Linux-Advocacy Digest #928, Volume #25 Mon, 3 Apr 00 21:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft NOT a monopoly
Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped (Terry Porter)
Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped (Jim Richardson)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Christopher Browne)
Re: distribpricing (Christopher Browne)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Terry Porter)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (Jim Richardson)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Re: Microsoft NOT a monopoly ("Tim Jackson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Microsoft NOT a monopoly
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 00:12:22 GMT
On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 17:25:47 -0500, Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Kelley wrote:
>
>> I believe Gerald Holmes put this issue to rest a long time ago.
>
>Yeah, I used to think MS was a monopoly, but then Bill Gates went on TV
>and said it wasn't, so now I'm better informed.
He's just misunderstood. It's tough getting by on $60 billion.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 4 Apr 2000 08:24:02 +0800
On 3 Apr 2000 23:18:05 GMT, David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JOE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>: What are the 10 things about Linux you wish you knew before you got a
>: copy and started installing?
>
>Just one: "Running Linux" by Matt Welsh, Matthias Kalle Dalheimer & Lar
>Kaufman, published by (who else?) O'Reilly and Associates.
<snip>
>David Steinberg
I have to agree with David, I was actually lucky enuf to choose "Running
Linux" in 1997, when I made first serious attempt to learn Linux.
I was running Win95 then, and it was working ok for me, but I needed a
compiler to learn C, and had played around with the free DOS offerings
and wasnt too happy. Then I found DJGPP a dos port of GCC and tested it
WOW, talk about smooth. I began to start learning C, and after a few months
of doing so, the old "aha" factor kicked in.
aha! If DJGPP is so good and it's a port of something else, whats the native
something else like ?
This was probably about Apr97, and I went and got "Running Linux", read
it three times, then ordered a Cheapbytes RedHat4.2 CD for $6.50.
During that time I folowed the Newsagroups, inc COLA, and began to get very
excited about all these cool *free* tools that would run under Linux.
Pcb design, editors galore, schematic capture, I felt like a kid who'd
been let loose in a chockolate factory.
That install is running now, here on 2 pcs daily, and I've never looked back.
What's more the installs went without a hitch, NE2000, Soundblaster Pro, Diamond
Stealth vid card, AMD 586.
I put Linux on a seperate hard drive, and just swapped the hardware, till
Aug97, when after getting a new 686 mobo and running Linux for a week or so
I swapped back to the Win95 HDD to get some files ( I was'nt using Winn95 much
by that stage) and Win95 barfed on the mobo!
New hardware detected, "safe *ucking mode" what a mess. I re-formated the drive
that night with Linux, and even sold my Win95CD for $50 :)))
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 day 13 hours 38 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 00:38:02 GMT
On 3 Apr 2000 23:18:05 GMT,
David Steinberg, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>JOE ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>: What are the 10 things about Linux you wish you knew before you got a
>: copy and started installing?
>
>Just one: "Running Linux" by Matt Welsh, Matthias Kalle Dalheimer & Lar
>Kaufman, published by (who else?) O'Reilly and Associates.
>
<Snip glowing praise of "Running Linux">
I will not say "me too" instead, I will say
ditto!
This is (IMHO) the best first Linux book, for newbie or old hand. The
details you need later are there, as are the broad generalities the newbie
needs in the beginning.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 00:41:03 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when George Marengo would say:
>Actually, MS just came out with a /new/ version of the palmtop
>Windows OS, codenamed Rapier -- they now call it the PocketPC.
>While it looks like it's a nice change, I think the tide has long
>turned and the PalmOS will eventually kill off MS on the palmtops,
>irrespective of Rapier. While Byte says it's twice as fast as WinCE,
>it's still slower than PalmOS. As they do on the desktop, MS is still
>depending on hardware speed to make up for a sluggish OS in
>the portable market.
Killer question:
Does this mean that "Rapier" is twice as fast as WinCE when:
a) Run on the same CPU, at the same clock speed, with the same amount
of RAM? or
b) Run on a CPU that is (loosely) twice as fast, with 4 times as much
RAM?
The criteria for establishing that newer versions of Windows are
"faster" than older versions of Windows seem to be predicated on
comparisons that resemble b) more than they do a)...
--
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the
day they start making vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: distribpricing
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 00:41:05 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when JAS would say:
>I am wanting to get opinions from Linux users about the rising costs of both
>Caldera and Red Hat Linux distributions. I use both Red Hat and Caldera 2.3
>and like them much better than NT (I am an MCSE). My concern however is
>that the rising prices of these distributions will compromise the spirit of
>Linux. I have enjoyed offering small businesses great opportunities to have
>quality information systems using Linux (Samba, Sendmail, Ipchains, etc.).
>Hopefully in the future Linux will still be the choice that smaller
>businesses can opt for rather than spending a lot of money for NT and (even
>more trying) to keep it running as stable as NT.
>I appreiciate your imput.
Why exactly are you buying boxed sets so repeatedly?
a) Once you've gone "boxed" once, you've got the documentation and
hopefully the learning and understanding so that you can go with a
$2 CD after that.
b) If Caldera and Red Hat get overpriced, there are lots of
competitors prepared to sell distributions at lower prices. Take a
look at TurboLinux, SuSE, Debian, Stormix, Corel Linux for
examples...
Based on a) and b), I think this is all a non-issue.
Add to this:
c) The "spirit of Linux" has to do not with price, but with the fact
that SOURCE CODE IS AVAILABLE, and the code is REDISTRIBUTABLE.
Tell me what Caldera and Red Hat Software have done to diminish this?
--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea; massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
-- Gene Spafford (1992)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 00:41:30 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when John W. Stevens would say:
>Matthias Warkus wrote:
>>
>> It was the Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:26:20 -0700...
>> ...and John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > George Richard Russell wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On 25 Mar 2000 12:07:53 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >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.
>> >
>> > Sorry, but wrong again. Every interaction with a computer is
>> > "programming".
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
>Nope.
>
>> "Programming" means creating a program.
>
>Yep. As in, for example:
>
>First, I'm gonna click on that button to do X, then I'm going to use
>that slider to do Y, then I'm going to save this file as Z . . .
>
>> A program is the incarnation
>> of an algorithm
>
>See above.
>
>> and its respective data structures by means of a
>> programming language that can be executed on computing machinery.
>
>Right. See above.
>
>Like I said, every interaction with a computer is programming.
In a manner of speaking, yes.
But if the depth of understanding of the process that is expressed by
that programming is exceedingly shallow, then the "maturity" and
general usefulness of the program will be accordingly narrow/shallow.
>> Writing HTML is not programming.
>
>Yes it is.
>
>> Recording a macro is programming.
>
>Sorry, but again, yes it is.
Depends on the macro, to my mind.
TeX is a macro rewriting system that *undoubtedly* represents
programming.
CL-style "defmacro" is a macro rewriting system that is similarly
*exceedingly* powerful.
Ditto for TRAC.
In contrast, if someone gets into Emacs macro recording mode via C-X (,
it is somewhat less clear. If they define a useful
"context-sensitive" process that is reusable, I'd say "yes." In
contrast, some of the stuff that results from 'recording macros' in MS
Office is so *little* generic that the expressiveness seems rather limited.
1 - A "macro" that allows asking to repeat some very simple action may
be a bit of a time-saver, but represents a very shallow notion of
programming.
2 - A programmed function that provides conditional action (if
something is true, do one thing, if not, do something else)
provides a somewhat deeper notion of programming.
3 - A function which may be usefully repeated may combine with
"conditional action" to do something multiple times may also
provide a slightly deeper notion of "programming."
4 - If you add to the preceding three items the notion of "storage,"
where there is some notion of "memory," whether through allocating
"variables" or through "binding values," this provides a
reasonably rich form of programming.
Having conditionals and storage provides a computing model roughly
equivalent to a Turing machine, which allows anything to be computed
that a machine can compute.
5 - If you throw in some notion of reflection, this provides a form of
"higher order functions" that allows programs to operate on
themselves, which makes it eminently clear that "programming" is
taking place.
If all that is going on is programming of the sort described as "1,"
then this is a very shallow form of programming, likely little more
than modifying the contents of some already-existant state machine.
If, in contrast, the "programming" is of the sort that requires that
there be some equivalent to a Turing Machine, then this enters the
realm of "interesting" programming.
If someone can modify the states in a state machine, that is trivially
a very shallow form of programming, but does not establish the
"programmer" as being someone capable of doing anything deeper.
--
"This .signature is shareware. Send in $20 for the fully registered
version..."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 4 Apr 2000 08:48:10 +0800
On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 16:34:31 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Just installed Linux Redhat 6.2 after a few years away from the OS.
That would make it the RedHat4.2 era, the one I'm running now ?
>I'm stunned at how much is changed, but i'm beginning to miss the
>things which caused me to return to windows in the first place.
Things like lockups, $$upgrades ?
>I'd love a mail program that can sort and search mail.
Pine, Exmh, Xfmail, the list is long.
>One that can
>automatically place mail in folders based on simple rules.
Procmail does this, and did 2 years ago.
> A contact
>list that integrates with the mail program so I only have to maintain
>one list of contacts/email addresses.
I've seen a few, Gabby, Addressbook etc.
> Netscape mail really sucks. It
>has corrupted my archives several times.
Netscape does suck, but I've never used it for mail.
>The news reading programs are very weak.
Bullshit.
> I simply want the ability to
>select what articles I want to download, tell it to download, and have
>it happen.
I have to admit I dont do this, i either get all the headers and read online
or get everything. Why do you need to do it this way ?
> I'd also like the ability to have it automaticly combine
>and decode messages.
Ahh porn!
>Several windows programs, (outlook, agent, etc)
>have these abilities. I'm surprised Linux still doesn't.
You're easily supprised, take a look for the apps you need, they will exist,
MS didnt create the internet, and Unix needs have been met 10 times over
by now.
A single bloated monolith to do all you need in Linux, undoutably does
*not* exist, but the individual tools will.
Don't ask for a Unix app that supports some MS "standards" tho. If that's what
you need, staying with Windows will be a better choice if your "locked in".
>Are there any modern applications in development that meet these
>needs? Everytime I tried to search for an answer to this question, I
>found a lot of advice saying to use mail, trn, etc. Yeah, I used those
>programs for a while; but I didn't upgrade to linux to use the same
>text based programs I used 10 years ago.
Then your Windows mindset is still very closed, why not expand your horizons ?
Btw, news is still delivered in text, so what relevance has the GUI "or" TEXT
debate here ?
Slrn runs in a GUI or a CLI, no probs, and is totally functional.
>Thanks,
>CG
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 day 13 hours 38 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 00:52:02 GMT
On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 14:46:23 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> > Free software is clearly anti-capitalist.
>>
>> No. Software is clearly not capital.
>
>Is working in a group of equals in spirit of cooperation rather than
>competition and distribitiog products of you labour for free to anyone
>who desires them capitalistic?
If you are free to charge for your labour, then yes. For instance, one
might develope the program (like, say, sendmail) and then make money doing
consulting and custom modifications to same, see, capitalism happily existing
with free software.
>
>> > ...there will be no money, no private property.
>>
>> There will be private property as long as only one person can possess
>> a given object. There will be money as long at any resource remains
>>scarce.
>
>Why have money when you distribute the products of your labour for free
>and in turn you can have products of other peoples labout for free too?
Because I like to buy my wife jewelry? which is not free?
>>
>> > no monsters like Microsoft.
>>
>> Monsters like the Soviet Union instead?
>
>You must be really stupid if you think Soviet Union was a communist
>country.
>
It claimed it was, it also claimed that communism was a good thing.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 00:58:32 GMT
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 00:41:03 GMT, Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when George Marengo would say:
>>Actually, MS just came out with a /new/ version of the palmtop
>>Windows OS, codenamed Rapier -- they now call it the PocketPC.
>>While it looks like it's a nice change, I think the tide has long
>>turned and the PalmOS will eventually kill off MS on the palmtops,
>>irrespective of Rapier. While Byte says it's twice as fast as WinCE,
>>it's still slower than PalmOS. As they do on the desktop, MS is still
>>depending on hardware speed to make up for a sluggish OS in
>>the portable market.
>
>Killer question:
>
>Does this mean that "Rapier" is twice as fast as WinCE when:
>
>a) Run on the same CPU, at the same clock speed, with the same amount
> of RAM? or
>
>b) Run on a CPU that is (loosely) twice as fast, with 4 times as much
> RAM?
>
Probably. wince is a pig just like all other mickysoft OS's. Only MS
could make a 60mhz risc processor seem sluggish.
------------------------------
From: "Tim Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft NOT a monopoly
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 00:41:54 +0100
Microsoft is not a monopoly. Yet
Microsoft wants to be a monopoly.
Microsoft wants to be able to tax the internet.
When the internet gets to be the base means of communication that you can't
get basic services without, like telephones and bank accounts and doctors
and all...
And Microsoft is the only viable supplier of internet access software...
Then Microsoft gets to tax the internet by extending its usual selling
practices.
Whenever a new feature comes along, you have to buy a whole new engine to
get the feature.
After a while you don't even need the feature.
Anyone running WIndows 2020 after Jan 1st 2021 will just get an error
message requiring them to upgrade their system, (and pay their internet
tax).
This scenario is unacceptable to the world.
Not because it make Microsoft rich, but because in doing so it imposes a
dead hand on development.
But Microsoft may be already too big for mere governments to stop it.
There is only one thing big enough to take on Microsoft.
The internet itself.
Linux is a symptom of the condition.
It is an immune reaction of the world to the Microsoft infection.
Tim Jackson, UK.
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://bero.exit.de/legal/
>
>
>
> - Donn
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
