Linux-Advocacy Digest #205, Volume #26 Fri, 21 Apr 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Elian (mlw)
Re: Linus Torvalds (mlw)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Sell Me On Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Unix is dead? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: which OS is best? (dakota)
Re: Rumors ... (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Cihl)
Re: Sell Me On Linux (Mig Mig)
Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...) (John Jensen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.activism,alt.politics.communism,rec.games.video.misc,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose
Subject: Re: Elian
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:08:51 -0400
> Michiel Buddingh' wrote:
>Oh dear. Does this mean we're going to have to start scalping our
>neighboring tribes and implement mass human sacrifice now? :)
Hmm, I seem to remember a lot of bloody wars and atrocities in europe
too. When one looks at history, one is appalled at the violence and
blood shed in every civilization. Yes, you can point to the aztec and
say they had human sacrifice. Yes this was bad. One can point to the
european wars, spanish inquisition, and so on in europe as well, that
was bad too. China and japan, had its problems, africa too.
Humans are brutal. Human history of all nations and civilizations are
full of brutality. One can not point to one atrocity without looking at
all the atrocities.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linus Torvalds
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 08:25:56 -0400
Cihl wrote:
>
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
> >
> > I believe that the operation system create by Linus Torvalds, Linux, is the
>downfall of the software industry.
> > People who > > use such a dreaful program should be shot. How dare they take money
>from hardworking companies
> > like microsoft and driving down my shares.
"Take money from?" Last I heard in capitalism, one takes their own money
and buys something from someone else. For me (a Linux user) to take
something from Microsoft there would have to be some sort of arrangement
where the money was already theirs. This is not the case. It is my money
and I buy what I wish. I wish to buy Linux.
As for you and your stock in MS, that's your problem. As for Microsoft
being a hardworking company, perhaps, the real issue is are they a
company that betters the industry in which they operate, or are they a
company that squelches competition and hurts the consumer in the end?
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: 21 Apr 2000 13:04:02 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jerry Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I feel Gnome + Enlightment will consume more system resource than KDE,
: so I choose KDE.
: However, the default window manager in Red Hat 6.0 is Gnome.
I'm sure the responses to this will be numerous...
Gnome is not a window manager, Gnome is a whole desktop environment
like KDE. Enlightenment is a window manager, and a resource hog, and
is being replaced by Sawfish (formerly Sawmill) AFAIK. Sawfish takes
a lot less resources and is a lot more customizable than Enlightenment.
In either case, I don't think "better" is well enough defined to
judge KDE or Gnome on the window manager alone.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:15:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Fri, 21 Apr 2000 11:10:11 GMT
<8dp682$7j1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (SeaDragon) writes:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:39:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Runs on more hardware (IBM mainframes, Dec Alphas-64bit, apple hardware,
>>>Sun hardware...)
>
>>Buying an IBM or an Alpha to run Linux is about as smart as buying
>>a Porsche to drive around in first gear.
>
>Why would you say this about the Alpha? What else would you suggest
>running on it?
Presumably, DEC OSF/1, or whatever it mutated into (I haven't
kept track), Tru64 (which may be what it mutated into :-) ),
VMS (maybe?), or NT (if it's still supported; seems to me it got
dropped some time ago).
Personally, I'd be quite happy running Linux on such a beastie,
though; I've got a Sparc running Linux now, for example.
(It's slow -- but that's not because of Linux; it's an older model.)
My next computer might be a G4. Should I only run Apple's
OS thereon, good as it is? [*] I rather doubt it. :-)
>
>Bernie
>--
>Truth is beautiful, without doubt; but so are lies
>Ralph Waldo Emerson
[*] I could argue that Apple was more innovative than Microsoft.
While they might have "stolen" the original idea from Xerox PARC, they
also added quite a bit to the concept of a GUI in the meantime.
At least, IMO.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Unix is dead?
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:23:39 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 21 Apr 2000 08:25:27 GMT <8dp39n$oig$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote on Thu, 20 Apr 2000 03:54:48 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>I keep hearing "Unix is dead or will die soon."
>>>What can replace it?
>>>Linux?
>>>Linux is Unix.
>[...]
>>QNX is still out there.
>>Mach is out there, somewhere.
>
>>MacOS is out there.
>
> Still one of the biggest non-Unix-like OSes; however, Apple is
>joining the Unix club with MacOS X, which is a revival of NextStep.
>
> One of Apple's design goals is to hide its "Unixness" even more
>than NeXT had done; the idea is to make the use of it as optional as
>possible.
>
> I wonder if that's a reasonable goal for Linux; I propose that it
>is, because if it is to compete with well-known GUIfied OSes, it ought to
>be at least as good at this feature than they are. This will help get it
>more market share, meaning that it will get more app support.
Dunno about that. However, ideally it shouldn't matter.
MacOS, for example, uses ':' as a pathname delimiter (DOS and
Windows use '\', more or less; Unix uses '/') but no one cares. :-)
But I'm not sure I'd want to explicitly hide anything.
The Amiga was fairly successful, until Commodore died; it was a
hybrid, being both a graphical and a command-line system, somewhat
like Linux today.
I'd say that a Unix system with a well-crafted GUI would do very well.
I hope MacOSX has the performance (I dunno; I'm not a Mac user).
But, again, I wouldn't want to hide anything. That's so ... so ...
Microsoftish. :-)
If a user wants the GUI, he should be able to get a usable GUI.
If he wants CLI (side note: CLIs are not what they used to be,
although the mods aren't quite as visible -- but '<TAB>' command
and file completion didn't exist in the 80's).
>--
>Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
>My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:25:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:32:56 GMT <8doekn$14k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "boat_goat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snip]
>> How big do you think the installed base for NT4 actually is?
>
>According to Microsoft's own statistics, they own 73% of the server
>market with cumulative sales in the tens of billions. If you don't want
>to do the math, you can order any of several reports from IDC that
>include the annual unit volume figures. Sales of a million units
>(licenses) is diminutive even by Microsoft's own standards.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
I find the 73% a little hard to swallow, given Apache's dominance
of the Web server market. Granted, there are other types of
servers out there (file servers, mostly).
I simply don't know. But I doubt it. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
From: dakota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 06:27:06 -0700
I must say, it's been so long since I've
>actually had to install WindowsNT, I wonder if I remember
how...<?>
It's really not hard. But Openlinux and Redhat are MUCH, MUCH
easier (you don't have to reboot to convert partition
tables,upgrade buggy apps, etc. in Linux.)
>And your grand ole opinion isn't biased? Yeah _right_.
It could be...
My opinion isn't biased against Microsoft, in fact I use it on a
multi-boot workstation at home and at work. In a corporate
envioronment however, I'm not going to sink thousands of dollars
into an OS that is an endless sea of buffer overruns, security
flaws, etc. Obviously, that is a quality control problem inside
Microsoft that needs to be addressed. It wouldn't be so bad if
you didn't have to rely on pay-per-incident support so much.
>: type commands into, go to start and run and type in command).
>
>This condescending remark was uncalled for.
I couldn't help it.
>: I like SCO Openserver, NetWare, and SVR4.2 because of their
>: stability and virtually non-existent downtime, those things
must
>I rather think you like those environments because they are
>non-Microsoft, and for no other reason.
No, being non-microsoft has nothing to do with it, that's just
what I prefer.
>SCO Openserver is not only completely cryptic in design, but
it's
>also incredibly lousy at VMM. As for SVR4.2, which UNIX flavor
>are you referring to there?
And NT/Win9x registries aren't cryptic? True, SCO is very
cryptic, but I would choose it any day over NT because of its
stability. I believe I was referring to Unixware when I said
SVR. I'll be replacing that server soon with an NT box (its only
doing small tasks like FTP, telnet, etc. shouldn't be a big deal
for NT.)
>Netware isn't even worth commenting on.
Netware has always kicked NT's ass in the print/file server
area. Netware 5's web services aren't too bad either (harder to
use than IIS though.) I've seen netware servers that have went
more than 1 year without requiring a reboot. On the other hand,
with NT you have to reboot almost ever time you install
something and anytime that you change a network setting
(unacceptable in a production setting).
>: >P.S. DOS it not the best OS, it has hardly any programs and
>: >is hard to use.
>
>You can get a look at the "scarce" amount of applications for
DOS
>at http://www.simtelnet.net/.
>
>: MS-DOS was the last good thing that Microsoft ever did and
>
>Odd that you would say that, considering your apparent dislike
>for them.
>
>: that's not saying much (DR-DOS was much better). Although it
>
>One word... EMM386... under DR-DOS, it sucks planetary bodies
>through garden hoses.
EMM386 sucked the big one, but DRDOS also did multi-tasking.
On a side-note, I haven't had enough time to get a good opinion
of FreeBSD but I like what I see so far.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 09:37:27 -0400
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>We weren't talking specifically about Netscape. Even so, Netscape dropped
>the ball by allowing their code base to become such a mess that it required
>a complete rewrite (and 3 years) to achieve. They couldn't keep up
>technically. They couldn't support the latest W3C standards, and they had
>hit a brick wall in terms of performance and stability.
>
Netscape also screwed up by letting twentysomething Marc Andreessen go
out and shoot his young mouth off about how Microsoft was finished
because the browser was the new OS and Windows was just a set of
device drivers. Instead of letting the giant sleep, Marc decided to
whack it with a baseball bat repeatedly.
>>
>> Actually, I did answer the question, but you snipped my answer
>> from your reply. MS used their monopoly power to kill Netscape
>> because it exposed non-Windows API's that developers could use
>> to make programs that would be at least easier to port to other
>> operating systems or even possibly would be independent of the
>> OS.
>
>So your argument was that Navigator was a competitor to Windows itself, and
>not just the browser market, correct?
>
>If that's the case, then the argument that the browser is a unique product
>seperate from the OS cannot be supported. Since the browser is an OS in
>itself if you are to be believed. That means that Integrating IE into the
>OS wasn't anti-competitive, since The browser is the OS itself.
>
Excellent point.
>>
>> Personally, I doubt that either Netscape or Microsoft pioneered
>> any monopolistic practice. Be that as it may, surely you realize
>> that there is more to being a monopoly than just market share.
>> If just having 90% of the market were enough to earn a company a
>> monopoly, then the DOJ wouldn't have had to work so hard to
>> prove that MS has a monopoly on desktop operating systems. What
>> power did netscape have to punish OEM's or consumers who didn't
>> choose Navigator? The very fact that IE 1, 2, and 3 were able
>> enter the market and compete shows what a hollow "monopoly"
>> Navigator had. If, as you claim, IE won on technical merit, that
>> also shows that there was real competition in the browser market
>> and thus Navigator did not have a monopoly.
>
>Well, let's use the same logic, except let's apply it to Microsoft.
>
>The very fact that Linux is able to enter the market and compete shows what
>a hollow "monopoly" Microsoft has.
>
>See the fault in your logic?
>
Yep, it's the fatal flaw of "negative advocacy". When you're that
concerned with slapping every possible negative label on someone, it
won't be long before you start making claims that make no sense. Let's
see now. Microsoft's prices are both predatory and monopolistic
simultaneously. Microsoft enjoys an impenetrable monopoly, yet is
powerless against "Tux The Terminator". Microsoft's products are only
popular because OEMs can't afford not to provide them (that's my
personal favorite).
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:43:21 GMT
Brian Langenberger wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jerry Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : I feel Gnome + Enlightment will consume more system resource than KDE,
> : so I choose KDE.
> : However, the default window manager in Red Hat 6.0 is Gnome.
>
> I'm sure the responses to this will be numerous...
>
> Gnome is not a window manager, Gnome is a whole desktop environment
> like KDE. Enlightenment is a window manager, and a resource hog, and
> is being replaced by Sawfish (formerly Sawmill) AFAIK. Sawfish takes
> a lot less resources and is a lot more customizable than Enlightenment.
>
> In either case, I don't think "better" is well enough defined to
> judge KDE or Gnome on the window manager alone.
I agree.
How about this? I think the issue has been addressed before,
but i think KDE and Gnome/Enlightenment already look a lot
alike, and they generally work the same way too. Maybe these
two groups should try and merge their GUI's to create one,
hopefully superior, GUI for Linux.
That, however, still leaves the question as whether you want
a choice in GUI's for your desktop, or one standardized
desktop. I think the latter should be the case so developers
can concentrate on developing applications for that GUI.
I think we, and i mean the entire Linux community, should
try to eliminate redundancy in development as much as
possible to be able to concentrate on creating an even more
powerful OS for everyone. I think standardization is the key
in this matter! Standardized GUI's and other API's would
make it possible for commercial software companies to create
powerful applications which run on *any* Linux-distribution,
and not just KDE or Gnome!
Does anybody else have an opinion on this?
--
% make fire
Don't know how to make fire
% Why not?
No match
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 15:52:57 +0200
Man... its time to implement some kind of NetNanny or whatever on
newsgroups.
SeaDragon wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:39:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Runs on more hardware (IBM mainframes, Dec Alphas-64bit, apple hardware,
> >Sun hardware...)
>
> Buying an IBM or an Alpha to run Linux is about as smart as buying
> a Porsche to drive around in first gear.
Linux runs "better" on those machines than their Unices.. thats why they
ported and install it
> >MS is limited to Intel x86 -- MacOS to apple.
>
> Incorrect.
>
> If you want to talk about hardware vendor support, Microsoft has _many_
> more hardware vendors supporting it, and you have _much_ more choice in
> choosing a vendor for an MS system than you do for a Linux system. There
> are literally thousands of PC clone vendors, who support Microsoft. A
> tiny portion of them support Linux.
Hmmm... my PC does not support Windows or Linux or Minix - i yet i have run
them all and still run Linux on this one.
> Linux runs on more _architectures_ than Windows, but that is irrelevant:
> people are interested in what more vendors offer solutions, and clearly,
> Windows users have a _much_ bigger choice for hardware vendor.
Bahhh.... these days its hard to find hardware that cant run with Linux.. i
havent found any yet.. (OK.. i havent tryed USB devices but they are not
even popular with Windows here)
> Don't like Intel? Then support a vendor who sells AMD, Cyrix, IDT, Rise,
> or one of the multitude of the IA-32 clones available.
OK.. Intel x86 clones.... Great argument
> >Stable command structure (minimal retraining every time a new version is
> >released).
>
> 1. A new Windows version is not released frequently. It appears that the
> flagship version is released every four years, and this does not warrant
> frequent expensive retraining as you suggest.
Nonsens.. you should have some end-user contact with Windows users... and
write the same thing again :-)
> 2. Linux commands, especially with respect to administrative tools,
> vary drastically from version-to-version, and especially from
> Linux distribution-to-distribution.
Give me a few examples
> 3. The documentation for this "stable command structure" is less than
> stable and wildly out-dated in some cases. On more than one occasion
> I have followed instructions in what were purported to be up-to-date
> HOWTO files on up-to-date distributions, and have been greeted with
> all kinds of errors since the tools have changed since the HOWTO was
> written (two or three weeks ago).
Hmm.... I find that some of the HOWTO's are lousy and should never have
been publicised.... i have allways managed to do well by reading the
manual and the HOWTO's
> 4. Linux training locks you into Linux; I have met many a person
> who learned Linux and was mystified when using a Sun or HP machine
> (so moving from Unix flavor to Linux to Unix flavor costs mega-bucks
> in retraining).
You have never used other Unices... the differences are basiclly the
options you can give a given command.. Everybody else agrees that the GNU
version (and its not a Linux version) are superior in quality and
functionality.
> >Runs the most common Internet apps (sendmail, Apache...).
>
> Yes - sendmail - the application which singlehandedly brought down
> the internet in 1987. A program which I REALLY want running on
> my servers. I am so jealous...
Hmmm... sad for you but your home servers are probably in contact with
sendmail servers since it dominates the Internet..... actually Mail is
runned by sendmail and qmail.
> >Proven remote management.
>
> Proven to suck. When you disconnect from your remote session, and
> then reconnect to it, does Linux even bring you back to your previous
> session or does it restart, losing your old work? It does the latter,
> even though almost every OS built since 1970 (including Windows) does the
> former. Another example of Linux slipping further and further behind the
> technology curve.
Give me an example that Windows does that and ill give you an example of
the opposite.
> >Large number of file systems supported.
>
> Ah yes. Exactly which filesystem do you need to read on Windows that
> you can't? This would improve your daily productivity in what way?
> Do you really find that sneakernet is faster than 1 GB ethernet?
Dit you talk about servers previously?? What does 1GB ethernet have to do
with filesystems honey?
> >Multiple User interfaces, you can pick the on
> >the fits YOUR needs. Can run with OUT a GUI to save resources.
>
> Ah, yes. Today everybody is running 1 BIPS machines with 1 GB RAM,
> and you are concerned about the entire 1 MIPS and 2 MB RAM of overhead
> that the GUI costs? Come back and play when you solve the more
> fundamental speedpaths in Linux (like using a textfile for large
> databases), which Windows solved about 10 years ago.
LOL .... maybe we two together should visit tucows and find some textbased
databases for Windows :-)
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...)
Date: 21 Apr 2000 13:54:28 GMT
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: [...]
: When one steps back, and takes a good hard look at this whole .advocacy
: thing, it really is quite ridiculous. I bitch and moan about MacOS, or
: Solaris, Drestin and others voice complaints about Linux, others complain
: about Microsoft or Windows, etc. But the only thing that counts is
: getting work done.
: [...]
The idea that computers are for getting work done is kind of an outdated
notion, isn't it? I understand that they are still used for work too, but
the amount of computer uptime consumed in pure recreation continues to
grow. Home computers and home internet access yield a strange mix: a
little work, a little more education, and a lot more recreation.
Given that computers are increasingly a consumer product, doesn't
arbitrary choice in flavor follow naturally?
: [...]
: I think it's silly that some people use an operating system just to "get
: away from Microsoft" or other such nonsense. Use of an operating system
: should be dictated by one's tasks, tastes, and lifestyle, and not the
: other way around. Any other reasoning beyond that is simply mental
: illness, AFAIC.
: [...]
I suppose the need to "get away from [whatever]" is already an end result
of "one's tasks, tastes, and lifestyle."
"tastes" is a wonderful catch-all. I may say that I want to get away from
[whatever] simply becuase I've been using [whatever] for for ten years and
am getting bored. It may just be a change in taste.
John
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
