Linux-Advocacy Digest #5, Volume #26 Fri, 7 Apr 00 10:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Matthias Warkus)
About GNU kernels ("Pedro Ballester")
Re: Programming Languages (Christopher Browne)
Re: RH linux stable?? (Donal K. Fellows)
Stable-only distro? (Ken Kinder)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (CG)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (CG)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (CG)
Re: Rumors ... (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: DID BILL GATES HAVE COSMETIC SURGERY?????? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible (Brian Langenberger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 20:17:46 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 06 Apr 2000 11:13:05 -0600...
...and John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the olden days, they had hardware called "patch boards" . . . can I
> take it from your opposition that you don't consider modifying the
> hardware settings on a computer to be programming?
Of course that is not programming, not anymore that changing the
content of a memory cell is programming.
> > > Correct. HTML is not programming, any more than a door is jumping.
> > >
> > > Programming is a process. HTML is a thing, not a process.
> >
> > OK.
>
> It's the *ACT* of creating HTML that is programming.
No. The act of creating HTML is creating HTML. HTML is not something
that can be executed in a meaningful way, just parsed.
> > And for the record, writing HTML is *not* programming. Even if you type
> > it into a computer!!!
>
> Ok, you are on the record: but you still haven't shown how writing HTML
> is not programming. When I program a computer, I say: do this, and the
> computer does what I tell it to do. When I tell the computer to record,
> transmit, then execute an HTML program . . . what am I doing that is
> different from what I do when I program?
HTML isn't Turing complete.
mawa
--
Das ist schwer: ein Leben zu zwein. Nur eins ist noch schwerer: einsam
sein!
-- Kurt Tucholsky
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Ballester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: About GNU kernels
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 12:25:18 GMT
Hi everyone, I've been hearing about HURD to replace Linux kernel
and have a little questions :
1) Can you uncompress and compile under GNU/Linux and then
just replace Linux kernel hoping the whole system to work ?
2) Which are the differences between Linux and HURD as GNU
kernels ? I mean license and technical differences.
3) Who is developing it ? Does Linus, Cox, and such guys participate
too ?
4) Why does not GNU abandon HURD once Linux exist ? Is it better
in any matter ?
Thanks in advance.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Programming Languages
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 12:52:04 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Glitch would say:
>scripts are words (scripts) that only need executable permissions and
>are not 'interpreted' but read by the shell
>
>programming languages need to be compiled and translated into machine
>code before they can be used
OK, that's about the sort of muddled mess I would have expected as a
distinction...
Apparently, *to you,* a "programming language" is one which requires
compiling into "machine language," thus distinguishing "compile time"
from "run time."
That seems to me to be an extremely artificial distinction; the
primary purpose of it, to my mind, would be for it to distinguish
between:
a) "Us important guys that write compiled programs" and
b) "Those other worthless people that write programs in those
other languages."
It doesn't seem to me that the distinction is useful for any other
purpose...
--
A Stanford research group advertised for participants in a study of
obsessive-compulsive disorder. They were looking for therapy clients
who had been diagnosed with this disorder. The response was
gratifying; they got 3000 responses about three days after the ad came
out. All from the same person.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: RH linux stable??
Date: 7 Apr 2000 12:45:48 GMT
In article <9H8H4.737$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Unlike M$, Linux developpers' version numbering makes some sense: a
>> 1.0 version is stable. And a 0.99 is not.
>
> Some linux products never get to 1.0.
Too many windows products get to 1.0 simply by marketing fiat. But
this is a general problem that is not OS-specific. Alas, it isn't
even development-model specific... :^(
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: Ken Kinder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Stable-only distro?
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 12:52:52 GMT
In the recent RH: Stable?? thread, an idea came to me. Linux was being
blamed because software shipped with Red Hat was unstable (probably
gnumaric?). What if there were a distribution that only included stable
software? Or, here's an idea... adding to Debian a stable flag, so you
can configure dselect and apt to only list stable software.
It would be a good way for newbies not to get burned by unstable
software. Sure, the version number is telling, but if it came on your
distro, most newbies will assume stability.
--
Ken Kinder
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CG)
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: 07 Apr 2000 09:19:03 EDT
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 21:18:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>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.
>
I'll wait to show them pine until after they've opened up an email
infected with an outlook virus that wipes out their machines and sends
infected messages to all their friends.
my office uses pine (over telnet in windows) for email and there are
no complaints. I forbid them from using outlook.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CG)
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: 07 Apr 2000 09:21:15 EDT
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 21:18:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>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.
>
M$ has NOT made this happen. the thousands of companies that have
developed windows software have made this happen. M$ has gone along
for a free ride and made billions of dollars by just "being there."
some of the more feeble brained give M$ the credit.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 13:23:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 06 Apr 2000 22:26:22 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Hey Drestin!!!
>
> We don't even have to show Linux is for geeks anymore. The
>geeks are doing it for us!!!!
>
>Can't wait to show my bartender that command. He's gonna love it :(
>
>Steve
>On 6 Apr 2000 22:09:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>
>>Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Then why not do this 'benchmark' on a Windows 2000 machine with
>>> the indexing service running. Find ANY file (or files or folders)
>>> in under a second every time, including text within most file types
>>> and based on dates, size, attributes, keywords, summary, copyrights,
>>> versions, whatever. A fully indexed file system... hows locate
>>> compare now?
>>
>>cd /
>>find * | cat >> biglist
>>alias locate=grepinbig
>>
>>(grepinbig)
>>grep -i $input /biglist | less
>>
>>That was really...ummm...
>>
>>Hard.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----yttrx
>>
>
You've gotta be kidding me.
This is *geeky*??
This is *simple*. Slightly flawed, but simple nonetheless.
My version would be
find / > /var/spool/biglist
alias locate=grepinbig
(grepinbig)
grep -i "$input" /var/spool/biglist
and my version is still slightly flawed, in that it can't handle
an argument beginning with a dash (grep looks at one funny). I'm
not sure if I'd want to use
grep -i "\\$input" /var/spool/biglist
or not; I'd have to test it. But everyone in Unixland will understand
the merits of redirect ('>') -- heck, even DOS had that one -- and
how to run a simple shell script (or, if you prefer, a .BAT file --
DOS had that too). (There's also the issue of the speed of grep
versus a more specialized solution such as a lookup in a sorted
database.)
The entire question is a bit flawed anyway. Anyone with a half a
brain cell should at least be able to locate certain keys on a
keyboard (if only by gawk, hunt, and peck), and type in simple,
well-known, highly documented (and reliable!) commands. One
would also assume that people in Technical support would rather
hear something like:
Clueless Newbie: "Uh, how do I backup my system?"
Technical Support Person: "OK, Are you root?"
CN: "Yes."
TCP: "And you have a 4 mm tape drive?"
CN: "Uh...you mean the thing I put these small black cartridges into?"
TCP: "Yes."
CN: "Yes, I have one."
TCP: "Put a fresh tape in."
CN: (pause) "OK."
TCP: "OK, now just type in tee ay are space dash see eff slash dev slash
ess tee 0 space slash." ('tar -cf /dev/st0 /')
CN: (pause) "OK...it's chugging away...Thanks!"
as opposed to:
CN: "Uh, how do I backup my system?"
TCP: "OK, which backup package do you have installed?"
CN: (identifies backup package)
TCP: "OK, you have to find the icon that looks like a pretty flower
beating a small box." [*]
CN: (pause) "Uh...where is this icon?"
TCP: "It should be right next to the icon that looks a bit like a
box tromping on a pretty flower. (That's your restore function.)"
CN: (longer pause) "All I see is a box and a flower dancing,
with a bee in the background. It's kinda fuzzy. There's
also an icon with a squiggly thing and a rectangle, and
another with a rectangle and a squiggly thing underneath it,
and one with a rectangle with little lines on it, right next
to a squiggly thing..."
TCP: (sounds of moaning and hair dropping on the floor after
being torn out) :-)
Well, OK, this is contrived, but I'm sure that Technical Support
has dealt with many people out there that can't tell the difference
between various icon logos -- especially at 16x16, although most
Windows logos on the desktop will be 32x32.
And various stories about CD-ROM "cup holders", rebooting machines
(or trying to reboot machines) before replugging them into a power
strip, and other rather silly problems are legion. :-)
(This also might illustrate why good graphics artists are
so highly paid. :-) I for one couldn't draw a bee *or* a flower,
although I might be able to manage drawing a box...)
[*] There is a TV commercial regarding a prescription allergy medication
that has a gigantic dandelion (?) beating on a poor woman who's
trying to play tennis (and sneezing instead); after the obligatory
shill for the actual product, the dandelion is simply stepped on
(although on a well-maintained tennis court, dandelions wouldn't be
*there* to be stepped on -- but oh well). I guess that's where
I got this idea from. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- proof once again that silly ideas
transcend "the generation gap" :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 13:28:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 06 Apr 2000 16:22:37 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I was just trying to ensure that the other person was indeed searching
>the entire file system from the top down and just not from his home
>directory down.
Using 'find /' or 'cd /; find .' would have been sufficient,
in either case. I did say it was a "point of pedantry", which
means that it's probably safely ignorable. :-) However, my
livelihood more or less depends on finding quirky, unreliable,
undocumented behavior in software programs -- otherwise known
as "bugs". :-)
(My livelihood also occasionally depends on *introducing* quirky,
unreliable, undocumented behavior in software programs. Of
course, it's not necessarily intentional...:-) )
>
>Steve
>
>On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 04:01:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
>Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote on Wed, 05 Apr 2000 06:42:20 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yea and you're FOS when you say it takes 2 seconds to find
>>>> /etc/pp/options scanning the entire drive.
>>>>
>>>> Try this:
>>>>
>>>> cd /
>>>> cd ..
>>>>
>>>
>>>And what does that cd .. do???
>>
>>As a point of pedantry, since / is the root of the entire
>>Unix hierarchy, .. effectively points to the same directory
>>as ., or, if you prefer,
>>
>>.. = . = /
>>
>>which means that 'cd ..' will never fail, if one is in a valid
>>directory. :-) It also is a no-op when done from '/'.
>>
>>On at least one other system -- Apollo Domain AEGIS -- there was a //,
>>a "canned root" which, when listed, showed all nodes on a network.
>>But not on pure Unix, or Linux.
>>
>>(Side note: I'm not sure 'dir \\' works on NT. Ideally, it would. :-) )
>>
>>[rest snipped]
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CG)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: 07 Apr 2000 09:28:47 EDT
This is very true, but it ignores the fact that most people don't
install windows on their machines, it comes already installed. if
they had to go out and buy windows installation cd's they'd be just as
frustrated and confused as people who don't know what they are doing
and try to install linux.
frankly, while windows installations can go smoothly, often they do
not, and when they don't, they are a whole hell of a lot harder to
figure out then linux installations.
if new computers came installed with linux booting right into the x
windows environment, the average consumer wouldn't know the
difference. I know because I've set up "idiot" linux installations
and they work just fine.
it is probably true that it's a little easier to add software willy
nilly to a windows machine, but this is part of the curse as well,
because nothing screws up a windows machine faster and more completely
than adding every crap installation, trial demo, applet etc. that
comes along. they can't be uninstalled half the time and eventually
they bring down the whole o/s. can't happen in linux.
oh, and linux has no viruses.
On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:38:21 GMT, "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The goal should be to make the computer easy to use. People just want to
>turn it on, and use it to get their work done. Most people don't care how
>it works. They just want to check email, and cruise the web. They don't
>want to dwell on how large to make the /var partition.
>
>
>> You know about partitions. I know about partitions. The typical
>> Windows user knows C:\windows and that's it.
>>Example of people not knowing what they are doing. They're $.10/dozen
>>anymore thanks to Windows.
>
>>True, but it is the reality of the situation and a point the
>>Linvocates fail to be able to grasp.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 09:29:57 -0400
On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 09:38:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> >It doesn't matter because Apple does not have a monopoly position on
>> >the desktop.
>>
>> So Apple can be just as aggressive and draconian as Microsoft, and
>> it's OK because they don't have a monopoly? Are you saying that
>> Microsoft is getting nailed for actions that would be perfectly legal
>> if Microsoft weren't a monopoly? I'm assuming your answer is yes.
>.
>?????
>Show me ONE place where Apple has strong armed a hardware vendor
>(independant of Apple its self) into pre-loading to the exclution of
>every one else the Mac OS. In deed, show me any vendor that Apple strong
>armed into suppleing ONLY Apple products (you must PROVE that Apple
>strong armed or threatened the company) Without doing so, you can NOT
>claim Mac is being just as aggressive and draconian as MS.
>
I'm not saying that Apple is as aggresive as Microsoft. I'm just
saying that, from what I've been able to gather, Apple *COULD* be that
aggressive, and it wouldn't be illegal because they don't have a
monopoly. Am I right?
>>
>> Interesting. Lets recap:
>>
>> 1. A given company action may be legal or illegal depending on whether
>> the company is a monopoly.
>>
>> 2. Apparently, it takes a roomful of lawyers, a ton of paperwork, a
>> two-year-long court saga, and some careful interpretation to prove
>> that a company is a monopoly. In fact, it's been said that
>> establishing monopoly status is one of the most difficult things to
>> do in American law.
>>
>> Given this, I must ask: If it's so difficult for a team of lawyers to
>> establish monopoly status, how the heck is a regular employee supposed
>> to know - when faced with a decision - whether his company has crossed
>> the "monopoly line"? How can we have a body of law that doesn't make
>> it perfectly obvious what is and what is not legal?
>..
>Read the judgment. It is not illegal to be a monopoly. It is illegal to
>ABUSE the monopoly status. It is much easier to define abuse than that
>of monopoly.
>
If monopoly status is so difficult to establish in a court of law,
then how is a regular employee (not a lawyer) supposed to know whether
his company has a monopoly? When working with an OEM, for example, how
can Joe Corporate Dealmaker be expected to know whether what he's
proposing is illegal?
The more I learn about antitrust law, the more it seems that it was
made deliberately vague - so that the government could interpret it as
necessary to rein in whomever they wanted for whatever reason. I do
see the need for antitrust law, but if it's this difficult to figure
out whether a company has a monopoly, then I don't think it's fair to
punish that company for actions taken before monopoly status was
established in court. Isn't "hindsight law" unconstitutional?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: DID BILL GATES HAVE COSMETIC SURGERY??????
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 13:32:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Fri, 07 Apr 2000 03:04:56 GMT <8cjj8i$cfh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CG) wrote:
>> I saw him on tv this morning and he looks different. Any ideas on
>> this?
>>
>He looked like a geek. A nervous billionaire geek, but a still a geek.
>Did a quick altavista search for reconstructive surgeons offering
>geekoplasty and got no hits.
I'm not sure how one characterizes voices, but he also, to me
anyway, *sounds* like a geek. :-) Specifically, a nasally,
slightly whiny voice.
His phraseology -- what little I've seen, anyway -- also is big on
big, grandiose ideas, but short on specifics. This may be
forgivable (after all, does a CEO know *everything* about
what *every* product does in such a large, multinational
enterprise?) but then, this *is* comp.os.linux.advocacy. :-)
Now whether this makes any difference or not is debatable.
Microsoft transcends Bill Gates, after all, in a very real fashion.
(I've yet to hear Steve Ballmer's voice, for example.)
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Microsoft Windows should probably have *radical*
surgery :-)
------------------------------
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.
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 13:30:27 GMT
Hi I am doing a story on Microsoft and I need people like yourself to
voice your views for a webcam interview. If you are up for it please
get in touch. Thanks.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 01:09:16 GMT, Leonard F. Agius
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >
> >LOL!!! You tell 'em, Steve. When the hell are these people going to
realize that the
> >majority of people WANT the MS Monopoly...they want a COMMON
STANDARD, not a bunch of
> >incompatible Unix variants!!!
>
> That rhetoric doesn't address just where the Linux defficiencies
> are with respect to a standardized device layer, image
manipulation
> software, OCR or anything else you care not to mention.
>
> --
>
> 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.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible
Date: 7 Apr 2000 13:59:29 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I have had Windows programs that sucked (Corel Wordperfect Suite for
: instance) and Windows programs that run fine, which includes just
: about every one I own.
I've used plenty of Windows programs that sucked. (Microsoft Office
comes to mind) Fortunately I don't own them because I'd hate to
have to actually spend money on such dreck.
: My experience with Linux programs is that compared to the Windows
: counterparts, they typically suck big time.
Not surprisingly, my experience has been the opposite.
: Crappy interfaces,
I can think of no interface worse than the one Office comes with.
But why stop there? All of Windows shares its sloppy, inconsistent
philosophy. X11 is simple and elegant by comparison.
: arcane help doc (try clicking help on kde stuff and see how many
: "will be written soon" messages you get) and so forth.
Windows help is legendary for its unhelpfulness. As an actual
example, say I want to generate an umlaut (ü) in Windows.
I search for the word "umlaut" in Windows98 help - no topics.
"German"? - nope. "International"? - five topics, none of which
are helpful. But humorously, the first that came up was
"How is computer software protected by law?"
So please, don't try to tell me Windows help is any real
improvement over online docs and FAQs.
: Linux is like a half written, hacked together system of utilities and
: general How-To's many of which need some serious updating. Even the
: man pages in many instances post a message of non support.
: This is a system trying to replace Windows on the desktop?
Anything would be an improvement.
: Doubtful as soon as folks get past the Linux buzzword and really try
: it for themselves it will become a non-issue.
I went from a perfectly good Solaris environment to the DOS/Win3.1
environment and got quite a laugh out of the sheer stupidity of it.
Windows hasn't gotten noticibly better since. It looks slick
but runs terrible. Not only that, but for my needs its apps are
either:
a) awful
b) better represented by UN*X ones
so I consider Linux a much better alternative. When Windows gets
an environment and some apps that are better than what I have now,
I'll take another look at it.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
