Linux-Advocacy Digest #754, Volume #25 Wed, 22 Mar 00 15:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (George Richard Russell)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? ("SetMeUp")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Damien)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Perry Pip)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:00:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:09:39 GMT,
> Leon Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 16 Mar 2000 22:34:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > (Wolfgang Weisselberg) wrote:
>
> > >Those who give up functionality for experienced users in exchange
> > >for a shorter, shallower learning curve neither deserve the
> > >functionality nor the shallow learning curve. And they have have
> > >to relearn each time they need to upgrade to something more
> > >powerful.
>
> > As in....Microsoft Word? ;-)
>
> 1. isn't a text editor, it's a word processor.
> 2. I wouln't call Word powerful. It's overdimensioned for small
> tasks yet not good enough for large projects. But then one
> size fits all. :-/
> 3. Ever tried to read a word document with an older version of
> word? Or tried to create correct ASCII with it?
>
> -Wolfgang
And it is buggy as hell. They need to stop "upgrading" with features
and fix the ones that exist. Large documents scare it. Just MO.
L
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:17:31 GMT
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 17:10:38 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:14:22 GMT, George Richard Russell
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Like spreadsheets? Gnumeric.
>>
>>Call us when it reaches a release version, comes out of alpha and beta testing,
>>and has functionality equivalent to Windows 3.1 Works Suites.
>
> Just how would the suites be any better now under Windows than
> they were in the 3.1 era. Why would someone necessarily want
> a spreadsheet that can satisfy all the bulletpoints of a 3.1
> era version of 123?
Because a free stable and released spread sheet that is equivalent to Win 3.1
era spread sheets doesn't exist?
SIAG is as good as it gets, or Ksiag, the Qt / KDE port.
>>StarOffice just is horrible. Usable, sure, but not nice.
>
> Please define 'horrible' in less meaningless terms.
In your words, bloated. Badly designed, poorly documented, unoptimised,
and a poor and inacurate clone of a better interface.
> The 3D effects on SO5's graph are actually quite spiffy
> and manage to be eye candy superior to it's MS counterpart.
Its file filters are inferior, its slower, has redraw / refresh problems,
poor documentation, inferior macro langauge / capabilities, and fewer
"spiffy" graphing effects, and handles fonts poorly (across platforms, too)
>>
>>You should mention kword, WordPerfect and Applixware if you wanted to make an
>>argument of it. Fwiw, kword is alpha, Wordperfect is only in 3rd place on
>>Windows Word processors, and Applixware is a niche product that existed since
>
> So? We are trying to utilize tools here not run a popularity
> contest. Besides, Corel has taken efforts to ensure cross
> compatibility with 'the one true option'.
Its not exactly perfect in that regard.
The tools for Unix i.e. its Word processors are less capable.
>>for years, nothing better could be had for Unix.
>
> So? You still haven't told us why we wouldn't want to use
> it over something else.
Its not as good, put simply. Good enough for some perhaps.
>>
>>>E-mail? Good old mutt and elm; Netscape (when it works); emacs.
>>
>>All lacking in the warm fuzzie ease of use and setup stakes - Netscapes client,
>>essentially the same across platforms, sucks, and uses Motif.
>
> So? Exactly how much easier would the competitors be to deal
> with and why?
Familiarity. Integration. Decent documentation. Modern interface. Tool tips.
Sensible defaults. GUI configuration. Intended for Desktop Usage.
>>Emacs is simply not an option for most casual users - the effort to learn to
>>use and setup emacs outweighs the benfits to the casual users. i.e Desktop.
>>
>>Gravity and Forte have no mature equivalent on X11 - but Xagent, PAN, krn, knode
>>etc are getting closer. Also, SOffices newsreader. Its a browser / mail / news
>>reader as well as an Office suite. Shame it wants about 90Mb RSS.
>
> Gravity and Forte don't need one. Most of their relevant features
> are quite effectively delivered by multiple tools that can be
> bundled as one unit if necessary. The last time we had this arguement,
> the Forte crowd could only come up with some very superficial
> advantages to Forte.
Like integration, documentation, ease of use and setup, designed for offline
use, familiarity, etc.
The UNIX pinheads said things like piping through sed - bfd, I want to read
news not play with it. You can call it a feature to run the message through
ispell via a pipe - I'd rather have Word like underlining, or a spellcheck
toolbutton to press.
>>Too much like Unix of course. I mean, if you don't realise Emacs is not an
>>option for desktop usage, then you won't realise why linux isn't ready for the
>>desktop.
>
> This is an absurd argument. Just because he sees the world through
> Emacs coloured glasses, that doesn't mean that Unix is faulty as
> a desktop.
If you say Unix has a WP (Emacs) Web Browser (Emacs) Mail / News Reader (Emacs)
and expect the desktop user to cope with Emacs, well, thats a sign of lack of
understanding the desktop market. Emacs can be used for the above, but not
by a casual user.
>>Most desktop users have never started a text editor, and frankly, a decent
>>desktop should remove the need unless their software developers.
> I've had cause all the time to use a simple text editor in
> Windows. Infact one of my biggest pet peeve about Windows
> is that there isn't a fast easy way to tell the system by
> default to open something as a plain text file.
Frankly, I just drop things onto the text editor icon on the desktop, it
seems the only way.
> This is without even getting into sourcecode.
Which is relevant only to software developers.
George Russell
--
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
------------------------------
From: "SetMeUp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:43:06 GMT
> What's wrong with Modula-3? ;)
It's wrong that it is not C.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:39:59 GMT
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:17:31 GMT, George Richard Russell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 17:10:38 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:14:22 GMT, George Richard Russell
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Like spreadsheets? Gnumeric.
>>>
>>>Call us when it reaches a release version, comes out of alpha and beta testing,
>>>and has functionality equivalent to Windows 3.1 Works Suites.
>>
>> Just how would the suites be any better now under Windows than
>> they were in the 3.1 era. Why would someone necessarily want
>> a spreadsheet that can satisfy all the bulletpoints of a 3.1
>> era version of 123?
>
>Because a free stable and released spread sheet that is equivalent to Win 3.1
>era spread sheets doesn't exist?
That's nothing more than repeating an unsupported assertion.
Repeating something over and over again doesn't, by itself,
make something true.
>
>SIAG is as good as it gets, or Ksiag, the Qt / KDE port.
'As good as it gets' by one person's underdetailed
subjective estimation isn't a very useful metric
for determining whether or not something might be
sufficient for a wide range of users.
>
>>>StarOffice just is horrible. Usable, sure, but not nice.
>>
>> Please define 'horrible' in less meaningless terms.
>
>In your words, bloated. Badly designed, poorly documented, unoptimised,
>and a poor and inacurate clone of a better interface.
Bloated is an aspect of trying too much to be like msoffice
and is not a problem limited to StarOffice. How is it poorly
documented? What exactly have you had problems trying to figure
out how to do. I personally don't like having to hack *iqy files
in text editor to get what I need done. The other suites have
their own documenation issues.
StarOffice is not that remarkable in terms of being bad or good.
>
>> The 3D effects on SO5's graph are actually quite spiffy
>> and manage to be eye candy superior to it's MS counterpart.
>
>Its file filters are inferior, its slower, has redraw / refresh problems,
Actually, it's file filters aren't bad. They're not 'perfect'
but then again nothing short of 'office itself' is going to
provide that.
>poor documentation, inferior macro langauge / capabilities, and fewer
>"spiffy" graphing effects, and handles fonts poorly (across platforms, too)
Unless you're someone that makes extensive use of fonts in interesting
ways, this whole 'bad fonts' bit is just a red herring. Also, without
more detail in terms of what you can't do 'bad macro language' is still
quite vague.
>
>>>
>>>You should mention kword, WordPerfect and Applixware if you wanted to make an
>>>argument of it. Fwiw, kword is alpha, Wordperfect is only in 3rd place on
>>>Windows Word processors, and Applixware is a niche product that existed since
>>
>> So? We are trying to utilize tools here not run a popularity
>> contest. Besides, Corel has taken efforts to ensure cross
>> compatibility with 'the one true option'.
>
>Its not exactly perfect in that regard.
Nothing is.
>
>The tools for Unix i.e. its Word processors are less capable.
No. They are quite capable. The big problem is that anything not
'the one true program' will typically have problem dealing with
data from that 'one true program'. This is no less a problem running
under Windows if you happen to think exercising one of the other
choices is appropriate for you.
>
>>>for years, nothing better could be had for Unix.
>>
>> So? You still haven't told us why we wouldn't want to use
>> it over something else.
>
>Its not as good, put simply. Good enough for some perhaps.
That is too simple. It is completely meaningless in relating
to how anyone else uses those applications. It's useless in
determining whether or not you have a point or are just full
of hot air and rhetoric.
>
>>>
>>>>E-mail? Good old mutt and elm; Netscape (when it works); emacs.
>>>
>>>All lacking in the warm fuzzie ease of use and setup stakes - Netscapes client,
>>>essentially the same across platforms, sucks, and uses Motif.
>>
>> So? Exactly how much easier would the competitors be to deal
>> with and why?
>
>Familiarity. Integration. Decent documentation. Modern interface. Tool tips.
>Sensible defaults. GUI configuration. Intended for Desktop Usage.
Sensible is subjective.
GUI configuration is available.
"intended for desktop usage" is gibberish.
Integration is also present, it just requires applications
to be able to communicate via Motif facilities. Gnome
has this.
The interface is no more or less modern than it's main
competitor.
Tool tips really shouldn't be that crucial for NS.
>
>>>Emacs is simply not an option for most casual users - the effort to learn to
>>>use and setup emacs outweighs the benfits to the casual users. i.e Desktop.
>>>
>>>Gravity and Forte have no mature equivalent on X11 - but Xagent, PAN, krn, knode
>>>etc are getting closer. Also, SOffices newsreader. Its a browser / mail / news
>>>reader as well as an Office suite. Shame it wants about 90Mb RSS.
>>
>> Gravity and Forte don't need one. Most of their relevant features
>> are quite effectively delivered by multiple tools that can be
>> bundled as one unit if necessary. The last time we had this arguement,
>> the Forte crowd could only come up with some very superficial
>> advantages to Forte.
>
>Like integration, documentation, ease of use and setup, designed for offline
>use, familiarity, etc.
>
Integration should not need to mean 'built into one huge indeterminate
mass'. A caching nntp server integrates fine with any other client.
Documentation is not an issue with nntp clients. Ease of setup is
also pretty much a non-issue. Leafnode is quite nice in this respect.
Any gui client will have a configuration system comparable to any
other gui client. A proper news client shouldn't care whether or not
it's functioning offline or not.
>The UNIX pinheads said things like piping through sed - bfd, I want to read
>news not play with it. You can call it a feature to run the message through
I don't 'play with my news'.
>ispell via a pipe - I'd rather have Word like underlining, or a spellcheck
>toolbutton to press.
Then use a different $EDITOR or pester the author if this facility
in the gui newsreader in question is not available in a nice shiny
happy fashion.
As far as ispell goes, in a conventional unix editor like emacs,
I can just use the pulldown menu. No shell tricks are required.
You are grossly misrepresenting things.
[deletia]
Your position is based on lies and GROSS ignorance.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:42:57 -0300
Tom Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8baq2v$uq0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> This paper aims to assess whether the threat of Linux to professional
> software is real, and if so, how this might affect the economies of
> developed countries.
What worries me is that the leading developers of, say, Linux, are all
working for other people. The best example is Linus who's doing marketing
for Transmeta, a company owned by some of the richest people on the planet.
I'm a researcher / developer, but I don't see myself working for somebody
else in a commercial setting. Still, I'm playing with the idea of setting up
my own company, developing and selling software. The thing is, so many
people are claiming these days that the only good software is free software.
How is my business supposed to survive if I can't charge for my software?
Of course, things are different for big companies: they can afford to give
away some of their software, or even all of it, if it happens that they have
other sources of income...
So, what will happen? Will we all go back working for Big Blue, as in
the Dark Ages? Too bad most geeks are too young to remember those
days...
Francis.
------------------------------
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: 22 Mar 2000 20:01:43 GMT
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:31:17 -0500, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
doc rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > BTW Linux does include partitioning
| > and formatting, all the way up to network setup and even installing the
| > most common apps, as part of its OS installation.
|
| Yes, which is one of the things that makes Linux installation more difficult
| for most newbies.
The only difficult part of a Redhat install is partitioning. Of
course, that is skipped if you don't choose a custom install. The
rest of it is ridiculously easy, mostly done unattended, and only
requires one reboot.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 20:01:06 GMT
On 22 Mar 2000 14:44:27 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: And how would NT fare if the Administrator accedentally `del *` inside
>: %SYSTEM_ROOT%? Either way, you're headed for the backup tapes or
>: re-installing with downtime.
>
>Not if Administrator doesn't own those files you don't. It makes perfect
>sense for a superuser account to give complete access to a system, but it
>makes zero sense for a superuser account to give absolute and total free
>reign over every single file on the system that doesn't require actions to
>take ownership of said files.
And so then how does this administrator add/remove programs or install a
service pack or security updates?? (HINT: as long as you have permission
to update files then you have permision to corrupt them...duh).
>No, it is not. The System "account" *grin* is neither an account, nor is
>it comparable to root. It simply cannot be used to gain entry to the
>system. It's exclusively controlled by WindowsNT... Ph34r!
BULLSHIT!! Crackers gain access to the NT system account all the time,
getting a cmd.exe shell as the "system" user.
>One might compare root and Administrator to a gun which sit in a dresser
>drawer loaded, and one which sits in a dresser drawer next to a box of
>ammunition, respectively.
So you are going to take the time to load your gun in the dark while the
burgler is lurking in your living room?? I hope you do it quietely!!
>However, the Administrator can designate which files fall under System
>ownership, of course.
And thus cripple his ability to install security updates.
>I think that assuming that root should be 100% infallible, and incapable
>of making mistakes is a very foolish thing in OS design.
No one has. That's what system management tools like RPM and
Install-shield are for, as well as backup and recovery tools. But you
can't give an admin the ability to update a system without giving him the
ability to accidently damage it as well.
Perry
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:58:16 -0500
"Why Linux continues to try to exist in the enterprise
would be a topic appropriate for an investigative report in the
field of psychology or marketing, not an article on information
technology. Technically, Linux is no match for
any Windows operating system, not even NT 4 or
Windows 98SE."
So... I guess we have that covered ....
"mr_rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Can anyone remind me why the computing world needed a new server
> OS?
>
> http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/kirch/
>
> "Why Windows NT Server 4.0 continues to exist in the enterprise
> would be a topic appropriate for an investigative report in the
> field of psychology or marketing, not an article on information
> technology. Technically, Windows NT Server 4.0 is no match for
> any UNIX operating system, not even the non-commercial BSDs or
> Linux."
>
> --
> Mr Rupert
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
