Linux-Advocacy Digest #706, Volume #25 Mon, 20 Mar 00 03:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (Christopher Browne)
Re: Linux Sucks************************* ("Bill Sharrock")
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (George Marengo)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Damien)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY (Bastian)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Joseph)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Terry Porter)
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (Terry Porter)
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (Terry Porter)
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 04:23:44 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when rob would say:
>GNUCash itself, however, I found both
>difficult to install and non-worthwhile afterwards. I'm sure GNUCash
>meets somebody's needs precisely, but my wife refused to use it so
>we picked up Quicken Basic 2000 and we use that now. I sure wish
>quicken would just make a linux version. Having a non-free alternative
>would not preclude continuing development on free alternatives like
>gnucash. (Or maybe I should work on my own? Hmm, that might be a
>fun project... :)
GnuCash has been seeing steady improvements lately.
It has, rapidly stabilizing, a QIF import facility that is *really*
slick.
There are four people working hard on reporting capabilities.
These aren't likely to lead to "online banking" tomorrow, although the
institutions that I deal with offer data exports in QIF form, which
GnuCash should readily cope with.
Is it difficult to install? YES. That is also being worked on, from
several perspectives, including:
- Trying to cut down on the number of things GnuCash depends on.
[SWIG and ePerl are likely to be dropped Real Soon Now.]
- Having people construct well-maintained packages for several
Linux distributions (notably Red Hat, SuSE, and Debian).
Those two factors will work together to make it rather more approachable
Real Soon Now. After all, nobody complains that:
a) Perl is difficult to compile and install, or that
b) XFree86 is difficult to compile and install.
They both come prepackaged, and end users *never* have to contend with
the range of complexities.
--
Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big*
RAMdisk!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: "Bill Sharrock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks*************************
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 23:01:55 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <net> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> RealPlayer...
> Has Linux gotten past G2 yet? Is it still buried under "non-supported"
> on the web page?
>
Under Select OS for the free RealPlayer 7 download they have RH6.0 listed in
RPM and non-RPM format. Listed as Beta but that should change shortly.
I guess you didn't know that RH has partnered up with Real to get RealPlayer
onto linux.
<snip>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: 20 Mar 2000 05:15:01 GMT
>XmHTML-1.1.5.tar.gz, eperl-2.2.14.tar.gz, guile-1.3.tar.gz,
>lesstif-0.88.1.tar.gz, nana-2.3.tar.gz, swig1.1p5.tar.gz. WTF! If a
>program requires this much bullshit to install it should not have a
>version number of 1.x.
It requires those libraries/support packages. It doesn't necessarily require
installing all of them. By not bundling everything in one package, you only
have to install those you don't have. It's a better option than having to
fetch a package that's enlarged by including every possible library needed.
--
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: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 05:22:59 GMT
On 20 Mar 2000 08:31:43 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:21:12 GMT, George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:08:05 -0600, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Everything from MS is utter crap.
<snip>
>Unlike you George, we have Tim's long history of posting in COLA
>to tell us he is a rational thinker.
Saying that everything from MS is utter crap isn't a rational position
to take, regardless of his long history of posting in COLA.
>But dont listen to me, tell us why MS is NOT utter crap ???
Are you starting to get confused already? The issue isn't whether
"MS is NOT utter crap" but whether everything from MS is utter crap.
Some of their products are quite good, even if they may not be the
best product available. Looking at the recent TPC-C benchmarks
and the number of e-commerce sites that run on NT are evidence
of that. Very few commerce sites run on Linux -- they tend to be
either commercial Unix varieties, *BSD, or NT.
>Kind Regards
>Terry
Are you the same Terry Porter who used to feel as emotionally
tied to OS/2 as you seem to be with your current OS of choice?
I have vague memories of someone with that name on Fidonet.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 20 Mar 2000 05:30:58 GMT
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:39:45 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
Roger <roger@.> wrote:
| On 19 Mar 2000 23:45:05 GMT, someone claiming to be Damien wrote:
|
| >On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:05:59 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
| >Roger <roger@.> wrote:
|
| >| You don't -- do you suppose Gateway pays people to sit there and click
| >| "OK" all day?
|
| >No. They do it once and then clone the drives.
|
| No. They use a scripted install.
I don't believe you. A scripted install takes an hour on each
machine. Cloning scales much better.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: 20 Mar 2000 06:01:36 GMT
On 20 Mar 2000 02:39:31 GMT, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 00:33:01 GMT,
>They should be. Like they should be concened if their bank is
>honest and won't go broke over the weekend.
If your money's in the bank ( ie a real bank ), you can't lose it. If it
wasn't for this, we'd all have our money in index funds or something of the
sort. The only advantage of a bank is that you are gauranteed not to lose
money. A savings account is hardly a high performance investment.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: 20 Mar 2000 06:03:49 GMT
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:51:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED],net wrote:
>Do you ever say anything Terry? Looks to me like you just try and
>parrot the real Linvocates but to be honest you don't do nearly as
>good a job. Study Mattius, Jedi and even Bilk to see how it is done.
>You are a very poor student Terry. Maybe that's why you are a Porter.
>
>BTW ever listen to "King Porter Stomp" by Jelly Roll Morten? You might
>Like it.
>
>Steve
>
>
>On 20 Mar 2000 07:49:33 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
>Porter) 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:
>>>
>>>>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). )
>>>
>>>This is of course true.
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>I mostly agree with this, especially the fact that MS has the market
>>>share and it is indeed difficult to get already entrenched business to
>>>switch even if the OS IS far superior.
>>>
>><snip of more Steve nonsense>
>>
>>>QextMDI? Yet another library that I am certain is needed somewhere and
>>>for something.
>>>
>>>This stuff is scary..It reminds me of stuff I used back in the mid
>>>1980's to tweak my IBMPC, like NumLockOff.
>>Hahahah, you definetly rate as Mr Clueless, 1997-2000 Steve.
>>
>>>
>>>Absolute FlintStone period.
>>You should know Steve, your trollism on COLA goes back to the stone age.
>>
>>>
>>>BTW this was taken off the http://www.freshmeat.net page today.
>>>
>>>>: 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.
>>>
>>>Absolute truth and the main reason why for small business owners Linux
>>>is not an option.
>>Who's telling small business owners this Steve ???
>>
>>I'm a small business, I run Linux, on OLD hardware.
>>
>>According to Steve-of-the-broken-promises (hes leaving COLA) Linux only runs
>>on OLD hardware, now its Linux needs NEW hardware to run ?
>>
>>Which is it Steve the troll ???
>>
>>>
>>>Steve
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Kind Regards
>>Terry
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bastian)
Subject: Re: LINUX IS NOT FOR EVERYBODY
Date: 20 Mar 2000 06:25:08 GMT
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:08:43 -0800, Ilya Grishashvili wrote:
>I feel sorry when I see that Linux more and more looks like
>M$ Windoze (understand me right, I mean user interface, all
>the fancy buttons and stuff).
>
Linux looks better than Windows. Just look at the enlightenment/Gnome thing.
But you're right, everything bears some kinda resemblance with M$.
Bastian
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 22:44:02 -0500
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
George Marengo wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 14:00:49 -0500, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >George Marengo wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:18:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> >George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >> >
> >> >>Nope -- my only point was that anyone who is actively trying to kill
> >> >>off OS/2 is a nut... IBM did that themselves.
> >> >
> >> >I agree, but I also think -- in light of what has come out at the M$ antitrust
> >> >trial, that there are many, many dirty deeds committed by M$, as well as
> >> >mis-information and lies spread by Ziff-Davis and others -- that had just
> >> >a large an impact on OS2, as anything that IBM did or didn't do.
> >>
> >> Maybe... but's it was very hard to tell anyone that they should get
> >> OS/2 when IBM itself loaded Windows as the default with the option
> >> of loading OS/2 when it should have been the other way.
> >
> >No need to play dumb about preloading.
> >http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3900/3932.htm
>
> I realize that preloading OS/2 would have meant that IBM would
> basically be unable to offer Windows machines at price competitive
> points, but they should have thought that one through before
> proceeding with OS/2. Were they going to get wholly behind it
> or just do a half-assed job? They chose the latter.
What should have IBM thought through? No one faults IBM for taking on
MS - competition is encouraged in the US. MS's illegal behavior,
demanding IBM abandon OS/2 and them punishing IBM for ignoring the
illegal offer and promoting OS/2, is being punished in the courts. It's
your right to make-up counter factual arguments about "half-assed" and
"what-ifs". Many IBM critics have to play dumb about the anti-trust case
since its hard to assign blame given MS's outrageous behavior. IMHO it
is MS who should have thought more, they'd probably not be in a losing
court case with their monopoly likely split into parts.
> >It's hard to tell anyone they should get Windows after reading
> >about MS's contempt for consumers.
>
> I ask them what they want to do with their computer. If it's surfing
> the web, they don't need Windows. If it's to run specific software
> like TurboTax, Quicken, and Word, they do.
If someone told me they want to run these EXACT applications I tell them
to use the better designed Apple Mac. W2K itself is over $300.00!
That's a lot of money for a OS and it can put to good use spent on other
items. Upgrading older systems to win9x is an enormous waste of time -
that's why most consumers get new OSs with new systems.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 20 Mar 2000 15:39:45 +0800
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:51:32 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED],net <[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>Do you ever say anything Terry?
I'll let you decide for yourself Steve.
> Looks to me like you just try and
>parrot the real Linvocates but to be honest you don't do nearly as
>good a job. Study Mattius, Jedi and even Bilk to see how it is done.
Yeah theyre good, but a troll hunter has to start somewhere :)
>You are a very poor student Terry. Maybe that's why you are a Porter.
I'm not a student, and a "Porter" isn't what you think Steve.
The Doomsday book lists the first use of the name "Porter" as a gate keeper,
you know the guy with a shiny sharp sword, big n tuff. He probably kept
the trolls out.
Maybe I am true to my name after all ?
>
>BTW ever listen to "King Porter Stomp" by Jelly Roll Morten? You might
>Like it.
Nope, and I doubt I would if you do ?
>
>Steve
>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 5 days 23 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 20 Mar 2000 15:52:28 +0800
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 05:22:59 GMT, George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 20 Mar 2000 08:31:43 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
>Porter) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 02:21:12 GMT, George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 20:08:05 -0600, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>Everything from MS is utter crap.
><snip>
>>Unlike you George, we have Tim's long history of posting in COLA
>>to tell us he is a rational thinker.
>
>Saying that everything from MS is utter crap isn't a rational position
>to take, regardless of his long history of posting in COLA.
Well be a good troll and prove it isnt a rational position ?
There are some who believe the same about Unix, and Linux, Steve for instance.
We tolerate him, cause he's grist for our mill, lets see you provide some
input other than a lofty position of critisism ?
Please don't forget to be 100% rational when you do ?
>
>>But dont listen to me, tell us why MS is NOT utter crap ???
>
>Are you starting to get confused already? The issue isn't whether
>"MS is NOT utter crap" but whether everything from MS is utter crap.
Sorry George your right, my mistake, poor use of wording.
>
>Some of their products are quite good, even if they may not be the
>best product available. Looking at the recent TPC-C benchmarks
>and the number of e-commerce sites that run on NT are evidence
>of that. Very few commerce sites run on Linux -- they tend to be
>either commercial Unix varieties, *BSD, or NT.
Now who's confused ?
We were talking about MS software being utter crap. Which of their products are
"quiet good", and why ??
>
>>Kind Regards
>>Terry
>
>Are you the same Terry Porter who used to feel as emotionally
>tied to OS/2 as you seem to be with your current OS of choice?
No George, although I did use OS2 for a time, I was not an advocate
of it.
OS2 was just another commercial product. Nothing to get very excited about.
>
>I have vague memories of someone with that name on Fidonet.
I haven't ever posted to Fidonet, as far as I recall.
>
Thanks for the veiled insult George, but it doesnt bother me, I'm used
to trolls like yourself and "Steve".
Personal sleights are the Wintroll defence #2. Keep up the good work.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 6 days 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 20 Mar 2000 16:01:20 +0800
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:43:46 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED],net <[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>So you like to name call, that's fine. How about challenging the topic
>instead of burying your head among the collective Linux supporters up
>Linus's a** and in the process ignoring the obvious deficiencies of
>Linux.
>
>Steve
Hang on while I throw up ........ hueeeeeeeeeeeey!!!
Steve gives new meaning to "sanctamonious hypocrite".
If you can't stand the heat "Steve" the troll, move away from the fire.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 6 days 1 hour 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 20 Mar 2000 16:03:13 +0800
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 22:23:07 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED],net <[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>Heck this is like real time chatting here Gary.
>
>You and the other person responded exactly as I had predicated and you
>can't accept the truth.
>
>Reading the LinoNuts is getting far too easy these days. I think I
>need a new hobby.
A life would have a similar effect Steve ?
How about getting one ?
>
>Steve
>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 6 days 1 hour 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
