Linux-Advocacy Digest #635, Volume #25 Wed, 15 Mar 00 03:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Bill Sharrock")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: Disproving the lies. (Terry Murphy)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (Edward)
Re: A Linux server atop Mach? (Sascha Bohnenkamp)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(Clifford T. Matthews)
Another victory for Linux. (Truckasaurus)
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:50:11 -0500
> >So using Linux as a desktop OS is can 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.
I'm getting used to it too.
The jagged fonts do hurt my eyes though.
I run a TrueType server, so I assume lack of anti-aliasing is the problem.
> >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.
You're right I cheaped out with the downloadle version.
>
> 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.
That must be the problem. Corel 1.0 has issues.
>
> But yes, many rpms from the internet don't work with Caldera.
> Which is why I get the source and roll my own.
Unfortunately Corel and Caldera are pitched at newbies, although RedHat
might be a better distributin.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:54:09 -0500
> Should someone who doesn't know how to access a file be
> installing software?
Sure.
>
> >Better copy it
> >to your harddisk because of the next point.
> >Rename the file again. Corel screwed up the filename. (It's
> not a gz, but
> >actually a tar file).
> >Untar it somehow.
>
> How many windows users know what winzip is, where to get it, how
> to install it or how to use it? Among my relatives and
> aquantences, maybe 10% can do all of those. 30% can do one or
> two.
That's one of the few most people know since everything seems to need it.
>
> windows scenario: I have a usb zip drive. I install game B from
> cd. next time i try to play it, the zip is not plugged in and
> the cd drive letter is different - result, the game can't find
> the cd. Drive letters, come on. At least mounting means
> everything will always be in the same place, or a different
> place, if that is what I want.
Ya windows sux too. But for different reasons.
>
> >dos didn't require mounting of removable media for what 15
> years now.
>
> Mounting is a very useful security feature. But windows users
> enjoy virii and generally insecure computers I suppose.
On a desktop security isn't always the top priority.
>
> >Linux has a way to go to become a decent desktop for normal
> people.
>
> Linux by itself? Sure. Linux plus XFree86 and KDE? MY wife
> cannot tell the difference between my kde box and her windows
> machine except for the fact that I never have to reboot mine.
Hmmm.
>
> >There are too many things (like fonts) where the finger gets
> pointed, but
> >the problem doesn't get solved.
>
> For people that care, the problem is solved (at least two or
> three servers available - I think they are even included in
> Xfree 4.0 (but could be wrong)).
Isn't the lack of anti-aliasing the problem?
I have a TrueType font server, and that only half solves the problem.
>
> >Why overlook so many problems when better alternatives exist
> for the
> >desktop?
>
> Depends on what you want to do with your computer and how you
> feel about supporting monopolies.
Good point.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:58:57 -0500
Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <gimy4.1700$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jim Ross"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Marada C. Shradrakaii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >10. X-Windows fonts look like shit. Go "borrow" true-type
> fonts and
> >> >they still suck. Mac looks great. Windows looks good. Linux
> looks like
> >> >shit. Not to mention X-Windows is slow as shit.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Tried XF86 4.0 yet? It's supposed to improve performance,
> and it's out
> >NOW.
Ya. The speed is better. It's not in RedHat yet though.
> How many operating systems are there? Windows has 90%+ of the
> desktop market. So of course everyone writes windows drivers for
> their hardware. After windows there is? OS/2, BeOS, the various
> BSD's, and linux. Do any others have more than a fraction of a
> percent of the desktop market? Unix vendors usually supply the
> hardware as well, right? Same for mac, so drivers are not an
> issue. So please don't say that vendors don't bother because
> there are too many operating systems. Vendors will write drivers
> for the operating systems that are popular with the people who
> use their hardware. If linux gets a 50% share in the next two
> years, every company will write linux drivers for their hardware.
That does place Linux at a disadvantage no-matter the reason.
> Supported formats? I thought everyone using windows used MS
> office or at least Word. Where is the need for supported formats
> in a windows environment? In linux, there are open standards
> that can be used, but depends on what kind of data your talking
> about.
There is a legacy of Wordperfect documents.
> Through much of your post, you speak of linux as though it were
> a company that is competing with MS. Linux should do this, linux
> won't attract new users if (whatever). Linux is an operating
> system that is not maintained or developed by a single company.
Actually Linux is maintained/developed by many companies, and misc
developers.
> There is no business plan or strategy beyond making a high
> quality os. If some company wants to find a way to help AOL
> users use linux and still connect to AOL, that company can do
> it, but it still isn't linux, it is that company. If that
> company goes out of business, tough, but linux doesn't. I think
> you know all of this, but I wonder if you understand all of
> this. Linux is not responsible for driver development. Linux is
> not responsible for supported file formats. MS is the company,
> Windows is the os. MS has a strategy (prolly) for windows. Linux
> is the os, there is no company.
>
> I am starting to repeat myself, which is usually a sign that it
> is time to stop.
>
> Osugi Sakae
Well for whatever reason I see Linux (the system, not the kernel) as having
issues in providing a good desktop environment.
Fonts being one point.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Bill Sharrock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 00:29:59 -0600
"Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:QBdz4.1925$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> 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.
> Not everyone runs a desktop environment, and that is a damn poor place for
> that functionally to exist.
>
You are aware that you can run an automounter daemon and not have to worry
about all of this.
I mean seriously. On Macs you load the CD and it stays loaded until you
trash it. You are mounting and unmounting the unit. It just seems
transparent. With linux you have the daemon and, iirc, you modify
/etc/fstab<??> so that any user can access the mount point for the cd-rom.
After that, things aren't that big of a deal.
Heck, on both of my RH 6.0 and 6.1 installs it was include the daemon on
startup and make a change in linuxconf after the install. While I'd be
willing to concede that it might behoove the distro makers add a home
standalone configuration to their install routines that "automagically"
covers this, I still don't see this mounting issue to be that big of a deal.
Of course, I usually take my time, do a custom install and frequently access
the help option to get a description of what I'm committing to.
> That doesn't help those without, or in file managers.
>
The daemon would be independent to a desktop manager or a anything else.
> Jim
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: 15 Mar 2000 07:05:52 GMT
>instead of under Windows quickly shuffling the 10 cd's through
>> without the nonsense?
Quickly? Try to browse discs on a 24/40/48/56 speed reader. You'll spend more
time waiting for the discs to spin up than to read them. More than enough time
to click a GUI mount button.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
members.xoom.com/marada Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Murphy)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 07:33:00 GMT
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 16:04:01 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>SEC Filings for COBT, RHAT, ESFT, LNUX, and CORL average out
>at about 200% revenue growth rates. Some of them are even
>running in the black.
Not SOME, but ONE. All but CORL are deeply in the red, and I
don't believe any of them expect to profitable in the forseeable
future.
>On the other hand, most of the browser counters count IP Addresses
>per fire-wall and count blended sights based on the most recently
>used OS for that IP.
Browser counts are biased towards Linux ANYWAYS.
Only 2/3 of home PC owners have access to the internet. It is reasonable
to suggest that most Linux users have internet access; most introductions
to Linux mention how integral the internet is to its development. Most of
the 1/3 without internet access are less technically inclined users, and
much more likely to be Windows users.
So, right off the bat, your browser counting is discounting 1/3 of Windows
users, and is inherently biased.
>Furthermore, all of these sites are english speaking sites, most are
>focused toward American upper middle class
Proof that Linux has higher penetration among the lower class than the
upper middle class, please?
If the Linux teeny-boppers are any of credit, people who do not
understand how to use Linux are stupid and those who do understand
it are Really Smart. There is at least some correlation between
income and intelligence, so I would expect the converse to be true.
>Also, Linux POPs can more easily provide transparent IP Masquerading
>- appearing to the user to be a dedicated public IP address, while in
>fact being a private address which is translated to the terminal servers
>"real" address.
Proof that this is cutting into the Linux count significantly, please?
Anybody accessing the internet through a proxy server (which is most
of corporate America, and therefore, mostly Windows), all goes through
a proxy server which shows up as one IP address. I think you will find
that this is cutting into Windows counts considerably more than Linux
counts.
>Only about 10% in the US White-Collar market which has been
>pretty well saturated by Microsoft. The US Blue Collar and
>low-income markets are a different story. Let's face it, not
>many families with incomes of under $20k/year are going to spend
>$8000 for a fully equipped NT Enterprise edition server complete with
>Back Office, Office, Visual Studio, SQL Server, and 1000 CALs.
What in the WORLD would a FAMILY be interested in having an industrial
grade server in the home? You are really off the rocker, here.
>On the other hand, many of them MIGHT spend $400 on a used PC
>or "Bare Bones" PC that can run Linux, which they can buy for
>$20-60 which includes groupware, office suite(s), development
>systems, database engines, and unlimited user connectivity - and
>can be connected to Linux-friendly ISP lines and used to rdist
>up to remotely hosted ISP servers.
If you had $400 to spend on a computer, why would you use one with
unreliable, case sensitive software, when you could just get comething
from eMachines or the like, with Windows 98 and everything installed?
Computer installations in the near future are going to be considerably
LESS expensive with technologies like Timna and the X-Box coming soon
(which is based on Windows). You have heard about the sub-$200 disposable
computer (which runs Windows and is based on Timna) which Samsung is
debuting soon, correct?
You, again, are living in about 1995, and obviously have not shopped
for a new PC in several years. They are CHEAP and about to get MUCH
cheaper. Nobody wants to buy unsupported used hardware running shoddy
software, when they can get proven solutions very inexpensively.
>Sure, it might take a bit more time, a bit more effort, a bit more
>thinking, a bit more problem solving ability to get the Linux box
>running a a full-featured workstation and server.
Time, effort = money. Most people have stressful jobs, kids, car trouble,
family problems, etc., etc., and the last thing they want to do is have
to fart around with case sensitive software in their precious time. If
you are talking about businesses, the problem is even more amplified, as
they will have to hire expensive consultants, etc., etc.
Linux users like yourself relish in believing that that are superior
(c.f. "a bit more thinking, a bit more problem solving ability"), but
the fact is, they are not superior, they just have more time on their
hands. Most people do not have enough time to learn about an archaic
thirty year old, obsolete on arrival, command line interface with
animal noice commands.
>But on the other hand, when the alternative is to spend the next 40
>years of your life mopping floors, washing dishes, are turning tricks,
>a few hours per week as a computer geek isn't such a terrible sacrifice.
You have absolutely no clue what it's like to be in the lower class.
>Windows $2K would cost about $2K to have even the most basic
>software - not including hardware, connectivity, Client Access
>Licenses, and hardware. Microsoft's own estimates for a full-service
>web-site run nearly $1/2 million or more.
Proof please? Please list, piece by piece, the $500,000 worth of
Microsoft software licenses you would have to buy to run a full-service
web browser.
>Meanwhile, back at the Linux Ranch - that $400 server and $40 CD
>can be scaled up as the revenue comes in. It's like setting up
>a business by starting with a table on a street corner, and growing
>it to the point where you have a corner store, then a store in
>a shopping center, then a franchise, then a national chain.
You are going to run a full-service web server on a $400 machine?
Either you are comparing apples to oranges, or you are just as clueless
as the teeny-boppers who claim that NASDAQ runs on a 386SX-16 running
Linux.
>Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
>and growing at over 1%/week!
Define "satisfied user".
Here's a clue for you:
There are about 105,000,000 computer users in the US. US is about 45%
of the global computer market, which makes about 230,000,000 global
computer users. If 60,000,000 of these use Linux, that means well over
25% of computer users use Linux. Now I don't have any proof, but that
seems AWFULLY high to me.
Can you please provide me with the work you performed to arrive at
this number? Please point me to a URL which describes your research.
I am interested in how you arrived at this, and am very interested in
dissecting your argument. Thanks.
I also assume you have a reasonable definition of "satisfied user",
such as: "uses Linux as his primary desktop system" (as opposed to, say,
"once a week connects to a website which runs Linux")
Also, I am interested in knowing you are accounting for store returns,
rarely/never-used dual boot installations, and failed installations.
Regards,
Terry Murphy
------------------------------
From: Edward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:47:50 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > BTW, XFree86 4.0 was released yesterday and does multi-monitor support
> > or will
> > spread a single desktop over several monitors.
> >
>
> nice that xfree has caught up...
>
To be fair to Linux, it took *much more* time for Windows to get close
to Macintosh in this respect than it took for Linux to catch up to
Windows.
Edward
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Linux server atop Mach?
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:41:32 +0100
> >> True. MacOS X Server is a decent WebObjects development client, but it is
> >> approximately unusable for production deployment.
> >
> > I do not like to development on a complete other system than I deploy
> > too ... (imho)
>
> That's pretty common from people who have never worked in a good heterogenous
> environment.
Ohh I did and do, but if I have to deploy to a multi-cpu unix, I want a
similiar (not the same!)
system for testing.
We use qt for our applications and they compile without changes on most
unices (all I tested, which are
solaris,linux,irix) and windows-nt.
But I have a onyx for testing ...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clifford T. Matthews)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or
Linux
Date: 15 Mar 2000 00:23:53 -0700
I've always wanted to quote an entire post on usenet and then append
me too
Mike's post is incredibly tempting.
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Another victory for Linux.
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 07:35:26 GMT
It seems like SAS Institute is porting their great SAS System to Linux.
Another victory for Linux.
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/18302.html:
'Mar 13, 2000, 20:35 UTC (7 Talkbacks) (Other stories by Lisa Kelly)
By Lisa Kelly, VNU Net
SAS Institute will tomorrow announce plans to offer Linux versions of
its data warehousing and decision support software.
A Linux version of the SAS System software suite will be available in
the fourth quarter of this year, vnunet.com can exclusively reveal. The
suite will initially be available for Red Hat Linux on Intel hardware
and be extended to all major distributions of Linux.'
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your new you packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: 15 Mar 2000 08:03:48 GMT
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 21:36:25 -0700, Warren Young wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>Granted, some OSes and font renderers can do some of this on the fly.
>Adobe Photoshop, for example, can synthesize simple bold and oblique
>faces. But, sometimes you need a permanent modification. Maybe you
>want a Times New Roman Demibold, and want to use it in a newsletter that
>you create in a publishing package that can't synthesize the proper face
>from the common four faces.
>
>Do programs like this exist for Metafont?
I haven't used it enough to know. I would guess that you could probably
do it just by setting some global parameters.
What I do know is this --
you can do a quick bold ( or strikeout or underline or smallcaps ) font
just by twiddling with virtual fonts, you don't need to touch the
metafont files. Using virtual fonts is better IMO, because you are working
at a higher level of abstraction and avoiding the nitty gritty of playing
with the typeface.
Ditto with modifying a typeface ( adding characters, extending a font
set to include expert fonts or old style figures, etc )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
