Linux-Advocacy Digest #861, Volume #25 Tue, 28 Mar 00 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (George Richard Russell)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Multithreading (Bob Hauck)
Re: Drestin Black is one clueless dude ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Giving up on NT (Chris Wenham)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Ken Schaefer")
Re: Giving up on Tholen (Pascal Haakmat)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers ("2 + 2")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:13:41 GMT
On 25 Mar 2000 12:07:53 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 07:47:19 GMT,
> Miles Falworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I think Windows is much easier for first-time computer users. However,
>>most people are a first-time computer users only for a short period in
>>their lives.
>>The reason I use Linux now more than Windows is that it lets me get
>>more done more quickly. and run it.
><snip>
>> Linux lets me do
>>the job right out of the box in three lines, and the whole thing ran in
>>a few seconds:
>>foreach f (*.tif)
>>tifftopnm $f | cjpeg > {$f:r}.jpg
>>end
>
>I think Miles post sums up Linux and Windows perfectly.
>
>Miles I couldn't have put this better myself :)
Any competent Windows image software allows for batch manipulation and
conversion of images - without the need to learn to program.
The need and ability to program are what seperates Linux and Windows.
What does the :r do in the script, btw?
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] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: 28 Mar 2000 22:14:20 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:09:28 -0600, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It was an exaggeration, but compared to NT, it's still overly complicated
>to go from nothing installed to all the functionality that NT has out of
>the box, with Linux.
Perhaps you can tell us why you rant and rave so about "incompetent
admins" causing NT to crash then. Does NT need competent admins or not?
Is it so easy that anyone can do it, or not? Can you make a lot of money
as an NT admin or not? If not, please explain the rush to get an MCSE.
Perhaps you can also explain how NT has more functionality "out of the
box" than Linux. No cheating by including things like Office.
>That's a different debate, and it's not necessarily a bad thing (for
>Linux), but the question was asked "Why do we need NT, or what does it
>have to offer?"
As far as I am concerned, damn little in and of itself. The only value of
NT as far as I can tell is the value that results from network effects due
to MS market domination. The OS itself is a decent design that is at best
marginally implemented.
>How many users on your network? For a large network, Linux usually requires
>constant care if you plan on doing anything on it other than DNS or WWW.
You are wrong Chad.
>It can recognize 128 processors, but it doesn't use them. It's scalability
>beyond 16 or so processors drops off rapidly.
Given that Sun sells machines with 64 processors, I think you need to
provide documentation for this claim.
>Whereas with a Win2K cluster for a fraction of the price, I can get
>factors larger performance.
If you hold your mouth just right and have an application that's amenable
to clustering.
>Win2K was running on Alpha (still could, just not supported),
>and it is running on Merced.
Is it 64 bit yet on Merced? How do we know it "could" run on Alpha when
it doesn't run on anything but x86 at this time? There's millions of new
lines of code in Win2k after all, code that hasn't been tested on any
platform other than x86.
>Just because Linux runs on Alpha, doesn't mean it's 64-bit,
That's true, but Linux is in fact 64 bit on Alpha and has been for years.
>nor does it mean it runs well on Alpha.
But it does.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Multithreading
Date: 28 Mar 2000 22:20:06 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 20:46:12 GMT, Erna Odelfsan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>does Linux still have to use green threads for Java or are there native
>threads ?
The IBM JDK uses native threads. I believe the latest Blackdown port does
too, but I haven't tried it yet.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Drestin Black is one clueless dude
Date: 28 Mar 2000 22:28:05 GMT
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > Abraxas is claiming that the Macintosh filesystem, HFS/HFS+ is a
: > journaling filesystem. He is entirely incorrect.
: I think ill be nice and assume that "Macintosh" was a typo and that you
: actually meant "MacOS".
Not only is your point pedantic, it's useless. "Macintosh" refers to
both a hardware and software product, combined into one. But
apparently, you cannot deal with such complicated concepts.
Okay, fine.
"Abraxas is claiming that the MacOS filesystem, HFS/HFS+ is a
journaling filesystem. He is entirely incorrect."
There, are you happy now? Perhaps you can think of other diversions to
try.
And you _STILL_ haven't said _ANYTHING_ to prove your claim. I guess I
shouldn't be suprised.
[tripe snipped]
Your words speak for themselves. You're not worth arguing with, because
you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. But that's okay.
You just go right ahead and keep up the pretenses, if they make you feel
good about yourself.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:28:00 -0700
George Richard Russell wrote:
>
> And yet is more powerful and fully featured.
Is it? How powerful is a crashed program, after all?
What good is power you don't use?
> Hmmm...
> Hint - you'll need more functionaility in Gnumeric before you can dumb it down.
Hey, if you need functionality that Gnumeric doesn't have . . . get
something else. Xess, SO, Applixware, Wingz, what have you. . .
> >Who said WYSISYG ??, that is a MS retrograte offering,.... keep it.
>
> for those who need it, its essential.
In other words, since nobody needs it, it is a huge waste of processor
time, disk space and RAM.
The days of being required to tweak every tiny bit of your documents are
long past. The modern user knows that presentation is the job of the
system, not the user.
> >Lyx is WYSISYW, way better imho, have you ever actually used Lyx George ?
>
> Yes, and KLyX too, it doesn't offer too much layout control without the
> insertion of La(TeX) codes into the document,
Because if you *DO* attempt to control the layout, you're doing
something stupid. Layout is, after all, typesetting.
Typesetting is a specialty, a professional position that takes training
and experience to become even minimally qualified to do. The assumption
that a user who is so ignorant that they can't even edit a Unix dot file
is somehow qualified to do their own typesetting is wildly irrational.
Chose the appropriate document style, then forget about it. That's the
*RIGHT* way to do it, as that means that your documents are typeset in a
professional manner.
> A litle more work on GUI independence,
That'd be nice.
> file type handling ( LaTeX import!)
That'd be nice too, but in reality, LaTeX is inferior to SGML/XML.
Lyx should be replaced with a structured document editor that
reads/writes SGML or XML.
> and
> some more templates for more DTP stuff (an abuse of LyX's core idea, but would
> be useful)
And a really, really dumb idea. Never, Never, Never violate the core
design concept of a system. Doing so is the most damaging root cause of
defects.
Just look at how badly damaged HTML was by that nonsense!
> >>Gravity and Forte have no mature equivalent on X11 - but Xagent, PAN, krn, knode
> >Bullshit, George.
> >Slrn works nicely in a Xterm, mouse, colors the lot.
>
> And if thats the best GUI newsreader - hmm. GUI newsreaders are like the list
> above, not slrn.
This is simple bigotry on your part.
> >>>So...why is Linux not ready for the desktop?
> >It is of course!
>
> Optimist, aren't you?
Nope. Realist. Linux has been my only OS (at home) for more than five
years. The only thing that I've seen in all that time that would even
*TEMPT* me to buy Windows and install it is a game (HangSim, to be
specific).
> Really? I don't see
> a) Hundreds of Thousands of preinstalled Linux systems
Where did you look? Have you queried VA Linux, or one of the big
companies that sell PC's?
> b) Massive third party software range
There is indeed third party software, both free and commercial, for
Linux. The fact is that there is more for Windows, of course.
> c) All the hand holding books that Windows has
Windows needs 'em. Linux has hand holding books ("Linux For Dummies"),
but in general you'll not find as many because in most cases, hand
holding documentation for Linux is already freely available.
> d) The ability to do everything by point and click
This cannot be done under Windows. Nor can it be done under Linux.
Your point?
> It shouldn't, but then, it would be shutdown at the end of the day as well.
> Uptime is not really an issue.
Uptime is indeed an issue. What you seem to fail to understand is this:
What is expected of a desktop today, is *NOT* what will be expected of a
desktop tommorow (or, for that matter, even TODAY).
With the ability to connect your PC to a high speed, "always on" network
connection like DSL or a cable modem, the ability to access your files
from anywhere in the networked world will very quickly become a "desktop
capability".
Linux already has this. Windows NT and Windows 2000 do, as well . . .
which proves my point. The capabilities that Linux already has are
being added to the "next generation home OS" that MS is just now
starting to push . . . NT (Win2K).
> >Should a good Desktop, be able to run remote GUI or cli apps on another
> >box, easily ?
>
> Remote GUI - why ?
Which is like asking: Web access? Why?
> Yes, I know the geek reasons, big deal.
You need a more powerful imagination. The way HTTP+HTML servers and
HTTP+HTML clients are being used now is an *INFERIOR* re-implementation
of X (mind you, a lighter weight, network-bandwidth-wise solution).
> CLI apps - there is a telnet client. It sucks, but its there.
>
> Not really typical desktop needs.
As above: You need to understand that "typical desktop needs" simply
reflects what capabilities that the general public was given by the
dominant supplier. As "unusual" capabilities become more and more
prevalent (with the rise of desktop Unix), you will see more and more
"desktop users" using these technologies.
Remember, just a few short years ago, networking was not a "desktop user
need". Now, it is.
> >Should a good Desktop, offer many Window managers, instead of just the one?
> >We are not all alike, hence different cars, colors, etc.
>
> We all have to start from somewhere, hence the initial consistency,
Which totally side steps the question. Initial consistency is available
on any system. But, after you stop being a total newbie, how do you
gain the power of choice on a Windows system?
> >Should a good Desktop allow me to log into it, if I'm away from my pc ?
>
> Sounds more like a server task.
It's not. Take a look, as an example, at all those laptop users out in
the field trying to come up with some kind of remote connectivity
solution. These users would *LOVE* to be able to access their private
machines from a remote site.
I could tell you some great stories about that. . . and I solved the
problem using Unix/Linux.
> Besides, isn't it better to use sshd, than
> telnetd, and what is more usual on Linux?
Nope. It's better to use Kerberos.
Kerberos would allow you access to your private machine in a secure
fashion over a public network.
Been there, done that.
> What should be accessible only via a text editor? Why bother.
Stuff that has absolutely no need to be presented in a graphical
fashion.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:39:28 GMT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 3/28/00, 1:03:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang=20
Weisselberg) wrote regarding Re: Giving up on NT:
> Run fvwm-95 on it, if you need 'similar to M$-Windows'[1]. Or
> KDE. Or any other 'tuned' WM. Actually, try a different WM.
> Your users might like that. Andf if not ... well, let them choose
> a different one.
> Remember that you can run almost any window manager under X. X
> itself is -- as you probably know -- not much different from a
> driver in function: It gives an open, standardized, usable,
> network-transparent, ... interface to accessing the screen. And
> yes, X runs under most unixes, you can use it from your Win-PC
> (MIX, eXceed, ...) and as you might have guessed: there are quite
> a few implementations (including X-Terminals). At least one of
> these (XFree86 -- for 80x86) is free (GPL).
I think the idea that a window manager can give you the Windows user=20
interface is deceptive.=20
=20
You can change a window manager, but you can't change the toolkit=20
that the application was built with*. QT, GTK, Xtoolkit and so-on all=20
look and behave differently.=20
You can't even change the behavior of basic cutting and pasting with=20
your window manager.
=20
Regards,
Chris Wenham
* - Please amuse me by suggesting I ought to hack the source code.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 28 Mar 2000 22:40:05 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:56:37 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> With the Unix "admin" account, you *CANNOT* "take ownership" of other
>> peoples files. In fact, you cannot delete/modify other peoples files
>> unless they give you permission first.
>
>An admin should be able to to do whatever he wants in a system. He
>shouldn't be at the mercy of his users.
You can use the root account when you want to do what the admin
account won't allow with "su -c".
>The argument isn't about security, it's about safety. For instance, suppose
>you run a program as root that has a bug in it, and it randomly writes to
You don't run a program that's this badly written as root. Just like you
don't run trash-the-system.exe with the admin account. Seriously, there
are very few programs that need to be run as root, and unless you are
running well tested code, you should not be running it as root.
There *are* programs that absolutely *must* run with root priveliges.
For example, sendmail needs to write to the users mailboxes. inetd
needs to bind to priveliged ports.
>disk sectors or it accidentally trashes a file it shouldn't be touching.
>Under Unix, a program run under root can do just about anything it likes.
>Now, you can argue that you shouldn't run untrusted or non-thoroughly
>debugged applications under root, but that's just a band-aid.
You have the same kind of issues on NT -- certain applications will need
to run with elevated priveliges. DOn't any processes need to run as "system" ?
How does your mail server deliver to a user's mailbox ?
>them. Note that i'm not advocating removing absolute power. I'm advocating
>removing absolute power without safeguards.
You can do this by creating an "admin" account. When you want to do something
that the admin account cannot do, use su -c "command", as opposed to using a
root shell interactively.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:41:44 -0700
Jim Ross wrote:
>
> Leon Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:51:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leon Hanson)
> > wrote:
> >
> > Well, since no one has been able to provide any answers to the seven
> > items I want on a Linux desktop, I guess Linux isn't ready for my
> > desktop.
>
> The fact is Unix was born of a time that having all command line tools made
> sense.
It still does make sense to have both command line and GUI tools.
> Due to the fact that a. the command tools were good and b. old dogs
> would rather not learn new tricks.
Nope. B just doesn't apply. The fact is that new dogs have discovered
the advantages of having an Object Oriented (albeit a somewhat primitive
one) enviroment. . .
> Due to all this, GUI tools appear to not have been taken seriously.
There are plenty of GUI tools for Linux.
> Only recently has it at all (KDE, Gnome).
You're ignoring the many generations of tools that came before.
> Even then KDE and Gnome don't have enough resources for the job.
What are they missing?
> Therefore they seem to have to mostly copy interfaces already in use, and
> it's taking a long time.
"Long", compared to what? Consider the time it took to go from Windows
1.0 to Windows 95 (the first, truly usable Windows OS). I'd say that
GNOME and KDE have been developed at an impressively high rate of speed.
> Compatibility isn't what it should be. Things like drag and drop can't be
> taken for granted.
>
> The GUI tools IMHO like KDE, Gnome isn't as good as Windows in ways
> important to me.
Fair enough. In ways important to me, Windows simply isn't good enough
when compared to Linux.
> There are other issues but basically Unix didn't care much about the
> desktop, let itself get way way behind, and
> is struggling to catch up some.
Urrmmm. . . no. That's wrong. Unix does care about the desktop. . . it
just has a different definition of desktop.
Unix has the "power users" desktop, but lacks the "computer newbie"
desktop. While with Windows, the exact opposite is true: Windows has
the "newbie" desktop, but totally lacks the "power user" desktop. The
fact is, of course, that it is easier to "dumb down", than to "power
up", so "newbie desktop" capability is coming to Linux at a remarkable
speed, while due to a large number of reasons, it seems like the "power
user desktop" might *NEVER* come to Windows.
> It may never provide a good desktop
> experience as their are so many linux people that
> believe in emac and lynx for everything still in the year 2000.
For good reasons. . . hey, until you learn the paradigm, you're not
really qualified to comment on whether or not they are correct.
Sorry. It's just a fact of life.
> They
> outnumber the more modern thinkers which understand
> what a desktop user wants and doesn't want in a modern desktop, no more, no
> less.
It is arrogant and irrational to think that there is only one definition
of "a modern desktop".
One size does *NOT* fit all!
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:45:35 -0700
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
>
> I've been using Linux since 1992. It's always been a mixed bag.
>
> Since 1993, I've preferred to use Linux whenever possible.
>
> The good stuff:
> Linux is relatively cheap.
> Although you can buy it free, it's better to pay $30-80
> for a supported copy - even today, I often find it useful
> to be able to call the distributor - they know the "gotchas"
> and can talk me through them in 3 minutes where it might
> take 2 hours to fix it the old-fashioned way.
>
> Linux runs on cheap hardware.
> [more fine stuff snipped]
Hey, Rex! I think you just about completely defined the "power users
desktop"!
Congratulations . . . and thanks. Your article goes into the archives.
. .
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:48:15 -0700
Miles Falworth wrote:
>
> I think Windows is much easier for first-time computer users. However,
> most people are a first-time computer users only for a short period in
> their lives.
Which was my point exactly: "Desktop Users" come in many different
shapes in sizes.
> The reason I use Linux now more than Windows is that it lets me get
> more done more quickly. We have a scanner that we don't have a Linux
> driver for. I recently scanned 45 photos to tiff format and wanted to
> make copies as jpegs. In Windows, I couldn't do this without
> babysitting the mouse, doing repetitive menu pull downs, waiting
> between clicks and drags, essentially chained to the computer for a
> couple of hours doing tedious and repetitive mousework. Asking around
> how to do it automatically in Windows, I was told "buy such and such
> software" to do mouse-event scripting, or some other software to
> convert images from a DOS-prompt command line, or some other program
> that would do the whole batch conversion. Well that means I have to
> find the software, buy it, install it, and run it. Linux lets me do
> the job right out of the box in three lines, and the whole thing ran in
> a few seconds:
> foreach f (*.tif)
> tifftopnm $f | cjpeg > {$f:r}.jpg
> end
A perfect example of how a "Desktop Power User" used Linux to be much,
much more productive than he would have been under Windows.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:41:40 GMT
Microsoft should have to seperate the Windows OS from Internet
Explorer. Everyone should have the option to delete the browser (which
you can't do with IE).
No company or individual should be forced to use an operating system
they don't want to. There are too few types of computers readily
avaiable that you can choose the OS that comes with it or no OS at all.
Many people buy from chain stores and they come with Win98; and they
would not think of putting Linux on there for you.
For an open market companies and people need to be given a choice.
For all the criminal activities, Microsoft should pay a heavy fine.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Ken Schaefer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:05:03 -0600
John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > No. I said that Administrator is not exactly like root. You can take
away
> > priveledges from Administrator so that they cannot accidentally modify
or
> > delete certain files. I was told that you can do the same thing in
Linux,
> > which is incorrect, since root ignores all rights and priveleges other
than
> > global read-only status.
> >
> > You can't see the difference here?
>
> Administrator is not, therefore, root. Administrator is something less
> than root. And something less than root can be done using an account
> other than root.
>
> In short, Unix can do what NT can, but NT cannot do what Unix can.
Actually with a little work you can create a system acccount, with is
comparable with a Root acccount on nt, usng the old cmd.exe backdoor into
NT. The account you create under it is not a administrator account but a
system account.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pascal Haakmat)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on Tholen
Date: 28 Mar 2000 23:08:04 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>All of us are mortals, George. Obviously there's some other reason
>for your inconsistency that your own mere mortality.
Dave, you're wonderful.
>Here are the facts:
>
>David Sutherland sent a complaint to the University of Hawaii. Indeed,
>he sent it to at least ten different people, which provides an indication
>of his true motivation. His complaint was forwarded to me. I demonstrated
>that the text about which Sutherland was complaining had in fact been
>written by someone else, not me. I also demonstrated that the posting of
>mine in which I quoted that text did not involve any University facilities
>(that is, I was using cable modem service *before* Sutherland complained).
>The person who forwarded the complaint to me recommended that Sutherland
>be ignored. I pointed to a particular statement in Sutherland's complaint
>in which he was lamenting the lack of action by the University, and noted
>that if the University ignored him, he would likely persist with his
>complaints until he got some sort of response, thus I recommended that a
>a response be sent to him, such as a statement that it wasn't a University
>matter, given that no University facilities were involved.
>
>Note that Sutherland was lamenting the *lack* of action by the University,
>while Glatt is claiming that action was taken. Interesting, no?
Drama, conflict, action, what a movie.
--
CSMA posting style test
http://awacs.dhs.org/csmatest
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:07:57 -0500
Carter Braxton wrote in message ...
>On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 15:39:08 -0600, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>Or anything that requires elaborate client-side activities.
>
>I personally would not visit a site that requires "elaborate client-side
>activities." No way in hell am I going to allow outside sites to download
>software onto my system to execute. (In fact I normally use lynx for
whatever
>limited web browsing I may want to do.)
Software does not need to be downloaded to work on the client side.
XML-RPC can call objects related to a client that is using data from the
web.
2 + 2
>
>===========================================================================
===
> Carter Braxton (Remove "NOSPAM" for e-mail)
> US CENSUS 2000: What response is required? Learn the facts! See:
> http://www.save-a-patriot.org/census/census.html
>===========================================================================
===
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:07:04 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:13:41 GMT, George Richard Russell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 25 Mar 2000 12:07:53 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 07:47:19 GMT,
>> Miles Falworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>I think Windows is much easier for first-time computer users. However,
>>>most people are a first-time computer users only for a short period in
>>>their lives.
>>>The reason I use Linux now more than Windows is that it lets me get
>>>more done more quickly. and run it.
>><snip>
>>> Linux lets me do
>>>the job right out of the box in three lines, and the whole thing ran in
>>>a few seconds:
>>>foreach f (*.tif)
>>>tifftopnm $f | cjpeg > {$f:r}.jpg
>>>end
>>
>>I think Miles post sums up Linux and Windows perfectly.
>>
>>Miles I couldn't have put this better myself :)
>
>Any competent Windows image software allows for batch manipulation and
>conversion of images - without the need to learn to program.
Then a singular example should not be such a problem.
>
>The need and ability to program are what seperates Linux and Windows.
>
>What does the :r do in the script, btw?
[deletia]
A programmers interface allows a greater degree of functionality
to be exposed, period. The Power User is not limited merely to
those things that the applications coder thought of, or considered
effectively.
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
