Linux-Advocacy Digest #947, Volume #25 Tue, 4 Apr 00 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (David Steinberg)
Re: Let's just have a discussion about Global Domination (Charlie Ebert)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (Bob Tennent)
Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading ("JOGIBA")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Commercial Game + LGPL libraries + mingw32 ?? (Jeremy Peterson)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: So where are the MS supporters. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 23:55:22 GMT
On 4 Apr 2000 23:02:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>In article <uroG4.36898$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In article
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Linux truely speaks for itself. For every geek that loves the control
>>> >there are 500 normal users that need to accomplish tasks that require
>>> >software that simply is not available under Linux. Or if it is
>>> >available, it is so crude and ugly looking it is not worth mentioning.
>>> >Or it's simply not compatible with what the rest of the free world is
>>> >running.
>>>
>>> The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
>>> requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
>>> users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
>>> at no cost.
>>
>>Most people have some requirements that go beyond the standard
>>WP/Spreadsheet/Browser. I need a financial app like Quicken or MS Money, a
>>tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and project
>>management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't exist
>>for Linux. I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
>>either Windows or Mac.
>
>You're forgetting about the WINE (Win32 emulator) system
>that runs under Linux. It will run a lot of the non-
>multimedia Windows software, without needing a copy of
>Windows. Its development is being supported by Corel.
>If memory serves, someone posted here months ago that
>Quicken runs under it.
>
>www.winehq.com
So you are going to run those same nasty BSOD producing Windows
applications under Linux?
Sure makes sense to me :(
>>For myself, I'll wait to try Linux again until solutions for my needs become
>>available. It will be a long wait if I have to rely on the open source
>>community to provide them.
>
>Why do you say that?
The all mighty dollar is the ultimate motivator. Quicken, TurboTax,
Agent and so forth are realities because of $$$$$.
In contrast Linux has a hodge podge collection of semi related, half
done utilities (there must be millions of them), because there is no
motivation to produce a quality, easy to use and look at piece of
software. No deadline, nobody to scream when it sucks (it's free what
do you expect?).
When commercial applications coders see $$$$ in Linux the quality
applications will come. Until then?
What you see is what you get.
Steve
"Linux:no comment is necessary. It speaks for itself. Just try it and
see for yourself"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: 5 Apr 2000 00:04:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: >>Try finding /etc/ppp/options using find from the root directory and
: >>see how long it takes.
: > It takes less than a second on my box, even using find.
: I find that extremely difficult to believe.
That's because you're an idiot, Steve.
At this point, I'm really wondering whether you've managed to install
and use Linux yet, in spite of all your public attempts. If you
could use Linux, you'd see that find is not slow.
Here are the results from two machines I had on hand:
On my Athlon 600, with 4.5GB used (18.7GB total mounted) diskspace...
Time elapsed:
[dave@taro dave]$ find / -name options 2> /dev/null
/etc/ppp/options <-- 0.33 seconds
/mnt/windows/windows/options
/usr/doc/ppp-2.3.10/sample/options
/usr/lib/tkX8.0.4/help/tk/widgets/options
[dave@taro dave]$ <-- 1.26 seconds
Just for fun, on my 486 DX2-66, with 544MB used (1.2GB total
mounted) diskspace...
[dave@mego dave]$ find / -name options 2> /dev/null
/etc/ppp/options <-- 2.24 seconds
/usr/doc/ppp-2.3.7/sample/options
/usr/lib/tkX8.0.4/help/tk/widgets/options
[dave@mego dave]$ <-- 7.79 seconds
Note that the total times for the execution of find (1.26 seconds and 7.79
seconds) were obtained by using the time command. The times to actually
find the desired file (0.33 seconds and 2.24 seconds) were estimated with
a stop watch. Of course, these times are totally meaningless, since they
depend on where the file happens to sit in the directory tree (I only
included them to address your particular challenge to find
/etc/ppp/options). In any case, I can find any file on my K7 in under a
second and a half, and on my 486 in under 8 seconds, using find. Which I
would never do, because I could just use locate. And, as was previously
mentioned, I'm never going to need to search the whole thing from /,
since I KNOW that a configuration file like that will be under /etc.
You're full of it, as usual.
--
David Steinberg -o) Boycott Amazon.com! Fight
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \ the "1-Click Order" patent:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v http://www.nowebpatents.org
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <"Charlie Ebert" [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Let's just have a discussion about Global Domination
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:04:35 GMT
I would like to say that this was well written and speaks the truth.
The BIGGER picture for corporate America as well as the private=20
computer enthusiast is how much money will they be willing to spend
on their OS?
Let's talk turkey here.
15 years ago, you could get a copy of MS-DOS for under $30 in just
about every store.=20
Windows 3.X was $40 - $50.
Windows 95 tops the $65 mark.
Windows 98 practically touches $100 in most places.
Then you have the foolishness of two branches of operating system.
We start off with Windows NT which as always been over $100.
NT 4.0 last I was ran about $189.
Windows 2000 desktop version is about $350.
And we haven't even covered the servers as they are a totally seperate=20
animal from the desktops.
The insanity doesn't stop there as they made the servers seperate in
the Windows 2000 release once again.
Most of Microsofts Servers, starting with NT 5 license seat at $890
thru Windows 2000 10 license seat at $2760 leads me to believe they
are pricing themselves out of the market.
Small business's will think twice before they pay the price to upgrade
to Windows 2000. Small business's make up a substantial portion of
Microsofts operating income. I'd venture around 65% of their=20
NT products were indeed sold to small business's.
Large business's will be thinking of going back to a mainframe service
before paying this price. After all, mainframes have been dropping
in price steadily since the 70's. And PC software has been steadily
increasing in price since it's inception.
It's an absolute no-brainer that Linux will be the dominate operating
system of the 21 century. =20
Taking a calculator, we see Microsofts COST doubling every 4 years.
This means by 2006 the cost of a Windows 2000 future desktop OS would
be very close to $1,000.
This would totally eliminate it from personal use and the use of
just about all small business's who want to remain in business.
Linux distributions on the other hand, today you can get a copy of
Suse 6.4 for $45. I'll estimate at their growth in price the
distribution will be around $65 by 2006.
Check my facts, ANYBODY! I'm totally amazed that nobody is reading=20
this post nor-responding. It's that amazing there is absolutely NO
discussion about this.
It does not matter a flip what new gadget Microsoft might come out
with on any future OS. What matters is the COST.
It's not a question of meeting business demands anymore. Business=20
demands have been met and conquored some time ago by both Microsoft
and all of UNIX. =20
PC will begin to drop in price as people will not upgrade their=20
machines due to todays raw speeds. IE it won't matter if you screen
comes back in .01 seconds or .0001 seconds to the typical SQL user on
Visual Basic. Whether or not your report is produced in 30 seconds
or 10 seconds. It's not that material anymore.
Microsoft is in a head to head battle with Linux. =20
Linux has vitually NO labor costs.
The BOTTOM line here is LINUX has placed a timebomb at Microsoft=20
Headquarters. That timebomb will go off in 2 years or it could be
7 years. The question is not whether this timebomb exists or whether=20
it will go off, it's purely WHEN?
Microsoft is in a race with a phantom company it can't win against.
Linux and the GNU will not be conquerable territory like OS/2 was
or Netscape was, or even commerical UNIX systems.
Attacking Linux is like shooting a gun thru a ghost. =20
There is no practical way for Microsoft to Attack Linux.
So if they can't attack in their traditional methods, then what will
they do?
Will Bill Gates go on a nation wide SMEAR campaign against LINUX with
this Federal Court issue still looming?
Will Bill Gates simply throw in the towel two years from now and
come up with his own Linux Distribution?
Or will he go to his bunker with his gasoline and favorite handgun?
Bill Gates is smarter than that. He deserves more credit than that.
I think he's going to throw in the towel in the next couple of years.
50% of all servers sold in the world in 1999 had Linux loaded on them.
A growing but small percentage of desktop computers in 1999 were sold
loaded with Linux.
He will loose the server wars first but I predict he will not give up
his server flank. He will hang on to the server flank dragging around
on the ground like a mauled leg after a lion attack.
It will be the desktop invasion which will be the death of Microsoft
in the end.
And I'll say I've traded in my NT desktop for Gnome and the KDE for
about a year now and don't miss a thing. I really don't.
I think if Linux just keeps growing at the rate it has been,
people will begin to see the pointlessness in a Microsoft OS as=20
they offer NOTHING over a LINUX desktop.
As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft offers nothing of value right now
over Linux.
Who challenges this theory of mine? Who has a different vision from
this one? What is your vision of the future?
2006 is my bet for the end of Microsoft OS's.=20
Everybody has to make a bet I would think.
Charlie
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 4/4/00, 1:26:06 PM, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote=20
regarding Re: Let's just have a discussion about Global Domination:
> mlw wrote:
> > I wouldn't say that MS-DOS was ever "easier" to use than UNIX. It wa=
s
> > certainly cheaper.
> I don't think it was just that either. To consumers, it's always been=
=20
a PC with
> an MS OS on it, or a more expensive Apple (which _is_ easier for=20
newbies IMO,
> and I'm Unix geek)... that's how MS got it's monopoly. People didn't =
choose MS,
> they didn't think there was anything else. Even now, the vast=20
majority of users
> don't even realize there's anything else out there that will run on a =
PC. That
> scares me...
> > Yes, UNIX was also still embroiled in an AT&T licensing mess.
> And hardly anyone outside of a University or a large corporation=20
likely even
> knew it existed, or what it was. I can remember first using DOS and=20
hearing
> about UNIX, but not really knowing what it was. Later my eyes were=20
opened and I
> saw the light. :)
> > It has been my experience that it is not the level of education a=20
person
> > attains, but the level of knowledge a person pursues. I know a lot o=
f
> > BS/MS that are stupid. I know a lot of high school grads that are
> > brilliant.
> I definately agree on this one. I know I cringe when I see all those =
ads for
> vo-tech schools for "A+ certification" and "computer tech skills." I =
cringe
> because I know it just helps to add to the flood of "computer" people =
who really
> don't know what they're doing. Sure, if they have a problem in front =
of them
> that exactly matches something they were taught, they can fix it. But=
=20
to really
> succeed in this line of work (which is true for most) you have to have=
=20
a desire
> to continually learn... and most of all you need to have really good
> troubleshooting skills and curiosity so that when the "it's not=20
working right
> and I don't know why" problems come to you, you have something to call=
=20
upon that
> will help you figure out what the problem is and how to fix it.
> --
> Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
> Windows 98 is a browser stapled onto a
> graphical OS duct-taped onto an ancient
> character-based DOS with roots in the '70s.
> -Jesse Berst, Editorial Director ZDNet AnchorDesk
> Tuesday, September 8, 1998
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:05:33 GMT
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 23:39:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>
> No. Windows is inefficient because realistically you have to search
> your whole disk for anything. Thus your comparison really isn't
> germane to Unix. It really doesn't matter if a whole disk scan is
> slow or not. It's simply not necessary.
Yea but I can search my entire system, find the file and manipulate it
long before Linux even finds the file.
>>
>>The mp3's just happen to be there along with a gazzilion other typical
>>files and several drives that Windows has to search to find the file.
>>Those drives are not mounted under Linux.
>
> "that Windows has to search to find the file"
>
>[deletia]
>
> Why bother to begin with?
Because I need to find a file and Windows does it so fast and Linux,
true to form, falls on its face.
Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:06:32 GMT
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 23:40:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 22:00:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:19:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>> No, the shill is just abusing the system to the benefit of
>>> his little agenda. The sort of find he's doing on Windows
>>> should never be necessary on Unix.
>>
>>
>>Incredible. With every message you go down the drain farther. So now
>>because Windows does something better than Linux,(which is usually the
>
> Windows NEEDS to be able to do that sort of thing faster just
> to counteract it's own inadequacies. Unix does not.
>
Yawwwnnnn....
Attacking the technology again instead of the end result.
You'd better give this one up jedi.....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Tennent)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: 5 Apr 2000 00:05:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 22:00:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:19:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>> No, the shill is just abusing the system to the benefit of
>> his little agenda. The sort of find he's doing on Windows
>> should never be necessary on Unix.
>
>Incredible. With every message you go down the drain farther. So now
>because Windows does something better than Linux,(which is usually the
>case) it's not necessary under Linux.
As I've pointed out in an earlier post that everyone seems to be ignoring,
Linux find can do much more than Windows find. So it's not the case
that you are comparing the same things. There is a program
called treescan that is useful for the rare occasions that a complete
scan *is* necessary and is much faster than find (though less flexible).
That would be a fair comparison I would say. I can't do the comparison
myself because I don't have Windows.
Bob T.
------------------------------
From: "JOGIBA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 20:10:54 -0400
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Microsoft makes more money in one hour than all the Linux companies made in
the last ten years. Linux will never be a mainstream desktop OS .
"Multi_OS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8cbulq$t7e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Shares of Linux distributors Corel (CORL), Red Hat (RHAT), and Caldera
> (CALD) soared in after hours trading in the wake of m$ being found
> _guilty_ of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act,
>
> Corel stock was up by almost 18%, Red Hat 12% and Caldera 1%. Micro$not
> stock fell 15% after news of the guilty verdict during the day and
> gained 2% in alter hours for a net loss of 13%.
>
> It is widely believed that Bill Gates has been buying up m$ stock in an
> attempt to shore up the price in spite of his financial advisors
> recommending that he dump it.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:14:24 GMT
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 23:44:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:57:04 GMT, Leonard F. Agius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>fmc wrote:
>>
>>> "Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In article
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >Linux truely speaks for itself. For every geek that loves the control
>>> > >there are 500 normal users that need to accomplish tasks that require
>>> > >software that simply is not available under Linux. Or if it is
>>> > >available, it is so crude and ugly looking it is not worth mentioning.
>>> > >Or it's simply not compatible with what the rest of the free world is
>>> > >running.
>>> >
>>> > The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
>>> > requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
>>> > users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
>>> > at no cost.
>>>
>>> Most people have some requirements that go beyond the standard
>>> WP/Spreadsheet/Browser. I need a financial app like Quicken or MS Money, a
>>> tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and project
>>> management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't exist
>>> for Linux. I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
>>> either Windows or Mac.
>>>
>>> For myself, I'll wait to try Linux again until solutions for my needs become
>>> available. It will be a long wait if I have to rely on the open source
>>> community to provide them.
>>>
>>> fmc
>>
>>fmc hit the nail right on the head. There aren't the off-the-shelf solutions for
>>Linux, or any of the other OS's, save Apple/Mac. I can't port my scanner's
>>software to Linux or BEOS, I can't get as inexpensive AND well supported (notice
>>I qualified it with both inexpensive AND well supported) an image editor as
>>Paint Shop Pro. I can't get a fax/voice mail solution like Win Fax or Talkworks
>
> Gimp satisfies that criterion quite nicely actually. As far as
> 'porting' something, that's your burden. There are abstractions
> available for that sort of thing (SANE vs. TWAIN).
Don't make me laugh. My $69.00 Canon scanner came with enough "free"
software to blow the doors off anything Linux has, including Gimp.
Not to mention it worked perfectly out of the box.
The wizards did everything from configuring to prompting me through
making my first scan.
Worked like a charm right out of the box and no overpriced SCSI
needed.
Sane?
Should be called insane...What a joke.....
Linux misses the boat again. When will you people understand that
setup.exe is your friend?
In this case all I did was pop the CD in and away it went.
Steve
------------------------------
From: Jeremy Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Commercial Game + LGPL libraries + mingw32 ??
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 01:28:42 -0500
I'm developing a closed source game for windows and linux that uses a
variety of libraries licensed under the LGPL and in the public domain.
( Reel Deal Slots, a slot machine casino: www.phantomefx.com )
Given the variety of legal snangles possible in such a situation I'm
given to look to you folks for some clarification.
Given the general unavailablity of the libraries on the Win32 and Linux
platforms, I've opted to include compiled binary dynamic libraries along
the the exectables for the game, with the exception of libc6 and crtdll
on either platform respectively. As far as I understand it I'm allowed
to distribute my closed source executables under clause 6.b of the LGPL
Use a suitable shared library mechanism for linking with the Library. A
suitable mechanism is one that (1) uses at run time a copy of the
library already present on the user's
computer system, rather than copying library functions into the
executable, and (2) will operate properly with a modified version of the
library, if the user installs one, as long as the
modified version is interface-compatible with the version that the work
was made with.
, given that I will also include the source code, license, etc.. along
with the application distribution in order to be able to distribute
binary versions of the libraries at all.
These clauses in particular worry me:
For an executable, the required form of the "work that uses the Library"
must include any data and utility programs needed for reproducing the
executable from it. However, as a special
exception, the materials to be distributed need not include anything
that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the
major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of
the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.
It may happen that this requirement contradicts the license restrictions
of other proprietary libraries that do not normally accompany the
operating system. Such a contradiction means
you cannot use both them and the Library together in an executable that
you distribute.
To reproduce the executable you would need the source code for the
executable as well as my development environment. Given that I can't
release the source code for the game ( A condition set by my employer I
might add ), it would put me in a very difficult position. I would have
to include my development environment ( mingw32 ) too, because it isn't
a major component, or a normal part of any operating system. In addition
using a different compiler such as VC6.0 would make selling any works
based on LGPL'd libraries impossible, given that I definitely couldn't
distribute VC6.0 with my game.
The second clause raises the concern that their may be some license
conflict between my application, the LGPL'd libraries I use, and
crtdll.dll coprighted by MS. Anyone have a clue about this?
Given that I went to a lot of trouble selecting libraries that fell
under the LGPL so that I could legally create and sell a commercial
closed-source game based on these libraries for the explicit reason that
the LGPL was created to allow that, (AFAIK), I hope my worries and
concerns can be addressed.
Jeremy Peterson.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:23:52 GMT
On 04 Apr 2000 23:51:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien) wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:57:04 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>Leonard F. Agius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>| > Most people have some requirements that go beyond the standard
>| > WP/Spreadsheet/Browser. I need a financial app like Quicken or MS Money, a
>| > tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and project
>| > management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't exist
>| > for Linux. I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
>| > either Windows or Mac.
>
>Finace management and tax preparation
>http://freshmeat.net/appindex/x11/financial.html
>
>My bank allows me to use any browser capable of SSL.
You're joking right?
You are comparing a collection of checkbook balancing programs to
QuickBooks ?
Oh, I really like PTax98. "Computes MOST of the 1998 Federal 1040EZ?
I'll bet the IRS is real interested in the part it doesn't compute.
I'll be sure to watch for the 2000 update so I can switch from
TaxCut...
What a joke....
Steve
>[snip]
>
>| fmc hit the nail right on the head. There aren't the off-the-shelf solutions for
>| Linux, or any of the other OS's, save Apple/Mac. I can't port my scanner's
>| software to Linux or BEOS,
>
>Sounds like you should have bought a different scanner.
My scanner works great under Windows. Best $69.00 I ever spent.
>| I can't get as inexpensive AND well supported (notice
>| I qualified it with both inexpensive AND well supported) an image editor as
>| Paint Shop Pro.
>
>Gimp. www.gimp.org
Yawnnnn
Adobe PhooShop Deluxe Home edition comes with most scanners, even my
$69.00 variety. Blows the doors off Gimp.
>All the features of Adobe Photoshop and all the cost of the air you
>breathe.
And an interface that takes a roadmap to figure out...
Not to mention the program just looks, well, ugly for lack of a better
word.
>As for support, what kind of support do you need? I've never needed
>tech support while using Gimp, the help is more then adequate once you
>get started.
Assuming your hardware works which is unlikely.
>| I can't get a fax/voice mail solution like Win Fax or Talkworks
>| for Linux or BEOS, either.
>
>Faxes: http://www.hylafax.org/
>There are others, but this is the one that looked most promising on
>cursory inspection
It's a joke to compared to even the shareware or home version Win
programs.
>Voicemail: www.gnuvoice.org
Can't help you here.
>[snip chicken-or-egg]
>
>| The average retail user, and the average small business owner, have to be able
>| to go to Best Buy, CompUSA, Office Max, etc for most of their applications. Now.
>| Today. Not in three to six months, not maybe next year when someone "makes Linux
>| as easy to install as Windows", etc.
>
>They sell Linux on the shelf too. It's cheaper, more stable and it
>comes with more apps, but you have to install it yourself.
It comes with 15 different CLI editors, 10 CLI mail clients and a
collection of disjointed hacker level programs that the average user
has no need for and could'nt even find them on the disk if he did.
>[snip]
>
>Maybe after the trial we can make the
>"you-have-to-install-it-yourself" problem less prevelent. If it's any
>consolation, I've done a few Windows 95, 98, NT and Redhat
>installations and as a rule, Redhat is easier to install.
This I would agree with. Corel is even easier and Caldera is best in
my opinion. Windows needs a good install program.
Steve
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:34:37 GMT
You just don't like losing arguments jedi. You try and try to fog the
issue. You throw rhetoric around. You change the subject when you are
losing (which is quite often these days) and you resort to name
calling when all else fails, and it usually does. You hope that when
someone is on to your obvious ignorance that you can baffle them with
double speak and they will disappear, but you see I won't go away.
Let's see: in the last few weeks we have had you arguing:
1. How SBLive support under Linux is equal to Windows.
2. How Some Linux spreadsheet is the equal of Lotus or Excel.
3. Find under Windows is a kludge, despite being much faster than
Linux.
4. And the rest of your convoluted word twisting rhetoric thrown in
for good measure.
Linux would be better off with you on the Windows side.
You prove our point about linux every time.
Steve
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 23:45:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 22:11:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:24:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Actually, in those days, the hardware was considerably better.
>>
>>You're kidding right?
>>How about CMI drives that self destructed in the original IBM AT.
>
> The MACINTOSH hardware, shillboy.
>
>[deletia]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
