Linux-Advocacy Digest #726, Volume #25 Tue, 21 Mar 00 07:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Make linux primary OS at work? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns... (No Name)
Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns... (Donn Miller)
Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns... (Matt Chiglinsky)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Bob Germer)
Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns... (Donn Miller)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:Darwin or Linux
(Sal Denaro)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Make linux primary OS at work?
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 10:48:07 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED],net wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 12:23:15 -0500, Gary Hallock
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Try FINDING the Linux version of RealPlayer on their site and you will
>>> get a good idea of how much they care about Linux.
>>>
>>
> Also, this is a BETA version and is for Redhat only.
Interesting.......Redhat only you say? how the hell did I get
it to work under Slackware 7.0?
And Caldera OpenLinux? And TurboLinux? Or
even Debian?
I must have screwed up during the installation.....can't
imagine why it's working for me.....
Think I'll pop a DVD in my drive and watch a movie while
pondering how I got RP7 to work on non-redhat distros.....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Name)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns...
Date: 21 Mar 2000 10:37:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 21 Mar 2000 06:00:40 GMT, Matt Chiglinsky said:
>Microsoft making software for someone else's OS? Nothing new. Didn't
>they do that a long time ago with Apple? It will only promote
>standardization. If they would only port Word to Linux then Linux
>would finally be a decent desktop OS.
>
So the ability to write documents in a bloated piece of software would
make an already stable and usable OS a "decent" desktop OS?
Give us a break...
You can say that a text editor similar to Word is missing in linux (
which is highly debatable with the many options that are around today,
although they don't solve everybody's needs, they surely can solve many
users needs). I just can't understand why somebody needing the computer
just to write letters and to make a few spreadsheets is still using
any Windows incarnation ( estimated cost here please:______) while it
can be done for free today.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 06:09:24 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns...
On 21 Mar 2000, No Name wrote:
> So the ability to write documents in a bloated piece of software would
> make an already stable and usable OS a "decent" desktop OS?
Is MS Office really that bloated? How can you tell? Did you try
measuring the memory usage of Office and compared it to that of an
equivalent Unix app such as Star Office? I'd bet Office is less bloated
than SO, and it's better looking, too.
Actually, I'm a UNIX advocate. But, we've got to make objective
judgements here. Just because MS makes something doesn't make it bloated.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Chiglinsky)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns...
Date: 21 Mar 2000 11:14:11 GMT
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 06:09:24 -0500, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 21 Mar 2000, No Name wrote:
>
>> So the ability to write documents in a bloated piece of software would
>> make an already stable and usable OS a "decent" desktop OS?
>
>Is MS Office really that bloated? How can you tell? Did you try
>measuring the memory usage of Office and compared it to that of an
>equivalent Unix app such as Star Office? I'd bet Office is less bloated
>than SO, and it's better looking, too.
>
>Actually, I'm a UNIX advocate. But, we've got to make objective
>judgements here. Just because MS makes something doesn't make it bloated.
I think SO may be a bad example. I tried loading it once on Solaris
here with 128 MB ram and it took about twice as long as MS Office to
load in Windows.
Linux people I know say SO is bloated but Applixware is good, but I
haven't tried it.
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:22:12 -0500
Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was the 20 Mar 2000 11:40:37 GMT...
> ...and Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On UNIX ( Motif to be precise ) it's ALT-C and ALT-V. Only recently,
we're
> > > seeing KDE and GNOME move towards the "Windows way" to make life
easier
> > > for new users.
> >
> > Also, many Motif programs support Emacs-style keyboard shortcuts as
> > well (Ctrl-W for cut, Ctrl-Y for paste.) Exactly what keys should do
> > what actions has been the subject of Holy Wars for as long as I can
> > remember...
>
> Right Thing: Make them configurable in the individual GUI toolkits and
> write a simple, small application that will set a global key
> configuration for every supported widget set (Xaw, Motif, GTK+, Qt).
> Shouldn't be hard.
>
> mawa
> --
> MSCE: Microsoft System Crash Explainer ("Bad hardware! Bad drivers!")
> MCSE: Must Call Someone Experienced
> MSCE: Microsoft Seems to Certify Everyone
> -- from c.o.l.advocacy
Yes.
The way key combinations are set in GTK is very good.
Just have the cursor on an entry and do the key combination to set it.
Couldn't be easier.
Jim
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 05:16:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
On 03/21/2000 at 01:44 AM,
George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> No, I don't have my facts wrong. I was using OS/2 2.0 and 2.1 when this
> was occurring and I know the history of the two companies. The point is
> that IBM PSP on one hand was pushing OS/2 while another part of the
> same division was selling Windows.
You most assuredly DO have your facts wrong. When OS2 2.0 and 2.1 were in
development, they were a joint development of MS and IBM. This was in the
1988 - 1990 riod. IN fact, Gates proclaimed OS/2 was the operating system
of the 1990's in a public speech in 1989. The split did not come around
until the release of Warp 3 in 1993 or so.
Until the release of Windows 3.1, IBM did not offer Windows on PC's. You
had a choice of PC-DOS, AIX, or OS/2 on Big Blue iron.
> >MS asked IBM to kill OS/2 - Period.
> And IBM didn't concede -- what's your point? My point is that IBM didn't
> go in willing to fight Microsoft tooth and nail for operating system
> share.
Again you have your facts wrong. When IBM decided to fight for the HO/SO
market with television advertisements, sponsorship of the Sun Bowl, etc.,
MS began the illegal process of forcing OEM's into signing the per
processor agreements which were found illegal.
> >
> >When does this argument become ridiculous? A man who wants to ridicule
> >IBM for not supporting OS/2 has now flipped his argument.
> What in the world are you talking about? My argument has been that
> regardless of the illegal activity that MS did, OS/2 ultimately failed
> because of IBM.
And that argument is specious, self-serving, MS sponsored FUD. Warp failed
in the individual user market because it was shut out of the new machine
market by illegal contracts foisted off on OEM's by MS.
> MS isn't the one who decided that the default OS install on IBM PC's
> would be Windows, MS isn't the one who decided that it would chase the
> moving target called the Win32 API.
First of all, Windows is NOT the default OS on all IBM PC's. It is only
the default OS on machines aimed at the small office, home office,
individual users.
> Whatever MS _wanted_ them to do, what IBM did with OS/2 was their
> choosing, not MS's.
Pure MS sponsored and paid for FUD.
> >IBM should have know better.....so should have MS which is why they
> >are the ones who butts are in court facing a break-up. It is not as if
> >anti-trust laws were kept secret. MS knew the law. IBM survived the
> >encounter, MS will probably not survive. Who won?
> MS's legal issues didn't kill OS/2, despite what they wanted.
More pure MS sponsored and paid for FUD.
> Do you really think that MS won't survive a break-up? Ever hear of
> Standard Oil? Guess what happened to them after they were broken up.
> Break up MS and you'll end up will smaller versions of the current MS.
You really put your foot into it now. When Standard Oil was broken up,
more than 50 oil companies were formed within 5 years and more than 100 in
10 years. The price of products, ALL products, dropped drastically. Where
do you think such companies as Socony Vacuum, Sun Oil, Atlantic Oil,
Richfield Oil, Pure Oil, Phillips 66, etc. got their start. The got it by
being able to compete with Standard Oil because SO did could not control
the price of crude oil, the cost of refining, the costs of shipping, the
costs of marketing any longer.
I had the privilege of growing up in a home five houses from the President
of Sun Oil Company, Richard Pew. His family founded Sun Oil after the
breakup of Standard Oil. He told me that a gallon of gasoline dropped 500%
in 2 years after the breakup of Standard Oil. His family was in the
distribution business in the Philadelphia area and was paying Standard Oil
over 50 cents a gallon for gasoline when SO was broken up. Within 2 years
after the breakup, the cost dropped to 9 cents a gallon. The same thing
happened with crude oil pricing and most importantly with the cost of
transporting oil from the Texas and California oil fields.
Because Standard Oil could no longer control what ships oil could be
transported in and the price for said transportation, Sun built its own
tankers starting Sun Ship Building and Dry Dock Company which survived
from 1910 until 1988. It could now buy oil at the wellhead and transport
it itself to the refinery it built along the Delaware River near
Philadelphia.
The same scenario occurred with Gulf Oil, Atlantic Refining, Mobil, etc.
By the late 1940's the retail price of a gallon of gasoline was less than
12 cents a gallon before federal and state taxes were added bring the cost
to around 20 cents a gallon. I paid as little as 19 cents a gallon in
Pennsylvania in 1956 when I started driving. During the summer months, New
Jersey gas stations regularly got into "gas wars" on the approaches to the
Benjamin Franklin Bridge to Philadelphia. Every major refinery was
represented with dealers along Route 30 within a mile of the bridge. Gas
sometimes got as low as 15 cents a gallon which was mostly tax as Sun,
Atlantic, Gulf, Texaco, BP, Cities Service, Esso, Phillips, Shell and two
major independents vied for business. At the time, crossing the bridge
cost 50 cents for a round trip. My dad and after I started driving in 1956
I often crossed the bridge to put 23 gallons into our Packard since my
dad's office was less than 8 blocks from the bridge. The cost in
Pennsylvania was around 25 cents a gallon for regular and 29 cents for
premium. At 20 cents a gallon in NJ for premium, we saved nearly $2.00 by
crossing the bridge during the gas wars. And at the time, those 2 dollars
represented nearly 10% of our weekly food budget for our family of four.
Yes Standard Oil survived. But it no longer dominated the refining and
retailing business. It no longer was the only choice. And the consumers
profited greatly at the expense of the Rockefeller family.
Just yesterday on CNNfn, there was an article showing that Ballmer has
lost $525 million of net worth since the recent drop in MS stock began. I
hope to see the day when Gates, Ballmer, Allen, et al down to the lowest
level MS employee sees his or her net worth wiped out by real competition
driving the price of Operating Systems and software down to truly
affordable prices.
I believe I will see the day that office suites sell for $50 and will last
for several years without the necessity of buying upgrades for twice that
price every couple of years because a bunch of hoodlums named Gates,
Ballmer, Allen, and their criminal associates (every MS employee qualifies
here from the CEO to the janitor) decide to force the market to upgrade
for the sole purpose of making the gang wealthier.
MicroSoft is not one bit better and in many ways much worse than the Mafia
ever was other than the use of physical violence. Moreover, when one dealt
with organized crime, one could be sure that the word of the Mafia was
good. If the Don or his Capo made a promise, it was kept.
If I ran a restaurant, I had to deal with the Mafia for garbage
collection, the juke boxes, the cigarette machine. The Mafia controlled
those businesses in the 1950's and 1960's. My dad was a senior officer of
a 6,500 employee restaurant and retail baked goods company in Philadelphia
in those days. The Mob provided protection from the Teamsters Union (which
it controlled) upon which Horn and Hardart was dependent to get its food
from the central commisary to the restaurants and retail shops in return
for using the favored garbage hauler, allowing the placement of cigarette
machines in each restaurant (something no restaurant could long survive
without in those days). H&H was large enough that it didn't have to
install juke boxes which were mostly in establishments with counters and
booths, something Horn and Hardart didn't have in most of its restaurants.
When its major competition, Lintons, refused to cowtow to the Mob, it
found its restaurants regularly trashed during the wee small hours, fires
starting, strikes by its drivers, etc. It was forced into bankruptcy
because it dared defy the mob.
The same thing happened and continues to happen to PC software and
hardware vendors, They either pay the "insurance" to Gates and his gang or
they get forced out of business.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.08 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 06:52:04 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns...
Matt Chiglinsky wrote:
> I think SO may be a bad example. I tried loading it once on Solaris
> here with 128 MB ram and it took about twice as long as MS Office to
> load in Windows.
That's the thing with MS products, though - I sure wouldn't want to
use an MS OS/software program for hacking, programming, and web
servers. But, MS IS pretty good at making nice desktop stuff. IMO,
there's nothing like a unix-type OS for doing hacking, and unix really
is unmatched for hacking and programming. You get all the development
tools, such as gcc, Qt, Lesstif, GTk, etc. for free. I don't know - I
just don't see me using Windows 2000/NT/98 whatever for programming or
hacking. But, those Windows OSes are really unmatched for desktop and
ease of use, I'll admit that. Can you ever see yourselves doing
general hacking on a Windows platform? It seems like unix is better
at that. At least that's how I look at it.
With Windows *.*, I tend to view it as this nicely packaged OS where
everything is configured for you, and there's always driver support
when necessary. IOW, I tend to view this as the ideal desktop system.
But with unix, it seems like there's just so much more creative
freedom when it comes to hacking and such, because you've already got
so many shell/cli tools to aid you. Much like Windows already has a
lot of desktop stuff already laid out for you and ready to go, unix
has all the programming and shell/cli tools laid out and ready to go.
Also, Windows has games galore. There really is an impressive amount
of games for Windows. Obviously, game developers see Windows as a
better market for games, and many companies/developers that produce
them (probably, at least as I see it) associate unix with "boring
server/hobbyist platform with minimal desktop support". I think that
pretty much is why Windows has so many games and desktop apps.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sal Denaro)
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: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 11:57:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 11:23:08 +1000,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Realplayer and Quicktime both suck under Windows IME.
Multimedia sucks on pretty much every platform.
The VCR style interfaces on sound and movie players remind me of early
word processors that offered typewriter styled interfaces and early
database apps that presented the user with a virtual "stack of cards"
One of the nicest demos I saw was for a player that presented a set of
thumbnails on the bottom of the player representing the transitions in
the movie. A second mode showed a timeline with little "pins" at each
transition. Holding the mouse over one of the pins would pop up a thumbnail
from that part of the clip. In both cases, clicking on one of the
thumbnails would jump to that scene. Compare that to navigating a movie
clip with a slider.
I won't even get into the poor quality of streaming video.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Salvatore Denaro
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
