Linux-Advocacy Digest #619, Volume #25 Mon, 13 Mar 00 22:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Mike Timbol)
Re: Giving up on NT (Mike Timbol)
Re: Linux Sucks************************* (Osugi Sakae)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Osugi Sakae)
Re: Salary? ("Darren Ward")
Caldera Going Public, IPO date? (Adam Mansfield)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Mark S. Bilk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Timbol)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 14 Mar 2000 02:16:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Mike Timbol wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Mike Timbol wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Mike Timbol wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >PCs easily surpass the 1994 PSX console but failed to unseat it as the most
>> >popoular a game device.
>>
>> A Porsche 911 easily suprasses a Toyota Camry, but failed to unseat it as the
>> most popular car. Should Porsche stop making 911s, and make a clone of the
>> Camry instead? Should everyone who wants to buy a 911 buy a Camry instead?
>
>That's a non responsive arguement.
Well, it's analogous to this situation. It seems that you want to argue that
consumers should buy console games not based on their merits, but based on the
fact that they sell more. You argue that publishers should produce console
games not because of the kind of games they can make, but because they might
make more money.
>As the console technology aged the growing technical advantage PCs aquired
>had little impact on growing game revenue. porsche-shmorsha.
Do you think Porsche makes more money than Toyota because of their superior
cars? They don't. Toyotas are unquestionably more popular, and more
profitable. But, given the choice, which car would you rather have?
By your argument, you'd rather take the Camry, because it's more popular.
>Now that consoles are being updated and adding more PC funcationality it seems
>likely the PC market will collapse due to developer/publisher defections.
OK, perhaps it seems likely to you. Then again, you don't seem to be a PC game
player, so you don't understand what makes PC games unique.
So, let's predict what the next figure for PC game sales will be. It's
currently $2.1 billion. Do you predict $1.5 billion? $1.0 billion?
$0.5 billion? What, exactly, is a "collapse"?
>The PC like X-BOX sure looks like MS's attempt to keep developers.
If you want to reach a particular conclusion, it's easy to squint at anything
in sight and pretend it supports your conclusion.
>> There's more to making a decision than popularity.
>
>MONEY MONEY and more MONEY.
Then why does Porsche still make Porsches?
If your arguments held any merit, then every popular PC game would be ported
to a console so the publisher would make more money. Yet most popular PC games
never make it onto consoles. Your theory does not explain this at all.
>> >According to this article, PC gaming is a maker comprised of only ~2 million
>> >people.
>> >http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20000307S0008
>>
>> Heh. Earlier you posted an article that showed the PC games market to have
>> about $2.1 billion in sales. Are we to believe that every PC gamer spends
>> more than $1000 on games software EVERY YEAR? If so, I'm way behind.
>
>What to believe?.... Well what do we have as data? It sure isn't perfect but
>we know these data can show gross trends and within a study should show
>relative market sizes.
We already know relative market sizes. The console market is larger. No duh.
The PC games market is growing. The console games market is growing faster.
Again, no duh.
>I'd welcome some URLs that show strength in the PC market - data on sales of
>PC games and positive news about PC game start-ups. Please contribute as you can.
>
>Maybe people should rush out and buy a new PC if they had some confidence
>there would be a healthy and growing PC market. A market showing 5% growth
>in a period of rapidly increasing development costs MUST show change soon or
>it is a dying market.
5% growth is a dying market? At that rate, when, exactly, is it going to die?
Never?
>Given the PC game market contraction occured prior to
>the new consoles, I see little hope that the market will do anything but
>contract.
Given that the PC game market didn't contract at all, your argument continues
to make no sense.
>One begins to understand why MS was forced to announce the "PC like" X-BOX.
Ah, so now Microsoft was *forced* to announce the X-BOX. Right.
I see that Sega was forced to port Baldur's Gate in order to stay competetive.
I see that console developers are forced to spend $4 million per title in
order to avoid losing game players. I see that Sony was forced to rush out
a buggy PSX II in order to avoid going bankrupt. Right.
- Mike
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Timbol)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 14 Mar 2000 02:22:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Mike Timbol wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >People obviously buy PC games. Edios is cutting titles form 20 to 12. What
>> >does that tell you or more important - what do you want that fact to tell you?
>>
>> What that fact tells me is that there's some reason Eidos still develops
>> PC games. Eidos looks at the cost of developing for the two markets, looks
>> at the demographics and potential rewards of each, and *still* develops PC
>> games in addition to consoles. There must be a reason, no? Obviously
>> your "opportunity cost" argument is not so clear cut.
>
>Let us use an anology. Borland/Inprise still sells Windows software but the
>company is shifting resources to LINUX.
Tell me now -- if the projected opportunity costs of continuing to sell Windows
software made that obviously an economically poor decision, do you think
they would still do it? Now apply that reasoning to the situation at hand.
>> >> The X-BOX is still over a year away, so there can't possibly be any PC
>> >> games emulating games for the X-BOX.
>> >
>> >No Mike the emulator does emulation and the X-BOX (And DC WinCE) is the
>> >mechanism by which PC will copy/follow comsole titles.
>>
>> Ah, so your claim is that the PC will copy/follow console titles *MORE THAN
>> A YEAR FROM NOW*, when the X-BOX is released. So, basically, you're just
>> predicting the future, yet again.
>
>No Mike. Emulators exist now.
Then show me where I can get an X-BOX emulator so I can play non-existent
X-BOX games. Oops, you can't.
You claim that the PC will copy/follow console titles, yet most of the evidence
shows that the direction goes the other way, with innovations occuring on PCs,
and being copies by consoles. Emulators simply give PC gamers more options,
but they do not influence the actual PC games.
>MS has linked the X-BOX to the PC. X-BOX console games can run on the PC so
>even as the X-BOX is being designed for manufacturing, game development is
>already being skewed - I bet MS is even sharing development costs.
If the X-BOX is similar enough to the PC that it can play games designed for
the PC, and vice versa, then what effect is that going to have on the PC game
market? If anything, it would mean more PC games, not less.
>> You're spouting nonsense. Are you claiming Homeworld, Half-Life, Diablo II,
>> and Age of Empires aren't popular? No, you're not. They are unquestioningly
>> popular PC games. Yet they aren't on consoles. There must be a reason why,
>> no?
>
>You must know something I don't so tell me how these titles comapre to
>console titles - use dollars. Popularity ~ Dollars.
Well, I suppose I know several things you don't; one of them is that your
comparison makes no sense.
>I don't know how popular these titles are in the absolute sense unless I see
>that popularity measured in MONEY.
This is, again, a problem with your argument. You assume the two markets
are identical, yet you want to compare absolute numbers between products with
different sized markets. If the markets were identical, then a game popular
in one market will also be popular in another market.
Let's take two countries, one with a population of 1000, and one with a
population of 1,000,000. Suppose a product is released only in country A.
It sells 900 copies (90% of the market). A different product is released
in country B, and it sells 9000 copies (.9% of the market). Which product
is more popular?
By your "popularity ~ dollars" nonsense, the second product is 10 times more
popular, because you're using absolute numbers. But, if the markets were
identical, the first product is actually 100 times more popular than the
second, based on market share.
Now, if the markets *are* identical, the people who make the first product
would introduce it into the larger market, so they could make more money.
But most popular PC titles are *never* ported to consoles (the larger market).
There is obviously some reason for this. Perhaps the markets aren't identical
after all, and a product popular on a PC might not be popular on a console.
Perhaps a console system is not capable enough to support the popular PC game.
Perhaps the time and effort required to port the game to the console is better
spent developing the next popular PC game (opportunity cost).
>> Interestingly, we have a discrepancy between your view of the market, and
>> the way that dozens of companies, which have been in the industry for many
>> years, are actually operating. There are dozens of companies that aren't
>> acting the way you say they should act.
>>
>> Your way of explaining this discrepancy is to conclude that these are stupid
>> companies, run by stupid people.
>>
>> I don't think that's the best explanation.
>
>What did you just say?
In other words, it seems likely that your explanation is wrong, because it
requires us to believe that the PC gaming companies are stupid, run by stupid
people, and that you know more about their market than they do.
>You seem scared to venture any opinion besides tossing eggs at me.
I've told you the demographics of the markets are different, and games popular
in one market are not necessarily popular in another. You haven't refuted that.
I've told you that many PC games cannot be supported on a console. You haven't
refuted that.
I've told you that several genres of the PC game market will be relatively
unaffected by consoles because, even with the new systems, nobody is making
those types of games for consoles. You haven't refuted that, either.
Most importantly, I've told you that all these reasons explain why so many
companies continue to produce games exclusive to the PC.
>Are you trying to tell me publishers haven't shifted more $ to titles for
>consoles?
Your question is skewed. If all you're looking at is "publishers", then I'm
sure that you can find several publishers that have shifted money. However, I
can also point to a lot of companies that are completely ignoring the current
crop of consoles. Your theory does not explain that except by concluding that
those companies are stupid.
>Don't you beleive in the free market punishing and rewarding
>decisions? I do!
Yes, I believe in the free market. In the six years since the PSX was
released, we've seen PC games sales continue to grow. Obviously the free
market is rewarding companies which produce good PC games. More PC games will
be released this year -- for many of them, there's nothing close on a console.
The free market will reward them, too.
>If you accept the free market then you accept that not all choices made by
>comapnies are perfect and the market is the rewarding force. So a company
>that decides to fight head-to-head in a market - say C compilers for the
>dominate PC platform - might not see the long term rewards of their efforts.
>The fact they are making the tool doesn't verfity the wisdom of their decision
>or the viability of that market. If they had looked at other opportunites
>sooner they might be healthier.
The PC games market has continued to grow in the past. It continues to grow
now. It may shrink somewhat in the future. Yet what you are trying to do is
predict the impending collapse of the PC game market, and you are insisting
that your view is correct based on a woefully incomplete understanding of the
situation.
An understanding of economics and the free market does not make it necessary
to accept your viewpoint now, any more than it did two years ago, when you were
predicting that network computers would spell the death of the PC market. In
that case, you also argued "economics" and the "free market".
>> >> So, we can agree that Homeworld is a good and popular game. Now explain
>> >> why Homeworld isn't available on any console.
>> >
>> >Homeworld is popular in the PC niche. I cannot say if it is as popular
>> >as a console title - the priase was for it's unqiusness, not sales.
>>
>> Then there's a huge problem in your argument. Homeworld is a popular PC
>> game. You're not sure if it would be a popular console game. Obviously,
>> there is a difference between the two markets. If the markets were
>> identical, then a game popular in one market would be popular in both.
>
>How can I be sure?
>You take a title and move it to a larger market with higher profit margins.
>Seems like a good move and the game which agian I have read about in a few
>detailed articles, seems like it would play well on a DC.
If it's such a good move, why does it happen so rarely? Perhaps the situation
is more complex than you are willing to believe.
>> >I think I understand why Homeworld is not on the PSX 1 or N64.
>>
>> Interesting. OK, explain why.
>
>The 1994/95 console hardware is too limited. I think the DC could be capable
>with added memory units.
Unlike you, I've played Homeworld. First, I played in fairly high resolution,
which a television cannot support. I suppose you could lower the resolution,
but then you run into one of two common problems: you see less of the game
area on screen in order to preserve details or you lose details in order to
see the same amount of game area. Second, the basic controls are relatively
simple, but groupings and formations require more buttons than there are on
the standard console controller. This means you run into another common
problem: you have to "streamline" the control scheme (i.e. remove options).
>> >> >> If it's already over, why is Eidos, your prime example, producing PC games
>> >> >> at all?
>> >> >
>> >> >If it isn't over then why is MS producing the X-BOX?
>> >>
>> >> Microsoft is producing the X-BOX to get a share of the console market.
>> >> They see an opportunity, and they want to exploit it. That's a perfectly
>> >> logical answer that explains the situtation and doesn't mean the PC is
>> >> dead.
>> >>
>> >> Now, would you care to answer *my* question?
>>
>> I'll note that you *still* haven't answered my question.
>
>It took 6 days to create the "world" and god had no installed base.
>
>For me producing 20 and then only 12 titles is a huge shift for one year.
>Why not 0? I'm not sure it makes any sense to expect a company to behave so
>abruptly.
Why not? If the opportunity cost of continuing to support PCs is too high,
why not drop PC development? Free market, remember?
- Mike
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks*************************
From: Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:01:04 -0800
Various people wrote:
>
>> 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?
Do you use every piece of hardware on the planet? All I care
about is if my os supports the hardware I have - and both win98
and linux do.
And what happens when you have a problem with your network card
or internet sharing? Ever had a LAN party with half macs and
half windows users? There are always problems, difference is
that the windows users never know why their computers can't see
each other. They have to just keep confiming that all the proper
boxes are checked and rebooting until it magically works. The
mac users I know have fewer network problems and fix them a lot
faster.
Concentrate on apps? If you are serious, then whether one gui is
prettier than another is not really an issue, is it? The apps
that let you get your work done quickly, easily, and
consistantly are the best ones right? Depending on what you are
doing, you might need some of the feature bloat in MS office and
related apps. I don't, and neither does anyone I know - so I
don't use it.
Linux has all the apps I need. And they are not difficult for me
to understand.
>
>>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.
Again, do you care about looks, or about getting work done? I am
a lot more productive now with linux than I ever was with win98,
(personal experiences are not proof, I am not claiming everyone
is more productive, just pointing out that I am).
BTW, do you have any reservations about entrusting all of your
valuable data to a company that has the os and app
markets "locked up tight?" That is, a monopoly? Personally, I
would rather have my data and my backups in a standard, open
format rather than a proprietary one that changes every year or
two.
>
>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!
Deep breath, relax, ok? Yes, a lot of free software is not 1.0
yet. However, a lot of free software is more stable at 0.4 than
commercial stuff is at 2.0. Not all of course, but a lot. In the
commercial world, version numbers don't mean all that much.
BTW, internet explorer 5.0 crashed at start up this morning and
three times yesterday while loading trivial pages (no java, no
streaming media). Version 5.0! Maybe it should be 0.5 instead.
(before you ask, I use IE at work because my office likes
spending money on new versions of old software. I use linux at
home.)
How much space did compusa give to linux apps 2 years ago? none
i should think. how much a year ago? very little, or maybe none.
how much 6 months ago? a little. how much now? a little to some.
Guess how much space they will give to linux apps in another 2
or 3 years? If current trends continue, quite a bit of space.
Why do you feel the need to spend money on software? Doesn't the
license explicitly say that the company takes no responsibilty
for any data loss or problems that result from using their
software? Why should I spend money for a program when a free
version that does the same thing is available? You might enjoy
wasting money, I don't.
Another aside: if you really want to hit linux on application
availability, you might try encyclopedias, atlases (sp?), and
other reference software (except that all of the info in those
is freely available online).
>Free software is just that....Free and full of comprimises...
So is proprietary software. Ever read one of those licenses that
you click to accept?
>Go play with Biff. Pine or Lynx but make sure you don't get any
Tar
>-xfv on your clothes.
How much does winzip cost? $29 dollars. Why is it that after
years of development, MS still hasn't seen fit to include with
their operating system some utility that can zip/unzip
compressed files? My linux system has one, works fine, for free,
came with the os. My guess is you are on day 692 of your 30 day
free trial and still click "I accept" every time you want to
compress / uncompress a file. Or have you had to reinstall your
os one or more times in the last 692 days?
>If you think Windows, or Linux will make you cool then you have
a
>serious problem.
I agree, if you mean that operating systems have nothing to do
with whether or not some sophomoric individuals approve of you
or not.
>My opinion but, what the heck........
>
>Heather and Steve....
>Easily reached via [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>And yes, there is a Heather and there is a Steve and surprise
they are
>real names :)
>
Of course they are real names, whatever that means. I think you
meant to say that they are _your_ real names. And I don't care
if it your real name or not. Its not like I'm planning to send
you a Christmas card.
Osugi Sakae
(a real name, just not my real name)
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
From: Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:31:23 -0800
In article <f4my4.1699$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jim Ross"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>All this is true and when I use Linux as a desktop OS it is
very obvious.
>Plus there are other issues like copy, paste and drop and
drop. One usually
>doesn't work, the other rarely works ever.
>So using Linux as a desktop OS is cab be very painful.
>Most of these issues don't affect Linux as a server where I
think it's
>great.
I was a little surprised at the differences in appearance. Yes,
windows looks a little better. But now that I am used to kde, I
find it much superior to the windows gui - enough so that I
don't notice that the scroll bars aren't as pretty or that drag
and drop isn't fully supported (personally, I never use it
anyway. not on windows and not on linux). Where are windows'
multiple desktops? Basic utilities like a zip compression
program? A text editor that doesn't try to scare you away from
text files and into proprietary file formats? (I don't have word
on my windows machine, so why would I want to save a simple text
file in word format?) These little things make up for the small
visual differences. Probably others could tell you ways to make
your linux desktop look better than your windows desktop. Me, I
don't care about bells and whistles.
<snip>
>A good example of the problem.
>
>Pretend I'm a new user and want to try Linux on the cheap and
have a modem
>like most other users/newbies.
>My Windows apps won't work if I have any.
Duh!
<snip> never used Corel, so can't comment.
>Oh, same thing on Caldera. Comes with no apps, no apps work
with it on the
>Internet.
>Best part, no compiler.
Um, define "no apps". The one I have (Caldera Open Linux 2.3)
came with close to 2 gigabytes of apps, including star office
(slightly older version), Wordperfect, Applixware (trial
version), three mp3 players, cd rippers, lots of games (though
none from loki), wine, several text editors, news readers, email
clients, the apache web server, ftp server, rpm manager, and a
lot more.
It also comes with compilers, but some moron decided they
shouldn't be installed if you choose the home computer (or was
it standard?) option. They are on the cd, so you can still
install them later.
But yes, many rpms from the internet don't work with Caldera.
Which is why I get the source and roll my own.
>
>In Corel, they trade off stability and speed for ease of use.
Well what's
>wrong then.
>a. Still not as easy as Windows so why bother?
>b. Stability and speed were the selling point of Linux. Now
that those are
>gone, nothing really left there . . .
>
>
>Jim
>
Osugi Sakae
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: "Darren Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Salary?
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 13:42:53 +1100
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 12 Mar 2000 21:12:09 GMT, Joseph T. Adams wrote:
> >But then, Texans would consider New York to be a small state. :)
>
> Well if one goes on population alone, you could even count NYC as a
> "small country".
Australia has only a population of a little more than 18 Million people in
total with 90% on the east coast and most of that in the two largest cities
of Sydney and Melbourne, but looking at the size of it would you consider it
small ;-)
Going back onto a Linux thread though we're still waiting for formalised
training and exams for the various Linux Quals to become wide-spread and
that is hindering Linux rolling out in a major way in Australia.
When that happens more corporates will take Linux more seriously and so
demand and hence salaries will increase....
I'm actually designing a national roll-out for a client with no Windows in
it at all as every test we performed on scale failed miserably but Linux
passed most of them (except the 2 Gig file size limitation :-( )
Darren
------------------------------
From: Adam Mansfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Caldera Going Public, IPO date?
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 02:55:49 GMT
Does anybody know when Caldera is going public?
There's some information at
http://www.redherring.com/ipo/2000/0310/ipo-critic031000.html?id=yahoo
And their symbol is CALD. But the volume and price are both still 0, so
they haven't begun trading yet.
Any info???
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: 14 Mar 2000 02:59:36 GMT
In article <PGdz4.1927$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 15:51:56 -0500, Jim Ross wrote:
>>
>> >I guess my experience with Corel and Netscape differ from yours.
>> >I don't feel Linux is ready yet for the desktop.
>>
>> My experience is similar -- I had to learn to use it. Cut and paste *does*
>> work differently in linux, but it still works. Now see if you can
>> get that cut&paste to/from Netscape working (-;
>>
>> BTW, I haven't tried Corel. Still prefer Redhat.
>>
>I got it working.
>Even though I believe it supports the CTRL-C and CTRL-V commands, WRT to
>Location Bar, those keys don't work, but middle botton does.
>I guess that reflects how I feel NS sucks under Linux. Just one more
>reason.
>
>I have to say I feel Corel traded off stability for ease of use and
>stability IS the selling point of Linux.
>Corel 1.0 feels like a sad replica of Windows 9X now.
This sounds like a religious fundamentalist who evaluates
everything according to how similar it is to his sect's parti-
cular narrow doctrines. MS-Windows is not the bible, and
Gates is not God (more likely, the opposite >8^#). The fact
that some Linux GUIs do things differently than Microsoft
does not mean they suck or they're sad; it just means they're
*different*.
Jim, you complained that you couldn't copy and paste text, nor
install deb or tar packages, under Corel Linux, and you claimed
that therefore "Linux isn't ready for the desktop". After
having the first operation explained to you in detail, and
being told that the other two are indeed feasible, you contin-
ue to maintain the same negative opinion.
You're not the first person to claim that, for various reasons,
Linux and Unix suck, are useless, aren't ready for the desktop,
etc. This despite the fact that many millions of people are
already using them, often on desktop computers. Most of the
other naysayers are also not swayed by having their complaints
remedied, leading many to think that their purpose is to spread
anti-Linux propaganda, rather than to participate in an honest
discussion. I hope it doesn't turn out that way with you.
If you like Microsoft Windows better, and want to stay with
it, go right ahead. You're welcome to it. Those who want a
system that's reliable, understandable (even on the inside),
conformant to worldwide standards of data and program inter-
change, far less expensive, easier to program for, and avail-
able on many major types of computers, will choose Linux or
some other form of Unix.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
