Linux-Advocacy Digest #316, Volume #26 Sun, 30 Apr 00 08:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000 (Cihl)
Re: Advocay off the Net. (David Steinberg)
Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition! ("Mark Weaver")
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" (Full Name)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 03:42:53 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux.corel,alt.linux,alt.fan.linux,sbay.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,alt.os.linux.best
Subject: Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel
"ROSAPHILIA -->> cuz NYC Could BE BETTER!!" wrote:
> this is not a joke post.
It's Steve again. Steve, we know it's you. Don't give it up though,
man. :-)
- Donn
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 08:49:20 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Linux doesn't need to support museum pieces to be a 'serious
> contender'. It's absurd to claim otherwise. ISA is on it's
> deathbed.
It does if it wants to gain a place in the market out there. Sure, we'd all
love to dump ISA, but there are still enough h/w out there that uses it.
> You could take the $90 you wouldn't spend on the next M$ OS
> upgrade and update your hardware. Then, you don't have to
> worry about the OS cleaning up after the hardware as the
> hardware would be genuinely PNP to begin with.
Like I said, I got it to work. That's cheaper that $90 (or £40) in my book.
>>Ah yes. So I don't run X. What's the alternative? The multiple consoles
>
> I SAID KDE YOU LYING MORON, not X.
Temper, temper. So I lumped X with KDE. I tried Gnome as well. I could try
others but they have less and less features. I might just as well as use
the console with some of them.
Yes, I realise pretty much anything will run on any desktop, but that's not
it is it? If I can't see it on the desktop, and I have to go hunting for it
through a console, then bang goes the ease of use factor, no?
> There is more than enough going on outside of KDE, even with
> most if not all of the frills available, that you should never
> have to touch KDE. Plus, you don't have to run 'the whole damn
> thing' at once.
Yes you do. I left command prompts behind a long time ago. Yes, I still use
them, but I avoid them if I can. It's the ol' "ease of use" thing again,
something that UNIX in general with its cryptic command line never offered.
And now others continue the error: Lothar for example. What does the name
Lothar mean? I've never heard that name (in the UK). Some kind of sidekick
to Mandrake. Translates well to other cultures, right!
>>> Sure it is. You're just skewing the comparison so the the results
>>> reflect your personal agenda rather than reality.
>>
>>Oh yes it's faster if you consider just the command line on its own.
>>But
>
> I reiterate my calling you a LYING MORON.
>
> I think I'll upgrade that to : YOU ARE A LYING SACK OF SHIT!
Ah, the resort of the simple minded. Gratuitous insults. YAWN! You'll never
win any arguments that way. You're just convincing me that you're another
Linux Drone who's convinced that what he has is 'good enough' and doesn't
need improvement. Then wonders why Linux stays in the background and never
realises the potential it deserves.
Incidentally, I'm not lying. It (KDE) does run slower than Windows 98 SE on
the same system. Or are you seriously suggesting I try one of the lesser
Window managers and try to compare it (with the lack of features) to
Windows?
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 08:51:25 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote in
<8edjsj$god$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>KDE is a large system. If you have enough RAM, CPU speed, and an
>efficient video card you may like it. Otherwise you might want
>a minimalist window manager like blackbox. One choice you have
>with X that you don't with MS Windows is to run the program on
>one box and the display on another to take advantage of both
>machine's equipment.
KDE gets to be close to what Windows offers but it needs a bigger system to
run it, that's my whole point which others appear to be missing.
As for X being able to run on other machines, that's not terrible useful
when you have a network of just one machine (or the other more powerful
machine is running Windows 98 SE!).
Pete
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 09:14:18 GMT
Jim Ross wrote:
> Judging from cross platform software like Mozilla and AbiWord, the Linux
> environment seems
> to slow things down (lack of mature thread support, less advanced 2D/3D
> video drivers/servers),
> lack quality fonts (smaller selection of TrueType fonts, lack of
> anti-aliasing support, etc).
>
> Therefore these limitations seem to make it even more difficult to write a
> good web browser for Linux.
> There are many reasons for this (a good reason is the desktop was only
> recently made a priority if Linux/Unix land).
As of yet, this is painfully true indeed.
Thread support in Linux has been just fine for 6 months or so,
though. The biggest problems lie in speed and user-friendliness.
These two problems have, however, recently been addressed with
the advent of XFree86 4.0, which is still not to be considered
stable enough for distributing.
I heard, though not experienced, that the adding of
(Truetype-)fonts is much easier than before.
Also, the X-system (finally) gets a hook into the kernel (DRI),
which improves speed -dramatically-. This would finally make
high-bandwidth DV a possibility, as well as high-performance
gaming.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Advocay off the Net.
Date: 30 Apr 2000 09:30:58 GMT
Matthew J Zukowski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I wonder what will breaking up microsoft accomplish? It's already clear
: that the seperate departments don't talk to each other, We'll just have
: two seperate companies with the same goal in mind.
I think I must have missed something. When and how was it made clear
that the separate departments don't talk to each other?
--
David Steinberg -o) In a world without walls
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \ and fences, who needs
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v Windows and Gates?
------------------------------
From: "Mark Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition!
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 11:17:08 GMT
You guys don't get it.
Why does MS Office have a > 90% marketshare on Win32 (and Mac) when there
are several other office suites available that would do virtually everything
anyone needed to do and are cheaper, to boot?
You know the answer, of course--because > 90% of everybody else is using
Office(standardization, path-dependency, VHS-Beta, etc, etc). Why do you
suppose this would not apply if/when Linux starts to replace Windows 9.x as
the pre-installed OS of choice?
I think Linux would be better off if MS ignored it for another five years
and gave the Linux-based office suites, desktop-environments, and
web-browsers a chance to evolve separately. Here--those of you who detest
MS and its products ought to like this analogy:
Think of Linux as, say, Australia--an environment in which various kinds of
strange and interesting beasts are evolving (wallabies, duck-billed
platypuses, etc) and think of the introduction of MS Office into the Linux
market as being like the introduction of the rabbit to Australia (or,
perhaps, the brown-tree-snake to Guam).
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 11:51:04 GMT
On 2 Apr 2000 17:47:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>
>It means it does, or that you have a separate domain controller for each
>subnet if youd like to have domain controller functionality there.
>
>More money for microsoft.
>
>Not that youd really know, not having a job in the field and all.
>
I have a single domain spanning three subnets. Two of these subnets
are at remote sites kilometres away from the central subnet and are
connected via ISDN lines.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
