Linux-Advocacy Digest #853, Volume #25 Tue, 28 Mar 00 13:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (George Richard Russell)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (George Richard Russell)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Weak points ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Weak points ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Weak points ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:10:41 GMT
On 24 Mar 2000 18:31:37 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>That a GUI? I don't think so...
>Sure it is, Slrn behaves just like a gui in a xterm.
Not in konsole, which is what I'm using at the moment. It seems to ignore all
mouse input. Could be konsoles fault tho.
slrn is still not like a GUI in any way.
>>>>Its also not terribly task based - there is no documentation of howto
>>>>change, for example, the colours used. It just says edit the rc file.
>>>The rc file is self explanitory, because its TEXT. You're stuck in your world
>>>of binary registeries George.
>>
>>Really, does it explain entries which can be added but aren't present?
>Hahahah does the registry ?
The input dialog of the app should have a big help button, and reject values
that are gibberish too.
>>All the possible values? Valide ranges? Next you'll say the sendmail.cf is
>>friendly since its text.
>Um no I won't, and you picked one of the most obscure text config files
>possible, and on purpose.
Lots of people have problems with rc.d/* lilo.conf XF86Config .fvwmrc and
various others too. sendmail.cf is just the canonical example.
>>>>Not terribly novice welcoming. Nor is falling back to vi as editor.
>>>Incorrect: Slrn does not "fall back to Vi"
>>$EDITOR then - and on what Linux system is thise remotely likely to not be vi?
>We were talking about SLRN, and its default editor is JED.
The emacs lilke editor - thats really a step up. At least it has menus.
>Your "restart" was carefully worded tho, so lets be plain, we only require
>a restart of SLRN, for some config changes, NEVER the Linux OS.
Just major components, Like the X Server - when did you last change colour
depth on the fly?
Most Windows restarts are onlt needed to exit and restart the GUI - hold
shift when choosing restart, and it goesto DOS and back. Just like 3.1,
and for all non server usage, the same as killing and restarting X.
>>>>> also pretty much a non-issue. Leafnode is quite nice in this respect.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, you like to edit things like /etc/inetd.conf? /etc/leafnode/leafnode.conf?
>>>Sure, at least we *can* George, where are your tcp wrappers in Windows ?.
>>
>>Who needs them? I'm not running a server OS prone to remote shell exploits.
>No your running a OS, prone to trojans, virii, and lockups.
read the headers, hmm?
I've never heard Linux called that before.
>>The dotfile generator understands few . files - it could do bashrc not tcshrc
>>for a trivial example.
>Yes atm, but its not stuck at that level indefinetly.
I saw it in 97 - its been totally eclipsed by efforts such as linuxconf -
a shame, since I'd rather generate the rcfile for a lookover before
having the changes made to the system.
>Whats your choice in free registry editors ??
Surprisingly good, actually. Try a Windows freeware site.
>>There are more obscure rc formats than frontends.
>Obscure rc formats are the exception I assure you.
Err, no, the use of m4 macros etc does help to obfuscate things.
Mixing settings and code is always good, too, lisp in .emacs
sh is various others, a bit of csh, some perl + sed + awk
rc files are frequnetly a mess.
At least KDE / Gnome have sensible formats KEY = VALUE in [SECTION] or
similar, like Win 3.1 ini files.
>
>She was there, shes a long term Windows user, she couldnt do it. This
>puts the gun to the head of your assertion that Windows GUI config is
>*easy*.
It asked for them at install time.
>>
>>>It makes NO difference whether its GUI or text, if you dont know the
>>>news server addy, you're screwed.
>>
>>Yes, but at least its obvious where to enter the server name is the GUI - none
>>of the hunt the rc file game.
>Bulltwang!
>She spent age's searching thru the menues, and was totally lost.
>It would have been easier in a text file.
Yeah right, you'd have to teach her to use a texteditor first.
Theres a sodding great help file in the rightmost menu - tell
her to read it, or if thats too hard, look at the pictures.
>>>>But they shouldn't force me to setup and run a local server, just to read news
>>>>offline.
>>>They dont, slrnpull is easy to set up.
>>
>>Just more difficult to add a group than in Agent or change your groups etc.
>HUH ?
>"L" (list groups)
>*get.a.clue.about.linux.*
>move cursur to desired group
>"S" (subscribe)
>How hard is this ????
And nothing happened - you have to add the group to the list in
/var/spool/slrnpull/slrnpull.conf to be fetched
Seperate programs, seperate config. Great, isn't 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
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:10:42 GMT
On 24 Mar 2000 13:53:51 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Slrn works nicely in a Xterm, mouse, colors the lot.
>I can read news thru a 386 with a mono screen using slrn, or via my hi res
>17" Apple monitor. This kind of facility does not exist in Windows.
>Btw I'm speaking of *my* news facility, used on my pc, or if its not available
>ie kids playing Quake or Koules on it, then I use a old mono pc, to access
>my news facility via telnet.
Using ICS, I could have my old 486 share a connection with the pentium, and
run 16bit Agent.
Or for that matter, Win32 / DOS slrn,
>>>>>So...why is Linux not ready for the desktop?
>>>It is of course!
>>
>>Optimist, aren't you?
>No I've been using Linux on the desktop since Aug97, full time. This isnt
>optomism, it's cold hard fact.
And I've dual booted for longer, because it isn't...
>>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>I believe Linux is as ready for the desktop as Windows ever *was*.
>>
>>Really? I don't see
>>a) Hundreds of Thousands of preinstalled Linux systems
>I see hundreds of thousands of self installed Linux systems
Yes, misconfigured, with non working USB etc etc....
Not to mention running telnet without host.deny being filled
and NFS, SMB, httpd, ftpd, nntpd, and in some case rshd rexec,
sendmail etc - unpatched and vulnerable.
Oh, and, Linux is not installable by all - so preinstalls are needed.
>>b) Massive third party software range
>I see a *massive* Free Software range
In disparate areas - a desktop user does not need 20 httpd, but
would like an Office Suite / vector graphics / browser etc.
Along with Quicken et al.
>>c) All the hand holding books that Windows has
>I see tons of on-line support.
When the modem isn't configured....
Books are good.
>>d) The ability to do everything by point and click
>*everything* ?
Near enough. Apart from text entry.
Voice recognition would be nice.
>>Sounds more like a server task.
>Only Windows has tried to delineate the two tasks, server and desktop.
>Linux is inherently a X server etc. The two tasks fit perfectly together.
Windows and every other microcomputer OS - just Unix thats confused.
>> and what is more usual on Linux?
>Telnet is very common, as is Ssh these days.
Not often shipped, crypto restrtions, patents etc.
>
>Configs like "tkdesk" my app manager etc.
It also has GUI config.
>
>And these configs can be changed remotely by using telnet, or ssh, if needed.
>GUI is a farce except for the simplest of tasks, however I use it all the time
>in combination with Xterms, that allow me the power of a CLI.
GUI's are for visualistion, image editing, layout and games.
etc.
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:35:32 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:10:41 GMT, George Richard Russell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 24 Mar 2000 18:31:37 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>That a GUI? I don't think so...
>>Sure it is, Slrn behaves just like a gui in a xterm.
>
>Not in konsole, which is what I'm using at the moment. It seems to ignore all
>mouse input. Could be konsoles fault tho.
>
>slrn is still not like a GUI in any way.
This is a GOOD thing. Why others insist on calling it "GUI Equivalent"
is beyond me. It can certainly be "nice enough" depending on how you
compute such a thing.
[deletia]
>The emacs lilke editor - thats really a step up. At least it has menus.
>
>>Your "restart" was carefully worded tho, so lets be plain, we only require
>>a restart of SLRN, for some config changes, NEVER the Linux OS.
>
>Just major components, Like the X Server - when did you last change colour
>depth on the fly?
One should not require to do such a thing. This 'feature' of Windows
is also an aspect of Windows' inabilty to address the needs of
multiple apps or the inability of PC hardware to do so with
concurrency.
An app (like WABI for instance) that requires such a functionality
under X should be considered BROKEN.
>
>Most Windows restarts are onlt needed to exit and restart the GUI - hold
>shift when choosing restart, and it goesto DOS and back. Just like 3.1,
>and for all non server usage, the same as killing and restarting X.
Alternately, you can just start another instance of X. For the
common sort of "must switch to higher colordepth/lower res
motivation: games", this should do well enough.
[deletia]
>>How hard is this ????
>
>And nothing happened - you have to add the group to the list in
>/var/spool/slrnpull/slrnpull.conf to be fetched
>
>Seperate programs, seperate config. Great, isn't it.
[deletia]
slrnpull is not at all necessary actually. Infact, using it
would rather defeat the 'many discrete tools' philosphy of
Linux. Whereas Leafnode only requires you tell it through
your client (which could infact be Agent, incidentally) that
you're interested in the group.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that theare the communists, but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:44:55 GMT
Obviously I was referring to the Linux version.
Windows has an hourglass to let you know it is busy.
Steve
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:46:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:40:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert
>Heininger) wrote:
>
>Well I have 128mb on a PII 450 and I think SO runs like crap. I have
>to keep looking at the hard drive light to avoid clicking on things
>twice because it is so damm slow.
>
>Steve
>
>
>>
>>Heck, WindozeNT chokes-n-pukes all over itself when confronted with 64mb ram,
>>too. I have 128mb of ram in a 300mhz PII, and Star Office runs just fine.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:47:12 GMT
I did a default install so maybe I installed everything including
stuff I don't need.
Anyway it's a decent program but IMHO it needs a shot of speed and
compared to forking over big money for MSOffice things come into
perspective.
Steve
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:12:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:46:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:40:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert
>>Heininger) wrote:
>>
>>Well I have 128mb on a PII 450 and I think SO runs like crap. I have
>>to keep looking at the hard drive light to avoid clicking on things
>>twice because it is so damm slow.
>
> My copy of SO5 doesn't run quite that badly on a K6III/400
> with a mere 128M. It certainly doesn't run slowly enough to
> give one the impression that VM is being hit hard or exercise
> the disk in an audible fashion.
>
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Heck, WindozeNT chokes-n-pukes all over itself when confronted with 64mb ram,
>>>too. I have 128mb of ram in a 300mhz PII, and Star Office runs just fine.
>>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:49:30 GMT
Linux version. I never tried the Windows version.
I have a SuSe partition I boot up just to test things the Linux
supporters say. Linux is fun to tinker with and I'll admit it is quite
addictive.
SO is sluggish in my opinion.
Steve
On 28 Mar 2000 11:06:20 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:46:11 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:40:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert
>>Heininger) wrote:
>>
>>Well I have 128mb on a PII 450 and I think SO runs like crap. I have
>>to keep looking at the hard drive light to avoid clicking on things
>>twice because it is so damm slow.
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Heck, WindozeNT chokes-n-pukes all over itself when confronted with 64mb ram,
>>>too. I have 128mb of ram in a 300mhz PII, and Star Office runs just fine.
>>
>
>But you dont run Linux Steve, is that the Windows version of StarOffice ??
>
>--
>Kind Regards
>Terry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Weak points
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:55:39 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:23:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>
>>It will be broken 2 days after it's warranty expires...
>
> What a nice hypocrite you are. You pull the same sort of
> stunt you accuse me of in the previous post. Although, with
> your mentality, a printer only need be functional as long
> as the warranty lasts anyways. You wouldn't want to put up
> with some obsolete piece of trash that's been functional
> likely since before you were computing...
Not at all. MY experience with products made by that company has been
less than stellar. Just because something is OLD doesn't mean it has
to be unreliable.
I have an original IBM Pro-Printer, Epson FX and yes the original IBM
printer that came with the first PC they ever made and all work fine.
>>
>>>>
>>>>Steve as usual is stretching the facts right thru Wonderland and back.
>>>[deletia]
>>>
>>> Mind you, what is essentially my 6 year old color deskjet is onsale
>>> now at compusa under some other model name and retails at ~ $99.
>>
>>
>>Linux and old crap hardware are a match made in heaven.
>
> More hypocrisy.
>
> Yesterday's 'old crap hardware' is typically todays cheap
> 'well supported' hardware that you hark about. I bought
> quality then and it paid off. Whereas your 'cheap crap over
> everything' mentality will just hurt end users in the end.
If it works for you use it. For ME, SOUND is important and printing
much less important. If I were Terry doing his schematics and designs
I suspect quality output would be important and he did the right thing
and bought a quality printer. I do prefer the ease of use of the Canon
under Windows than having 1/3 of it's functions work under Linux,
although one could say it "does" print under Linux.
It depends on what is important to the particular user.
Steve
Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:53:31 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:47:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I did a default install so maybe I installed everything including
>stuff I don't need.
>Anyway it's a decent program but IMHO it needs a shot of speed and
>compared to forking over big money for MSOffice things come into
>perspective.
It's quite disputable whether or not the common user cares
to pay through their nose, repeatedly, for a minor speed
increase. This was Microsoft's saving grace on occasion.
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:12:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:46:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:40:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert
>>>Heininger) wrote:
>>>
>>>Well I have 128mb on a PII 450 and I think SO runs like crap. I have
>>>to keep looking at the hard drive light to avoid clicking on things
>>>twice because it is so damm slow.
>>
>> My copy of SO5 doesn't run quite that badly on a K6III/400
>> with a mere 128M. It certainly doesn't run slowly enough to
>> give one the impression that VM is being hit hard or exercise
>> the disk in an audible fashion.
>>
>>>
>>>Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Heck, WindozeNT chokes-n-pukes all over itself when confronted with 64mb ram,
>>>>too. I have 128mb of ram in a 300mhz PII, and Star Office runs just fine.
>>>
>
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that theare the communists, but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Weak points
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:57:17 GMT
Last time we had this discussion I submitted many URL's with such
photo's , ABX comparator results and so forth.
A search on Arnie Krueger (sp?) should bring a lot of hits.
Steve
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 00:18:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:18:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:03:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 01:21:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>I'll agree with that statement. If you want beeps and squeeks and the
>>>>ability to play a CD and are not really into what's going on with DVD
>>>>then go buy a $20 SoundBlaster-16 and Linux will work fine.
>>>
>>> I can do considerably more than just beeps and squeeks as is
>>> on a SB16/IDE. Beyond S/N, you've not demonstrated WHY most
>>> common consumers (the ones that use Windows for ease, not
>>> 'power' or the sort that would shop in CompUSA for their
>>> software and soundcard rather than a music store) why they
>>> would care about Linux's current faults.
>>
>>S/N, Distortion, digital outs, environmental audio (that actually
>>works), front and rear speakers (that work), MIDI that doesn't require
>>editing yet another file before compiling the driver and so forth.
>>
>>Bottom line is that even YOU, with one ear plugged with a cotton ball
>>can hear the difference between a quality audio card and the typical
>>junk supported by Linux.
>>Listen to some quality cards and then come back and respond.
>
> Actually, I have a rather Ferengi significant other that doesn't
> percieve such a problem with what Linux outputs on my SB16. 128K
> mpegs OTOH are a different matter.
>
> Mebbe if you submitted some oscilliscope readings in gif format
> we might take you a bit more seriously.
>
>>
>>
>>> As far as DVD goes, unless you're doing something that the MPAA
>>> would dissapprove of then you're just using the PC as a very
>>> expensive DVD console anyways.
>>
>>Typical Linux supporter "we don't have it so it must suck" answer.
>
> It's not like you can just rip the data off of the disk freely
> and do nifty tricks with it like you can with CDROM audio. It's
> a closed format. Even under Windows and MacOS people can't freely
> exploit it. If you do, you get sued.
>
>>
>>When the DVD mess is finally resolved you bet that Linux will be last
>>in line to support it properly.
>
> I can play DVD's already actually. The difficult part is the legal
> barriers put in place by those that think they own the DVD encoding
> format. Even that can be dealt with with available software. It's
> just the kind of software that those with ologopolistic market
> control want to keep away from the public.
>>
>>
>>> Nevermind that you're lying and/or misinformed when it comes to
>>> Linux support of quality consumer audio hardware, enviromental
>>> audio & DVD.
>>
>>Yawn..............
>>
>>A SB-16 is a piece of junk, just like every other sound card supported
>>or half supported by Linux.
>>
>>You have ONE game that is PROMISING env. audio. The SBLive driver (as
>>of last month) does not even support it (env audio) yet.
>>So how ya' gonna play the game?
>
> I'll just take the performance hit from lack of hardware acceleration.
>
>[deletia]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Weak points
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:59:05 GMT
Good post Rex, and even I can't find fault with what you have stated.
Maybe it's the eloquent way you presented the material.
Steve
Snipped to save bandwidth.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
