Linux-Advocacy Digest #806, Volume #25 Sat, 25 Mar 00 15:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Debian Potato release? (Cliff Wagner)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Marty)
Re: Linux sure is coming around... (Andy Newman)
Re: M$ did come aboard UNIX camp... (Andy Newman)
Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator! ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:08:13 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting doc rogers from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:01:15 -0500
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Quoting doc rogers from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 18 Mar 2000
>11:32:25 -0500
>> >The main thing I'm getting from all of this is:
>> >Don't buy Gateway.
>> >--doc
>
>> No, as many have correctly pointed out amidst many incorrect trollish
>> statements, the majority of Gateways don't have such extensive problems;
>
>Yeah, it could be just a 2600 problem. I don't remember seeing anyone else
>commenting about Gateway in general, though.
>
>And you do know that Norm wasn't just commenting from an angle of "look at
>all the problems I've had with this particular Gateway" right?
>
>If he had started the thread in that way, it probably would have died an
>early death after a couple of us said, "Geez, that does suck . . . you have
>our sympathy."
Why would he start such a thread on these groups? I believe (and may be
mistaken, but despite Roger's empty but resolute insistence, it only happens a
few times a day, not every time I open my mouth) that his point was to
illustrate that a Windows install can be (and, I will add, WILL be if you are
integrating your own system) as difficult as any other OS install, including
the pre-slick-installer versions of Linux.
[...]
>> After all, the only thing
>> that all PCs that have these kinds of problems have in common is Windows.
>
>Of course, you know, for one, that correlative evidence isn't very strong,
>and in cases where there are exceptions, it just about has to be discarded
>entirely ("just about" because the smaller and more similar the number of
>exceptions, the bigger the possibility that the exception is due to some
>other variable (usually unknown)).
Perhaps this might be the root cause of my almost-rabid desire to see the
Microsoft monopoly corrected? Because, you see, when all you have is one
environment and one experiment, correlative evidence is all you will ever
have, and you're lucky if you get that.
If your statement concerning exceptions requiring the discarding of
correlative relationships was meant to indicate "if one Windows install goes
smoothly, then all install problems are hardware", then your attempt at
perspective is reduced to the view of the sky as you fall from the edge of the
cliff. Microsoft may be a monopoly, but they ain't stupid. Why do you think
they work so hard at being the only pre-load OS in the mainstream market?
Because as long as they are, they may as well be teflon coated, of course.
Am I going over the edge myself in being able to conceive of a way that a
rather horribly implemented hardware platform (the Gateway laptop under
discussion) is *Microsoft's* fault?
Maybe, but the only evidence you have to refute it is correlative, since there
are no other mainstream pre-load OSes which we can examine to determine if a
less restrictive and more technically capable software/licensing combination
on the manufacturer would mitigate the situation.
>On the other hand, which other PCs are we saying one consistently has to go
>through such a voodoo procedure for?
I know of no specific examples, and would expect all the similar, most
problematic cases would be laptops, as well.
>You can certainly have a hard time installing Windows in certain situations,
>but what OS isn't that true of?
There are no other OSes available for the hardware under discussion, so I
really can't say. Since Windows is supposedly the one that makes it easy to
install an OS, Microsoft will easily and often take credit for making PCs
accessible to the masses, and Bill Gates has been said to have invented "ease
of use", I would say that the situation with other OSes is irrelevant for the
most part.
>And for the second part, if you work for certain businesses, you have to use
>Windows, sure.
I would say "certain" is rather disingenuous. If you work for any but a
vanishingly small number of businesses, you have to use Windows. That's for
sure.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:08:18 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting doc rogers from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:31:17 -0500
>Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8b5gqg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Well, since you don't call partitioning/formatting the disk and
>> installing drivers part of "installing an OS" I guess not.
>
>With Windows installs, you don't _have_ to partition. I know people who
>have installed Windows on a system with no OS who couldn't even define
>partitioning, really.
I know people who have installed Unix who couldn't define partitioning.
That's irrelevant.
>> So maybe I
>> should just call it a "Procedure Guaranteed to Get My Computer to Work
>> Again After Windows Corrupts It."
>
>Well, "Procedure that will probably make Norm's computer work as he wants it
>to while taking a score of precautions that aren't necessary technically to
>install an OS" would be good :-)
Maybe "Procedure that will guarantee to make Norm's computer work at all".
There certainly weren't a "score" of precautions. I would agree with maybe
three or four. Given the length of time necessary to do the whole thing over
from scratch (the only way, based on experimentation and Gateway support) to
recover if something goes wrong during that install, to an extent that even I
would not have believed before I experienced it myself, I would hesitate to
call this "precautions that aren't necessary technically". This isn't voodoo;
it is bizarre, but necessary.
>> 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.
Here I thought choosing "workstation" or "server" was a really difficult
choice. I guess newbies don't know the difference, eh?
>> >There were a number of questions I asked you that I hope you answered
>> >below, such as "Why no Gateway Rescue Disks?"
>
>> I don't know. Ask Gateway.
>
>I did. The reply I received is posted in an earlier post.
I'm not interested in the reply you received; I want to know what they said.
Could you give us a hint?
>I'd wait and pass judgment on that until we go through it.
Save your time and your breath, Norman. Without passing judgement on Doc's
technical expertise, he will learn more than you will.
>> I have spent enough
>> time with Gateway, who have more experience than you with this
>> particular hardware/OS combination.
>
>True, but the procedure they emailed to me sounds more realistic.
Of course it does. Which is why the newest version of hardware and software
has been modified to allow a less bizarre and difficult procedure. It sure as
hell won't work on my laptop; they stopped making "that" 2600 about two months
after I got it.
>My point was just that if you've ever installed with less than the procedure
>you mentioned (which I gathered _had_ to be the case since you mentioned
>that you compiled the procedure after many instances) then the procedure you
>mentioned wasn't _all_ necessary to install Windows. After all, you'd
>installed Windows with less than it yourself.
This is correct only if you know in advance which steps can be skipped under
any specific circumstances. If you don't, then all steps are necessary to
ensure the install occurred, whether they were all necessary for the attempt
or not. This is the essential and important difference between a process and
a procedure, and why procedures are so much more difficult with modern
software than most people are willing to admit.
[...]
>> It omits everything except the basic Windows 95 installation itself,
>
>Okay, hold on a second here. I was giving the general procedure for
>_installing Windows_. You just now say "it omits everything except the
>basic Win95 installation." Well, if it doesn't omit the basic Win95
>installation, and that's what I'm relaying, how is it that it is completely
>incorrect for installing Windows?
I've got an idea; why don't we all waste a couple weeks discussing whether
"installing Windows" and "getting Windows to install" are synaptically
identical?
OTOH, I've done enough damage for this month. I'll see you around maybe. Bye
guys.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:08:29 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting doc rogers from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 20:19:39 -0500
>Two comments:
>
>1. According to Gateway, no such model as the Gateway 2600 exists. I also
>searched the net for the model number just in case the tech I corresponded
>with didn't know what he was talking about, but I could find no mention of a
>Gateway 2600.
Hardly a surprise. It may very well be possible I'm mis-remembering the model
(though I certainly recognized the convoluted install procedure). I honestly
don't think it matters. More probably, the Gateway 2600 doesn't "exist"
because they don't sell it anymore, and it is more than two years old.
Laptops which were manufactured more than two years prior cease to exist in
the minds and databases of the vendor.
>2. Is T. Max's posting style indicative of his general educational style?
>Does he walk up to students or lecture attendees and yell, "BZZZZT! Wrong
>answer, numbnuts!"
>
>Just curious.
That's not even my usual posting style; that's special treatment I reserve for
Roger and other trolls of his caliber. I figure, part of the fun of being a
troll is, I know, pretending to stay level headed while frustrating your
victim into spewing obscenities. So I just skip the middle parts, having gone
through that often enough to find it boring, and go straight to the
name-calling. That's the fun part for me. :-)
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cliff Wagner)
Subject: Re: Debian Potato release?
Date: 25 Mar 2000 19:09:54 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 22 Mar 2000 13:54:08 GMT, mr_organic typed something like:
>On 22 Mar 2000 03:28:58 GMT, mr_organic pronounced:
>>Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Just wondering when Debian Potato is due for formal release.
>>> Actually it's "Woody" I think, and I've been following the debian
>>
>>I guess the original poster still asked for potato, the version that's
>>currently in the `frozen' state and probably will be out somewhere in
>>April. Woody is the next version past potato; it's currently in
>>the `unstable' state and probably won't be released before mid-2001.
>>
>>The reason the Debian website doesn't say anything exact about it is,
>>as I get it, they don't know it themselves for sure. The potato
>>release date has been pushed on since the last November two times
>>(I guess), both for `too many important bugs around'.
>>
>><topic newsgroup="cola">
>>This shows well that in the Linux development model, the quality
>>is more important than the release date, which can and will be
>>pushed where it won't interfere with buglessness.
>></topic>
>>
>
>That was my question (WRT potato, not woody). I'm glad those guys
>are being careful with the release, but AFAICT it's not the x86
>port that's causing the problems; I've been running potato for a
>long while now with few problems. I just think it would be good
>for them to make some kind of statement; I know two or three people
>who have moved to Slackware or RedHat because Debian hasn't been
>"officially" updated in so long.
>
I guess I ignore the releases they have. I have my /etc/apt/sources.list
configured to only look in the unstable tree.
This gives me the most up-to-date releases of everything (cronned
to run apt-get weekly), and have yet to have a single stability
issue.
Works for me, but as always, YMMV.
-c-
--
Cliff Wagner ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Visit The Edge Zone: http://www.edge-zone.net
"Man will Occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."
-- Winston Churchill
------------------------------
From: Marty <[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: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 19:34:14 GMT
Jason Bowen wrote:
>
> In article <1i0D4.13260$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Jason Bowen writes:
> >
> >> O.K., lets change the subject then. What do you think these numbers mean
> >> for OS/2?
> >
> >Which numbers, Jason? You didn't retain any numbers in your follow-up.
> >
>
> I'm sorry that you can't remember them since you provided a source.
> According to the source that YOU provided OS/2 brought in $92 million
> towards IBM's bottom line. This is OS/2 advocacy isn't it. Wouldn't you
> like to talk about that?
How much more deliberately irksome can he get? What a lying hypocrite.
--
The wit of Bob Osborn in action:
"Perhaps it something you should try to your kids don't end up as stupid as
you."
"There is an old saying fartface."
"Not only are you a filthy low-life lying bastard pig, you are too stupid to
know it."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: Linux sure is coming around...
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 21:41:57 +1100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Terry Porter wrote:
>Linux *is* appearing everywhere these days, even here in Australia.
Yep, they're even selling RH in Chandlers.
--
Chuck Berry lied about the promised land
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: M$ did come aboard UNIX camp...
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 21:46:15 +1100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ron Reeder wrote:
>
>It doesn't say if the early version used 8080 or 8086 arch. comp.
Probably neither. Tandy sold a box running Xenix and ISTR it had
a 68k (and a Z80 for I/O). I used a PDP-11 running Xenix in the mid
to late '80s. But there were 80x86 versions, a colleague run it on
his Toshiba '386 laptop about 10 years ago.
--
Chuck Berry lied about the promised land
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator!
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 16:11:33 -0300
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Actually, this is a very bad example. First of all, MSFT doesn't make IE
> for unix systems. Second of all, what other major browsers besides
Last summer, when I was doing Web development, one of the browsers
I tested my code with was the Solaris version of IE. It ran quite nicely.
Francis.
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 15:08:34 -0500
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >I think this is due to a difference in the sort of people we work with,
hang
> >out with, etc. (And just in case this would imply this to you, I'm not
> >trying to imply that the people I know are any better because of it).
> On the contrary, I think you imply that they have more mainstream,
simplistic
> requirements and expectations. People who think that getting MP3 to work
> is a
> technical achievement. They're not *wrong*, they're just not aware that
the
> only reason it is difficult at all is due, whether directly or indirectly,
at
> least in part to the Windows monopoly.
LOL--"I'm not trying to imply that the people I know are any better because
of it."
T-Max: "You may not be, but I am."
I think that deducing that those who like of a wide variety of OS's are more
"mainstream" and "simplistic" due to that fact may be what's in danger of
being simplistic here.
But how is your Gateway 2600 chugging along, anyway?
> >I can't say that the folks I know _hate_ any OS. Rather, as far as I
know,
> >I would say that most of us look at them as tools with different flavors,
so
> >to speak. No OS is "the next best thing to sliced bread" to anyone I
know
> >personally and no one has been heard expressing anything, or behaving in
a
> >way overly negative to any OS.
> Oh, please.
Now you know the people I know better than I do?
> Not the "we're just even-headed normal folk who don't get so
> upset out computers" stance.
Well, we're just adults for whom an operating system doesn't affect our
emotional lives very much. There are aspects that everyone I know likes
about certain OSs and aspects they might not like as much. None of that
amounts to an emotional feeling of love or hate.
What do you want me to do, lie about my experiences so they cohere with
yours and you don't have to consider other possibilities?
I'm not denying that you hate some OSs. I just don't know anyone personally
who _cares_ that much about any OS to love it or hate it.
> Now, don't get whacked out: I'm not saying
> you're not being truthful. I'm saying your mistaken, is all. The only
people
> who *say* they see OSes as tools with different flavors are all using
> Windows.
Everyone I know who uses computers uses Windows to some extent, sure.
> Those who use Unix never *say* that, because it is obvious and goes
without
> saying.
A big chunk of the people I know who use computers use various versions of
Unix, too. So, I wouldn't say that they never say that, really.
> It is the people who learned everything they know about software from
> marketing that think there is no reason to hate Windows.
The people I'm thinking of never worked in marketing. I'm not sure what
else you mean by "learned everything they know about software from
marketing." Maybe something like, "only know software from reading magazine
ads" or something? That wouldn't fit here either, because I'm thinking of
mostly people who work in the computer industry.
> >On the other hand, I can't say that the folks I know hate anything,
really.
> >But maybe that's me being myopic, because I don't hate anything, and I
tend
> >to relish variety in most things, almost to a point of
> >obessive-compulsiveness.
> Well, if you didn't use such a level headed attitude to try to contradict
> people with nothing more than the desire for variety in the pre-load
market,
> that would be saying something. As it is, it seems kind of an empty
> statement.
A "desire for variety in the pre-load market" has little to do with _hating_
Windows. Heck, I even have that desire, and I _like_ Windows.
> >I'll have to start asking my colleagues and friends if any of them hate
> >Windows (or anything else, for my own curiosity).
> Better yet, ask them if they like anything
Sure, we all have likes and dislikes. That's not the same thing as saying
you hate something or not. But you knew that, I'm sure.
> or have ever though that something
> really useful was "the best thing since sliced bread". I mean, you want
to
> differentiate between being reasonable and simply being complacent.
I thought we were talking about hating things or not. At least that was
what I was commenting on. No one claimed that "no one has likes or
dislikes."
--doc
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
