Linux-Advocacy Digest #617, Volume #25 Mon, 13 Mar 00 19:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Sucks************************* ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Oh Yeah Baby!! ("2 + 2")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: Oh Yeah Baby!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Linux Sucks************************* (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) (Wolfgang
Weisselberg)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Marty)
Re: A Linux server atop Mach? ("MJP")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Marty)
Re: A Linux server atop Mach? ("MJP")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks*************************
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:58:23 GMT
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 15:10:54 -0600, John Sanders
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Subject says it all***************************
>
> I'll bet you're the kind of guy that uses an application toaster. Am I
>right?
I prefer Bagels myself, but toast will do.
> I'll bet the one you use is W95 or W98. Am I right again?
Win 98SE in MY case. Works like a charm and supports just about every
piece of hardware on the planet. Sets up my internet conncetion
sharing, soundcard, network card, scroll mouse and so forth right out
of the box so I can concentrate on applications. You DO run
applications I take it?
>Those OSs are for 'point and clickers'. Just point at the icon of the
>app you want, and (this is the fun part) 'click' on it. Pretty quick,
>your app pops up! Am I right? Then you 'do your real work'. Am I
>right?
Yep. Something the Linux community dreams of at night. It's all about
applications my dear, and since you have none, that the free world
would be interested in anyway, you need not apply.
Point click / Command line doesn't matter to me. Windows and Microsoft
have the applications world locked up tight. Linux has only a hodge
podge of ugly looking, hard to configure and hostile applications that
only a geek would love. Even the Linux equivilants of Windows
applications are not up to the feature level of their Windows
counterparts. How about environmental software for the SBLive?
Taken a good look at Wordperfect for Linux lately? Notice how crappy
it looks?
Windows version looks fine.
Linux users can only dream of all the applications availible for
Windows users. Take a walk through CompUSA some day and see for
yourself. Now take a look at Freshmeat.net and see how many version
.998 applications are there. Also make sure you look at how long they
have been in development and still have NOT reached even version 1.0.
Trust my data to that crap?
HELL NO!
Free software is just that....Free and full of comprimises...
Go play with Biff. Pine or Lynx but make sure you don't get any Tar
-xfv on your clothes.
> Gosh. I envy you. Some day I'll buy a real OS. Then I'll be cool,
>too. Am I right?
I doubt you would be cool driving a 2000 canary yellow Vette....
You sound more like an AMC Pacer guy to me. Maybe Daddy's station
wagon complete with fake wood sides?
I dated a guy once with a car like that. Geek city!
I'll bet he's running Linux these days.
How about a Ford Taurus? Yikes...Now that IS boring..
BTW the 3.8l engine is notorious for blowing head gaskets.
You have been warned!
If you think Windows, or Linux will make you cool then you have a
serious problem.
My opinion but, what the heck........
Heather and Steve....
Easily reached via [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And yes, there is a Heather and there is a Steve and surprise they are
real names :)
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Oh Yeah Baby!!
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:58:15 -0500
See "Novell jumps into Linux pool" at
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1570677.html?dtn.head
2 + 2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:49:33 GMT
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:05:25 -0500, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >> No, if something were functionally trivial you would neither
>> >> need any references (bought or installed in the form of man
>> >> or hlp files) and you wouldn't ever need to expend mental
>> >> effort on using it.
>> >
>> >I disagree. A car is quite complex, but yet quite easy to drive.
>>
>> The AAA and my state registrar will surely get a hoot
>> out of both of those clueless comments.
>>
>
>Not hard to learn at the very least.
>
>I'm not talking about the idiots that drink or don't pay attention.
>It's a testiment to how easy it is the drive the idiots they do so, if only
>poorly.
>
No, you've just lost touch with your inner car novice. You've
been driving so long that you think that it is a task that is
both simple and second nature.
It takes effort and practice. It's just something that is
universally considered worth the effort.
>
>>
>> I usually just execute the associated application marked
>> something like 'install' or 'setup'. The lack of an auto-
>> mounter is less of an issue than you make it out to be.
>> Most of the destops work around that at this point.
>
>Oh. A good example is Gtkalog.
>It's a Gnome based cd/disk catalog program.
>It tries to index /mnt/cdrom if you point it there, but cannot mount it
>automatically (and should the each program have to? It's the OSes job)
>If fact a previous version even crashed since their wasn't a mounted cd
>there.
That's a good example of a bad app, not a bad OS.
First, the app should not be assuming a cannonical
name when there is a perfectly good 'mountpoint
database available'. Second, the application is more
than capable of checking whether or not a particular
mountpoint is active and if not to activate it.
The GNOME user shell does this infact.
>
>So are you saying to me to catalog 10 cd's I have to be running a full
>desktop environment, and mounting in that, catalog, and unmount in the DE
>10 times, instead of under Windows quickly shuffling the 10 cd's through
>without the nonsense?
>
>I can't believe you think mounting and unmounting removable media to be
>acceptable. Especially in this case.
I trust developers less than I trust myself. This example
is a perfect illustration of that. There will always be
occasion where it is good to have very fine control over
the system.
There's no good reason that automation can't deal with this
complexities. That gmc can is a clear demonstration that it
is not a showstopper but rather a sloppy developer.
>Not everyone runs a desktop environment, and that is a damn poor place for
>that functionally to exist.
>
>That doesn't help those without, or in file managers.
Actually the functionality exists at the system call level. The
desktop just makes use of it. While I can certainly understand
if some desktop user is not aware of mount & umount, a developer
simply does not have cause to blame the OS.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:17:31 -0500
The Scotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm just a 3 month Linux newbie, but my Netscape 4.72 does allow copy
> and paste to the location bar, just did it to verify.
>
> Bob Scott
>
> Jim Ross wrote:
> snip>
> > I guess I'm saying that for me the Netscape Location Bar doesn't accept
a
> > paste at all.
> > I commonly under Windows copy URLs from text files and often paste into
IE
> > Address Bar.
> > This is very convenience and hurts when not available in Linux.
> >
You're right, I was wrong.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:18:34 -0500
Cliff Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 01:49:17 +0000, The Scotts typed something like:
> >I'm just a 3 month Linux newbie, but my Netscape 4.72 does allow copy
> >and paste to the location bar, just did it to verify.
> >
> >Bob Scott
>
> People paste to the location bar?
> I just click the middle button on the body of my netscape window
> to jump right to the url.
>
>
> >Jim Ross wrote:
> >snip>
> >> I guess I'm saying that for me the Netscape Location Bar doesn't accept
a
> >> paste at all.
> >> I commonly under Windows copy URLs from text files and often paste into
IE
> >> Address Bar.
> >> This is very convenience and hurts when not available in Linux.
>
> It works for me. Actually easier, since it's a single click
> instead of ctrl-v then 'enter'
>
> Netscape does has some issues though, so it wouldn't surprise
> me if yours wasn't allowing pasting for some reason.
>
> -c-
>
>
>
> --
> Cliff Wagner ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> Visit The Edge Zone: http://www.edge-zone.net
>
> "Man will Occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
> of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
> -- Winston Churchill
No I was trying to the the CTRL-C, CTRL-V keys, instead of middle button.
I'm one step closer to switching to a Linux desktop.
Jim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Oh Yeah Baby!!
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:04:42 GMT
Of course they are "Embracing Linux", they are one step from
rigamortis and they know it.
Heather+Steve
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:58:15 -0500, "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>See "Novell jumps into Linux pool" at
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1570677.html?dtn.head
>
>2 + 2
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks*************************
Date: 13 Mar 2000 23:18:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] [aka Steve/Mike, Proctologist of Borg]
>wrote:
>>
>> Subject says it all***************************
>
> I'll bet you're the kind of guy that uses an application toaster.
>Am I right? I'll bet the one you use is W95 or W98. Am I right again?
>Those OSs are for 'point and clickers'. Just point at the icon of the
>app you want, and (this is the fun part) 'click' on it. Pretty quick,
>your app pops up! Am I right? Then you 'do your real work'. Am I
>right?
Trouble is, it's really crummy and you get burned...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: 13 Mar 2000 23:25:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:52:53 -0500,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sun literally modified the solaris tcp stack for
> hotmail.com. this does not have to necessarily be interpreted as a weakness
> of solaris - all software needs tweaking. If it didn't we wouldn't have 2000
> linux kernel revisions.
Nor Build 2xxx for NT4. (Not to mention hotfixes or service
packs.)
And then there are people tweaking the linux kernel for their
private fun, simply because they _can_. Or because they are
efficiency freaks. Or because they want their pet project in the
kernel (e.g. ReiserFS).
-Wolf"But I know of noone tweaking and building NT for fun"gang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 22:52:55 GMT
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:12:34 -0500, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 15:27:47 -0500, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Jim Ross wrote:
[deletia]
>DE's
>> >launcher, not the desktop/root window.
>> >Many apps still don't.
>>
>> Then take it up with the 'intern writing the installer'.
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> --
>> |||
>> Resistance is not futile. / | \
>>
>>
>> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
>
>
>I was wrong, middle button works.
>Just not the CRTL-C, CRTL-V key bindings.
>Jim
You're not in Kansas anymore Toto...
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:27:45 GMT
Bob Germer wrote:
>
> On 03/12/2000 at 08:35 PM,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen) said:
>
> > Unless you are a complete fucking idiot that likes to show that he
> > doesn't know dick. The 430TX chipset only caches 64Mb of ram. Anything
> > above that won't be cached and you will suffer when the cpu has to hit
> > memory. You see the CPU operates fastest when the data it needs is in a
> > register, if not there it will go to the L1 cache, if not there it goes
> > to the L2 cache, if not there the L3 cache(chips with built in L2 cache
> > with L3 being on the motherboard) and at last slow main memory. So you
> > see that all memory above 64Mb won't be cached and will slow down
> > processing. This has nothing to do with the OS or the operator, it has
> > to do with the chipset. You obviously don't have the experience that
> > you'd like to make everyone believe Bob. You configure software and
> > apparently don't do that very well.
>
> As others have pointed out, OS/2 can and does use ALL the memory thanks to
> its cacheing methods which are far superior to what idiots who run any
> Windows operating system experience.
>
> But then that is what I would expect from the likes of idiots like you.
Bob, I asked you nicely to stop embarrassing yourself. Please do - or do you
intend to keep it up until something from this discussion winds up in
someone's signature line?
--
The wit of Bob Osborn in action:
"Perhaps it something you should try to your kids don't end up as stupid as
you."
"There is an old saying fartface."
"Not only are you a filthy low-life lying bastard pig, you are too stupid to
know it."
------------------------------
From: "MJP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Linux server atop Mach?
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:35:50 -0600
"Charles W. Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:crbz4.482$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Requiring the Cygwin runtime plus the GNU toolsuite is a level portability
> which is comparible to having to install an X server & libraries under
MacOS
> X. I would not claim that xmille just compiles and works under the MacOS,
any
> more than your average Win98 box can build emacs without some significant
> underlying pieces being installed first.
>
> In other words, there is a difference between solvable problems like the
> above, which do not represent the same level of portability that having
> "./configure ; make install" work with the out-of-box configuration.
If that's the standard, then lots of Linux software isn't portable to Linux;
specifically, anything that requires more than the standard GNU toolchain.
The point is that your standard is a bit twisted: rather than saying that
"portable" means "portable", you say that "portable" means "has been
ported". MacOS X may, indeed, be really more portable than Win98, but more
software has been ported to Win98 than to MacOS X, which makes a statement
about your standard.
Chuck Swiger said:
'To an end-user, portability means "can I exchange documents with my clients
or with my officemates" and "can I run the programs I want to use".
Obviously the existing Mach-kernel based MOSXS or MacOS X developer previews
which let people run MS-Office, IE, the Adobe suite and so forth (*); as
well as Mac games (**) has got better portability than a Linux kernel which
did not host Mac platform apps.'
> In the strictest sense, the only significant portability differences
between
> the Linux kernel and the Mach kernel is with drivers and LKMs.
>
> I agree that this is not very useful, which is why I tried to consider
> portability in a broader and more meaningful scope.
That's a good idea, but the way you did it set the whole notion of
portability on its head. I didn't find that very useful. I found it funny,
actually, but I already said that.
> > You were far more generous with your definition, for trivial example,
when
> > comparing Adobe Framemaker+SGML availability.
>
> I thought I was simply being fair to both sides, not "generous"....
Well... you say in this latest posting that xmille wouldn't be expected to
compile on MacOS, not out of the box. But previously you made the argument
that because a MacOS version of xmille exists, that counts as a portability
credit for MacOS. If that's not generous, I don't know what it means.
MJP
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 23:35:26 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >In article <38ccfde2$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> As others have pointed out, OS/2 can and does use ALL the memory thanks
> >> to
> >> its cacheing methods which are far superior to what idiots who run any
> >> Windows operating system experience.
>
> >No, others have pointed out that the way OS/2 uses memory (bottom up instead
> >of top down) may make the fact that the memory over 64 megs on a 430TX
> >chipset MB IS NOT CACHED less of a problem, but it is STILL NOT CACHED. No
> >OS can overcome this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> This is true, but it is limited to the value of the chip cache. OS2 does over
> come it in the sense that it does keep track of files and other things, which
> do increase the overall performance levels to something beyond what we see
> from Winwhatever.
Actually the file caching sizes in OS/2 are crippling and small for the most
part. I find when I'm compiling a large project that it has to re-read all of
my header files each time the compiler is run, even when it is run
back-to-back. The file caching sizes in DOS & Win9x can be bigger than the
2MB HPFS cache via. Smartdrv, as horrendous as it is. WinNT also can do
better than 2MB.
This is, of course, a different issue from Bob's mis-statement.
--
The wit of Bob Osborn in action:
"Perhaps it something you should try to your kids don't end up as stupid as
you."
"There is an old saying fartface."
"Not only are you a filthy low-life lying bastard pig, you are too stupid to
know it."
------------------------------
From: "MJP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Linux server atop Mach?
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:40:48 -0600
"Charles W. Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:crbz4.482$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Requiring the Cygwin runtime plus the GNU toolsuite is a level portability
> which is comparible to having to install an X server & libraries under
MacOS
> X. I would not claim that xmille just compiles and works under the MacOS,
any
> more than your average Win98 box can build emacs without some significant
> underlying pieces being installed first.
I'll note here that xemacs builds pretty easily under Windows 98, with just
a few simple pre-installations, like minitar (included on the xemacs web
site) and some optional, portable libraries like libtiff, libpng, and zlib.
The main obstacles are various MSVC++ 5.0/6.0 idiosyncracies. Using a GNU
toolchain makes the job a bit easier, but it's by no means a requirement.
I've personally built xemacs on Win98 and WinNT both ways.
The aspect you're really missing is the question of "how much effort" was
put into making xemacs suitable for building on Windows platforms. The
answer is "a lot", which indicates that Windows is actually a very
non-portable platform. If your argument is that many common software
packages build on MacOS X without significant porting effort (which I
suspect is quite true) then you have a completely different news posting to
write.
MJP
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
