Linux-Advocacy Digest #643, Volume #25 Wed, 15 Mar 00 20:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ("Jim Ross")
Re: 10,000 apps coming soon! ("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 ("Jim Ross")
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable (JEDIDIAH)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Jim Ross")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: GAWD Linux is a bitch ("W. Kiernan")
Re: Linux Technology Valuation (Mark Robinson)
Virus Scanning a Linux CDrom ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ("W. Kiernan")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:15:57 -0500
Nikola D Krgovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> David Goldstein wrote:
>
> > Donn Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > Bad news for us unix types -- I've been asking around in various NG's,
> > > and people have been telling me that Windowss 2000 is extremely
> > > reliable. From what I've heard so far, W2K has been up on people's
> > > servers, and running for 1-3 months now without a crash. Sounds
> > > pretty stable to me.
> >
Actually I don't think effects Linux at all.
W2K are really different beasts.
If anything W2K and Linux are even more different than NT and Linux.
W2K includes the kitchen sink, and Linux is modular.
That's a major reason to like Linux. Stability is just a nice plus Linux
users have had for years now.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10,000 apps coming soon!
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:17:38 -0500
Mike Kenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8aosgg$7po$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> At a recent Borland/Inprise preesntation it was announced that there were
> 10's of thousands of applications just waiting for the release of Kylix to
> be ported to linux. For the most part why would we want them?
Hint: Competition is good.
P.S. You can often do new things with new apps, thus making life either
easier or more profitable.
Jim Ross
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:19:42 -0500
Bill Sharrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:38cf2b75$0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:QBdz4.1925$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > So are you saying to me to catalog 10 cd's I have to be running a full
> > desktop environment, and mounting in that, catalog, and unmount in the
DE
> > 10 times, instead of under Windows quickly shuffling the 10 cd's through
> > without the nonsense?
> >
> > I can't believe you think mounting and unmounting removable media to be
> > acceptable. Especially in this case.
> > Not everyone runs a desktop environment, and that is a damn poor place
for
> > that functionally to exist.
> >
>
> You are aware that you can run an automounter daemon and not have to worry
> about all of this.
>
My problem has more to do with a desktop install not having that be the
default (maybe with a security warning prompt during install?).
It is under Corel, but not Redhat.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:21:05 -0500
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 00:29:59 -0600, Bill Sharrock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:QBdz4.1925$[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.
>
> He doesn't even have to bother with that.
>
> He can just click on the little CD icons in KDE and GNOME and
> select the mount, unmount and eject menus. He's just whining
> about something being different from his only frame of reference
> and being unwilling to adapt to different ways to doing things.
No.
>
> [deletia]
> >> That doesn't help those without, or in file managers.
> >>
> >
> >The daemon would be independent to a desktop manager or a anything else.
>
> True. However, such a user is unlikely to ever go into a filesystem
> outside the confines of a shiny happy gui tool. If they choose to
> forego the shiny happy gui tools then disk mounting is just the
> tip of the iceberg...
I'd rather not have to.
Some days I'd rather just stay in the GUI all day.
Jim
>
>
> --
> |||
> 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: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:24:13 -0500
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 23:38:59 -0500, Jim Ross wrote:
>
> >The fact that it was not crystal clear means there is a problem.
> >I was not doing rocket science, just a copy/paste.
>
> I don't see how copy/paste is any less clear on UNIX/Linux than it is on
> Windows. In either case, you need to learn how to do it, and once you
> learn it becoes quite easy.
>
> --
> Donovan
It's true 99% of the time that CTRL-C will copy, and CTRL-V will paste in
Windows and Windows apps.
You can then rely on this being there and that help productivity.
Plus I can think of a good reason for it to be different, knowing the
confusion it can cause by even one app not doing this.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:55:40 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> OTOH, I saw RedHat 6.1 at Walmart yesterday.
>
> $29.95
>
> I *never* thought I'd see it in a department store. It's come along
> way since Slackware 1.0.
Yeah, I saw it too... right next to all the rest of the bargin-bin
<$30.00 software and old, washed up games.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:46:41 -0500
Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ao7i5$gbi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <QsEz4.2127$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >I have to say I feel Corel traded off stability for ease of use and
> >> >stability IS the selling point of Linux.
>
> The post in which Ross made this statement
> (http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=597058551)
> gives no evidence for Corel Linux being unstable in any way.
I did a simple reboot from the Login box and Corel would hang frequently.
One time it locked and I had to do a reset (I'm not on a network so telnet
was not possible) to reboot.
Apparently that really screwed up the system and would not boot after that.
I hadn't stressed Corel 1.0 up till that point, thus giving no reason to do
that.
I have done worse with NT and it's never done that.
>
> >> >Corel 1.0 feels like a sad replica of Windows 9X now.
> If Ross's criterion were applied to Windows 95, it would be
> seen as a "sad replica" of Windows 3.1,
Windows 95 looked nothing liek Windows 3.1
and "not ready for
> the desktop",
I agree Windows 3.1 was never ready for the desktop and feel it was a
nightmare I'm glad is over.
>
> Windows 9X is an *arbitrary* frame of reference, which is
> considered "excellent" by some people and lousy by others.
> The fact that it's widely used at the present time doesn't
> mean that it's good, only that Microsoft's (often fraudulent
> and coercive) marketing techniques have been effective.
Benchmarks are often done against something well know.
Windows 9X has over 90% market share.
Thus I would not use OS/2, or Commodore 64 to compare Linux with.
>
> Unquestioning belief that it's the right, proper, natural way
> to do things, and the standard against which all operating
> systems should be judged, is similar to the unquestioning
> belief of religious fundamentalists in their particular dogma,
> hence the use of that metaphor.
I didn't say Win9X was good or bad, bad it's a starting point in reference.
Like stability of Win9X to NT, or stability of Win95 to Linux for example.
Here Win95 loses both times. Still, a good point of reference, as I know
well how stable Win9X is,
as does likely almost everyone.
> Jim Ross has trouble figuring out how to do something in
> Linux, and for some reason doesn't want to request or accept
> assistance. He then claims that therefore *Linux itself*
> "isn't ready for the desktop"! This is like Jeff Szarka
> and his bogus Linux installation scam all over again.
Hey, it's my opinion. You can leave it.
Other agree with me.
I've struggled with Linux on the desktop and have not yet felt comfortable
with it is that role.
>
> Linux may not be ready for *Ross's personal desktop*, or,
> more accurately, he may not be ready for it.
Same thing right? My opinion, not fact, and no scientific studies were done
by me proving it.
But his minor
> problems, and his strange refusal to accept help in solving
> them, have no relevance to the suitability of Linux for
> everyone else.
I did accept help. I can now paste URLs in Netscape using middle button,
and I could before.
>
> >> This despite the fact that many millions of people are
> >> already using them, often on desktop computers.
That doesn't imply that it's ready for the general public.
I think IDC gives that number is percentage as 4% Linux desktop market
share.
It doesn't sound that impressive now.
> getting help
> for any problems they encounter certainly *does* make it
> usable (and thus non-sucking).
It doesn't change the out-of-the-box experience, which isn't up to par in my
opinion.
>
> >Fonts are known by everyone to be a problem.
>
> Which can easily be fixed by following Donovan's HOW-TO,
> as has already been explained here.
Maybe someone should tell the distribution people about it then, so fonts
get fixed a handful of times, and not millions of times.
>
> >I want people to be damn clear before they start what the issues are.
>
> Ross's "issues" are the result of his belief that Microsoft
> windows is the "excellent frame of reference" by which all
> operating systems should be judged.
Well said. Yes.
Of course an excellent frame of reference doesn't say anything about the
excellent of said benchmark OS.
It's just a starting place. Maybe just Mark doesn't understand this
concept.
bench·mark (benchmärk)
n.
Often bench mark. A surveyor's mark made on a stationary object of
previously
determined position and elevation and used as a reference point in tidal
observations and surveys.
To measure (a rival's product) according to specified standards in order to
compare
it with and improve one's own product.
> Those whose goal is actually using Linux (rather than per-
> suading others not to), and who read the manual and seek and
> accept the public user support, are generally pleased, not
> disappointed.
I did no suck thing.
I mentioned what problems I thought there were with the out-of-the-box
experience in using Linux as a desktop.
I'm sure you're not saying people don't have minds of their own.
> >I clearly have some issues with Linux on the desktop.
> >I use Linux on the server myself, where it's best suited.
>
> Perhaps that's where it's best suited for Jim Ross,
I do.
but his
> generalization to everyone else is without merit.
I did no such thing. I talked about my personal experience.
If you're reading this and have time, try Linux out.
I like it on the server much more than on the desktop.
Jim Ross
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 23:47:27 GMT
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:15:57 -0500, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Nikola D Krgovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> David Goldstein wrote:
>>
>> > Donn Miller wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Bad news for us unix types -- I've been asking around in various NG's,
>> > > and people have been telling me that Windowss 2000 is extremely
>> > > reliable. From what I've heard so far, W2K has been up on people's
>> > > servers, and running for 1-3 months now without a crash. Sounds
>> > > pretty stable to me.
>> >
>
>Actually I don't think effects Linux at all.
>W2K are really different beasts.
>
>If anything W2K and Linux are even more different than NT and Linux.
>W2K includes the kitchen sink, and Linux is modular.
>
>That's a major reason to like Linux. Stability is just a nice plus Linux
>users have had for years now.
Actually, M$ thinks that they are going to be able to strip
the cruft and bulk away from NT5 and deploy it as a console
gaming OS (xbox).
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:48:23 -0500
Edward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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
Does it count if XFree86 4.0 hasn't been integrated into the distributions
yet?
Jim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:03:33 GMT
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:21:05 -0500, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 00:29:59 -0600, Bill Sharrock
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:QBdz4.1925$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[deletia]
>> >You are aware that you can run an automounter daemon and not have to
>worry
>> >about all of this.
>>
>> He doesn't even have to bother with that.
>>
>> He can just click on the little CD icons in KDE and GNOME and
>> select the mount, unmount and eject menus. He's just whining
>> about something being different from his only frame of reference
>> and being unwilling to adapt to different ways to doing things.
>
>No.
YES.
While a menu with "mount,unmount,eject" while exposes an alien
concept to an end user, it's hardly user hostile.
>
>>
>> [deletia]
>> >> That doesn't help those without, or in file managers.
>> >>
>> >
>> >The daemon would be independent to a desktop manager or a anything else.
>>
>> True. However, such a user is unlikely to ever go into a filesystem
>> outside the confines of a shiny happy gui tool. If they choose to
>> forego the shiny happy gui tools then disk mounting is just the
>> tip of the iceberg...
>
>I'd rather not have to.
That's a rather absurd position for someone choosing to
forego an easy interface for a potentially much more
complicated one, even if there is an automounter running.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "W. Kiernan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GAWD Linux is a bitch
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:26:28 GMT
Robert MacGregor wrote:
>
> I'm in year 2 with Linux and STILL every little thing I want to do on
> my humble Linux server is a big pain.. And I curse and I whine..
>
> BUT------ Then I find the solution on the Web and fix it.. And then I
> pat myself on the back and reaffirm what a supreme s00per hakker I am
> :-)
>
> I have to say, as difficult the learning curve has been for me with
> Linux, I've *always* been able to find the solutions. And I usually
> don't have to look very far.
>
> With NT? ha!
I know exactly what you mean. Using Linux is like being deep in the
woods. Sometimes you go hungry, and sometimes you're exposed to the
elements; sometimes you are delighted, even awed, by the beauty of
nature and the exaltation of freedom. Whereas using NT is like being
securely sheltered and regularly fed, inside a nice, safe jail cell.
And using Win9x is like being locked in jail, where your cell mate is a
homicidal psychopath.
Yours WDK - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mark Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Technology Valuation
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:34:36 GMT
ax wrote:
>
> I am trying to figure out how the Linux related technologies are currently
> valued. I thought the P/E ratio of Linux stocks may give me some clue, but I
> didn't find the P/E information about Linux stocks such as RHAT, LNUX, etc.
> Any suggestion where I can find such information? Are there other useful
> information for Linux technology valuation?
Most of the apps for Linux have minimal value on their own. Maybe a few
dollars each. Combined they are worth far more than W2K.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Virus Scanning a Linux CDrom
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:40:41 GMT
I didn't get any answers to this in the ...setup group, so I'll try
here.
I just got a couple of distributions (Corel & Caldera) from
CheapBytes. Thought I'd check them for viruses just in case something
could've gotten on while the cdrom's were being created.
The machine I used was running McAfee on NT4.0. When I tried to scan
the disk, it worked for awhile, then EVERYTHING crashed and I got a
blue screen that said something about "starting memory dump"?! Had to
reboot the computer.
Was this something to do with the different Linux file system on the
disk, or does it sound like a problem? I'm almost nervous trying to
install it now.
Tom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "W. Kiernan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:51:48 GMT
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> Bad news for us unix types -- I've been asking around in various NG's,
> and people have been telling me that Windowss 2000 is extremely
> reliable. From what I've heard so far, W2K has been up on people's
> servers, and running for 1-3 months now without a crash. Sounds
> pretty stable to me.
Well, I certainly hope so. If Win2000 weren't able to stay up for that
long, I'd be selling MS stock short right now and shopping for a yacht.
My NT 4.0 servers are usually up for several months between reboots. Of
course, I don't have a lot of exotic apps installed on them, they're
mainly used for file-n-print, and I avoid using the server console as
much as possible. I do occasionally have minor stability problems on
desktop PCs running NT 4.0, but I suspect they are more the
responsibility of bugs in applications than in the OS itself. Then
there's DLL Hell to think about, which makes it kind of a bungee-jump
anytime you install even the most trivial of applications in Windows.
Do you suppose Microsoft has fixed that in Win2000?
Yours WDK - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
