are spending long hours away from the machine,
so DPMS is useful there. Statistically, X users are more or less of
the "stop-n-go" variety, and as such dpms is bad for them. You don't
want the monitor turning off and on a bazillion times - it's not good
for the life of the monitor. *Scratch* *scratch* I suppose that when
LCD monitors replace CRT tube monitors, we won't need DPMS anyways,
because there won't be a world of energy usage difference between
turning the monitor off and blanking it with a screen saver.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 00:57:29 GMT
On 3 Mar 2000 15:23:57 GMT, Wolfgang Weisselberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 02 Mar 2000 22:50:13 -0700,
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Where did this internet come from anyway?
>
>> UNIX machines.
>
>> If it weren't for us, you'd be a happy member of MSN; paying by the
>> hour for "quality" content.
>
>You think MS would have ever thought of WANs and LANs without
>seeing the internet first (and fairly late at that)?
So, they would copy Compuserve or AOL instead...
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Multi_OS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 00:45:36 GMT
> > folks, this is big, big news. greate news for Linux !!!
> >
> > "Ottawa -- Corel Corp. is in talks with Intel Corp. and at
> > least one major computer maker to launch a line of cheap
> > personal computers that takes direct aim at Microsoft Corp.'s
> > near-monopoly in desktop PC operating systems."
> >
> > http://www.globeandmail.com/gam/TopBusiness/20000309/RCORE.html
> >
> >
http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?s=b69a18f42b44d5aefdde7b4cac8ba194&;
T=marketsquote99_news.ht
> >
> > go Linux, go Debian, go Corel !!
>
> It is not good news for Linux, Corel Linux is the worst of breed.
So is Intel. This news is better than a kick in the ass with a frozen
boot, which is what m$ is getting. He didn't claim Corel Linux was the
best thing since sliced bread, he said _Linux_ was the next desktop
OS. Linux can be whatever anyone wants to make of it, as long as you're
running a Linux kernel you've got Linux ! If Corel/Intel helps put
Linux in stores and on desktops more power to em.
You can't expect too much from desperate windoze lusers they'll likely
grab at the first straw. They can upgrade their software over the net
for _free_ whenever they wish. Hopefully next time they buy a *NIX box
they'll know enough to buy some better hardware too.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Multi_OS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 00:48:45 GMT
> > folks, this is big, big news. greate news for Linux !!!
> >
> > "Ottawa -- Corel Corp. is in talks with Intel Corp. and at
> > least one major computer maker to launch a line of cheap
> > personal computers that takes direct aim at Microsoft Corp.'s
> > near-monopoly in desktop PC operating systems."
> >
> > http://www.globeandmail.com/gam/TopBusiness/20000309/RCORE.html
> >
> >
http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?s=b69a18f42b44d5aefdde7b4cac8ba194&;
T=marketsquote99_news.ht
> >
> > go Linux, go Debian, go Corel !!
>
> It is not good news for Linux, Corel Linux is the worst of breed.
So is Intel. This news is better than a kick in the ass with a frozen
boot, which is what m$ is getting. He didn't claim Corel Linux was the
best thing since sliced bread, he said _Linux_ was the next desktop
OS. Linux can be whatever anyone wants to make of it, as long as you're
running a Linux kernel you've got Linux ! If Corel/Intel helps put
Linux in stores and on desktops more power to em.
You can't expect too much from desperate windoze lusers they'll likely
grab at the first straw. They can upgrade their software over the net
for _free_ whenever they wish. Hopefully next time they buy a *NIX box
they'll know enough to buy some better hardware too.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Multi_OS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 00:50:44 GMT
> > folks, this is big, big news. greate news for Linux !!!
> >
> > "Ottawa -- Corel Corp. is in talks with Intel Corp. and at
> > least one major computer maker to launch a line of cheap
> > personal computers that takes direct aim at Microsoft Corp.'s
> > near-monopoly in desktop PC operating systems."
> >
> > http://www.globeandmail.com/gam/TopBusiness/20000309/RCORE.html
> >
> >
http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?s=b69a18f42b44d5aefdde7b4cac8ba194&;
T=marketsquote99_news.ht
> >
> > go Linux, go Debian, go Corel !!
>
> It is not good news for Linux, Corel Linux is the worst of breed.
So is Intel. This news is better than a kick in the ass with a frozen
boot, which is what m$ is getting. He didn't claim Corel Linux was the
best thing since sliced bread, he said _Linux_ was the next desktop
OS. Linux can be whatever anyone wants to make of it, as long as you're
running a Linux kernel you've got Linux ! If Corel/Intel helps put
Linux in stores and on desktops more power to em.
You can't expect too much from desperate windoze lusers they'll likely
grab at the first straw. They can upgrade their software over the net
for _free_ whenever they wish. Hopefully next time they buy a *NIX box
they'll know enough to buy some better hardware too.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Multi_OS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 00:50:13 GMT
> > folks, this is big, big news. greate news for Linux !!!
> >
> > "Ottawa -- Corel Corp. is in talks with Intel Corp. and at
> > least one major computer maker to launch a line of cheap
> > personal computers that takes direct aim at Microsoft Corp.'s
> > near-monopoly in desktop PC operating systems."
> >
> > http://www.globeandmail.com/gam/TopBusiness/20000309/RCORE.html
> >
> >
http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi?s=b69a18f42b44d5aefdde7b4cac8ba194&;
T=marketsquote99_news.ht
> >
> > go Linux, go Debian, go Corel !!
>
> It is not good news for Linux, Corel Linux is the worst of breed.
So is Intel. This news is better than a kick in the ass with a frozen
boot, which is what m$ is getting. He didn't claim Corel Linux was the
best thing since sliced bread, he said _Linux_ was the next desktop
OS. Linux can be whatever anyone wants to make of it, as long as you're
running a Linux kernel you've got Linux ! If Corel/Intel helps put
Linux in stores and on desktops more power to em.
You can't expect too much from desperate windoze lusers they'll likely
grab at the first straw. They can upgrade their software over the net
for _free_ whenever they wish. Hopefully next time they buy a *NIX box
they'll know enough to buy some better hardware too.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:01:20 GMT
On Sun, 05 Mar 2000 11:40:55 GMT, George Richard Russell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:58:06 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Just like those Linux wordprocessors, pay for the fully featured or write
>>>code for the castrated versions. Linux has no stable, open WP's, and the
>>>closed one are inferior ports from their native platforms (SOffice, WP )
>>
>> It rather depends on what features you want. None of you
>> Bloatware Worshipers have managed to come up with just
>> what it is that anything not MS lacks. This isn't just a
>> general Linux vs. WinDOS function but applies equally to
>> apps on Win32 itself.
>
>Hey, there are better WP's for non MS platforms, say Apple, RiscOS, whatever,
>then for Linux / X11. Better means more layout features than rtf provides,
>useful things like grammar checking, spell checking, style sheets, wizards,
Both of these are achievable with external modules. Gramslam for
the Atari ST comes to mind. Nevermding that RTF is a format, and
as such is quite orthogonal to automatic syntax checking.
Ditto for wizards, mail merge and filtering.
>mail merges, import / export filters, etc....
>
>Also inclusion of clipart, more formatting / layout options, useful tools like
>word count (yes, some linux WP's lack this), table embedding etc...
>
>Frankly, the list of what you get is to long to enumerate here - suffice to say,
>if you cared, just look at the feature lists andpick out what you like.
Most of it is either already available in GPLed word processors
or is distinct enough functionally to be added modularly at
runtime.
>
>>>
>>>> Depending on what 'advanced features' of Word you're most interested
>>>> in, a vi or emacs comparison could be quite relevant.
>>[deletia]
>>
>> Until you can provide something resembling detail regarding
>> what you think you get from bloatware apps, any comparisons
>> between them and ANYthing else are meaningless.
>
>Hey, fast and easy production of layout intensive documents in WYSIWYG manner.
>Integration to more than being able to pipe to external commands.
>
>Not done in vi / emacs
That's DTP, not word processing actually.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:05:36 GMT
On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 00:50:44 GMT, Multi_OS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
<snip>
>You can't expect too much from desperate windoze lusers they'll likely
>grab at the first straw. They can upgrade their software over the net
>for _free_ whenever they wish. Hopefully next time they buy a *NIX box
>they'll know enough to buy some better hardware too.
Hopefully we can expect you, when posting your Windows bashing
using a Windows machine, to learn how to send a single reply instead
of multiples. Heck, even most of us "windoze lusers" can figure out
how to do that...
George
AtHome Security Frequently Asked Questions:
http://members.home.net/gmarengo
------------------------------
Reply-To: William Adderholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why post?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Adderholdt)
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:12:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do people post pro-lunux and anti-linux stuff here?
[snip]
> Anti-Linux:
>
> As for the anti-linux camp, I am not sure. What motivates anti-anything?
> Usually hate of some kind. Hate is usually irrational, and when it comes
> to inanimate objects like an OS, it must be irrational. The only other
> alternative, and this is falls into the conspiracy theory, is that it is
> an effort which is funded by a corporation, like an astroturf movement.
[snip]
I've never bought into this astroturf theory. I just think that Usenet is
the last place for a company to try to spread propaganda. A more likely
campaign would involve letters to the editors of newspapers, posts to
heavily trafficked Web-based discussions (like Slashdot, for example),
and so on. I don't think anyone cares what comp.os.linux.advocacy thinks.
> I have never met a windows user, except for these people, that isn't
> frustrated with Windows' instability and forced upgrade strategy of
> Office. Many windows' users would drop Windows the first opportunity
> they get.
>
> So why, I ask, would these people go to the trouble that they do, to
> post a negative messages?
>
> Are they threatened by Linux for some reason?
> What could be threatening about a PC OS?
> Are they paid by a corporation that views Linux as a threat?
Have you noticed how some of the Windows advocates seem to start off with
quite rational arguments, then slowly become less and less reasonable,
until finally they seem to be out to merely insult everyone? My theory:
They first come into the newsgroup, probably because of all the Linux
hype, and hear a lot of people criticizing Windows. Their experience
isn't as bad, so they might post their disagreement with some of the
points being made, or even just the way the Linux advocates make their
points. Then, after being roundly attacked -- this is an advocacy group,
after all -- it becomes a matter of pride to not back down in the face
of all the insults. They start to regularly play the devil's advocate on
this newsgroup, and then, after a long while, they're no longer playing.
Of course, a lot of people in this newsgroup really hate Microsoft for
their bullying business methods. It's hard to not let that hatred of
the company create a strong bias against any product they sell, and maybe
some of the Windows "advocates" start out just reacting against that bias.
So, to answer your post, hating an operating system is indeed quite
irrational, but the more I read comp.os.linux.advocacy, the more I'm
convinced that the most heated arguments here have less to do with
Linux than they might appear to.
William Adderholdt
--
'Tis not enough your counsel still be true;
Blunt truths more mischief than nice falsehoods do.
-- Alexander Pope, "Essay on Criticism"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:12:47 GMT
On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 08:04:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You beat me to it but here is some more:
>
>
>On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 01:57:42 -0500, "Drestin Black"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>> I just setup a Linux box for a friend. A mediaOne user that wants his on
>>> local network.
>>>
>>> Every question he asked was yes with Linux:
>>>
>>> Can all my computers get out to the net? Yes.
>
>Assuming he doesn't have the ever popular Winmodem which seems to be
>included with just about every pre-load on the planet.
Or he could stop acting like a frightened little infant and
just read the bloody smb.conf file and use those pattern
matching skills he should have picked up during the college
boards.
>>> Can I share files, you know, like a file server? Yes.
>After reading Samba How-to's until your eyes are bleary eyed and red.
>If it's so easy why has someone in this group even set up "yet
>another"Samba help page" ?
>
>Buy a Linksys Windows networking kit and you will be doing it in 10
>minutes or less.
That would be a 'Windows' company that distributes linux
module source on it's driver disks...
>>> Can my wife's Mac use the files? Yes.
>See above.
>>> Can I put a printer on it, and share that? Yes.
>
>Assuming you paid through the nose for a Postscript printer ala HP.
Nope. Just get something at ~100 for deskjet PCL and $300
for laser PCL. This is one of those lies like 'recompiled
your kernel today'.
>Winprinters which are included yet again in just about every pre-load
>need not apply. Same for many fine non-Winprinters which are reduced
>to featureless junk when using Linux, although they may produce "Some"
>output.
Perhaps. Although when compared to the 'upgrade treadmill'
even replacing crappy windows only hardware might not be
such bad thing.
RealModems ~ $40
RealPrinters ~ $100
SCSI Scanner + separate host ~ $100
>
>Same goes for non-SCSI scanners, USB devices, Sound Cards, camera's.
My USB devices work fine under linux and the two major sound
card manufacturers are currently supporting linux officially.
Cameras in general have never been much of a problem.
>>> Can I get a database for it, you know, like SQL or something? Yes.
>Don't use one so no comment.
Just shut up then. You are obviously far too pedestrian
a user to have any useful input here. This is a discourse
amongst users that do real work with their systems, not
just use them as very overpriced toys.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:15:50 GMT
On Mon, 06 Mar 2000 18:02:05 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Drestin Black wrote:
>>
>> "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> <snip>
>> > Hate to say it, but this post is , simply put, a load of crap. It is
>> > riddled with assertions that vary from misleading to blatantly false.
>> >
>> > I am not sure whether you are ignorant or just lacking in honesty.
>> >
>> > If the former, I suggest you hold back on commenting about Linux, since
>> > you don't seem to know very much about it. If the latter, well your
>> > bluff has been called today and I'll be there to call it again if
>> > necessary ...
>>
>> You know, i was thinking the same thing about mlw's original post.
>> :)
>
>The one difference is that my original post is true and sincere, while
>yours is obviously made up.
It addressed what could be done, the possible plusses of one
particular option rather than blind mudslinging of another one.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Lion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:15:50 +0000
In article <wdYx4.71001$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christopher
Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>How could we prove that there are people paid by Microsoft to badmouth
>Linux in public fora?
Well they do it openly enough on their website...
--
Lion
BreadHead - Back By Popular Demand
Sex, Metal & Revolution
http://www.bigfoot.com/~breadhead
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:18:11 GMT
On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 18:07:25 GMT, George Richard Russell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 7 Mar 2000 20:53:13 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Well, I know a bit about desktop Linux, and where and why it fails.
>>
>>YMMV. It doesn't "fail" on my desktop. I can see where usability
>>improvements could be made, bu that hardly alters the fact that "Drestin"'s
>>post was pure cr*p, and frankly, I'm surprised to see you bending it
>>and attemptijng to salvage his arguments ( by restating them in a
>>reverse-strawman manner ) to make them look half credible.
>
>If the usability problems and support gaps are big enough for him to notice
>them, then Linux needs fixing, and the more people that know it the more it'll
>annoy someone enough for them to fix it.
OTOH, unless the guy specifically mentions gaming and/or tax
preparation software in his requirements then all of your
vague empty rhetoric becomes worthless.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:23:58 GMT
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 04:31:38 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:mlKw4.15350$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Has anyone noticed that all "reasons" given about Linux being inferior to
>> Windows just don't make sense?
>
>They may not make sense to you, but they sure make sense to the majority of
>current computer users.
>
'current computer users', the novices probably relate as well
to most of your types of linux gripes as they might towards
a discussion of a beowulf cluster or the multi-mpeg Be Demo.
>> Sure Linux requires more study. I don't mind using my brain. If you do,
>> then stick to windows.
>
>Most current computer users don't even know how to use Windows all that
>well, and linux can take a lot more work. Tell a Doctor that's spent 7
>years in medical school, 4 years as an intern and working 75 hours a week
>that he has to learn Linux. Won't happen.
Linux takes no more or less sysadmin on average than Windows does.
It's the kludge hardware, and concepts, and the general chaos of
PC hardware much moreso than it is the OS or user shell.
Such a user is much better served by anything preloaded and bolted
down to the point of being a console.
This describes a Macintosh, but not a WinTel PC.
[deletia]
>> spend their time learning something more difficult unless there was a
>valid
>> reason.
>
>I can guarantee that I can configure your Linux system to run only for a few
>minutes and lock up.
IOW: you would have to apply some rather special effort to the
cause rather than just letting it kill itself on it's own. That's
the critical difference between Unix and NT or Win9x.
It actually takes some effort and intent to melt a Unix.
>
>Windows is not as unstable as you claim except when improperly configured,
>much like Linux. (No, i'm not saying Windows is as stable as Linux, I'm
If you need to know how to do things properly, then the goal
of simplicity has failed.
>saying it's not as unstable as your claiming) But for the majoroity of
>people that run their computer for a few hours then shut it off, Windows
>never or almost never crashes for said people.
This has been demonstrated false quite often in our own
personal experiences...
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: A little advocacy..
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 01:28:29 GMT
On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 19:33:58 -0800, Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:23:45 -0600,
> Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2000 04:31:38 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>> > Linux advocates say it's intended purpose is to replace windows.
>>>
>>> Please provide references for your claim.
>>
>>Oh, so you'r claiming it's not?
>
>well, I am a linux advocate, and I don't claim that linux is here
>to replace windows. Some people are better off with windows (for
>now at least) So since your claim was all inclusive, one counter
>example refutes it.
I dispute that ANYONE is better off with Windows. They might be
better off with MacOS or BeOS or even a Dreamcast. Those suit
a novice end user far better than any 'glorified DOS' running
on a 'souped up XT'.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
