Linux-Advocacy Digest #974, Volume #25 Wed, 5 Apr 00 19:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? ("Leonard F. Agius")
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (abraxas)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (abraxas)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Stephen Coursen)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (Jim Dabell)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(SomeOne Else)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Leonard F. Agius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 22:45:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:11:01 +0100, Jim Dabell
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >[snip]
> >> >Especially now, with USB and Win98, adding some new hardware, like an external CD
> >> >burner, is, for these people, a no brainer. Programs like GoBack are taking some
> >> >of the stress (real or merely percieved) out of installing new software.
> >>
> >> Setup.exe is all it takes. If auto insert is on, pop in the CD and
> >> away you go.
> >
> >Something.rpm is all it takes. I think GNOME has some kind of
> >auto-insert doesn't it?
>
> Sure it does and if you go to their site you can navigate through some
> 20 packages you need just for the joy of using it, Gnome that is.
>
> And for Mark, here is the URL...I chose RedHat because everyone thinks
> RedHat is Linux anyway? Right?
>
> http://www.gnome.org/start/gnomerpm.phtml?dist=redhat
>
> >> >John Q. Businessperson now has an opportunity to buy off-the-shelf,
>out-of-the-box
> >> >solutions, be they Office/Productivity suites, contact managers, image editing,
> >> >do-it-yourself-wysiwyg web page editors, etc. And it's being done on Wintel
>boxes,
> >> >with the non technogeek
> >>
> >> Even my 9 year old son can do it and it has worked every time.
> >> >John Q. Public as the hapless employee that John Q. Businessperson doesn't have
>to
> >> >spend an arm & a leg training to work the Wintel box.
> >
> >That must explain the state of some web pages I've seen recently :).
> >You don't have to be trained to work in Linux any more than Windows,
> >assuming a competent sysadmin.
>
> Every computer with Linux pre-loaded should come with one. A competant
> Sysadmin that is......
> But, fear not, there aren;t that many Linux pre-loads going out.
> Try calling Dell and asking for one....After the silence at the end of
> the phone, ask for a supervisor.
>
> >> Even if he doesn't he can ask just about anyone on the street or at
> >> his lodge or business association and chances are he will get the
> >> answer he needs.
> >> Mention Linux and chances are you will get into a discussion of how to
> >> pronounce it (happened to me yesterday).
> >
> >Yup, the pronunciation. That'll be the reason Linux is unsuitable for
> >the general public.
>
> Nope, that's all the General public knows, or cares to know about
> Linux...
> It's a buzzword and nothing more....
> >[snip]
> >> The public at large is curious about Linux. Curious until they
> >> actually try it, if they even get that far after they read the read
> >> me. Oh yea that's IF they can read the readme because a lot of them
> >> are PS files and PS is a virtual unknown in the Windows world. Then
> >> they have to have a partitioned drive, risk data loss by
> >> re-partitioning and throw away all of the software they have
> >> accumulated over the years just to run wannabe Linux applications with
> >> crude, sometimes down right hostile interfaces (sendmail comes to
> >> mind).
> >> You Linvocates have got to be kidding.
> >
> >YOU have to be kidding if you think that installing ANY operating system
> >isn't going to be beyond the people you are talking about. As for
> >sendmail, why do you think that these users are going to want to install
> >an MTA? I'll admit that a hell of a lot of Linux programs have bad
> >interfaces, but I've seen far worse monstrosities under Windows.
>
> Home users have no need for a MTA. Outlook/Gravity/Agent and so forth
> blow away any Linux alternative....
>
> >> Quite frankly folks are not interested in returning to the 1980's
> >> editing text files. Show them Pine after they have been using Outlook
> >> and they will be laughing out loud. Tell them how many programs they
> >> need to run in order to read news OFFLINE and you've lost them
> >> forever.
> >
> >Email? News offline? What crack are you smoking, cos I want some.
> >There are perfectly easy to use email and news programs that run under
> >X, that have none of the problems you have mentioned. And I think that
> >anybody who doesn't want to edit text should stay away from usenet &
> >email completely :)
>
> Example:
> Slrn. Does News, sort of. You need SlrnPull or Suck (great
> name) or LeafNode to pull to local NNTP.
> Doesn't do mail..Another program.
> No spell...Another program...
>
> This is getting boring...
>
> I'll help you along, KRN DOES do offline reading but IMHO it is
> unstable but the interface is a nice one.
>
> >[snip]
> >> My wife would have fired them on the spot (she doesn't work for
> >> BestBuy though).
> >
> >I would have fired them too.
> >
> >> >The rest of the PC Mass Market don't give a shit how Microsoft became dominant,
> >> >even when our Windows boxes lock up, crash, and otherwise drive us crazy. For all
> >> >the public really cares, Bill Gates could have run over Scott McNeely with his
> >> >Bimmer, and bribed Apple execs into running that company into the ground.
> >>
> >> Yep. While most would agree MS's tactics were less than honorable, all
> >> they care about is their software and business. Microsoft has made
> >> this happen. Linux has not, and as far as the desktop at it's current
> >> rate of improvement never will.
> >
> >I agree that 99% of people don't care about how MS got to be so
> >dominant. But I'd have to disagree if you said that they didn't care
> >about the implications. As for the rate of improvement, you can't be
> >following it that closely, because it's screaming along.
>
> Compared to what it once was (Linux that is) yes it is, but compared
> to the rest of the world (Windows/Mac) it's still a joke.
>
> >> > Personal
> >> >Computing is now mass market, Windows is the Defacto standard OS, a lot of the
> >> >public have mutual finds that have hold stock in Microsoft, and no one wants this
> >> >apple cart upset, especially if it's upset in the favor of the
>technogeek/computer
> >> >nerd types the mass market considers the lunatic fringe. Period.
> >>
> >> Can't comment as I don't own any stock.
> >
> >To be honest, people who rely on the status quo too much are in a shaky
> >position to start with. A few peoples' portfolios don't affect it's
> >viability as an OS.
> >
> >> Bottom line is Linux is a geek system, always has been and no amount
> >> of candy will help it along.
> >
> >The same was said of *all* computer systems not too long ago. Right
> >now, I don't think that Linux is viable for a lot of home users without
> >a computer-literate to set it up. I think the same about Windows.
>
> But Linux has done little to improve that other than put a second rate
> interface on top of 15 year old boat anchor programs that still
> require text file editing and are user hostile.
And that's why the technogeek/computer nerd types just don't get it. Joe Average
DOESN'T
WANT TO EDIT TEXT FILES. Period. When are these fools going to understand that they are
now on the FRINGE.
>
>
> >Jim
>
> Steve
--
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 22:46:17 GMT
Yawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnn...
More Linux lies....
Locate uses an indexed database. Find under Win does not, to the best
of my knowledge.
Steve
P.S SOffice on my brand new Athlon is slow as shit.....
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:35:27 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I didn't say locate, I said find...
>> Please read before you reply.
>
>YYou're comparing Windows find to linux find.
>WHY?!?!??!
>locate is more comparable.
>why not compare soffice on a 486 running linux to notepad on win2k in a dual
>III 750?
>
>-Ed
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> 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] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: 5 Apr 2000 22:52:46 GMT
Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2000 04:13:55 GMT,
> abraxas, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>>Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> dang, I am tired, didn't finish the post, yawn anyway, since there are
>>> compilers for some interpreted languages, and interpreters for some compiled
>>> languages, do you believe (eg) Python is not a programming language? if
>>> so, could you describe what feature python lacks, thus striking it from
>>> the roll-call of "programming languages"?
>>
>>Python (and most ive discussed this with agree) is a controversial beast.
>>
>>It seems to be a scripting language that acts just like a programming
>>language.
>>
>>And thats if you DONT embedd C.
>>
> So are you saying that the sole criteria for something to be a programming
> language is that it runs through a compliler rather than an interpreter?
> If that's the case, then even with that weird def, python passes, as the
> python VM (virtual machine) compiles the code into a byte-compiled .pyc file
No, thats not what im saying. I'm saying that its controversial. I have not
given my opinion on the definition of python.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: 5 Apr 2000 22:54:07 GMT
Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8ceei3$7d0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Python (and most ive discussed this with agree) is a controversial
>> beast. It seems to be a scripting language that acts just like a
>> programming language. And thats if you DONT embedd C.
> Python *is* a programming language. It belongs to the major class of
> programming languages known as "scripting languages".
Scripting languages are not programming languages.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Coursen)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:06:09 GMT
On 5 Apr 2000 22:54:07 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <8ceei3$7d0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Python (and most ive discussed this with agree) is a controversial
>>> beast. It seems to be a scripting language that acts just like a
>>> programming language. And thats if you DONT embedd C.
>
>> Python *is* a programming language. It belongs to the major class of
>> programming languages known as "scripting languages".
>
>Scripting languages are not programming languages.
>
I may have missed your definition (perhaps it was in an earlier post), but
what is *your* definition of a "scripting" language vs. a "programming"
language.
To me, one uses a "scripting" language to "program" components. One
can also use what seems to be your definition of a "programming" language to
"program" components. What exactly is the difference between the two, or
are you just playing with semantics and using your vague definitions as a
form of language bigotry?
Steve
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
>
>
--
--
Stephen Coursen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Every living thing wants to survive.
-- Spock, "The Ultimate Computer", stardate 4731.3
------------------------------
From: Jim Dabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:03:06 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
[snip]
> >> Setup.exe is all it takes. If auto insert is on, pop in the CD and
> >> away you go.
> >
> >Something.rpm is all it takes. I think GNOME has some kind of
> >auto-insert doesn't it?
>
> Sure it does and if you go to their site you can navigate through some
> 20 packages you need just for the joy of using it, Gnome that is.
Only if it doesn't come with the distro.
> >That must explain the state of some web pages I've seen recently :).
> >You don't have to be trained to work in Linux any more than Windows,
> >assuming a competent sysadmin.
>
> Every computer with Linux pre-loaded should come with one. A competant
> Sysadmin that is......
> But, fear not, there aren;t that many Linux pre-loads going out.
> Try calling Dell and asking for one....After the silence at the end of
> the phone, ask for a supervisor.
My point was, the average businessperson would have a sysadmin at work.
The average nine-year-old would have parents.
> >[snip]
> >> The public at large is curious about Linux. Curious until they
> >> actually try it, if they even get that far after they read the read
> >> me. Oh yea that's IF they can read the readme because a lot of them
> >> are PS files and PS is a virtual unknown in the Windows world. Then
> >> they have to have a partitioned drive, risk data loss by
> >> re-partitioning and throw away all of the software they have
> >> accumulated over the years just to run wannabe Linux applications with
> >> crude, sometimes down right hostile interfaces (sendmail comes to
> >> mind).
> >> You Linvocates have got to be kidding.
> >
> >YOU have to be kidding if you think that installing ANY operating system
> >isn't going to be beyond the people you are talking about. As for
> >sendmail, why do you think that these users are going to want to install
> >an MTA? I'll admit that a hell of a lot of Linux programs have bad
> >interfaces, but I've seen far worse monstrosities under Windows.
>
> Home users have no need for a MTA. Outlook/Gravity/Agent and so forth
> blow away any Linux alternative....
Did you read what I said? I *said* home users wouldn't want to install
an MTA - there is no need for it under Windows *or* Linux. There are
plenty of newsreaders out there with agent-like interfaces - have you
tried any? If not, why are you bothering making this statement?
> >> Quite frankly folks are not interested in returning to the 1980's
> >> editing text files. Show them Pine after they have been using Outlook
> >> and they will be laughing out loud. Tell them how many programs they
> >> need to run in order to read news OFFLINE and you've lost them
> >> forever.
> >
> >Email? News offline? What crack are you smoking, cos I want some.
> >There are perfectly easy to use email and news programs that run under
> >X, that have none of the problems you have mentioned. And I think that
> >anybody who doesn't want to edit text should stay away from usenet &
> >email completely :)
>
> Example:
> Slrn. Does News, sort of. You need SlrnPull or Suck (great
> name) or LeafNode to pull to local NNTP.
> Doesn't do mail..Another program.
> No spell...Another program...
Please try and form a coherent argument. Proving that one setup doesn't
work in no way invalidates my side of the argument. I use Netscape, and
I'm perfectly happy with it. It does offline news, email, spelling...
> This is getting boring...
>
> I'll help you along, KRN DOES do offline reading but IMHO it is
> unstable but the interface is a nice one.
How gracious of you.
> >I agree that 99% of people don't care about how MS got to be so
> >dominant. But I'd have to disagree if you said that they didn't care
> >about the implications. As for the rate of improvement, you can't be
> >following it that closely, because it's screaming along.
>
> Compared to what it once was (Linux that is) yes it is, but compared
> to the rest of the world (Windows/Mac) it's still a joke.
OK. The home user uses Win9x (even according to MS, 2K isn't meant for
the home user). Consider how far along Win9x has travelled since the
first release of 95. The only thing I can think of is the web browser
and stability. Now see how far along Linux has progressed in five years
time.
> >> Bottom line is Linux is a geek system, always has been and no amount
> >> of candy will help it along.
> >
> >The same was said of *all* computer systems not too long ago. Right
> >now, I don't think that Linux is viable for a lot of home users without
> >a computer-literate to set it up. I think the same about Windows.
>
> But Linux has done little to improve that other than put a second rate
> interface on top of 15 year old boat anchor programs that still
> require text file editing and are user hostile.
Linux has done little to improve that, because until recently it was
playing catch-up. MS have been developing operating systems since the
early eighties. Linux is less than a decade old, and IMHO is reaching,
and has surpassed MS operating systems in some areas.
Second rate interface? Which one are you talking about? There are many
to choose from, some of which mimick Win9x. If they are *all* bad
interfaces, then the ones that are like Win9x are bad as well, and by
implication, so is Win9x. In this situation, Linux users would be
better off, because at least they have a choice about which interface to
use. However, if you agree that not *all* of Linux's interfaces are
bad, then you are going back on your original statement. There is no
way for you to win *that* argument.
15 year old boat anchor programs? Which ones in particular are you
talking about?
I agree that a lot of programs need text-editing to configure. A lot of
them don't. What more can I say?
> Steve
Jim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:04:25 GMT
Interesting. I have not used Win 3.11 in a long time.
Steve
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:37:34 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Out of interest, how come the win3.11 file manager whops windows 95 find?
>Any ideas?
>
>-Ed
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SomeOne Else)
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 23:07:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 22:15:59 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No offence, but you Winvocates are *always* buying scanners and DVDs. How many can you
>realistically use at once, even if they do work out of the box?
>
>But seriously, though, SCSI scanners give noticable performance increases over
>parallel
>ones, but it obvioulsy comes at a price. Personally, I can spend the mmoney I saved on
>software, on hardware. You're choice (and aren't you glad that you do have a choice)?
>
No. They're WInvocates. People who have wet dreams over the thought of
Bill Gates. They don't want a choice. They don't want us to have a
choice. Now the courts say they have to give it to us, and they are
are coming here to whine.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
