Linux-Advocacy Digest #659, Volume #25 Thu, 16 Mar 00 19:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (David Goldstein)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Giving up on NT (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Steve Mading)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Steve Mading)
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! (Steve Mading)
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! (Steve Mading)
Re: Open Software Reliability (Jeremy Allison)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:18:13 GMT
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:13:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:59:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
><[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>>On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:36:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>It only counts for people who are capable of downloading
>>>>a file from the Web.
>>>
>>> That leaves out a lot of Windows users... <snicker>
>>
>>Or people who would rather be running the latest video drivers for
>>their cards under Windows, instead of down loading anywhere from 12 to
>>25 files just to get Xfree 4.0.
>
> How is downloading 20 files more difficult than downloading 1?
Time....Especially on a dialup.
> Although that is incorrect. The source for Xfree 4.0 is 3 files.
>
Assuming you have all of the correct libraries and other programs
installed that will allow it to compile.
The binaries are 12 files minimum and up to 25 if you want the bells
and whistles.
Look at the link for yourself.
http://www.xfree.org/4.0/Install2.html#2
>>
>>http://www.xfree.org/4.0/Install2.html#2
>>
>>For the brave at heart :)
>>
>>
>>Is True Type and font aliasing/smoothing finally supported out of the
>>box?
>
> Yup.
>
> Although that is an artificial need brought about primarily
> by those that insist that anything not Windows be a Windows
> clone.
No it's a need brought about by the thousands of comments in the Linux
groups from people who use other operating systems that are so much
more pleasing to the eyes as to why the fonts look so crappy.
It's about time too.
St
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:16:28 GMT
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:17:14 -0600, mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Koan Kid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8arjgg$rfe$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.sys.mac.advocacy Michael Paquette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake
>thusly:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > The information is all out there. You don't need squat from Apple.
>> > If you really want a QuickTime clone either copylefted or open
>> > sourced, knock off the whining, get off your butt, and do it. Show
>> > us what a totally kewl coder you are.
>>
>> > The world doesn't owe you a living. Others who own things (even if
>> > you don't agree with the idea of ownership) can do with them what
>> > they want. You can do what you want with what you create.
>>
>> > It's up to you.
>>
>> And just when I was beginning to think that I was the only person in the
>> world who couldn't understand what the self-proclaimed "Free-Software
>> Advocates" (not to be confused with the *real* free-sofware advocates--you
>> know, the ones who actually contribute to the movement) were bitching
>about
>> when someone refused to personally hand over a copy of their source to
>> every script-kiddie and 3L3373 d00d just so they could burn it on to a
>CD-R
>> for their "archives".
>>
>> *sigh*
>>
>> Pardon my rant.
>>
>> KK
>
>Nope -- I feel the same way. The Lesstif project is a great example; rather
>than bitch and moan that Motif was proprietary (or *in addition to* bitching
>and moaning that Motif was proprietary), these guys went off and knocked off
>a great clone of the system. Now Lesstif is probably installed on more
Oh how assinine. We're not talking about just another open standard
in this case. That is what Motif is, and what OpenStep is. THAT is
why it is reasonable to expect a few college kids to get together
and clone the things.
Apple is shoving content down our throats that some of us can't
decode and won't bother to provide the tools or the information
to decode that information.
>systems than Motif itself! Samba is another example -- the Samba team
>reverse-engineered a lot of the tech because they couldn't get the time
>of day from M$.
>
>Open Source software can't just be about the easy stuff -- we have to buckle
>down and tackle the really hard projects to make it work.
Ultimately, the most sensible course of action is to
move the market away from vendorlock that forces those
of us that would like to have reasonable free will in
our buying choices to essentially 'steal' someone else's
patented work without their permission.
Apple is merely acting the part of monopolist and you are
just providing weak excuses for them.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: David Goldstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 16:52:25 +0100
"W. Kiernan" wrote:
>
> Itchy wrote:
> >
> > As a small business owner I am always interested in ways to save
> > money. We switched from Apple to IBM when Apple's pricing became too
> > much to handle. I recently tried Redhat Linux in the hopes that I
> > could save some money.
> >
> > Well I spent 11 days messing around with this so called operating
> > system and for the life of me can't figure out why in the world
> > anyone in business would want to waste time on this obviously hacked
> > together, half finished program.
> >
> > Maybe some day when it is completed I will try it again but for now,
> > it has been thrown in the garbage can where it belongs. I have a
> > business to run and can't waste time searching the internet looking
> > for ways to accomplish simple tasks.
> >
> > Mr. Gates provides me easy ways of running my programs and as a result
> > running my business. Linux had better wake up, fast.
> >
> > Aimee
>
> OK, on behalf of the Linux developers let me issue an apology and this
> check; here's your money back.
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
> | |
> | LINUX DEVELOPERS 1029 |
> | 123 Main Street |
> | Helsinki, Finland Date _ 14 March 2000_ |
> | |
> | Pay to the $ ___0.00_ |
> | order of: Aimee |
> | -------------------------------------- |
> | _0_ |
> | Zero and 100 -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* dollars |
> | --------------------------------------------------- |
> | Bank of Finland |
> | est. 1827 |
> | |
> | memo: full refund signed: Linus T&^%$# |
> | ----------------- ------------------------ |
> |_________________________________________________________________|
>
> Yours WDK - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is, without a doubt, one of the best replies I have ever seen
posted on any ng! :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:32:54 GMT
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:18:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
<[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:13:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:59:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
><[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:36:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>It only counts for people who are capable of downloading
>>>>>a file from the Web.
>>>>
>>>> That leaves out a lot of Windows users... <snicker>
>>>
>>>Or people who would rather be running the latest video drivers for
>>>their cards under Windows, instead of down loading anywhere from 12 to
>>>25 files just to get Xfree 4.0.
>>
>> How is downloading 20 files more difficult than downloading 1?
>
>Time....Especially on a dialup.
The time factor is no different than for any other
large package in this Windows dominated era of bloat.
Just set it up and go to sleep like people have done
since the days of 300 baud modems and BBS's. This isn't
exactly a new problem. It's not like we're talking Xmodem
here.
>
>> Although that is incorrect. The source for Xfree 4.0 is 3 files.
>>
>Assuming you have all of the correct libraries and other programs
>installed that will allow it to compile.
Quit talking out your ass.
X is a pretty fundemental bit of code. It's not like gqmpeg
that might require all the fiddly little bits of gnome plus
mpg123 as well.
[deletia]
>> Yup.
>>
>> Although that is an artificial need brought about primarily
>> by those that insist that anything not Windows be a Windows
>> clone.
>
>No it's a need brought about by the thousands of comments in the Linux
>groups from people who use other operating systems that are so much
>more pleasing to the eyes as to why the fonts look so crappy.
IOW they're conditioned to the way Windows looks in particular.
>
>It's about time too.
For those of us for whom Windows was our 4th or 5th GUI,
it's not quite as obvious...
--
So long as Apple users Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based videoa 'Windows only' Club for x86, / | \
they are no less monpolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 16 Mar 2000 23:43:32 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 15:19:47 -0600,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We're simply comparing functionality in text editors. Emacs is definately
> feature rich, don't get me wrong, but it takes a PhD to get them to work,
> let alone master them.
Is that the typical "I'm not a computer person" speach? Hey, it
takes a PhD to switch computers on :-)
> So, simply because it runs on a bunch of platforms it's a good program?
No, but vim runs on almost everything as well. :)
If you prefer your editor, more power to you.
> I could write a "Hello World!" app that runs on just about every platform,
> so is my program more functional than another application?
Please do so. I'd like to see it on a dreamcast, a palm pilot and
a couple of other palmtops, well, not on the washing machine (no
display usually), a mac, a cray, a carry-around mp3-player
w/display, a MD-player w/display, a LISP-machine, maybe something
running under ITS, an Amiga, a VC-20, a C128, a Commodore PET and
a couple of others. Oh, and all the usual platforms, too.
It would be a cool program to do that. I bet you can't pull
that one off.
> No. I'm simply stating that Vi, Emacs, et al are incredibly overcomplicated
> for a not-that-complicated task.
What task? You mean typing 3 emails/day or a 10 line program?
Yep. Like Word is incredibly overcomplicated for the
not-that-complicated task of writing a simple TODO-List (and
strangely underpowered when facing something non-trivial).
> For some reason, it seems to be a schtick
> for Un*x and un*x-like OSen that they must take a relatively simple task
> and complicate the hell out of it so as to discourage anyone but the most
> die-hard person from using it.
Wrong, and you know it.
> No, Bob, text editing DOESN'T have to be this difficult. Cutting and pasting
> DOESN'T have to involve 20 key strokes!.
Let's see ...
Please tell me, how many mouse clicks or key strokes do you need
for:
1. reversing the lines (last line first etc.)
2. deleting from line 191 to the first mention of "The Fool" at
the begin of a line and pasting the same text after line 37.
3. Having a rather long program and a lint output of the kind
"Line 234: superflous operator x", please attach the output to
the end of the line it complains about, separated by " XXX "
I am waiting for an answer or a challenge. For bonus points,
figure out how long it took you. I'll guess you'll chicken out
though or complain that that is not a typical use. Actually, I
could bet on it.
Solution (in basic vi!):
1. :g/^/m0<RETURN> (7 strokes)
2. :191,/^The Fool/d<RETURN>
:37<RETURN>
p<RETURN> (24 strokes, and that's not the
elegant method)
3. open the Lint-output
:e LINT_OUTPUT<RETURN>
:%s/Line \([0-9][0-9]*\): \(.*\)/\1s;$; XXX \2<RETURN>
(49 strokes)
:w<RETURN>
switch to the program
:e PROGRAM<RETURN>
:so LINT_OUTPUT<RETURN>
:w<RETURN>
Basic Copy and Paste are even easier: Y for Copy a line, p/P, for
pasting it below/ABOVE the current line, for example. 2 key
strokes.
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:46:39 GMT
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 23:32:54 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>
>
> The time factor is no different than for any other
> large package in this Windows dominated era of bloat.
People don't typically have to download drivers for hardware when they
use Windows. They come in with the hardware. Updates are generally
very small in size. The latest Logitech drivers are 3 meg and that
includes everything. The driver itself is much smaller.
> Just set it up and go to sleep like people have done
> since the days of 300 baud modems and BBS's. This isn't
> exactly a new problem. It's not like we're talking Xmodem
> here.
You have never been to Europe have you?
>>
>>> Although that is incorrect. The source for Xfree 4.0 is 3 files.
>>>
>>Assuming you have all of the correct libraries and other programs
>>installed that will allow it to compile.
>
> Quit talking out your ass.
The questions should be hitting the setup groups any minute now.
> X is a pretty fundemental bit of code. It's not like gqmpeg
> that might require all the fiddly little bits of gnome plus
> mpg123 as well.
See above.
>[deletia]
>>> Yup.
>>>
>>> Although that is an artificial need brought about primarily
>>> by those that insist that anything not Windows be a Windows
>>> clone.
>>
>>No it's a need brought about by the thousands of comments in the Linux
>>groups from people who use other operating systems that are so much
>>more pleasing to the eyes as to why the fonts look so crappy.
>
> IOW they're conditioned to the way Windows looks in particular.
Possibly. But Windows is so much easier on the eyes.
>>
>>It's about time too.
>
> For those of us for whom Windows was our 4th or 5th GUI,
> it's not quite as obvious...
So your used to looking at crappy looking fonts.
Steve
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: 16 Mar 2000 23:47:12 GMT
ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: If someone tells a business owner that he has to learn a lot
: in order to use Linux, the business owner will lose interest
: on Linux right away. Business owners are only interested
: in getting their daily jobs done taking computers as tools.
True. And if someone tells a business owner that he will
be able to switch from *any* OS to *any* OS without having
to learn a lot, then that someone is lying. (Assuming we
are talking about an actual OS switch here and not just a switch
between flavors of the same OS (like WinNT to Win2000, or RedHat
to Debian). )
In other words, while you think you've found a problem with Linux
you haven't. You've found a problem with changing OSes in general.
It's an expensive effort to switch. Thus if you want someone to
swtich to a new OS, it isn't enough to just be a bit better. You've
got to be a *lot* better to overcome the expensive cost of switching
things around. The more expensive the effort is to switch, the greater
incentive there is in the marketplace to accept a monopoly so people
don't have to switch often. When it comes to computer OS'es the effort
to switch is more expensive than the cost of the entire system, so the
incentive toward monopoly is huge. MS happens to have been in the
right place at the right time when that incentive started getting
powerful. They got lucky.
: If someone tells a business owner that he has to buy
: new computers in order to get Linux up and running,
: the business owner will give up on Linux since preserving
: current technology investment is business owners' high priority.
--
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: 16 Mar 2000 23:49:11 GMT
ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8a9mb8$hra$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> In article <7oXx4.7656$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
:> "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> > If someone tells a business owner that he has to learn a lot
:> > in order to use Linux, the business owner will lose interest
:> > on Linux right away. Business owners are only interested
:> > in getting their daily jobs done taking computers as tools.
:>
:> Nonsense. Technical expertise is required to use any server operating
:> system effectively, be it W2K, NT, or Linux. A business owner could
:> care less whether you're an MCSE or an RHCE. They are, by your own
:> argument, only interested in getting the job done.
: Believe it or not, owners of non-computer businesses
: really don't want to spend time learning an OS except
: a few simple software applications for accounting, planning
: and word processing. If they cannot get Linux installed
: with a few attempts, they will give up.
Believe it or not, business owners aren't the ones installing
the OS. (Unless they are 'business owners' in the sense that
they are self-employed individuals, with a company of 1 person.)
--
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: 16 Mar 2000 23:55:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On three separate occasions, I've asked store clerks in both CompUSA, and
: Best Buy how well Linux was selling... most of them stated that it wasn't
: selling in but meager numbers. In fact, most of the boxed Linux
: distributions at these retailers have a layer of dust on them. This
: does not bode well for Linux at all, IMHO.
It's a bit misleading to go based on retail figures. Of all computer
consumers, I would imagine Linux buyers are among the least likely to
choose that technique for purchasing software. Online-orders, mail-
orders, and downloads are probably more common.
After all, how many people *buy* Windows from the store shelves instead
of just using the copy that came with the computer?
--
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: 16 Mar 2000 23:55:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: That's funny, I see the endcaps in CompUSA decimated. The number
Enlighten me - what does "endcaps" mean?
: of titles being sold in CompUSA is on the rise as is the number
: of titles in BestBuy.
: This is not consistent with lukewarm sales results.
--
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Allison)
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: 17 Mar 2000 00:06:14 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Murphy) writes:
>Last summer eBay had a major outage for almost a whole day, and as
>a direct results, the market capitalization dropped by around $2 billion.
>The reason was due to a bug in Solaris. There were Sun engineers on site
>to fix the bug. This was one of the two or three most expensive industrial
>disasters in history - all to blame on Sun.
I would disagree. The most "expensive" industrial disaster
in history was probably the Union Carbide gas leak in Bhopal, India.
Expensive that is, in human life, which *matters*, rather than
expensive in money, that ultimately does not. Get a grip, it's
only software......
Regards,
Jeremy Allison,
Samba Team.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
