Linux-Advocacy Digest #210, Volume #26 Fri, 21 Apr 00 17:13:12 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. ("boat_goat")
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Christopher Browne)
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: which OS is best? (Craig Kelley)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Craig Kelley)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (The Cat)
Re: Unix is dead? (Jack Lovell)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Matthias Warkus)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Brian Langenberger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "boat_goat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:52:50 -0400
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:38:22 GMT, billwg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8dnehk$thi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> I wouldn't be suprised if by the end of the summer, we were actually
> >> looking at Linux on retail shelves. Even Microsoft has hinted at
> >> Microsoft Office for Linux. Once the remedy portion of the hearing
> >> is established, I wouldn't be suprised if OEMs and Software vendors
> >> started very agrressively backing Linux.
> >>
> >> If the remedies are reasonable (Giving FTC authority to regulate
> >> and mediate Microsoft contract practices), the Supreme Court will
> >> uphold the verdict and the FTC will relax controls as Linux captures
> >> 30-50% of the desktop market. When Linux establishes a sufficient
> >> share of the market that Microsoft can say it's no longer a monopoly,
> >> the FTC won't need to regulate Microsoft because the OEMs will be
> >> able to choose how much of a balance of each OS they want to sell
> >> and market based on the terms Microsoft gives them.
> >>
> >
> >I think that this is an incredibly optimistic view of things. The retail
> >buyer is looking for games, internet, on-line banking, education, and
> >work-at-home compatibility, generally in that order, based on motivation
> >surveys that I have seen. Linux can deliver most of that, but doesn't
> >really have a message that differentiates it all that much from Windows.
>
> Sure it does. Infact, PenguinComputing has some banner ads that
> explicitly hark upon this point. They are animations of a crash
> test dummy running a WinTel PC or an iMac and crashing into the
> screen with the caption "Tired of Crashing?".
>
I liked the "good evening, Mr. Gates..." one better than the dummy, but do
you think that this is enough of a campaign to get people's attention? They
don't seem to be running the banner themselves, just inviting others to run
it for them for free. They'd get more views if they paid to run it on
Netcenter or Yahoo.
And do you think that "crashing" is really enough of an issue? Netscape 6
is getting a lot of attention because you can download a bunch of different
"skins" for the buttons and menus and personalize it. I think that Linux is
going to have to do something like that to get noticed and, in turn, asked
for by the consumers. Nobody that I know has such a problem with Windows
"crashes" that they feel compelled to go out and get something different.
And everybody who knows what Linux even is knows that it's got a problem
with games and no good applications in general. Until somebody makes it do
something that people actually want to pay for or at least go to the trouble
to download, it's not going to move very well.
> [deletia]
>
> Mind you, they could likely avoid such a situation by having run
> NT but, MICROSOFT ISN'T PUSHING NT FOR THE MERE MASSES. MS insists
> on shoveling their Frankenstien-DOS at the bulk of consumers.
>
They're selling Win9x to OEMs for about $50, I think, and I remember seeing
claims that Win2K Pro, that could replace Win98, is about $80 to OEMs. OEMs
seem to charge about $100 extra for Win2K where it's an option, so I would
think that the OEMs would push it to get the $70 profit.
> Then, there's that whole notion of $0 vs. $300.
>
How much do you think that the OEMs will pass along to the buyer? If they
don't keep some of the savings to themselves, they could lower the price for
a Linux box by the $50 or so that they now pay for Windows. But that's only
10% on even a $500 computer and less on a more expensive one. People are
used to bigger discounts than that, particularly if they think that they're
getting a cheaper model.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:35:40 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Bobby D. Bryant would say:
>Jerry Wong 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 like peanut butter better than ice cream, and anyone who disagrees
>with me is a fool with dubious morals.
The problem is that you can eat both peanut butter and ice cream. That
draws too near parallels for the present example.
a) GNOME _isn't_ a window manager, and the fact that Jerry Wong indicated
"Gnome + Enlightenment" suggests that he really should know better than
to claim that "the default window manager in Red Hat 6.0 is Gnome."
b) Enlightenment is _most definitely_ a "RAM pig." _By design._
The point of it was for Rasterman to implement some Really k001
graphical hacks, and those features do, indeed, consume considerable
megs of RAM.
Blaming GNOME for Enlightenment being a RAM pig is _dishonest._
I think it's fairly dumb that the GNOME people don't do something to
more clearly disassociate their software from Enlightenment. The
above claim, that represents "GNOME is bloated because Enlightenment is
a pig," is proving to be one of the of the more common anti-GNOME
"bashes."
--
Actually, typing random strings in the Finder does the equivalent of
filename completion. (Discussion in comp.os.linux.misc on the
intuitiveness of commands: file completion vs. the Mac Finder.)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:55:04 GMT
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:52:50 -0400, boat_goat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 02:38:22 GMT, billwg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:8dnehk$thi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[deletia]
>> >I think that this is an incredibly optimistic view of things. The retail
>> >buyer is looking for games, internet, on-line banking, education, and
>> >work-at-home compatibility, generally in that order, based on motivation
>> >surveys that I have seen. Linux can deliver most of that, but doesn't
>> >really have a message that differentiates it all that much from Windows.
>>
>> Sure it does. Infact, PenguinComputing has some banner ads that
>> explicitly hark upon this point. They are animations of a crash
>> test dummy running a WinTel PC or an iMac and crashing into the
>> screen with the caption "Tired of Crashing?".
>>
>
>I liked the "good evening, Mr. Gates..." one better than the dummy, but do
>you think that this is enough of a campaign to get people's attention? They
Like any ad, they've got to put it in the right places. However,
that doesn't alter the fact that when nearly anyone is discussing
the potential benefits of Linux that 'not losing data' or 'not
crashing' is at the head of the list.
NT isn't getting pushed onto enough 'consumer' desktops. This is
both a disservice to the end user that has to put up with CP/M '98
and can serve to undermine (deservedly) Microsoft's reputation.
Each day that DOS remains alive inside of Win9x is an opportunity
for competitors.
>don't seem to be running the banner themselves, just inviting others to run
>it for them for free. They'd get more views if they paid to run it on
>Netcenter or Yahoo.
>
>And do you think that "crashing" is really enough of an issue? Netscape 6
Yup. Some people do REAL WORK with their WinDOS machines.
>is getting a lot of attention because you can download a bunch of different
>"skins" for the buttons and menus and personalize it. I think that Linux is
>going to have to do something like that to get noticed and, in turn, asked
Linux has been leading the way in such facilities actually. On a
Unix, the themeability of Mozilla is just a side effect of the
GUI toolkit in use.
>for by the consumers. Nobody that I know has such a problem with Windows
>"crashes" that they feel compelled to go out and get something different.
The percieved barriers to buying something else have always posed
a daunting challenge to end users. This is the root cause of most
of the Microsoft success.
>And everybody who knows what Linux even is knows that it's got a problem
>with games and no good applications in general. Until somebody makes it do
Any OS !DOS has problems with not being able to exploit every object
that sits on a shelf in a CompUSA. Whether or not that is a real issue
is a very personal question that is far too often not represented as
such.
>something that people actually want to pay for or at least go to the trouble
>to download, it's not going to move very well.
[deletia]
All Apple had to do was hire the right ad agency.
--
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.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Apr 2000 14:09:59 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 16:02:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
> wrote:
>
> > There's NO reason to consult a single manpage for the installation
>
> Yes, there is if you want to do some pretty common things, which is
> what I'm talking about. NFS sharing, SMB sharing, both as client and
> server, require extensive MAN page reading.
As a point of order, both SMB and NFS can be configured with the
graphical linuxconf tool. People who use linuxconf are best advised
to not touch their configuration files otherwise, but those that
manually edit files probably know what they're doing anyway...
There is certainly no *need* to consult a man page to use these tools.
> > of Redhat 6.2 (or even Piglet). Infact, if you don't care about the
> > data on a machine, the install is a one button process.
>
> It's a bit more complicated than that. Sure, on many OSs the
> button-press to kick off the install is a one button process, but to
> get to that point takes a bit of time, and to configure it also takes
> quite a bit of time.
>
> It's much, much better than it once was!
Amen.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Apr 2000 13:58:41 -0600
Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip about sawfish "replacing" enlightenment for GNOME]
> I think that's a fair enough assessment of Enlightenment.
> Under Gnome it's a desktop environment functioning under another
> desktop environment. But enlightenment.org still refers to it as
> a window manager and there's little else written for Enlightenment
> specifically (except, perhaps, for eterm and the ESD). Everything
> else is advancing at a glacial pace. It's hard not to think of
> it as a window manager with an identity crisis compared to the
> much more advanced work of Gnome and KDE.
>
> There's still room for improvement, I suppose. Perhaps the
> next version will be quick-footed and feature-rich.
> But when I look at how large it is and how many dependancies
> it has compared to what it actually offers, I can't help
> but think it the victim of poor design.
I'm using Enlightenment-DR16.3 right now on a P5/200MMX with 96MB of
RAM (Matrox Millenium II video card). I have transparent window
movement, pager scanning and transparent Eterms without any noticable
slowdown at all. I really like both GNOME and KDE, and have written
many programs with GNOME; but I suppose I am a die-hard UNIX fanatic.
I like X11. I like window managers better than "desktop
environments". I don't care to drag icons to my "desktop" because I
realize that a desktop is just a folder. I don't care to have My
Computer abstracted to the point of Windows.
That said, I *love* bonobo and most of the GNOME technologies.
Gnome-Print looks incredible. Evolution show a lot of promise.
However, I'll find a way to live without having an iconized shortcut
to $HOME on my "desktop"; I'll have to hobble along running
xscreensaver myself.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 20:34:54 GMT
I like the look and feel of Gnome applications over kde counterparts,
but I have found that kde seems to be more stable. Add to that the
fact that I can run the Gnome applications under kde anyway (Mandrake
7.x) I tend to use kde.
It's pretty fast on a 450mhz with 128mb.
TheCat
On 21 Apr 2000 13:58:41 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [snip about sawfish "replacing" enlightenment for GNOME]
>
>> I think that's a fair enough assessment of Enlightenment.
>> Under Gnome it's a desktop environment functioning under another
>> desktop environment. But enlightenment.org still refers to it as
>> a window manager and there's little else written for Enlightenment
>> specifically (except, perhaps, for eterm and the ESD). Everything
>> else is advancing at a glacial pace. It's hard not to think of
>> it as a window manager with an identity crisis compared to the
>> much more advanced work of Gnome and KDE.
>>
>> There's still room for improvement, I suppose. Perhaps the
>> next version will be quick-footed and feature-rich.
>> But when I look at how large it is and how many dependancies
>> it has compared to what it actually offers, I can't help
>> but think it the victim of poor design.
>
>I'm using Enlightenment-DR16.3 right now on a P5/200MMX with 96MB of
>RAM (Matrox Millenium II video card). I have transparent window
>movement, pager scanning and transparent Eterms without any noticable
>slowdown at all. I really like both GNOME and KDE, and have written
>many programs with GNOME; but I suppose I am a die-hard UNIX fanatic.
>I like X11. I like window managers better than "desktop
>environments". I don't care to drag icons to my "desktop" because I
>realize that a desktop is just a folder. I don't care to have My
>Computer abstracted to the point of Windows.
>
>That said, I *love* bonobo and most of the GNOME technologies.
>Gnome-Print looks incredible. Evolution show a lot of promise.
>However, I'll find a way to live without having an iconized shortcut
>to $HOME on my "desktop"; I'll have to hobble along running
>xscreensaver myself.
"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
------------------------------
From: Jack Lovell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unix is dead?
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 21:38:15 +0100
On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 11:26:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote on Thu, 20 Apr 2000 03:54:48 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>I keep hearing "Unix is dead or will die soon."
>>What can replace it?
>>Linux?
>>Linux is Unix.
snip...................................
>However, it would also appear that Unix is about to reinvent itself,
>if it hasn't already (Solaris, for example, can run on some very
>impressive hardware -- 64 hot-swappable CPUs? Wow!), and Linux of
>course is applying the squeeze at the low end (hard to beat free!).
snip again............................
>QNX is still out there.
>
>Mach is out there, somewhere.
>
>MacOS is out there.
Yes, and when MacOSX finally arrives it will represent an even bigger
threat to M$ because many of the so-called killer apps have already
been written for it.
Just imagine, a GUI with really intuitive functionality sitting right
on top of pure Unix. Almost too good to be true, but the crazy thing
is that the Mac fraternity are crying into their beer and predicting
the end of life as we know it.
Jack
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 22:25:40 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Fri, 21 Apr 2000 16:05:20 GMT...
...and Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Don't know that I was claiming THAT much. But then, I'm a TeX user.
>
> How much TeX must you learn (syntax and structures) before being able
> to start using it for making documents?
Pretty much nothing. You can retype the preamble from a good book or
cut-and-paste it from somewhere; other than that, you just need to
know that paragraphs must be separated with blank lines and that some
characters need to be escaped.
mawa
--
Easy Girl Had Sex On Tuesday Afternoon; Did Not Use Protection:
"Before You Know, It's Wednesday", She Says
Film at 11
------------------------------
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 21:03:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
: I'm using Enlightenment-DR16.3 right now on a P5/200MMX with 96MB of
: RAM (Matrox Millenium II video card). I have transparent window
: movement, pager scanning and transparent Eterms without any noticable
: slowdown at all. I really like both GNOME and KDE, and have written
: many programs with GNOME; but I suppose I am a die-hard UNIX fanatic.
: I like X11. I like window managers better than "desktop
: environments". I don't care to drag icons to my "desktop" because I
: realize that a desktop is just a folder. I don't care to have My
: Computer abstracted to the point of Windows.
: That said, I *love* bonobo and most of the GNOME technologies.
: Gnome-Print looks incredible. Evolution show a lot of promise.
: However, I'll find a way to live without having an iconized shortcut
: to $HOME on my "desktop"; I'll have to hobble along running
: xscreensaver myself.
I think Enlightenment prefers a fast video card in particular.
On my i686/300Mhz (128 MB RAM) Enlightenment ran a fair bit slower
than FVWM under my preferred settings (opaque window movement,
point to focus, 16bpp display) - both without GNOME. Switching
to Sawfish, I was back to FVWM-caliber speeds. But more important
than speed, to me, was the customizability. I just sat down for
20-30 minutes window managing away and when a mouse button didn't
do what my brain thought it should, I popped open a window and
re-assigned it.
I don't care for desktop environments much, myself. My typical
display is filled with traditional non-transparent xterms and
GNU Emacs windows and that's the way I prefer it. Perhaps
I'm just a creature of habit, but I have no desire to click
on applications to open them, or drag little icons around my
desktop; simply typing the name of the program I want to run
seems so much faster and intuitive. Perhaps that's another
reason I never cared for Enlightenment - I just want a better
FVWM.
In any case, it's rather nice that X allows such a range of
taste across so many systems. Being able to have the
argument at all is a triumph of the protocol.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
