Linux-Advocacy Digest #757, Volume #25 Wed, 22 Mar 00 19:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: M$ did come aboard UNIX camp... ("Dirk Gently")
Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns... (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (abraxas)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (abraxas)
Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux... ("Dirk Gently")
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ("Nick")
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ("Nick")
Re: WARNING! DO NOT USE WORD! (was: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes) (Tim Kelley)
To all Windows 2000/98/95 Fans (root)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux Newbie Needs Some Help (Codifex Maximus)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (josco)
Re: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes (Codifex Maximus)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (root)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (George Richard Russell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Dirk Gently" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ did come aboard UNIX camp...
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 22:42:49 GMT
They sold it to SCO because it was too complex!
--
Jeff Lacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8b9d78$idc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029) wrote:
> > >M$ is aboard the UNIX camp. A number of years they created a
> > UNIX like OS
> > >called XENIX. But it no doubt sucks just as bad as win.
> >
> > They didnt create it... they bought it off SCO.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Ciaran
>
> El wrongo. The first version of Xenix, 2.3, was released in 1980 by
> Microsoft. XENIX 3.0, released in 1983 by Microsoft, included features
> from 4.1BSD and AT&T's System III. The last Microsoft version was 5.0.
>
> Microsoft then sold it to SCO. SCO modified Xenix 5.0 which then became
> SCO Server.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns...
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 22:44:02 GMT
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:03:35 -0600, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>> On 22 Mar 2000 12:26:06 GMT, Matt Chiglinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:53:23 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
>> >> make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
>> >> Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
>> >
>> >Nice sig, but isn't Apple dead? RealPlayer's formats and MPEG are so
>> >much more prevalent.
>>
>> QT4 is alive enough to be a nuisance. I hardly see MPEG.
>> It's typically either windows media or realplayer.
>
>I'm really curious about this. Why is straight MPEG2 so
>unpopular for video on the net? Is it just because folks aren't
>making enough noise about it, or what? Or is it just because
>real lets you put streaming video on your site, but does not give
>the users the ability to save the video file?
>
>
>Look at how popular mp3 files are for music, why not video? I
>can't stand real video, and quicktime is even worse.
>So perhaps there are other reasons. Maybe when bandwidth becomes
>cheaper, people will be using video more, and MPEG will become
>more prevalent <?>
Sorenson has some significant advantage in terms of file size.
However, some size are structured such that even if you had
a native decompressor you would still be unable to access the
video in question due to there being a hard plugin requirement.
This seems bizarre since the QT4 plugin will quite accomodate
you if you want to save files. Nevermind that some videos in
QT4 format don't even stream on a T1.
--
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 19:42:53 -0300
mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Why do you see software as a "product"? You can sell the *media* it
Because it has been "produced" by people. Hard work has gone into it.
What about movies, novels, music, should it all be free? What about the
artists and the craftsmen, should they all do SUPPORT (of all things)
to make a living???
> comes on, and still make the software Free; you can sell services,
> consulting, tech support, you name it. That's how most Linux companies
I prefer not to need support. Red Hat might make a living off bugs,
incompatibilities and cryptic manuals, but I don't really like that approach.
> are doing it; trying to sell the actual *software* is a losing
> proposition (in fact, you never *sell* it, but license a given user
> to use it, which is a losing proposition in a different way).
Economics is about offer and demand. Limited offer of software
can only be guaranteed by laws or morals (because it's so easy to copy).
Now, tell me, are you against laws and morals, mr_organic?
Francis.
------------------------------
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 19:18:58 -0300
John Winters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8bbbir$j4p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >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 think you'll find he's doing rather more than just marketing.
According to himself, he spends most of his time on the kernel mailing list.
As he pointed out himself, Linux for Crusoe is standard Linux. Transmeta
hired Linus for marketing reasons, and marketing is what he does (talking
about Crusoe at conferences, etc, etc) Of course, he's working on Linux too,
but that has nothing to do with Transmeta.
> >How is my business supposed to survive if I can't charge for my software?
> Charge for your services. Various people have discovered that if you
> write a single piece of software and then sell it to large numbers of
> users you can make extremely large amounts of money for relatively
> little effort. The trouble with this model is it doesn't leave
> anything to fund support and leads to very frustrated customers. It's
Various people like who? Besides, I truly believe that good software is
self-supporting. I don't mind limiting the hardware platforms supported...
Of course, some support will always be needed, but it should be free,
not the other way around!
> also at odds with the well established fact that the development cost
> of software is a relatively small part of the total life-cycle cost.
The cost of a game is only "a relatively small part of" its "total life-cycle
cost"? Please explain. (By the way, I have the hardware already.)
> >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...
> This isn't the point of free software - it isn't a loss leader.
So, how much profit is Red Hat making these days?
> >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...
> I'm not. You think having one excessively dominant player is worse
> than having another excessively dominant player? I don't. I remember
> well when "it must be IBM" was the rule (it wasn't that long ago remember)
> and IBM are still larger in revenue terms than Microsoft.
So, who's the "excessively dominant player" now? You admitted yourself
that IBM is bigger than MS! Anyway, do you really think it takes free
software to compete with MS? BeOS was a rising star until it got smashed
by the Linux hype.
> John (making a living out of free software).
It's too bad that people are still hanging on to physical media. But then,
with all the bloatware around and limited bandwidth, it's hardly a surprise.
I hope that will change in the future. Won't be good for your business, though...
Francis.
N.B. There's nothing wrong with riding the hype, but it's just not something
I would like to do myself.
------------------------------
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 19:59:21 -0300
Tim Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Indeedie. Other ways & means of making an income. Check out what the folks
> at http://www.zope.org/ do with their lives.
Yeah, check it out. Their "Platinum Support" only costs $50,000.
Too bad I prefer designing and coding, rather than answering the phone.
Francis.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 22 Mar 2000 23:04:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 05:26:53 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>nohow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> <snip>
>>> That maybe true but my point was your use of the term "highly
>>> customized Solaris" is just as misleading. Correct me if I'm wrong but
>>> besides the tcp/ip stack we don't know what has or hasn't been
>>> customized, how its been customized, nor the effort this customization
>>> took.
>>
>>Microsoft has stated that they have highly customized the TCP/IP stack and
>>the file store.
> Incorrect... they never used the term "highly" -- they said that the
> filestore and stack had to be customized. Adding highly is just
> your personal spin and even MS didn't spin it that way.
And what they didnt mention is that doing this:
#ifconfig hme0 inet 205.126.8.34 netmask ffffffe0 broadcast 205.126.8.62
counts as "customizing the tcp/ip stack". They have in effect said absolutely
nothing.
Which is apparantly quite in-character for microsoft.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 22 Mar 2000 23:06:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > No, and that's just the point. Neither can Paul, therefore his
> statements
>> > regarding what Hotmail has and is doing are completely fictitious.
>>
>> All i said was that Hotmail uses solaris and FreeBSD, which is what
>> hotmail said.
> No, you claimed to know exactly how Hotmail was using 32 bit and 64 bit
> address spaces.
Which again, is immediately obvious to anyone who has had any experience
at all running an email system under solaris. Especially sendmail. Thats
*really* obvious.
>> you started all this 'highly customised kernel' toss. How do YOU know?
>> And why in the name of god would a company operating/developing a web
>> site want to get in to kernel coding?
> I never said the kernel was customized. I said it seems likely that it is,
> given that they have stated that they've customized the TCP/IP stack and
> file store.
If you're saying that microsoft was allowed to customize the solaris kernel,
you are a gigantic idiot. Microsoft has *never* been allowed to see ANY part
of solaris source. Not ever. For reasons which are, again, quite obvious to
anyone with a couple of functioning braincells.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Dirk Gently" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux...
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:08:33 GMT
"Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8b8q66$gdn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> fysg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 1. It's buggy.
> >
> > Not more buggy than any other OS ... and by far easier to fix.
>
> for a non programmer, easy to fix as any other os.
WWWWRRRROOOONNNNGGGG!!!!
Windows x is EASY EASY EASY EASY to fix.
You click on the fucking start menu.
You click on run!
You type "command.com"
You wait and wait and wait until it comes up
You type "format c:"
You type "y"
Is ANY other OS that easy to fix????
>
> > > 13. Windows 2000 is.
> >
> > Failed to end sentence; is ... awul, bloated, buggy, not neccessary.
>
>
> define bloated. 128mb of ram is $62.
>
Fucked up; Like Microsoft
Microsoft = Micro-blows-my-soft-dick
------------------------------
From: "Nick" <[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 23:02:23 -0000
>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.
But Linux has become 'professional software'. Corel Linux (whilst not being
so great) was developed with the same ultimate goal of profit as Corel Draw.
Corel / Borland / Inprise know that MS has got the Windows market stiched
up, and there is little room left for expansion. By producting easy to
install OS and giving it away 'for free' the aim is that users will pay for
the software to run on it. Inprise's Delphi / C++ Builder for Linux probally
leading the way...(afaik).
I feel that it is wrong to still treat Linux as a 'treat' to the standard
profit orientated way of distributing software. Take a look at what Corel
has in mind for Linux, and think about it's possible future in PDA's, web
terminals or budget computer systems.
...I'm undecided whether this is ultimately a good or a bad thing.
Just my personal thoughts.
Nick H
------------------------------
From: "Nick" <[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 23:08:51 -0000
> I feel that it is wrong to still treat Linux as a 'treat' to the standard
> I feel that it is wrong to still treat Linux as a 'threat' to the standard
Doh...
Nick H
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WARNING! DO NOT USE WORD! (was: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 16:51:57 -0600
"Rob S. Wolfram" wrote:
> I'd say, advise anyone you know, *especially clueless people* to NOT
> communicate with documents in Word format. They might leak out
> information that should be kept private.
>
> Anyway, I wholeheartly agree, pdf is the way to go. I see no reason why
> a recruiter should be able to edit my resume.
They always edit your resumes. Usually, they get reformatted (in
word) to have their company logo, and to be unifrom, etc., before
being distributed to clients. It would seem stupid, given this,
that they would want anything but plain text, but hey, whatever.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: To all Windows 2000/98/95 Fans
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:22:03 -0800
1. The New Zealand Army uses Sun Servers running Solaris for mission
critical needs. Use Linux for Intranet server. When I asked the system
administrators why they did not use NT there response was:
"You have got to be joking, we would not touch NT with a
40 foot pole"
2. 90% of ISP's in New Zealand use Linux as their Proxy server running
squid. Xtra (250,000 users) and Ihug (40,000 users) to name a few. Over
60% of Websites in New Zealand (Including Government departments) use
linux/FreeBSD and Apache for their websites.
3. Unix has been around for over 20 years thus making it a superior
operating system. If Microsoft believes they can cram 20 years of
devlopment into 9 years then I must be a millionaire!
I am currently running Corel Linux, although the GUI is not as smooth as
you would get on such os's as BeOS it is gradually getting there. The OS
itself (Kernel and associated files) is at stage where to make the
'Great Leap Forward' to the average persons desktop the GUI needs to be
tightly intergrated with the OS, take the best aspects of each GUI
(BeOS, KDE, GNOME, Windows, QNX) and create a package that can be
installed with minimum fuss. Although Hardcore Linux users may say that
this is terrible one must realise the average person does not want to
type in commands and learn cyptic codes, they want a simple point and
click interface in which they can interact with minimal learning
required. Once this occurs it can then jump onto the Business desktop
because of the low learning curve required there is only a small cost in
training, and now that there is Citrix Winframe Client for Linux, Linux
can now be used as a cheap thinclient.
What do you think of this observation?
MattyG
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:06:58 GMT
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:42:53 -0300, Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[deletia]
>> are doing it; trying to sell the actual *software* is a losing
>> proposition (in fact, you never *sell* it, but license a given user
>> to use it, which is a losing proposition in a different way).
>
>Economics is about offer and demand. Limited offer of software
>can only be guaranteed by laws or morals (because it's so easy to copy).
>Now, tell me, are you against laws and morals, mr_organic?
In practice, copyright is more about crass profiteering than
laws, morals, or looking out for those that actually do the
creative work.
Besides, sufficient morals negates the need for destructive law.
--
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: Codifex Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Newbie Needs Some Help
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 17:35:24 -0600
Keroc wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm pretty much a Windows guy, but I desperately want to mend my ways
> and learn Linux. Initially I tried installing WinLinux2000 (strictly
> for learning purposes), but it caused nothing but heartache and forced
> me to have to reformat my hard drive. One of my buddies (who loves
> Linux) is setting up my home computer to have two operating systems on
> there, one Win98 & the other Linux - Slackware, which will operate a
> dual boot. Are there any online tutorials which I could read which
> could help me out in learning the basics on Linux? Thanks in advance.
>
> --
> "I'm just a caveman, your ways frighten and confuse me..."
> -Keroc
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Here is how to learn UNIX/Linux the codifex way:
Get out of X.
type the following commands:
uname; uname -r
df
free
cd /
ls
ls -l
ls -la
pwd
find / -name X
locate X | less #use q to exit
cd /bin
ls
cd /sbin
ls
cd /dev
ls
cd /etc
ls
type fstab
whoami
ping 127.0.0.1 #use ctrl-c to exit
What I'm trying to say here is... play with it.
If you want help, type the command you want help on and then append
--help like this:
ls --help
-OR-
info ls
-OR-
man ls
Almost always, q or ctrl-c will get you out of something.
One of the first things I do is make my bash shell color and classify
all output - I suggest you do the same.
Linux command line is really not that hard... It just takes using it to
learn it - just like a bicycle.
Codifex Maximus
P.S. Linux for Dummies is a pretty nice book. It will get you started
without being too wordy.
------------------------------
From: josco <[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)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 15:44:57 -0800
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000, George Marengo wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 09:54:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:54:58 GMT, George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 00:25:27 -0500, Bob Germer
> >>Oh please... IBM knew darn well the selling their PC's with
> >>OS/2 would be financial suicide for the PSP division -- that's
> >
> > Why would it be financial suicide? It would be just another
> > option, hardly something that they would be 'betting the
> > farm over'.
>
> I said it would have been financial suicide for the PSP _division_,
> not the company, because I don't think they would have sold many
> PC's if they decided that they would offer only OS/2 on those
> machines.
But the irony of all this OS/2 talk is how irrelevant it is wrt the PSG
groups real problems. It is financial suicide for the PSG group to build
and sell windows computers.....
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990422S0015
CFO: IBM PC Business Is On
Rebound
(04/22/99, 4:16 p.m. ET) By Edward F. Moltzen, Computer Reseller
News
After a year in which IBM lost $1
billion in its PC business, the
company's top financial executive
said IBM made large strides in
providing a return on investment
during the first quarter.
[...]
In a conference call with Wall Street
analysts, IBM chief financial officer
Douglas Maine said while the division was
still unprofitable, trends show changes in
manufacturing, logistics, and technology
are beginning to pay off.
> If they decided to dump Windows altogether, they wouldn't have had
> to deal with MS's licensing. Why didn't IBM simply tell MS to take a
> hike, we're going to install OS/2 on our PC's?
MS, via Windows, has obtained OS M O N O P O L Y power. Dumping a
monopoly OS is not an option. It has nothing to do with consumer demand -
it is linked to the abuse monoply's power and misuse of that power. The
specific forces and barriers to switching are all listed in detail in the
DOJ vs MS case and the Judge addressed OS/2 and IBM's failed efforts as
evidence of a problem in the market, not within IBM, OS/2, PSG or failing
to meet consumer demand.
One cannot fault any company for competiting and blame them for the
consequences of illegal actions taken in retaliation.
Your suggestion, posed as a question, has no merit. Criminals are not
excused because those they abuse are not saints.
------------------------------
From: Codifex Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: UNIX recruiters and MS Word resumes
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 17:37:35 -0600
Brian Langenberger wrote:
>
> Codifex Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Donn Miller wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> :> This one recruiter was really whiney: "But I don't _LIKE_ resumes in
> :> text format". I guess saying "You'll take it and like it" isn't an
> :> option. Why do recruiters in the UNIX field always want resumes in
> :> Word format?
> :>
> :>
> :> - Donn
>
> : Solve your problem... use RTF - many UNIX/Linux tools understand this
> : format.
>
> : They wont know the difference.
>
> Perhaps pdf would be even better. dvipdfm works great in converting
> my nice dvi files into equally nice pdf ones that should work
> just about anywhere. It's not like these guys need to *edit* my
> resume. But give me a good open standard over Word any day...
I must say that I like PDF files... would that it became more of a
standard across the board. :)
Codifex Maximus
------------------------------
From: root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:41:14 -0800
One must analyse this situation, first I am neither a NT nor a linux
advocate, just an observer.
Windows NT when it was first released was seen as a system
administrators dream. Nowever it has turned into a nightmare, although
it is easy to use (Shit, my 12 year old brother set Windows NT) there is
a trade off, it is extremely unstable, once you hit 25 users, crash!,
save a big file (eg AVI 45 MB), crash.
Unix, although it does not win 'user friendly of the year award', if one
reads the manuals included with the distribution one would be amazed at
the fact that you can set up a Unix Box in the same amount of time.
For example I setup a server running Solaris 7 x86, up in approximately
3 hours (including installing, Configuring and testing each of the
clients to ensure compatibility) all because I read the manual (RTFM!).
Unix is not a hard operating system, it is because there are too many
stupid or lazy administrators out there that help Microsoft can justify
the existance of NT.
So what are your comments?
MattyG
mr_rupert wrote:
>
> 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
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:41:42 GMT
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 21:41:06 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 21:15:26 GMT, George Richard Russell
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:39:59 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:17:31 GMT, George Richard Russell
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>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.
>>
>>What free spreadsheet has equivalent functionality to Lotus 123 from SmartSuite
>>96, the last 16 bit windows 3.1 version?
>>
>>Go on, list them Jedi.
>
> I've already stated that a bulletpoint by bulletpoint comparison
> is meaningless. You have no apparent awareness of how you, or how
> you presume others, use a spreadsheet.
Its meaningless because you'd lose such a comparison Jedi. No more, no less.
You'd crow it from the rooftops if the boot was on the other foot.
I am quite aware of how spread sheets are used, thank you. And I've even seen
how others use them too. And guess what Jedi, your precious, idealistic software
community hasn't written one as good as the evil monopolistic company's, or
its competitors, or the commercial Unix ISV's spreadsheets.
There is a reason why Miguel is shamelessly copying the UI and features of
Excel in Gnumeric.
> So attempting to discuss any arbitrary spreadsheet as not
> 'featured' enough is meaningless.
Oh yeah, how do you compare two pieces of software written for the same task,
on the basis of which one looks prettier on the screen? Maybe you do.
Feature comparisons allow users to see if their needs are supported. You seem
to want people to switch blindly, unheedingly, and to unstable alpha software
too.
> I would also like to reiterate the point that you are grossly ignorant
> or just a plain liar when it comes to certain aspects of older Unix
> tools to begin with nevermind gnumeric.
Feel free to iterate whatever you wish. You have, however, demonstrated
absoloutely no knowledge of the features available in Windows spreadsheets.
Examples of my ignorance of "older Unix tools" is welcome, as well as evidence
of your knowledge of "Unix spreadsheets vs Windows spreadsheets"
Have you ever even tried Gnumeric? Or say, Excel? For non trivial tasks?
I doubt it.
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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
