Linux-Advocacy Digest #90, Volume #26 Wed, 12 Apr 00 11:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? [OT] ("Niall Wallace")
Which distribution (Yns)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Re: Linux vs Windows development man-hours? (CG)
Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Alternative OS Implementation Languages (Dale Pontius)
Re: Which distribution ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" (news1.on)
'To Be Up or Not To Be Up' ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux for ex-Windows users (long story) (SamIam)
Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: We need an Xsetiathome!! (Tesla Coil)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (Norman D. Megill)
Re: Windows is scary all right ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Niall Wallace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop? [OT]
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:04:22 +0100
You program the time into your video recorder
You program the recording times into it's time
So why is using the slider on a volume control not programming you sound
system to a certain volume.
Using the slider is not Computer Programming but there are other types of
Programming, Including microwave cooking
Niall
[Snip because microsap made me]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:21:18 +0100
From: Yns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Which distribution
I am a linux newbie (although I'm not new to unix), can anyone
point me in the right direction ......
Which distribution of linux is considered to be fastest
and robust?
I'm currently considering RedHat, but I'm told that FreeBSD is
noticably quicker.
Also, is it possible to run software downloaded from the GNU website
on the above implementations.
Thank you for your time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 13:22:20 GMT
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 21:35:37 GMT, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > Excellent choice. Can't go wrong w/Solaris && Oracle, that is, unless
: > you've got retards running the systems (like a certain large auction site).
:
: Another plus being if the box does get into a braindead state for some reason,
: if you have remote access to your network, and a proper (and secure) way to get
: to the serial port of the server, you'll be able to do any admin work you need
: just as if you were sitting at the box (except in the _very_ rare instance of
: the Sun not responding at the prom level either).
Exactly! That's why I still have an old pentium machine kicking around
the NOC.
P-133, 32 MB RAM, Rocketport 16 port serial card. A great terminal server.
Fast too, the machine only runs sshd and minicom...
Try THAT with an nt box.
--
Jason Costomiris <><
Technologist, cryptogeek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CG)
Subject: Re: Linux vs Windows development man-hours?
Date: 12 Apr 2000 09:34:44 EDT
On Sun, 02 Apr 2000 06:06:09 -0400, Robert Morelli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>
>> I'm going to delete a bunch of conversation here and just get to
>> the point.
>>
>> Microsoft is a fairly large company with around 800 actual people
>> involved in software development of their products.
>>
>> Of which, half of them are working on other products such as
>> Microsoft Office, flight simulators, so on and so forth.
>>
>> That leaves about 450 software programmer/analysts with around
>> 50 more people working as full time system analysts engaged on
>> the 2000 project. Check the Microsoft Web site for details please.
>> Don't get into some idiotic contest with me please.
>
>As I'm sure you've gathered from my post, I'm no apologist for Microsoft.
>But I just can't believe that the numbers you're claiming are realistic.
>According to their web site, Microsoft has about 35,000 employees of whom
>about 14,000 are in R&D. Where are you getting 800? Now, 14,000 is not
>realistic either.
>
judging by their products, I would say M$ has 800 employees in
programming and 34,300 in marketing.
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:57:37 -0400
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >That statment will come as a complete shock to the good folks at Apple .
>> >. . who are using a powerful UNIX type OS as the basis for their new
>> >consumer OS.
>>
>> The basis is irrelevant.
>
>Nonsense. Fast, stable VMS, pre-emptive multi-tasking, mult-user
>support, security. . . these are not irrelevant.
>
These features are most certainly irrelevant - to Mac users - if they
can't all be accessed through a familiar, well-designed Mac interface,
which is as far away from Unix as you can get. No self-respecting Mac
user would be caught dead typing "awk" into a command line and you
know it. Besides, half the things you listed - multi-user support and
security - are of no concern to today's Mac user. Heck, most of them
wouldn't even know what to do with preemptive multitasking.
>>
>> In terms of the user experience, MacOS X will
>> be about as far away from UNIX as you can get.
>
>Considering that the first version of MacOS X was *EXACTLY* like the
>Unix experience (IE, it was OpenStep), then all I can say is: you are
>misrepresenting the Unix user experience.
>
Oh please. OpenStep is almost as far away from the Unix experience as
MacOS. The Unix experience is a command line - either on a text screen
or in a terminal window. Besides, there's a reason why Apple didn't
try to push the first version of MacOS X on the mainstream Mac user.
>>
>> Unix as we geeks know
>> it - with X running five dozen terminal windows decorated with
>> creatures from the Alien trilogy - is totally useless to the average
>> consumer.
>
>Unix, as geeks know it, is only *ONE* of the many, many different user
>interfaces available to Unix users. Unix is flexible.
>
That explains the horrifying mangled mess of cheap imitations of
decent user interfaces that is the typical X Windows screen.
>
>More than Five *YEARS* ago Unix users could interact with their computer
>in exactly the same GUI'fied way that Windows users and Mac users can.
>
Given that that's not even true today, it could hardly have been true
five *YEARS* ago.
>> >
>> >Nope. You do just exactly that on a Linux box,
>>
>> Hardly, since Linux doesn't run the software that lets them "do their
>> stuff".
>
>Wrong, since Linux *DOES* run the software that lets them "do their
>stuff".
>
Come on now. You admit later on that Linux does *NOT* run all the
software some users need.
>>
>> "Better" is a matter of opinion, so it's neither correct nor
>> incorrect.
>
>Better is not a matter of opinion when it represents objectively
>measurable criteria.
>
The problem is that your criteria may be different from mine, and it's
only your arrogance that makes you think yours are somehow more
important - or more objective - than mine.
>> >
>> >You don't. But that says nothing about the relative merits of the
>> >operating systems:
>> >
>>
>> Sure it does.
>
>No, it doesn't. It says something about applications availability, not
>OS'en.
>
If a given app's availability is of primary concern to me, then its
lack most certainly *DOES* say something about the OS - to me. In
fact, it would be nothing short of stupidity for me to choose Linux
knowing full well that it doesn't run the apps I need.
>>
>> and Linux is not. Isn't it possible that someone may consider a usable
>> OS better than an unusable one?
>
>It isn't the OS that is unusable in your scenario. It's the
>application.
>
I beg to differ. If I *MUST* run, say, Quicken, then Linux is not an
option. Quicken is a perfectly usable app, but for me, Linux is an
unusable OS.
Ah, these are all just pointless word games. The bottom line is that
if I need a capability or app that Linux can't run, then Linux is not
an option, and all your "objective OS criteria" don't amount to a hill
of beans.
>
>What instrinsic limitation exists in Linux that would make playing a
>Sorenson encoded video stream on Linux impossible?
>
How about the lack of a decent extensible multimedia framework at the
OS level?
>> >
>> >it is just a comment on the MS monopoly.
>>
>> Or the popularity of their products.
>
>Nope. It's a comment on their monopoly.
>
Repeating your argument doesn't make it more convincing.
>
>MS deliberately created an API that was non-standard, to create a vendor
>lock in situation. Had they stuck with the available standards, then
>they would not now be a monopoly.
>
Give me a break. Had they stuck with the available standards, their OS
would be as useless to the mainstream user as Unix is.
>
>Had they even presented API's for consideration as open, public
>standards, they would have probably been let off the hook.
>
Yeah, right.
>> >
>> >After the DOJ breaks MS up, more and more ISVs will start
>> >porting/writing for Linux.
>>
>> Care to bet your mortgage money on that?
>
>I already am . . .
>
So how are you doing now that the Linux companies have tanked?
>> >
>> >Correct. Hence the incredible urgency in breaking up MS. Until we
>> >break up MS, we will never be able to break the unnecessary relationship
>> >between OS and application that now exists.
>>
>> Shouldn't we also break up Nintendo, then?
>
>No, for two reasons:
>
>1) They aren't a monopoly.
>2) They don't control a critical market.
>
But what good is monopoly power - and how can the market be critical -
if the product in question doesn't have some undeniable advantages
over its competition?
You can't have it both ways, you know. You can't say that Windows has
no advantages over Linux, then turn right around and say that Windows
is so critical that its vendor must be considered a monopoly.
>>
>> Neither was Linux designed to be compatible with legacy DOS apps and
>> drivers.
>
>Linux actually runs DOS apps quite well. In fact, there was an article
>in the Linux Journal about a company in Europe who used Linux for just
>that.
>
Linux can't use DOS drivers for its own operation, nor does it do a
good enough job at running the vast majority of the DOS apps people
wanted to run when Microsoft was designing Win9x (games running within
DOS extenders and banging the hardware directly).
>> >
>> >Linux was developed on the same hardware, you know.
>>
>> You *REALLY* need a PC history lesson.
>
>How so? I386, for both of 'em, unless you are talking about earlier
>versions of Windows, in which case it is *YOU* who needs the history
>lesson, as the relationship between Windows "the early years" and later
>versions of it is minimal, to say the least.
>
Nonsense. Win9x can still use DOS drivers for its own operation, and
can still run all those old badly behaved apps. Its architecture was
deliberately compromised to do so. The first OS Microsoft designed
from scratch for the 32-bit x86 architecture was NT. They actually
wanted to target the original OS/2 for the 386, but IBM was hell bent
on making it work on the PC/AT.
>> >
>> >That's almost always the case, which is why democracy is such an
>> >absolute and total failure as a political system.
>>
>> Have you tried the alternatives?
>
>Yes.
>
>Remember, the United States is not a democracy. . . precisely because
>democracy is not a viable political system.
>
It's closer to a democracy than it is to a communist state, but maybe
not for long...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Pontius)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Alternative OS Implementation Languages
Date: 12 Apr 2000 13:52:36 GMT
In article <b6TI4.82804$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne) writes:
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Donal K. Fellows would say:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Tom Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Are there M3 compilers in the gnu world that are up to the task?
>>> At least three processor targets.
>>
>>I think the one I'd heard of (log ago, admittedly) used the gcc
>>back-end, so targetting loads of processors shouldn't be a problem.
>
> <http://research.compaq.com/SRC/modula-3/html/platforms.html> reports
> successful builds on:
> a) AIX386 (believe it or not!)
> b) Digital Alpha
> c) HP PA-RISC
> d) AIX PPC
> e) IRIX MIPS
> f) Linux ELF ia-32
> g) Sun SPARC
>
> <http://m3.polymtl.ca/m3/binaries/> reports a similar set of
> successful platforms.
>
> They do not specifically include any non-IA-32 Linux platforms, but
> *do* include commercial UNIXes on pretty much all the important
> platforms that Linux runs on, so that it *ought* to be feasible to get
> the SRC implementation running on other architectures...
>
> This is *precisely* why I mentioned M3 as an option; it might be well
> and neat to propose writing an OS using CMU-Lisp or some Scheme, but
> neither of *those* "general options" provide code generators for such
> a diverse set of architectures.
>
> The other option would be Eiffel.
As long as we're mentioning languages other than C, I feel the need
to bring up Ada. It's interesting that most languages are designed
to ease the development process. Ada wasn't. It was designed to ease
the maintenance process, instead. There's a fundamental recognition
that most of the software cost of imbedded programming is in the
maintenance, not in the initial development. Since imbedded programming
is the targeted market for Ada, they attack maintenance. As a side
effect, one could argue that Ada (and strongly typed languages, in
general) attacks the debugging problems as much as the maintenance
problems.
Dale Pontius
NOT speaking for IBM
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: Which distribution
Date: 12 Apr 2000 13:47:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.help Yns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I am a linux newbie (although I'm not new to unix), can anyone
: point me in the right direction ......
: Which distribution of linux is considered to be fastest
: and robust?
Meaningless question.
: I'm currently considering RedHat, but I'm told that FreeBSD is
: noticably quicker.
Quite possibly. But then FreeBSD isn't a linux. Have you considered
solaris? Or BeOS?
: Also, is it possible to run software downloaded from the GNU website
: on the above implementations.
Yes, definitely.
: Thank you for your time.
Instead of putting up with getting stupid answers to an extremely
stupid set of questions, why not save yourself the pain and save
us our nerves by reading the FAQ for the linux newsgroups and any others
that may meet your fancy. You'll find them over on comp.answers. Or at
ftp://rtfm.mit.edu. Scan the back articles for the last posting of the
FAQ on comp.os.linux.misc, for example!
Peter
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (news1.on)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:13:36 GMT
>
>>Of course, I can never seem to discern his point from these posts, but it is
>>a pleasure nonetheless.
>
>...Dutch Uncle time again; He is trying to point out that you're jackasses.
>-- Do any of you need that last word defined before it can be understood?
>
>
>_____________
>Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
I have a bad feeling this thread is going places that has nothing to do with
promoting the cause of either Linux or Windows. Aren't there bashing dojo
groups out there? =)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: 'To Be Up or Not To Be Up'
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 16:20:58 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.heise.de/ct/english/00/08/174/
------------------------------
From: SamIam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux for ex-Windows users (long story)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:27:56 -0500
The same thing happened to me. I tried Linux out and at first I didn't
like it and now about a year later, I can't stand windows.
BTW, there is a solution to your winprinter problem out there. When I
first installed Linux I had a 710c. But I found a workaround to print
from Linux. Take a look at:
http://www.httptech.com/ppa/
I don't have a scanner so I can't help you there but you might found
some info doing a deja search on the comp.os.linux.setup group.
--Sam
Cihl wrote:
>
> After years of experience with using software in
> the Windows-range, i decided to try Linux about a
> year and a half ago. I would like to take this
> opportunity to share my experiences since then.
> ------
> I'm a student in electrical science (technical
> computer science direction). As i said, i had been
> used to working with Windows, taking all
> advantages and disadvantages (see all other posts)
> for granted. Then someone in my class asked me to
> try Linux, mainly to see what it's like and to
> learn how to use Unix-like systems.
>
> At the time, my choice of distribution was SuSE
> 6.0 and it came in a box with 5 cd's and a (rather
> large) manual. I managed to setup the system in a
> dual-boot configuration in three to four hours. It
> took quite a while to figure out which package to
> install and which not to install. Apart from that
> the installation went smoothly and more
> intuitively than i thought it would.
>
> First thing i noticed after install, is that it
> took surprisingly little effort to get the
> hardware to work. The installation had already
> seen my video card, monitor, network card, modem
> and mouse with minimal configuration. Only the
> printer (HP720C) and a scanner (HP4100C-USB)
> remained. I found it impossible to set these up
> properly, mainly because the scanner is USB and
> the printer is Windows-only.
>
> Seeing the login-prompt was a little, well, stupid
> at first and reminded me of the old DOS system in
> the XT-age. Just generally working and navigating
> the text-based shell was pretty confusing. After
> typing 'startx' i got a gui, called KDE. It was
> kinda flaky and wouldn't do what i wanted to. In
> general, it took a lot of getting used to the new
> system, already being used to Windows and all.
>
> After that, i tried a couple of distributions and
> it came to my attention that the development of
> this OS was happening faster than i could keep up
> with, and the GUI became a lot prettier.
> Furthermore, as i got more used to Linux, i became
> more and more annoyed with having to go back to
> Windows for playing a game or using my
> scanner/printer. The Windows-GUI got a certain
> feel that you could cut your fingers on it at any
> time. Also, i became cautious whenever using
> Windows, because it felt like it could crash on me
> any second.
>
> It suddenly snapped into my head: i have gotten
> used to Linux, and there is no way i can go back
> to Windows permanently. I have grown to hate
> Windows more and more. I have also gotten used to
> stability, flexibility and *real* multitasking
> over time, and cannot take it whenever Windows
> takes control of the computer and all i can do is
> wait until it's ready. (like when scanning
> something.)
> -----
> My final point is: I can't imagine those so-called
> "Wintrolls" who are all over the newsgroups having
> a lot of experience in using Linux at all. I don't
> think *anybody* could go back to Windows
> permanently after having used Linux for a while. I
> think all these people should try using Linux for,
> say, three to six months. After that they should
> come back and rant+rave about Linux here again as
> much as they want. If they still don't like it,
> they should at least be able to give better
> reasons for it. The more trolling they do then,
> the more we can improve on Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 14:53:29 GMT
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
Steve
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 05:06:53 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Dale A Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> JESUS!
>
>Don't summon him! Not having Jesus Monroy Jr is one of the major advantages
>Linux used to have over *BSD ;-)
>
>Bernie
------------------------------
From: Tesla Coil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: We need an Xsetiathome!!
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:03:44 -0500
On 11 Apr 2000, abraxas replied to mlw:
>> I have the Windows version of setiathome running on
>> my NT box. I have to say, I think it is fairly cool to watch.
>> I would like to see a KDE or GNOME version of that,
>> what do you think?
>
> It already exists in various and sundry forms, including
> a windowmaker docapp.
>
> You should have really known that. :)
Even cooler, we'll soon have [EMAIL PROTECTED] :)
http://www.phobe.com/yeti/use.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman D. Megill)
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: 12 Apr 2000 11:06:01 -0400
In article <8d1g6s$p8p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
doc rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8csra3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >>> In another post you wrote:
>
>> >> >I have the same model gateway (well, the equivalent, its only about a
>> >> >year old) with all the fixins sitting at home on top of my stereo
>> >> >serving up MP3s
>
>> >I didn't write that. But okay, let's proceed :-)
>
>> Sorry, it wasn't you, it was [EMAIL PROTECTED] I stand corrected.
>
>> As for the rest of your comments, I'll let them speak for themselves.
>> To me they seem to have a vague inconsistency along the lines of "I want
>> liquor to be prohibited as long as I can obtain it myself."
>
>That's another instance of the ubiquitous "inconsistent/contradictory"
>charge without an explanation of what specifically was inconsistent or
>contradictory. Maybe you're reading more into my statements that what I
>actually said?
Specifically, you argue in favor of copyright laws while at the same
time blatantly violating them (multiple SW copies on your home computers,
bootleg mp3s).
--Norm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows is scary all right
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 15:07:57 GMT
You don't get out much do you :?
Steve
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 00:01:51 -0400, Aaron Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Bob Lyday wrote:
>>
>> "Keith T. Williams" wrote:
>> >
>> > So are you guys so afraid of windows?
>> >
>> It's scary all right, Keith, like driving a Pinto was...yep,
>> Windows is so bad is frightening, terrifying, horrifying...you
>> said it...
>
>Damn straight. I use windows for recreational purposes.
>
>But after the track record of the last 10 years, NO Fortune 500
>company is putting ANY mission-critical application on Windows.
>
>They might use Windows as a data-terminal to front-end to the app,
>but no way in hell is anybody putting ANYTHING mission critical
>on a Microsoft machine.
>
>PERIOD.
>
>
>>
>> > Majordomo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > They are still free to make whatever choice they wish.
>> > > > If Linux is not strong enough stand on it's own accord then that is
>> > > > Linux's problem, not mine.
>> > > >
>> > > > You must believe it is not strong enough, because you seem to have a
>> > > > need to jump to it's defense all the time.
>> > > >
>> > > > There are probably more Windows/Microsot "sucks" type groups and web
>> > > > sites than there are for Linux and it hasn't seemed to hurt Windows
>> > > > sales at all.
>> > > >
>> > > > Steve
>> > >
>> > > People only attack that which they fear, hence by your attacks on Linux,
>> > its
>> > > users, and its advocates, you obviously are fearful about linux for some
>> > reason.
>> > >
>> > > -NateGrey
>> > > "Fear the Penguins"
>> > >
>> > >
>>
>> --
>> Bob
>> "We blew it -- too big, too slow..." - Bill Gates talking about
>> Windows NT during a meeting with Steven McGeady of Intel.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
