Linux-Advocacy Digest #323, Volume #26 Mon, 1 May 00 09:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Who to blame next... (Truckasaurus)
Re: Linux to destroy Microsoft. ("Boris")
Re: Factory pre-installed Linux. (Danny C.)
Re: Factory pre-installed Linux. (Full Name)
Re: Who to blame next... ("Paul Bary")
Re: Government to break up Microsoft ("Nathan S. Grey")
Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat (Truckasaurus)
Re: Government to break up Microsoft ("Nathan S. Grey")
Re: Who to blame next... ("RCS")
Re: Who to blame next... (Terry Porter)
Are we equal? (unicat)
Re: Factory pre-installed Linux. (Full Name)
Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat ("Nathan S. Grey")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 07:42:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> YOU:"...oh, so I'm lying through my teeth..."
That's very different from "You lying moron" or "you lying sack of shit".
> Some of us can throw enough frills on our desktop to bring your
> museum piece to a grinding halt (whether it's running Windows,
> Linux or Mebbe even Be) quite independent of KDE or Gnome.
KDE appears to me to be the closest thing to what Windows 98 SE offers. It
runs slower on my aging machine compared to Windows. Now, in both cases,
this is the "out-of-the-box" Windows 98 SE (with no extra applications) and
the same with Linux Mandrake.
Take away some of the "frills" and KDE starts to have less and less
features than Windows. Everything starts to head back to the command
prompt, and ease of use starts to disappear.
My point is that KDE needs the frills to get where Windows is now but runs
slower.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 07:44:49 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> That's your rather vexing LIE.
>
> It does NOT infact require KDE to replace the functionality of
> Windows. One can do so in Linux with a 32M 486 quite effectively.
Then please explain how without KDE, or maybe X, you can get drag and drop,
simple text editors, control panel etc.? Surely you must use the command
prompt for everything?
>>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!).
>
> There are plenty of X servers for Win32.
Again, not terribly useful when your machine is just one. I've only
recently got a network, and it's still not installed as I need to move one
of the machines.
Pete
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who to blame next...
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 08:17:36 GMT
In article <Du8P4.3672$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's say that a year from now MS has been broken up, and Linux is
still a
> standardless hodge-podge of sundry apps and distributions with
> marginal driver and application support. Without the evil empire
(Microsoft)
> to blame for Linux's lack of appeal on the Desktop, who or what
> will be blamed next? I'll be curious to see how it all unfolds....
Standardless? As in 'no standards at all'? You have to justify that
claim, and you have to justify that it is a problem (AFAIK GNOME and KDE
maintain some degree of interoperability, for example).
'Sundry apps', 'distributions with marginal driver and application
support' ? Please broaden my horizon by specifying wvat you mean by
these terms. The problem isn't that there are 'sundry apps' but that
there is _nothing_but_ 'sundry apps'. Initiatives such as Corels, are
likely to change that (already have changed that in some cases).
Furthermore, I'd like to know what you mean by 'marginal' support.
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to destroy Microsoft.
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 02:06:27 -0700
> Without the GNU, Linux would be reduced to practically nothing. Awarding a
> prize to Linus Torwald, not to Richard Stallman the founder of the FSF, is
> principally the same as Microsoft taking the credit for inventing the GUI
> and other technologies. You can put your hat back now....
And you can use GNU tools on NT or Win9x. I used flex and bison on NT several years
ago.
They were better than commercially available MKS tools.
Boris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Danny C.)
Subject: Re: Factory pre-installed Linux.
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 10:10:55 GMT
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:46:42 GMT, JEDIDIAH spewed:
>On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:40:04 CEST, Pim van Riezen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snipped]
>>Easier to use, easier to diagnose when something actually _goes_ wrong and
>>sure as hell both less ugly to look at.
>
> How is this easier to use than something that displays all information
> where it is clearly visible? The only real difference is that it might
> be a little prettier than what Redhat or Caldera does.
The poin is that the end-user specified (ie, a person with little experience
with Linux or computers in general) shouldn't have to see the kernel messages
unless something goes wrong. If everything is peachy, then he doesn't have to
see it, if not, then he has the debug info right in front of him, ready for a
tech support call or what have you.
$.02
Danny
--
If at first you don't succeed,
give up, no use being a damn fool.
Save the whales. Collect the whole
set.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Subject: Re: Factory pre-installed Linux.
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 10:27:36 GMT
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 08:25:19 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Here is a list of "pre-configured" apps that must be setup and ready to
>function:
>
>Applix or StarOffice (Depending on the kind of deal you can get)
>Netscape, of course. With Shockwave and RealAudio
>KDE and/or Gnome (I prefer KDE)
>AcrobatReader
>Java
>Modem setup and configured.
>PPP dialup ready to go with modem and dhcp.
>Sound card setup and configured.
>Video setup and configured.
>Optional network, setup and configured.
>
If Win98 came with none of the above installed many users would be
able to install and configure the system for themselves. If they
couldn't it's very likely they'd know a friend or relative who could.
If Linux arrived with none of the above all but the experts would be
able set up and configure the system.
It may surprise you guys but millions of people every day get great
pleasure from the products made by Microsoft. My brother-in-law and
his three children spend hours of trouble free operation playing games
and browsing the net on their Win98 PC. My nephew performed the
upgrade from 95 to 98 without even telling me. One of his friends
installed and configured Voodoo || card without my assistance. Sure
they have the odd problem. But they very rarely contact me to assist
with these even though all of them are (or were) complete novices.
All problems they do ask me about are invariable to do with some third
party game that won't install properly.
Same deal with my sister and her 13 yr old daughter. I upgraded her
machine last week and I specifically asked her if she ever experienced
any problems with Win95. The only ones she mentioned were *all* net
related (unexpected modem disconnects and sites unavailable). She
even installed a new printer and mouse (with it's own driver). This
from a person who touched a PC for the first time less than six months
ago.
An ex-girlfriend bought a Win95 box, printer and modem. She
configured the printer and got herself on the net with only one phone
call to me. The only problems she has reported were a dodgy power
supply (which was replaced through the warranty). She managed to
compose her masters' thesis in psychology and now has a job with the
government. All this without Linux.
Just the thought of pushing any of these people toward Linux is
laughable.
Microsoft has made these things possible. Bill Gates knows this and,
deep down, you sad bunch of embittered individuals know this as well.
Gates brought computing to the masses. The reason why I describe you
as embittered is because this group is more about bashing Microsoft
than it is about advocating Linux.
I've installed Linux. I have it installed on my PC right now. I
installed it for the first time more than four years ago. Its GUI is
a cobbled together piece of trash that only the nerdiest of computer
nerds would put up with.
I'm afraid you people live in a rather small world of your own.
------------------------------
From: "Paul Bary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who to blame next...
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 04:44:57 -0600
Standardless: Examples...Try installing an application on several different
distro's and you will get widely
varying results based on kernel version, library version and included
libraries. No common installation
routine or package management routine.
Marginal Support: Example...No support for my Orb drive, Intel video camera
(at least that I can find, and IF it exists I doubt it would be a fully
functional as my included Windows software), widely varying results
on installation with even a common sound card such as the basic Ensoniq PCI.
As to apps...no Quicken
equivalent...a show stopper for me.
I use Linux periodically, and actually enjoy fiddling with it. I do find it
amusing however that advocates seem
to always blame Linux's narrow market penetration on the desktop on external
forces rather than some of
it's more obvious (at least to me) shortcomings.
Paul
"Truckasaurus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ejeir$g0u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Du8P4.3672$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Let's say that a year from now MS has been broken up, and Linux is
> still a
> > standardless hodge-podge of sundry apps and distributions with
> > marginal driver and application support. Without the evil empire
> (Microsoft)
> > to blame for Linux's lack of appeal on the Desktop, who or what
> > will be blamed next? I'll be curious to see how it all unfolds....
>
> Standardless? As in 'no standards at all'? You have to justify that
> claim, and you have to justify that it is a problem (AFAIK GNOME and KDE
> maintain some degree of interoperability, for example).
> 'Sundry apps', 'distributions with marginal driver and application
> support' ? Please broaden my horizon by specifying wvat you mean by
> these terms. The problem isn't that there are 'sundry apps' but that
> there is _nothing_but_ 'sundry apps'. Initiatives such as Corels, are
> likely to change that (already have changed that in some cases).
> Furthermore, I'd like to know what you mean by 'marginal' support.
>
> --
> "It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
> times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
> -- K. Waterbury, CA
> Martin A. Boegelund.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Nathan S. Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 06:00:56 -0600
Otto wrote:
> "JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >Many, meaning 90+% of the desktop users. Your case doesn't fall under
> that,
> > >nor does mine. Welcome to the world of minorities...
> > >For most people the Windows is a better desktop OS.
> >
> > This rather assumes the great lie that the vast majority of any of that
> > 90% ever had the opportunity to choose freely.
>
> And your statement is the great lie, assumes that the wast majority of the
> people was forced to buy the Windows platform. Let me just set the record
> straight, nobody is forced to buy any computer with Windows. People do have
> a choice and they can choose freely. They can shop around and explore
> different options. Most of them don't even bother with it, others do and
> still end up buying Windows PCs. Some of them will switch to Apple, or any
> other platforms. The opportunities are there, always had been. Even for that
> 90+%.
>
> >
> > Windows is a mediocre desktop OS. It's immediate predecessor just
> > happened to become dominant due to market intertia.
>
> Or rather it was the "others" inability to gain wide spread acceptance. They
> didn't recognize that quality in itself doesn't make the product successful.
> Usability and price does on the other hand, the "good enough" platform won.
> If quality would be the sole criteria for buying a product, then everybody
> would drive $100K cars.
>
> Otto
low price and usability? Windows flunks both of those criteria
I rate MacOS the most usability (argue all you want, but remember, there are
people who buy macs because the mouse only has one button)
and Linux cost a heckuvalot less than Win98se
Windows is about mediocrity, it's not particularly easy to use, it's not free,
it's not of any decent level of quality. It's just been hyped and marketed, the
american equivilent of shoving it down people's throats. OEMs were threatened
if they offered a system without windows preinstalled that cost less than the
same machine without windows. Windows "good enough" hardley, i prefer to USE my
computer, not babysit it for the 25th crash that day. Would you consider a
hammer that broke everytime you hit a nail with it to be "good enough"? Poor
quality is poor quality, the only thing M$ can do is market (ie. lie to
consumers). There are lemon laws that, if I bought a car that broke down as
often as windows crashes, I could get my money back.
Besides, the average american consumer is a sheep, he/she buy what everyone
else is buying, pathetic but true.
-NateGrey
"Never underestimate the awesome power of human stupidity." - Lazarus Long
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 12:03:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"boat_goat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Truckasaurus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ebs4f$h7l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Investment is not a core competence of IBM; they produce hardware
and
> > software. Concluding that a non-investment company is selling shares
> > because they are bad papers is simply wishful thinking on your
behalf.
> >
> When IBM made the investment, it was widely reported that the
investment
> meant that IBM was going to support Linux and adopt some form of it
as an
> OS platform on their servers and/or workstations. Dropping the
investment
> is indicative of the opposite.
"Widely reported" == "IBM policy"?
I think not:
http://www-4.ibm.com/software/is/mp/linux/
"IBM is committed to supporting your choice of platform and operating
systems -- a commitment we're extending to the support of Linux™, the
open-source operating system."
By the way; can anyone tell me if IBM has any MS shares?
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Nathan S. Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 06:21:54 -0600
btolder wrote:
> "JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > That's not quite the same thing. Adding a 3D API or a TCP stack
> > is a far different matter. These are shared facilities that don't
> > tend to eliminate the need for 3rd party application products.
> > They also tend to conform to a less disputed definition of Operating
> > System.
>
> HTML controls are shared components too. Everyone platform has or is adding
> them, just as every platform is busy improving internet integration.
>
> > Thus the differnce between when Microsoft 'assimilated' Stacker
> > technology versus when they 'assimilated' Netscape technology.
>
> Netscape technology? Don't you mean Internet technology? Is nobody allowed
> to implement Internet on Win32 except Netscape?
Considering that the founders of Netscape were the people who created the
first graphical w3 browser, Netscape technology would be an accurate
decription. And for your information, there was an internet before there was
the world wide web, the two are not the same thing. And just in case you also
believe that Al Gore invented the internet, B/S, the guy is a technologically
incompetent luser. The internet predates his political career.
-NateGrey
------------------------------
From: "RCS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who to blame next...
Date: Mon, 1 May 2000 14:17:28 +0200
Linux is today about 9 years old.
Microsoft started in 1975, and if you count DOS as the beginning of Windows
(to compare it with Linux) then Windows itself was about 9 years old in
1984. In 1984, what was the status of drivers, applications, etc for
Windows?
Lets talk about support for drivers, applications and database support for
Linux when it too has reached the same age as Windows is today.
I know, things happens at an accellerated rate, which means a year of
development today is more than it was 15 years ago, but still, give Linux
some (equivalent) opportunity and time to prove itself before showing it
down the toilet!
Given the broad and consistent forgiving attitude of users and ISV's towards
the flakey and buggy (not to mention late) start and earlier versions of
Windows, I'm not impressed with the massive support of this operative
system.
I'm on the other hand VERY impressed by the current status of Linux, after
only 9 years of development by voluntary effort. VERY impressed!
RCS
Paul Bary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:XdeP4.25$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Standardless: Examples...Try installing an application on several
different
> distro's and you will get widely
> varying results based on kernel version, library version and included
> libraries. No common installation
> routine or package management routine.
>
> Marginal Support: Example...No support for my Orb drive, Intel video
camera
> (at least that I can find, and IF it exists I doubt it would be a fully
> functional as my included Windows software), widely varying results
> on installation with even a common sound card such as the basic Ensoniq
PCI.
> As to apps...no Quicken
> equivalent...a show stopper for me.
>
> I use Linux periodically, and actually enjoy fiddling with it. I do find
it
> amusing however that advocates seem
> to always blame Linux's narrow market penetration on the desktop on
external
> forces rather than some of
> it's more obvious (at least to me) shortcomings.
>
> Paul
> "Truckasaurus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ejeir$g0u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <Du8P4.3672$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Let's say that a year from now MS has been broken up, and Linux is
> > still a
> > > standardless hodge-podge of sundry apps and distributions with
> > > marginal driver and application support. Without the evil empire
> > (Microsoft)
> > > to blame for Linux's lack of appeal on the Desktop, who or what
> > > will be blamed next? I'll be curious to see how it all unfolds....
> >
> > Standardless? As in 'no standards at all'? You have to justify that
> > claim, and you have to justify that it is a problem (AFAIK GNOME and KDE
> > maintain some degree of interoperability, for example).
> > 'Sundry apps', 'distributions with marginal driver and application
> > support' ? Please broaden my horizon by specifying wvat you mean by
> > these terms. The problem isn't that there are 'sundry apps' but that
> > there is _nothing_but_ 'sundry apps'. Initiatives such as Corels, are
> > likely to change that (already have changed that in some cases).
> > Furthermore, I'd like to know what you mean by 'marginal' support.
> >
> > --
> > "It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
> > times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
> > -- K. Waterbury, CA
> > Martin A. Boegelund.
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Who to blame next...
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 1 May 2000 20:36:37 +0800
On Sun, 30 Apr 2000 23:12:44 -0600, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Let's say that a year from now MS has been broken up, and Linux is still a
>standardless hodge-podge of sundry apps and distributions with
>marginal driver and application support. Without the evil empire (Microsoft)
>to blame for Linux's lack of appeal on the Desktop, who or what
>will be blamed next? I'll be curious to see how it all unfolds....
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>
Sadly your argument falters badly in its first three lines, due to your
innacuracy and emotional terms.
Futhermore, no one is blaming Microsoft around here. Linux has great desktop
appeal, if you dont see that, its *your* problem.
Things will continue as usual in the Linux area, and Microsoft will continue to
sell expensive, proprietrary os's, that lack the features Linux has had for
several years now.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 3 days 11 hours 50 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: unicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.conspiracy,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,talk.politics
Subject: Are we equal?
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 08:44:36 -0400
Some people have noted a gross disparity in the treatment of
individuals by the Justice Department.
As an example, Mr. Bill Gates, who has already been found guilty
of crimes which have caused billions of dollars in damage to his
competitors, and is now merely awaiting sentencing, is allowed to
come and go at his leisure in chauffered limousines.
Then there is Elian Gonzales, an innocent little boy, whose only crime
is being born hispanic, and he is considered so dangerous that he must
be
arrested by heavily armed members of Reno's Sturmgewehr.
Is this justice? Is there any hope of equak treatment under the law.
If there were, then this is what we would see next -
http://etherzone.com/terr050100.html
Remember, a vote for Clinton/Gore is a vote for a
totalitarian police state!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Subject: Re: Factory pre-installed Linux.
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 12:41:25 GMT
On Mon, 01 May 2000 10:27:36 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name) wrote:
>
>If Linux arrived with none of the above all but the experts would be
>able set up and configure the system.
>
The above should read "unable" instead of "able".
------------------------------
From: "Nathan S. Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat
Date: Mon, 01 May 2000 06:48:52 -0600
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
oh do shut up you ignorant twit
-NateGrey
AI, the last refuge for those who can't code a decent text editor
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
