Linux-Advocacy Digest #704, Volume #25 Sun, 19 Mar 00 22:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (Christopher Browne)
Re: gnome website sabotaged? ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: 20 Mar 2000 02:39:31 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 00:33:01 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED],net <[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
> On 17 Mar 2000 21:18:36 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (Wolfgang Weisselberg) wrote:
> >On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 03:53:55 GMT,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED],net <[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
> >> On 16 Mar 2000 23:47:12 GMT, Steve Mading
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[small store owners]
> The proof is, or will be in how many of these type establishments
> switch to Linux.
Yes. Maybe we should postpone our talk for 5 or 10 years, and
then look again.
> >> You're going to sit this guy who owns a clothing store for example
> >> down in front of Linux and tell him how great it is and how he is
> >> going to save tons of money
> >Wrong argumentation. Being able to avoid the vendor lock-in you
> >describe further down is a much better argument ... and then you
> >start when he has a system which seems to work for him! If you
> >start earlier (when he chooses his system) almost all of the
> >problems disappear.
> He's been lied to once
By whom? Certainly not by the Open Source movement as such.
> what makes you think he is going to trust the
> Open Source movement. Again what is the reason for him to convert his
> data if the current model works for him?
None for now.
Being not vendor-locked may or may not be a good reason for him to
switch. Depends on the person in question.
> >> Proprietary format? Sure but that's not his fault.
> >Of course it's not his programming. But I hold people responsible
> >for the tools they use. Guns and bullets can kill, you know, even
> >if you bought them ready-to-use. And if you use Outlook and post
> >in HTML, I am not going any softer on you because you cannot use
> >your tools or are unable to understand them.
> People buy applications based upon a need and the need to support, or
percieved need. If you tell people long enough they are too
stupid to use a computer unless they use your super-duper,
droolproof easy program, some are going to believe you. And thus
their need is to buy your program.
> be able to be supported (ie: account who needs his clients data in a
> specific format).
I personally would try and choose an accountant who understands
that it's in *his* best interest to support open formats. If only
to attract customers not fancying a new OS just for him.
> As long as the data is saved and available most
> folks are more concerned with running their business and less
> concerned of how, and where and what format their data is stored in.
They should be. Like they should be concened if their bank is
honest and won't go broke over the weekend.
> As long as it is backed up properly.
Well, that would imply they understand something about that
matter. I feel it's asking a bit much these days. :-(
> >> The program works for him and he is happy.
> >Then there's no reason at all to change. If he were unhappy,
> >well ... that would be different.
> Ok, but I was trying to build an argument for someone like the above
> to switch to Linux.
If you are happy with foo, why switch to bar? You switch because
bar might make you significantly happier _and_ because you are
*not* that happy with foo.
> >However your claim proves you are building up a straw man
> >argument. Well, come here, troll, let me feed you some cyanide.
> No. My argument shows that there is no reason other than cost for
> someone other than a programmer, tinkerer etc to switch to Linux.
... for small business owners who use their PCs as tools. ...
... *IF* and only *IF* ( they are happy enough with Windows ||
they percieve Linux not to offer enough remedy).
> The majority of small business owners I have dealt with generally buy
> pre-loads from the nearest CompUSA that meet the specifications of
> either their accountant or the home office, in the case of a chain or
> franchise.
You can get Linux preloaded. With the matching soft- and
hardware, a service contract and everything you need.
> >The first part is cheapish hardware designed to reduce a CPU to a
> >These evil hardware only exists to reduce your CPU 386 in speed in
> >exchange of $10 and should not even be used under Windows. (And
> >not only because it's a vendor lock-in again.)
> Agreed but that doesn't help the switch to Linux argument.
Well, it does not hinder it. Unless you are too cheap. In which
case you need a lot of knowledge yourself, because you won't buy a
service contract either (or provide the clueful people yourself).
It'll crash. How much is a good modem and a printer which are not
Win98-only compared to an NT-licence?
> Take a look
> in the Sunday NY Times and see how many systems have Win*hardware in
> them. Most do and they happily work with Windows.
Sorry, the Sunday NT Times is not that easlily aviable here.
Different continent, you know?
But if your pursuit of happiness needs you to have WinXX, go
ahead. Linux is about freedom of choice, even if you have poor
taste ... :-)
> >Replacing the printer with some inexpensive real thing won't cost
> >more that $100 or $150 (see other threads). Replacing the modem?
> >Well, how much is a modem these days? Replacing the sound card?
> The hoops are becoming higher by the moment that this person has to
> jump through in order to run Linux.
> What is he gaining, other than cost for all of this jumping?
Linux. Open source. A non-welded hood.
If he does prefer Windows, well, too bad.
> >The second part can easily be solved: Switch to a clueful ISP.
> Easy for a single user, more difficult for a business that may have a
> webpage, several email accounts, online transaction processing and so
> forth.
If you want your webpage up, your provider should not run
Windows on their servers. (W2K is a 'maybe', everything else is
IMHO a 'nono'.) Email accounts? Then they have a domain.
Switching made easy. etc. (and no, you don't need to run
everything over the same provider. That's not even the cheapest
way, usually.)
Or are you saying that they have no contingency plan for the
case their ISP goes tits up?
> With the exception of OS/2 the others are not aggressively trying to
> compete with the Windows desktop like Linux is.
> Server market yes, especially SCO, but desktop?
Linux is not "aggressively trying to compete". Linux just happens
to have something which seems to frighten MS so bad that they
won't shy away from foul play. There's no aggression on the Linux
side, no organized marketing blitzes, etc.
> >So he stays with MS, (after all, by your definition, he is happy
> >with it!) but I am perfectly allowed to snicker evilly everytime
> >his OS crashes. I think that's a fair deal.
> If it does.
Next you tell me pigs don't fly. What a letdown. :-)
> >> For a non-programmer, applications based
> >business owner who uses the PC as a tool, and nothing more.
> >What's important to him?
> >- It must RUN. No matter what.
> Linux might have an edge here.
> >- The apps and the environment must be good enough.
> Linux just died on this one.....
The apps where aviable are good enough, and the environment's
getting better all the time. If it's not good enough for you yet,
that's OK by me, it's your choice and your situation. Just
remember things shift really fast these days.
> - There must be a specialist somewhere in case of trouble.
> Windows help is everywhere.
> Good Linux help is hard to find.
Nope. Good Linux help is not harder to find than good MS-help.
Actually, oftentimes it's easier to find, if it's not an urgent
problem. May I mention the appropriate groups in the usenet,
mailing lists, websites?
> >- It must be payable.
> The help?
> Why?
The whole system, hardware, OS, programs, backup strategy, and
yes, the help too. Why? Because the small shop owner will have
questions one day, no matter which OS. Or would you advise him to
skip that area?
> >Let's examine these things one by one.
> >1. Windows 9x and even NT are not really that crashproof.
> > (Neither is a misconfigured Linux.) For one example where
> > they failed in that area, see the URL:
> > http://citv.unl.edu/linux/LinuxPresentation.html
> > (The Cats Pajamas)
> > You see, sometimes your imagination fails. :-)
> It's not an imagination. I see this type of scenario every single day.
> Any OS can and does fail.
Yep, and it's a good case where the TCO is too high using MS.
Lost work and work time is expensive.
> >2. This is the question with every OS. While Windows has many
> > more applications, Linux is catching up. (and then there are
> > programs you can only run under DOS or OS/2 or whatever)
> Linux is definitely catching up, but Microsoft is also advancing.
> The race is on. Example XFree 4.0 is only now providing things MS has
> had for years.
I hear W2K will finally more or less have an almost working
implementation of su. Something that's been known for 30 years.
But then each OS has it's strong and weak spots.
> Still no Quicken. How many accountants are running Linux or allow
> their clients to run it?
You trust Quicken? Well, I guess you have to trust something.
> >3. RH is but one example. Linux-Hotlines and support contracts
> > are aviable everywhere by now. Even with 0900-numbers if you
> > don't want a contract.
> Just as overpriced and inept as MS's.
So there's no disadvantage choosing Linux on that area, is there?
And then there are a couple of good helplines as well (for
example: it costs only if the problem is solved).
> >4. Linux wins hands down here, especially if you are bigger than
> > 1-PC-Mom'n'Pop shop.
> Doubtful at the moment. Cost is the only reason, certainly not
> applications that a mom and pop shop would be interested in.
Well, I'll let that decision to the owners of these shops.
> >> Open Source way, it will steam roll Windows over time. Currently it is
> >> not even close, and looking at the cryptic applications that folks
> >> seem to be writing for Linux these days I doubt it ever will.
> >Nobody forces you to use them. Actually, you could write a
> >noncryptic (aka simple) wrapper GUI round them. This is of course
> >the preferred way: Less code duplication, reuse of well tested
> >code, choose-your-GUI.
> Too many choices are confusing the issue and none of them are as
> consistent as the Windows gui.
Well, you can always use the cli, if you don't like the GUIs. Or
you take the GUI your distributor chooses. Or the one which
copies your current GUIs standard. (I prefer a different GUI to
the next person, so choice is good, at least for me).
> >> Meminfo? Don't we have enough of those already?
> >Obviously not, else it would not have been written. Are you
> >trying to tell people what to write? Hmmm ....
> No I am showing what shows up on the home page of Freshmeat.net when a
> Linux supporter tells someone to go there for an example of how many
> programs are out there for Linux. Quantity maybe. Quality and useful
> to normal folks? Debatable.
Would you like to debate about the quality of GNU-tools compared
to commercial equivalents? GNU wins hands down in flexibility
and in crash-proof-ness. Quality in somewhat used open souce
programs has almost always been at least as good or better than
commercial programs.
If you happen not to see any use for YaMeminfo, well, there are
thousands of Win-programs & add-on's I feel the same about. For
example, how many skins are there for WinAmp?
> >> GPM? I thought you guys had figured out how to use mice by now?
> >Yes, you use GPM. It also does nice stuff like handle quite a
> Mom and Pop will love it. While they are trying out all this great
> stuff their business will go down the drain.
As you said, they buy pre-installed. So they never need to touch
that stuff. Or they get someone to set it up. Then it works. No
need to touch that stuff.
> >> RTP? So now I can turn my $450 Sony display into an etch-a-sketch.
> >Why not? Imagine, someone might want or need that ability!
> >Even with their $30000 extra-big flatscreens or their 3rd hand
> >13" monitors. (But then, trolls lack imagination ...)
> You still haven't given me a single reason why someone like mom and
> pop should switch other than cost.
Oh, let's assume that 'voting with ones purse' and philosophical
or political reasons are not important to them. Well, then
there's just the cost. Like the cost of upgrading, of vendor
lock in (even if that's a future cost), of your program provider
going bancrupt, of lost work over crashes, etc.
In *my* eyes there's plenty reason to use Linux if you can. But
then, that's just me.
> >> QextMDI? Yet another library that I am certain is needed somewhere and
> >> for something.
> >Are you frightened that people create stuff you don't understand?
> >And which you probably never will use?
> No I am saying when mom and pop go take a gander at Freshmeat.net they
> will be very confused.
Why should they wish to install any new software (apart from
their business software, that is) at all on a *business*
computer? Do you install every MS-program you happen to see?
Happen to ever try and find all the drivers that works for your
system, if you have some non-run-of-the-mill hardware?
> >> This stuff is scary..It reminds me of stuff I used back in the mid
> >> 1980's to tweak my IBMPC, like NumLockOff.
> >> Absolute FlintStone period.
> >Ah. I see. You also wrote at least one useful aplication. What
> >was it called, what did it do? (After all, you did not invent a
> >kernel for your "IBMPC", right ...?)
> I didn't have to. Still don't have to.
Ah, you don't "have to" (in other words cannot) write usefull
apps. Hmmm.
> See that's the problem with the
> Linux camp you are always looking down at someone for not writing
> code.
They look down at people demanding and demanding and demanding for
free, but never even turning in a good bug report. Well ... If
you cannot code, you can document, write up a mini-howto or a FAQ
... which may not be as glorious, but is just as neccessary and
honorable.
> It is also the very reason why Linux will peak and then fall to
> earth faster than the Hindenberg.
Well, time to fresh up your history lesson.
First, you probably have heard the names "Acron" and "Macron".
Yep, they were US-Zeppelin-plane-carriers. Both were lost over
the sea in bad weather. The first one claimed 70ish dead (almost
the whole crew), the second one (after being refitted when
learning of the other's fate) only 3.
Second, at the time the Hindenb_u_rg went up in flames, no other
airship company was even operating any more, for years. They had
all had their desasters all over the time. Just the German
Zeppelin Company were not having those accidents (ok, they had
them, but not with dead or injured people), even though they had
terrible struggles due to the aftermath of the first world war.
Third, one of the causes that the Hindenburg went up in flames was
that it used hydrogen instead of helium. Why? Well, simply
because helium shipments to Germany were banned. As I said, the
aftermath of WWI. Also note that out of the 97 persons (61
crew, 36 passengers) 62 survived.
(http://www.iat.hs-bremen.de/argus/geschichte/ges_25_40.htm)
So, by that comparison, Linux will fail some years after Windows
has been given up as unsalvable. Only to be resurrected: The
ZEPPELIN Luftschifftechnik GmbH (a subsidiary company of Zeppelin
GmbH of 1908) have finished the passenger carrier ZEPPELIN NT (for
New Technology)
(http://www.iat.hs-bremen.de/argus/ausblick/ausb_zeppelin.htm) and
are currently building the Cargo-lifter
(http://www.iat.hs-bremen.de/argus/ausblick/ausb_cargo.htm)
> >I agree that having to upgrade to switch is something you'd not
> >like to do. But having to upgrade for Windows (which is much more
> >likely since Linux needs comparatively little resources) is OK? I
> >bet not! But locked in, you won't be able to help yourself ...
> Upgrading programs under Windows is soooo much easier than under
> Linux..
Do you mean you just buy a new pre-installed computer?
Or do you mean that point'n'click is too complicated?
Or that the CLI: rpm -U PACKET.rpm is too complicated?
You seem not to have expericence with Linux here.
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 02:43:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Sun, 19 Mar 2000 19:42:32 -0600 <GhfB4.1993$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:bEYA4.357$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Such a program could operate under Unix as well. Your mail aliases are
>just
>> > as accessible to a binary program (and more and more binary releases are
>> > coming out these days).
>>
>> Can you give me an example of such a virus running under linux?
>
>Typical attitude. Because it hasn't been done, means it can't be done.
It *has* been done.
Nobody else remembers the .bliss virus?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- not that it was much of a virus
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 02:56:52 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Dr Sinister would say:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED],net wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
> > I find updating Linux to be more often than not a hodge podge of
> > technospeak that requires an interpreter who speaks geek to translate.
> >
> > Windows by contrast is fast and easy.
>
>Perhaps you meant to say "Install Shield by contrast is fast and easy."
Of course, what is more precisely correct is that
"InstallShield is, in contrast with downloading tarballs, and then
configuring, compiling, and installing them by hand, fast and easy."
Which all adds up to an overall useless observation.
It makes sense to compare the use of an RPM or dpkg package with the
use of an InstallShield package.
Of course, this is a .advocacy group, where comparisons are made when
people feel like making them, where reason plays little role...
--
I can see clearly now, the brain is gone...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: gnome website sabotaged?
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 03:00:30 GMT
Great response to a "baited, or troll message".
Touche' Ghost!
Steve
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 02:38:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
><[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote on Sun, 19 Mar 2000 15:16:02 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>What's a vagina?
>>
>>Please explain?
>
>Well, the penis is a pointy thing, and the vagina is the nice
>wet willing hole into which it is stuck. A little movement
>later, and voila! Fireworks. :-)
>
>If you have further difficulties with this concept, ask Heather
>to demonstrate. :-) But remember to ask her nicely, else
>she may slap you. :-)
>
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>
>>On 19 Mar 2000 02:54:08 -0500, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED],net writes:
>>>
>>>> It's obvious...They have finally seen the light :)
>>>> Steve
>>>
>>>Steve, your name is both Heather and Steve? Don't tell me you have
>>>both a penis and a vagina.
>>>
>>>
>>>- Donn
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
