Linux-Advocacy Digest #949, Volume #25 Tue, 4 Apr 00 22:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Michael Powe)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ("Otto")
Re: Microsoft Uses NDAs To Cripple Competitors (was: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
(Shell)
Re: So where are the MS supporters. (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading (Shell)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! ("Otto")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (Terry Porter)
Re: Sorry Microsoft, Facts Mean More Than Money On The Net (was: (Gary Hallock)
Re: Cd-burning ulility... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Michael Powe)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: 04 Apr 2000 17:41:18 -0700
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "Roy" == Roy Culley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Roy> In article <8cah6m$abn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roy> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Just installed Linux Redhat 6.2 after a few years away from
>> the OS. 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. I'd love a mail program that can sort and search
>> mail. One that can automatically place mail in folders based on
>> simple rules. A contact list that integrates with the mail
>> program so I only have to maintain one list of contacts/email
>> addresses. Netscape mail really sucks. It has corrupted my
>> archives several times.
Roy> Why doesn't anyone use exmh? It's a front end to [n]mh and is
Roy> written entirely in tcl/tk. Does all that you want and lots
Roy> more. Use procmail to process incoming mail and you have a
Roy> wonderful MUA environment.
I don't use it because I've never been able to get it to work
correctly on my system(s). The "install" procedure always boguses up
somehow. I sent in a bug report on it but basically got an "oh well"
message in return.
I have been using mh for a couple years. It suits me in every way
except the horrible support for mime.
mp
- --
BOYCOTT AMAZON http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/amazon.html BOYCOTT AMAZON
"For example, I've always liked PowerPoint, and I've always thought
that Visual Basic was a good product." -- Linus Torvalds
Michael Powe Portland, Oregon USA
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: GnuPG v0.9.8 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Mailcrypt 3.5.5/GnuPG v0.9.8 http://www.gnupg.org
iD4DBQE46ous755rgEMD+T8RAi6pAJjHpH57zblXEQAe9xh5/C9MJITPAJ4h6qwv
QSJjcxO5/wPCUHGN0QVlKg==
=gRVG
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: 5 Apr 2000 01:32:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:06:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> How about using find under Linux and find under Windows and see what
>>>>> happens.
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux churns away for an eternity and Windows has the result in a
>>>>> couple of seconds.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not talking about FastFind either, just the normal find that comes
>>>>> with Windows.
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows wins by a large margin, searching a similar number of files.
>> ...only if lie about the conditions of the contest.
>
>You are the one distorting here not me.
>
>Anyone in the group is free to try it for themselves and I'll bet they
>will have similar results.
>
>I just did a find for the file slime.exe (no such file on my system)
>and it searched all files, drives and folders a total of about 46 gig
>of storage (12 gig of actual data) in 15 seconds. This is on my
>smaller, and slower system BTW.
First, this is a totally I/O-bound operation, and its speed
will vary probably by a factor of 100 depending on whether
the directory data happens to be in memory in the disk cache
when the test is run.
Second, for a valid comparison one would have to run each
program/OS combination on the same CPU, amount of RAM, etc.,
and on the identical filesystem, cached to the same extent.
Of course, this would have to be an MS filesystem, since
Windows can't read Linux filesystems, and then it would be
testing Linux on a non-native filesystem for which the code
may not be as well optimized.
Without taking the above into account, any comparison is
*totally meaningless*.
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 01:32:05 GMT
"Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I tried this last night, here's what I found:
>
> # rm -rf /mnt/win_drive/windows
>
> Total time: 3 seconds
>
> C:\ deltree c:\windows
>
> Total time: ~5 minutes (!) (win98)
>
> Linux is faster! :-)
>
Isn't there a difference between removing a mounting point under Linux and
deleting a directory under DOS or Windows? Under Linux the folder isn't
deleted, just the drive in itself. Would be a sad statement if it would take
as long as deleting the folder.
This is what I tried last night:
C:\fdisk /mbr
Total time: 2 seconds and Linux is gone
Well, not really but you get the picture....
Otto
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Microsoft Uses NDAs To Cripple Competitors (was: Guilty, 'til proven
guilty
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shell)
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 01:34:40 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) writes:
>Rex Ballard has described how Microsoft uses non-disclosure
>agreements to prevent competitors like Linux from obtaining
>the details of various essential hardware and software
>interfaces. MS should be required to stop this practice,
>and the current NDAs should be rescinded.
Oh good god! Why do people keep listening to Rex Ballard?
Even if I was a Linux advocate, I'd have to discount the guy. He has *NO*
clue what he's talking, understands zilch about the computer market. And to
make it worse, he fabricates evidence to support his claims.
I'm just at a complete loss as to why anybody would consider him a reliable
source.
Rex Ballard has been going around for at least 5 years spreading tales about
Microsoft signing agreements with SCO to prevent them from getting into the
Unix market. And because everybody *WANTS* to believe it's true, they just
accept it as fact without verification.
I guess it's the fascinating thing about the Internet, how some old crack
pot can buy a $500 computer and then proclaim himself as an expert by
writing a lot of random words.
Sigh
--
Steve Sheldon email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BSCS/MCSE url: http://www.sheldon.visi.com
BEEF! - Cause the west wasn't won on salad.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: So where are the MS supporters.
Date: 5 Apr 2000 01:38:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mark Weaver wrote:
>
>> Except make the damn things cheap enough for "the rest of us" to afford. Do
>> you REMEMBER the ungodly sums Apple used to charge for Macs in the early
>> years? Can you IMAGINE what they would have charged and would still be
>
>Yes, and Apple did hurt themselves doing this... but remember the only reason
>that PCs have been cheaper is due to the whole reverse-engineering of the
>orignal IBM models and the clones that followed.
Actually, IBM was nice enough to publish the schematics of
their PCs, along with the BIOS source code, at least through
the 80286 AT model. You could buy this for about $100.
>It was this competition that
>drove down prices. MS had nothing to do with it other then being in the
>position of owning the rights to the OS (which they bought) that drove them. If
>IBM hadn't used off the shelf equipment and had gone proprietary, the home
>computer market would be a completely different story.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shell)
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 01:38:35 GMT
Multi_OS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Shares of Linux distributors Corel (CORL), Red Hat (RHAT), and Caldera
>(CALD) soared in after hours trading in the wake of m$ being found
>_guilty_ of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act,
>Corel stock was up by almost 18%, Red Hat 12% and Caldera 1%. Micro$not
>stock fell 15% after news of the guilty verdict during the day and
>gained 2% in alter hours for a net loss of 13%.
You forgot to mention that all of these stocks have been on a continual
decline over the past year, all at or near their 52 week lows, and operating
well below 30% of their 52 week high.
Microsoft has been something of a roller coaster, with phenomenal gains
last year, dropping down and then back up in March. The losses this week
were simply shedding of gains that occured over the past month.
I guess an 12% rebound on a 100% loss is something to crow about.
>It is widely believed that Bill Gates has been buying up m$ stock in an
>attempt to shore up the price in spite of his financial advisors
>recommending that he dump it.
SEC laws require insiders to notify the market several days before
initiating a sell or buy order.
If you look...
http://www.quicken.com/investments/insider/?symbol=MSFT
Paul Allen and Bill Gates have been selling shares fairly heavily over the
past year. Although for all I know that might be somewhat normal over the
past couple of years as I'm sure they want money to operate their other
interets with. Gates has been giving a lot to charity, and Allen has been
investing in startups.
--
Steve Sheldon email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BSCS/MCSE url: http://www.sheldon.visi.com
BEEF! - Cause the west wasn't won on salad.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 01:35:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Tue, 4 Apr 2000 19:57:18 +0100 <YWqG4.10645$06.32384@wards>:
>
>"Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > How about using find under Linux and find under Windows and see what
>> > happens.
>> >
>> > Linux churns away for an eternity and Windows has the result in a
>> > couple of seconds.
>> >
>> > I'm not talking about FastFind either, just the normal find that comes
>> > with Windows.
>> >
>> > Windows wins by a large margin, searching a similar number of files.
>>
>> I would wager that typically windows "find" is sifting through a
>> LOT LESS than linux is. If you are just looking for a filname
>> and specify something like "/" or even "/usr" linux find is
>> probably looking through a GB of files, even more, perhaps >2GB
>> if you installed one of the modern wiz bang distros and installed
>> everything.
>
>So Linux is so bloated that it's search is slow despite being super
>efficent?
Dunno about bloated, but there is a bit of a tradeoff.
I have some knowledge, for example, about the balanced tree that
the Macintosh file system uses internally (it's documented in some
older Apple development manuals; I'll have to find the precise one
if anyone's all *that* interested :-) ). While complicated to
maintain (and I do wonder how often it in fact breaks in the Mac
world!), it means that, given any file name (not pathname!), I can
find it in a twinkling with at most a few name lookups. One can
also scan the btree in sorted order fairly efficiently, which
means one can conceptually do prefix lookups (e.g., "abc*" or
"abc*def*.ghi" would both use the prefix "abc"), albeit suffix
lookups would admittedly be more useful, at times. [+]
However, this is rather limited functionality. Obviously,
for name lookups, it's very fast, but...
The Unix find, for better or for worse, has a lot of legacy (and
functionality) behind it. Not only can it scan by name, but it
can also scan/filter:
- by name wildcard, case sensitive or insensitive (the case
insensitive variant is probably a GNU extension)
- by *path* wildcard (this also appears to be a GNU extension)
- by contents of a symbolic link matching a wildcard, again
case sensitive or insensitive (this also appears to be a GNU extension)
- by object type: file, dir, symbolic link, special char,
special block, named pipe, or socket.
- by date accessed, modified, or created
- by file size
- by owner or group (and whether any symbolic name matches it)
- by permission bits
- whether it's empty
- by any command that can return a 0 [OK] or non-0 [fail] error code
It can also prune, only returning those objects that are on
the same file system, follow symbolic links if so commanded,
do logical operations on the criteria, and stop at a specified
depth, not traversing any farther. (Backups, anyone?) [*]
The actual options are detailed in the man page, of course. :-)
Extremely powerful stuff.
All this implies, of course, that a simple name lookup is not enough.
In fact, no lookup would be enough; conceptually, find would in
fact have to scan the data of the file, in theory (although in
the case of Unix find "hands off" anyway, to a process specified
in the -exec or -ok option). This is one reason why it's so slow,
and why locate -- which in reality is merely a cached series of
pathnames, updated every early morning at some ungodly hour -- is
much faster if one only has to do a mere pathname lookup.
(I don't recall whether locate can use wildcards, although I
suspect that it can; one very moronic implementation would
simply grep through the 'locate' database file. However, the
current implementation is probably a little more sophisticated.)
As a side issue, find's output is perfect for xargs -0 if -print0
is used (xargs has the disconcerting habit of tokenizing by
spaces if '-0' isn't specified, which leads to funny behavior
if one feeds it things such as "/c/Program Files" :-) ).
Note that xargs is a slightly faster alternative to find's
-exec flag, since it can specify multiple arguments to the same
command -- perfect for things such as 'rm' or 'ls -ld', or
shell scripts that can take multiple arguments and process each one.
Again, a philosophy of Unix (and of Linux) is that things
can work together, one command feeding another.
Also, cpio can take find's output and generate an archive file,
reading the objects specified. Try *that* with a GUI!
But, like a Mack truck driving to the corner grocer, if one
merely needs to find a name, 'find' is probably a bit on the
inefficient side -- and the Windows "find applet" is far faster
(although that's because it's like "locate", AFAIK -- and the
update process runs every two hours or so, rattling the disk
a bit).
[+] Note that Windows doesn't even have this advantage. The old FAT
file system is classically oriented: directory is basically a file,
containing coded entries to those files (and directories) underneath it
(VFAT has additional entries to describe the Unicode file name,
and is a gigantic hack!).
There also used to have a number of "helper" utilities that would
sort the directory entries [from Norton, IIRC], and there's
that strange defragmenter that Win95 has -- both of these should
tell one something. I doubt if FAT32 is much smarter, either,
although at least it doesn't waste file blocks like FAT16. :-)
[*] Find also pays attention to the number of hard links (references)
to a directory; in Unix, each directory has 2 links to start
with: '.' and its parent's name entry. If a subdirectory is
created, another link -- namely, '..' of the subdirectory -- is
added. I guess that find can optimize things based thereon, though
I don't know for sure. Note that 'ls -l' displays this number, just
to the right of the permission bits; most files will simply
have '1' (since there's only one directory -- its immediate parent --
holding on to it).
This was an issue some time back, because the number of links
in a FAT or ISO9660 file system was not being maintained properly
in older versions of the Linux kernel, which means find skipped
directories inexplicably -- this bug has long since been fixed,
as far as I know.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random operating system here :-)
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 01:41:26 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> There's a reason MS software is very rarely used for websites.
On the same token... Linux is "very rarely" used for servers, since it has
"only" about 20% server market share. The same percentage what MS software
has on websites. Agreed :)?
Otto
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 01:41:02 +0000
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 21:49:35 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >It was the Tue, 04 Apr 2000 13:21:57 -0600...
> >...and John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > > "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 . . .
> >> >
> >> > Pointless. By your definition, feeding my cat is programming, too.
> >>
> >> Is your cat a computer?
> >
> >No. However, your argument is still pointless. Programming is creating
> >the implementation of an algorithm, that usually is then stored in and
> >executed by a computer.
> >
> >In your abovementioned example, would you care to explain where the
> >algorithm is and how it is implemented, stored and executed?
> >
> >Using a GUI involves executing an algorithm with your own *brain*,
> >just like very much everything you do. You're trying to explain me
> >that everything you do is programming if you do it to a computer.
> >Well, if that is so, why isn't it programming when I do it to a cat?
>
> Well, if you can manage to get your cat to follow the same
> precise set of instructions, deterministically, over and
> over again then you will have programmed your cat.
No. Because what you have wouldn't be a cat anymore!
>
>
> All algorithms are ultimately the product of the human mind.
> The fact that an algorithm is expressed in terms of X+Y
> rather than "move hand to x,y and click mouse" doesn't matter.
>
> [deletia]
> --
>
> It is not the advocates of free love and software
> that are the communists here , 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.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[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.
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 01:47:42 GMT
"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8cds9l$9fb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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
Maybe WINE will do that, but there's no guarantee it will run all the apps I
need, and I'm not interested in running an emulator anyway. I use to run NT
4.0 under VMWare when I had Mandrake 6.0 installed a while back. VMWare is
nice for cross platform developement, but I wasn't doing any of that. Since
I was spending all of my productive time in the virtual machine, I went back
to native NT.
Anyway, the average computer doesn't want or need an emulator. He just
wants to runs applications, and most of the ones he uses are not available
under Linux. IBM disn't understand this when they made the mistake of
making OS/2 a "Better Windows". The lack of native OS/2 applicatations
drove people (myself included) back to Windows.
> >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?
It's not that the open source developers lack the skill to create the apps
I'm talking about. It's more a lack of interest, a shortage of experience
in those application areas, and the wrong infrastructure for this kind of
project. You can start an open source server project and watch the bits
fly, but just try getting people involved in creating next year's tax
software. Is anyone out there even interested in working on such a program?
Major problems will arise: there are calendar deadlines that cannot be
missed, and the software has to be approved before the IRS will permit
online filings. Plus, this cycle will repeat itself every year.
I don't think anyone who reads this is interested in commiting themselves to
that.
fmc
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 5 Apr 2000 09:48:41 +0800
On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 15:00:12 GMT,
Leonard F. Agius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What planet are you living on?
The small business world planet.
>
>Just how many small & medium business are going to chuck their
>investment in an off-the-shelf software/hardware stategy to start all
>over again with Linux or BEOS.
They chucked their investment every time they upgraded from one
version of MsWindows or MsWord or Excell.
Many firms *refused* to upgrade from Excell5 to 6 for instance, because of the
cost alone.
> What small business can afford to
>automate their office with an OS that has almost no retail applications
>writen for it and needs a dedicated MIS department to maintain it?
Every firm with more than 100 MsWindows users probably already has someone
doing a "MIS" function already ?
What retail applications are you thinking of ?
> What
>small business can afford to write their documents in a format that is
>in any way, shape, or form incompatible with their customers office
>suites and OS's?
Ascii text is the lowest common denominator, *even* MsWord can read it.
<snip>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 days 14 hours 38 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 09:52:35 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sorry Microsoft, Facts Mean More Than Money On The Net (was:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Who the hell cares ?
> The discussion is about speed of find under Linux and Windows. The
> content of the files is not an issue as we are searching for file
> name, nothing else.
>
But the number of files to be searched is important. A better comparison
would be to search the same directory tree for the same files. Have you tried
something like
find /home/msdos -name options -print
and compared it to windows find?
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Cd-burning ulility...
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 01:51:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Tue, 04 Apr 2000 19:08:42 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> (Disclaimer: I've used mkisofs in the past, but all it does is
>> create the image; it won't burn it. I use a 4020i and haven't
>> tried to get xcdroast to work, but the DOS burning software that I
>> have worked with the image, the one time I tried it. :-) )
>
>Keep in mind that xcdroast is actually just a GUI (a well done GUI at that)
>front-end to mkisofs and cdrecord. You can do everything xcdroast
>does from the command line if you want. Although I use and love
>xcdroast myself.
Ah! I was not aware of that. Thanks. :-)
>--
>Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
>I have a problem with my 95 machine.
>It says "Insert disk 3" but only two will fit. What do I do now?
*grin* Buy another floppy? :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- one wonders how product support people keep
their sanity in the face of such strange
questions... :-)
------------------------------
From: Michael Powe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: 04 Apr 2000 17:52:51 -0700
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE=====
Hash: SHA1
>>>>> "cjgannon" == cjgannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[ ... ]
cjgannon> Four quick examples of when a GUI mail program is easier
cjgannon> to use for most people:
cjgannon> 1) I want to move mail from one folder to another. A
cjgannon> drag and drop interface makes it easy to move and manage
cjgannon> folders. 2) I want to view a HTML mail page. Oh yeah,
cjgannon> I know some of you just get all flustered when mail
cjgannon> isn't plain text, but it happens. 3) I want to search
cjgannon> for an item in several hundred mail messages. A list of
cjgannon> search matches I can quickly click on and open makes it
cjgannon> simple. 4) And of course the most simple thing of all,
cjgannon> opening multiple mail messages at the same time.
In fact, a GUI does not make any of these things "easier" than doing
the same thing in a text-based program. You've confused "easier" with
"what I am now doing." I'm not really sure why you are using linux if
you are satisfied with the way Windows works. I think most people
would agree that we have no particular desire to turn linux into
"another version of Windows." Therefore, it should not really be
shocking to you that such a transformation has not taken place.
Not only as a user, but as an instructor in a community college course
in basic computer usage, I <know> that the Windows GUI is <not> easier
to use than a command line. I have watched and coached enough new
users through the arcane mysteries of Windows 95 to know that it
introduces an unnecessary layer of complexity onto the simplest tasks
- -- like, reading mail.
As far as your girl friend goes, buy VMWare and she can run Windows in
that.
mp
- --
BOYCOTT AMAZON http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/amazon.html BOYCOTT AMAZON
"For example, I've always liked PowerPoint, and I've always thought
that Visual Basic was a good product." -- Linus Torvalds
Michael Powe Portland, Oregon USA
=====BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE=====
Version: GnuPG v0.9.8 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Mailcrypt 3.5.5/GnuPG v0.9.8 http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE46o5h755rgEMD+T8RAtjjAJ0Xv7KYXO1yTr6N9Z+uis4ri04+HgCeNar8
FSHwjYXQ7BmsyTmHn26oPQE=
=aup1
=====END PGP SIGNATURE=====
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
