Linux-Advocacy Digest #966, Volume #25 Wed, 5 Apr 00 15:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading ("Chad Myers")
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! ("Leonard F. Agius")
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading ("Chad Myers")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("Chad
Myers")
Re: Dish Network's site is DOWN if you don't use M$'s browser. (Joe Schottman)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("Chad
Myers")
Re: Group Calendar (Timothy J. Lee)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ("Robert Moir")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 18:46:33 GMT
You should learn to read first before you spew your troll'isms Terry.
It says FINANCE MANAGEMENT AND TAX PREPARATION and the link provided
is Freshmet.net/appindex/x11/financial.html/
It's all below..Read it.......
Steve
On 5 Apr 2000 12:59:35 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
Porter) wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:23:52 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 04 Apr 2000 23:51:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien) wrote:
>
>>>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
>
>You've sunk to new (low) levels of Wintrollism "Heather/Steve", he responded
>to *on line banking* and you jump in with TAX software!!
>
>Do you know the difference between on line banking, home financial software
>and tax software "Heather/Steve" ?
>
>Do you have *any* clue at all ?
>
>Kind Regards
>Terry
------------------------------
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 18:48:22 GMT
I checked it out also and when I see phrases like "most and should" in
regards to tax preparation software I tend to run like hell before the
IRS is after me and I have to run even faster.
Steve
On 5 Apr 2000 05:29:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Crabtree) wrote:
>fmc allegedly wrote:
>>
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>>FRESH MEAT??? ROTFL. That sure has that stable financial aura.
>
>So, you're admitting to us that you didn't even bother to check out the URL?
>
>Apparently you didn't get that Freshmeat.net is a rough Linux equivalent to
> download.com or shareware.com
>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>At least you get to deduct the COST of the software. And the 1999 version
>>should be out any day now.
>
>Have you considered using a pencil and paper, and possibly a caluculator?
>They're compatile with any OS you can possibly name...
>
>>>
>>> I'll be sure to watch for the 2000 update so I can switch from
>>> TaxCut...
>>>
>>> What a joke....
>
>The biggest joke is the blind hatred andrhetoric /YOU/ keep spewing out. You
>could AT THE VERY LEAST ///TRY/// the software BEFORE you call is "crap" or
> ^^^^^^
>a "joke."
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:46:55 -0500
"Bob Germer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:38ea7f41$1$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 04/04/2000 at 12:46 PM,
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > That's a pile of bullshit. Do you have any proof?
>
> > You know, because any major investment or sell-off like that by any
> > major principle of the company must be reported a few days in advance
> > through the SEC.
>
> Only a true Ostrat would think that a man who ignored black letter law
> time and time again, refused to live up to consent agreements time after
> time, was convicted of 23 of 26 counts of criminal violations of the
> Sherman Act, perjured himself repeatedly under oath, submitted false
> evidence, etc. would worry about a little thing like a violation of SEC
> rules.
>
> Go to HELL, Chad, you worthless pile of Micro$not pondscum. Your leader is
> a convicted criminal. Some hero.
So, Boob. Do you have any proof, or not?
Not that I ever doubted it, but you really are the flaming moronic idiot
that everyone says you are.
Do you ever have a point, or do you just fling useless (and poorly crafted,
I might add) insults?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Leonard F. Agius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 18:50:18 GMT
John Millington wrote:
> Leonard F. Agius ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : 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.
>
> How many are going to chuck their investment and start all over again
> with Win2k?
Hard to say, depending on the customers needs, but I suspect that most of the
businesses who invested in new equipment in the last two to three years are
going to stick with it for quite some time.
>
>
> : 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?
>
> This is a laugh. I've seen MIS departments come into existance _because_
> of Windoze. MIS departments are one of the biggest barriers to getting
> rid of Windoze, because those people know that once Windoze is gone,
> so are their jobs.
>
Now this depends on just how you're defining what a small business is. I'm
talking SMALL here. The kind that is finally getting into PC's because an
affordable off-the-shelf solution exists. As far as your comments about the MIS
departs, I agree with you. A lot of them do look at Windows problems as a job
opportunity. Guess what? They look at Unix, Cobol (yea, there's a HELL OF A LOT
of Cobol still in use out there), etc. as a job opportunity.
>
> : 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?
>
> I rather suspect that one of the consequences of the DoJ case is that
> Microsoft's _deliberate_incompatability_ with standards will be punished.
> It's only a matter of time before everyone starts writing documents in
> an open format that _anyone_ is allowed to write compatable software for.
> Once once that level of competition exists, Microsoft will be toast.
Agreed. I really would like to see ALL word processing documents, spread
sheets, presentations, etc., have an open format, like graphics have with bmp,
jif, jpg, etc. That way we pick out application based solely on the features,
and not because we're stuck with one vendor. Agreed 100%.
Now back to reality for both of us - around here every Ford, GM, &
DaimlerChrysler location I go into has MS Office 97 or 2000. So do their Tier
One and Tier Two suppliers. A lot of them just got this within the last two to
three years. Almost all of them have a license with MS that allows (and
ENCOURAGES) employees to make a copy of the program to have at home. Ford just
in the last twelve to eighteen months finally upgraded all their field sales &
customer service personnel with Dell notebooks running Win95 (yes, I said
Win95, not 98), upgrading them from Win 3.11. Think any of these guys, given
the size of their financial investment in MS are going to even think of going
any other way for the next two-and-half to five years?
And I'm not asking that question with that 2-1/2 to 5 year time frame just for
the hell of it, either. Five years is generally the write-off (depreciation)
period for hardware/software, and 2-1/2 to 5 years is what these people have
left - before ANY of the bean counters let them even LOOK at anything else
other than MS.
Since these big manufacturing companies (The Big Three) determine what their
suppliers (and in turn, their suppliers suppliers) will use (for compatibility
reasons), how many people really think that the majority of the market is going
to go any other way other than Microsoft, now that the investment has been
made?
And if anyone has the nerve to think this doesn't influence which way the PC
market is going, think again. More dollar$$$ (of profitable purchases) were
spent on new Windows Based PC equipment within that one industry group, with
in a two year period, than was spent by the majority of individual consumers in
most of the MidWest put together (this I got from a business-to-business PC
supplier here in the area). This was especially true in the last half of 1999,
with the number of small business finally getting off their collective asses,
and doing the big Y2K upgrade routine. Now you have Ford Motor Company GIVING
AWAY PC's to their employees.
None of these people are in any hurry to change OS's, whether it's upgrading to
Win2000, changing over to Linux, BEOS, Mac, or what ever. And that leaves the
software developers with the majority of the market staying with Win95/98/NT as
the OS they will make their money writing apps for. Not to mention most of the
hardware periphs, like scanners, digital cameras, fax modems, back up drives,
CD burners, DVD-ROM, etc.
And if we don't get retail software & hardware solutions for these other
Operating Systems, it makes most of the market a little leery about switching
OS's.
>
>
> : In case you haven't noticed, BEOS is now being given away as a Windows
> : application.
>
> An application? Are you sure it's not just a loader like loadlin?
Actually, no I'm not sure.
>
>
> The easier Be makes it for people to try BeOS without major risk/hassle,
> the worse Microsoft's position is. It was strongly in Microsoft's interest
> that people had to repartition hard drives to try other OSes. Once someone
> has seen what it is like to use a non-Microsoft OS, Microsoft immediately
> loses mindshare. Ask any "enthusiastic" Microsoft users if they've ever
> tried any other OS, and the answer is always No.
>
And the answer is NO, because they can't play their favorite games on it,
their contact manager/PIM isn't ported for anything but Windows, their office
suite/productivty software isn't ported for anything but Windows, they can't
play with their scanner on another OS (most of the low cost scanners are
Win95/98 only in Parallel port, or Win98 and maybe Mac in USB).
Screw mindshare. The loss of mindshare only lasts with most people until they
see that their favorite apps and hardware aren't ported to anything other than
Windows. And right now, the Windows market share is so friggin' large, that it
doesn't make financial sense to port anything to any other OS other than maybe
Mac.
Hell, IBM owns Lotus, and Lotus SmartSuite Millennium Edition isn't even ported
for OS/2, just Windows. If you use OS/2, then you're stuck with an older
version of SmartSuite, without any of the new features. Lotus SmartSuite 96 was
the last version ported for OS/2 - a FOUR YEAR OLD package.
I don't know what to make of Be's position. Without POPULAR applications and
hardware availability, I can't see anyone but Windows winning. If MS ties this
up in appeal for another year to three years, the market place will keep MS in
the dominant position, whether the government likes it or not.
>
> Yog-Sothoth Neblod Zin,
> John Millington
--
Fight SPAM!!! Remove the _nospam from the above address to send e-mail.
The opinions expressed are my own.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 18:51:25 GMT
I could care less what you think.
Steve
On 5 Apr 2000 16:45:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David
Steinberg) wrote:
>Do you really expect anyone to believe that you know anything at all about
>computing?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 18:52:15 GMT
I didn't say locate, I said find...
Please read before you reply.
On 05 Apr 2000 09:05:49 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> So Windows find is faster and you call that inefficiency? You Linux
>> guys have a strange way of thinking.
>
>There is *no* way that Windows find is faster than locate.
>
> [snip]
>
>> 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.
>
>$time slocate slime.exe
>Command exited with non-zero status 1
>0.76user 0.01system 0:00.78elapsed 98%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
>0maxresident)k0inputs+0outputs (353major+15minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
>Hmm, less than a second. It's true that I only have 9GB of data on
>this machine, but let's try it on one of our servers which has 58GB:
>
>$ time slocate slime.exe
>Command exited with non-zero status 1
>0.46user 0.01system 0:00.48elapsed 96%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata0maxresident)k
>0inputs+0outputs (766major+14minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
>Even faster! :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 18:53:19 GMT
Search from the top directory on the tree. Not from the users home
directory, ie: the entire drive.
Steve
On 5 Apr 2000 17:03:55 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:37:16 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I said ./ not /
>>
>> Big difference.....
>>
>> Try again.......
>
>If ./ is not /, then the search would be faster.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:52:00 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8cfskj$9bb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <OCjYFNpn$GA.237@cpmsnbbsa03>,
> "JOGIBA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Linux will never be a mainstream desktop OS .
>
> Gee, just a couple of years ago, people were saying "Linux will never be
> taken seriously by business," and, "Linux will never be preloaded by any
> major OEM."
JOOC, is Dell actually preloading Linux? I know they SAID they would, but
when I go to their site and configure a new box, I can't seem to find any
that have *Linux in their OS drop-down boxes.
As far as businesses taking them seriously, I still don't see any major
industries using it for any serious tasks -- SAP, PeopleSoft, Baan,
or other ERP type software, major databasing/datawarehousing/data mining,
analysis. All I see it doing is web serving (if that) and perhaps a DNS
server here or there, which, don't get me wrong, it does a really good
job at.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 18:55:11 GMT
Going back?
They never left the stoneage.
A pencil and paper is an improvement to someone running Linux.
Steve
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 13:09:03 GMT, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Seems to be the trend eh? Can't find good apps for Linux, end up going back
>to Paper/Pencil just so you won't have to use that Evvvillll M$ software, right?
>
>-Chad
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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, 5 Apr 2000 13:56:44 -0500
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> |
> | http://x30.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=594981919
> |
> | Jeremy is probably rightfully annoyed that Microsoft hasn't documented their
> | PAC format, but the standard does not require them to do so.
>
> What Jeremy doesn't mention is that MS made their clients dependent on
> this non-standard addition to Kerberos. So while the servers still
> meet the standard, the clients don't, since they depend on proprietary
> additions.
You're wrong. The Clients will be able to authenticate, however, they
won't get all the full features as if they were authenticated through
a Win2K server.
Things like Group Policy from ADS, group membership, network rights, etc.
It'll function, just you will loose some functionality.
If you had a situation with a bunch of *nix boxes and only a few Win2K
workstations and no servers, it would work perfectly.
However, in a mixed environment, you might loose some functionality, but
it's still not the end of the road.
Oh, and would you stop calling it a "non-standard addition". You're completely
wrong and we've proven it several times.
There is a section for vendor-specific, proprietary data to be based. MIT
made this for just the same purpose that MS is using it for.
The only problem is that MS is not disclosing what it's stuffing in that
section, nor does it have to be standards compliant. Sure, the Samba team
would love it if MSFT did, but it's not a requirement for anyone but
people like Samba trying to take business away from MSFT.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Joe Schottman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dish Network's site is DOWN if you don't use M$'s browser.
Crossposted-To: rec.video.satellite.dbs,rec.video.satellite.misc,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: 5 Apr 2000 13:33:56 -0500
In comp.os.linux.misc Randy Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just tried to visit http://www.dishnetwork.com, but every
> time it crashed Netscape within visiting one, or at most two
> links off the main page. (I'm running Linux Redhat 6.0,
> Netscape 4.61, and I'm no newbie to Living Without Windows.)
<snip>
Incidentally, if you'd like to call them and let them know what your opinion
is, the number is 800-333-3474.
Joe Schottman
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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, 5 Apr 2000 13:58:21 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Where is CricketGraph that will work on MacOS
> 8.0?
>
> Where do I go for support now? If it were Open Source, I could do
> something about it...
Well, write your own. I mean, you guys hoot and hollar about how easy
it is for people to just sit down and start coding apps, why not right
you're own. I mean, this stuff comes naturally to you guys, doesn't it?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy J. Lee)
Subject: Re: Group Calendar
Date: 5 Apr 2000 19:06:15 GMT
Reply-To: see-signature-for-email-address---junk-not-welcome
Rick Kennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|HELP! - We have recently hired an HR Director who fancies herself as a
|technology Guru. We have taken great pains to avoid MS wherever possible
|and are using Netscape 4.x as email and web client throughout the
|organization. (Linux and Apache at the server side). She has started to
|campaign for NT and Exchange (what she was used to from previous life).
|I believe if I could deploy a web based calendar that could be used by
|individuals or teams I could end this threat. Are there any good group
|calendars that will work in our Linux / Apache environment. Appreciate
|any suggestions.
Free, but has some (fixable if you can program Perl) bugs last time
I checked:
http://www.obsidian.co.za (OCS)
Commercial:
http://www.xwind.com (Cyberscheduler)
Both of the above use web browsers as clients.
Microsoft Exchange is very expensive and its calendar cannot be used
alone -- you have to deal with its (difficult to configure, hard to
maintain, and security buggy) mail server system. If it must be
Exchange compatible (for Microsoft Outlook clients in Exchange instead
of IMAP/POP/etc. mode), take a look at HP OpenMail instead.
--
========================================================================
Timothy J. Lee timlee@
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 19:46:15 +0100
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
>
> 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.
OK, but Telnet for admin is not necessary on Win NT 4, but I still see the
absence of it from the ordinary build (without the telnet server in the
resource kit) mooted around COLA as a weakness in NT. If it's good for
Linvocates to judge NT as bad because it lacks something Linux needs and NT
doesn't, why can't winvocates play the game using the same rules?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
