Linux-Advocacy Digest #334, Volume #26 Tue, 2 May 00 06:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000 ("Jim Ross")
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("Josh Auger")
Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000 ("Jim Ross")
Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000 ("Jim Ross")
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: which OS is best? (Adams Klaus-Georg)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (Geoff Lane)
Re: MS caught breaking web sites (Chris Hedley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 02:39:43 -0400
Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was the Sun, 30 Apr 2000 03:05:48 -0400...
> ...and Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [FUD and lies]
> > The Gnome browser Express is poor (does it even attempt to render a
> > table???).
>
> Express has died a looong time ago. You should go and checkout
> Nautilus' built-in Web browser.
Actually I'd rather see an official release.
I haven't seen it advertised anywhere that Express devel was stopped.
>
> [FUD and lies]
I know this doesn't refer to me.
I stick to the obvious.
It's clear to me current versions of Opera, Express, Amaya, etc aren't
world-class web browsers.
Mozilla isn't ready at this point. Using it feels like slow death under
Linux. The Windows version is somewhat better.
There is less choice is Windows-land, but it does give nice fonts, clean
feel, and a nice streamlined environment.
There's no technical reason why Linux can't be like that. Instead I feel
Linux as a desktop environment has sucked.
Jim
>
> mawa
> --
> Everybody lies about sex. IT'S IN THE MANUAL.
> -- unintentional juxtaposition in George Lin's follow-up of Adam
> Hill's posting. RTFM before fibbing, I guess.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: 2 May 2000 01:44:34 -0500
In article <eqpu1m$s$GA.321@cpmsnbbsa04>, <btolder> wrote:
>
>"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8ekf9a$1180
>
>> It isn't like the car market. No one vendor in the car market can
>> dictate what the major retailers must bundle by threatening to
>> withold or raise the price on a critical component.
>
>Bad example. Car manufacturers provide tremendous incentives to the
>dealerships that sell the most product. The biggest or most aggressive
>dealerships will get the first crack at new/desirable models and withold
>product that the smaller dealers would like to have (but can't get).
I thought the MS contracts did not deal with absolute volume but
the fact that windows had to be included with every sale. The
obvious early target would have been Novell since machines purchased
as Netware servers had no use for Windows.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Josh Auger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 06:54:51 GMT
While Linux users are in the minority of general PC users, I have found
them to be slightly more competent than your run of the mill windows users,
so while you make some valid points let me also show you the flaws in your
thinking. . .
===== Original Message =====
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2000 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
> Not trying to assume anything, but if YOU go to any computer club,
> strike up a chat at Compusa, strike up at chat at any trade show,
> Computer show, ham fest etc, it will be YOU that is in the minority
> and YOU that will spend countless time explaining Linux and what it is
> about.
Oh good for me, that would involve me showing these users how much more
flexible linux is as compared to windows in a standard and networked
environment.
If they flash the compatibility issues by me then I always have
the ability to state that with linux you actually can run
windows programs under linux, becasue there are several emulators availiable
ex. Wine, VMWare. . .
>
> It will be YOUR kids that will have to go in circles trying to find
> software that conforms to their college standards. It will be YOUR
> kids that will have to explain Linux to all of the other kids as well
> as teachers in their school that will most likely be running Windows.
I find this to be unlikely because a lot of college campuses run unix
variants as well as windows. So your statement about not being able to find
software that would conform to class standards is absolute FUD. However if
that is the case most linux users have the know how in windows anyways
because a) either they switched or b) they use linux / windows in a
homogeneous type networking environment ( much like I do)
>
>
> So if YOU wish to run Linux, that is great but understand that YOU are
> in a small, very small in fact, minority that are excersising their
> choice in operating systems. If YOU are willing to assume all of the
> ablve, both plus and minus, that's great.
This statement is just pure ignorance...
>
> I prefer to ignore the os and get some work done that conforms to
> accepted standards, meaning what everyone else is using.
I completely agree with this but this can only really be done by the
application developers at their levels, with their decisions to port
software to alternate platforms. NOT by having one single sole OS and a
single API.
My .02 cents
Josh Auger
MDA Technologies
www.mda-tech.com
>
>
> On Tue, 02 May 2000 03:21:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> <<Snippage>>
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 02:56:10 -0400
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 1 May 2000 01:00:13 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> >Now if anti-aliasing support gets done I'll be very happy.
> >Even with TrueType fonts, without anti-aliasing, fonts look jagged.
> >
> >I know I'm being picky on this, but it would make Linux+X look much more
> >professional,
> >especially when viewing a presentation were the first slide usually
contains
> >a large font and a picture.
> >Everyone notices I'm sure, if not understanding why it looks bad.
>
> a) You can get similar results with Type 1 fonts.
Not out of the box and not without tinkering.
Quality fonts out of the box is a must for a quality desktop system.
I don't want to de-uglify my system, I want decent fonts after install.
This is absolutionly critical and having KDE 2.0, Gnome 2.0, Corel Office
2000, etc
won't get Linux a desktop market share over 4% until fonts don't sux out of
the box.
I really have my doubts without anti-aliasing support you can get great
looking fonts at small and large font sizes even with TrueType fonts.
It doesn't help that popular fonts like Times New Roman look very bad out of
the box.
(Current anti-aliasing is in some limited apps like Gimp I believe and it is
a hack)
> b) You can make TT fonts jaggy as hell depending on what
> particular transform is onscreen at that particular
> moment (even under Win32).
Under conditions I use them, fonts look silky smooth under Windows all the
time.
Even as I attended the Linux Business Expo at Comdex in Chicago a couple
weeks ago,
a XFree86 developer/presenter was pointing out the poor large fonts in his
presentation and
explained how XFree86 lacked anti-aliasing support. Before that I had been
thinking the same thing
in every presentation under Linux+X that I saw for days straight.
Bad looking fonts (for whatever reason they are caused) in presentations
cheapen Linux as a useable system.
I'm sure it does not impress interested Windows users, even though they have
no clue why the fonts look bad.
I would be swayed by a screenshot using a few different apps under Linux+X
where you say you
have good looking fonts using Type 1 fonts. I'm thinking about font sizes
of 8pt, 48pt, & 72pt.
In Word I can tell you my fonts look smooth. Doing the same
in Staroffice will make bad looking fonts at those sizes.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 02:56:38 -0400
Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > I know I'm being picky on this, but it would make Linux+X look much more
> > professional,
> > especially when viewing a presentation were the first slide usually
contains
> > a large font and a picture.
> > Everyone notices I'm sure, if not understanding why it looks bad.
>
> I may be wrong, but it looks to me as if the industry standard,
> Powerpoint, doesn't use antialiased fonts, presumably for the sake of
> speed. If you _must_ have antialiased fonts, try using pdf/acroread,
> or perhaps Ovation, for your presentation.
>
> --
> Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax
+44-1223-336644
> University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2
3EJ
Thanks, Jim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: 2 May 2000 01:51:47 -0500
In article <OnnwO0$s$GA.269@cpmsnbbsa04>, <btolder> wrote:
>
>In 1995 Windows offered three clicks onto the Internet out of the box and
>ran on cheap hardware. Having both in 1995 was the magic. Meanwhile, we see
>Linux advocates with sigs such as "Looking for sane PPP docs?..." Doesn't
>that give you the slightest clue that something is screwed up? In other
>words, Linux today can't even make something like PPP braindead
>simple--which Microsoft achieved in 1995.
Microsoft's size allowed it to force everyone else to make their
PPP equipment match up with the non-standard MS version of PPP.
While this might appear simple from the windows user side it
was a nightmare for anyone with dialup hardware in 1994. And
most Linux distributions have fill-in-the-form dialogs to set
up the connections too (and they are fully capable of running
both ends of the connections).
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: 2 May 2000 02:00:21 -0500
In article <efrP4.75623$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >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.
>>
>> Forced is perhaps too strong a word. You could buy parts and assemble
>> them yourself if you wanted to avoid paying for pre-installed
>> windows from a brand name vendor.
>
>And if the "brand name vendor" isn't willing to sell the PC without Windows
>who would you blame?
Microsoft, of course, for using the threat of witholding product
or overpricing it to you compared to your competition unless
their demands were met.
>> But people have chosen not to accept the bundled MS package
>> and were unable to get a refund.
>
>From who?
Neither the retailer nor Microsoft have honored refunds.
>> >Usability and price does on the other hand, the "good enough" platform
>won.
>>
>> Really? Is the current investigation about usability and price?
>
>You tell me.....
Everything I've seen has been about anti-competitive business
practices.
>That just shows how much money is involved. Is Microsoft at fault
>for that business practice? Yes, but no more responsible than the OEMs are.
>The contracts were signed by both parties.
But the OEM's weren't abusing a monopoly status - the hardware business
is pretty competitive.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 01:05:07 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> However, to believe for a moment that Linux could replace, or even
> co-exist with Windows in the home environment is a pipe dream fantasy
> of the Linux zealots.
Well, you're right about the "co-exist" part. My home environment is
completely Windows free.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
Reply-To: <btolder>
From: <btolder>
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 01:30:07 -0700
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8eltu3$8do$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <OnnwO0$s$GA.269@cpmsnbbsa04>, <btolder> wrote:
> >
> >In 1995 Windows offered three clicks onto the Internet out of the box and
> >ran on cheap hardware. Having both in 1995 was the magic. Meanwhile, we
see
> >Linux advocates with sigs such as "Looking for sane PPP docs?..." Doesn't
> >that give you the slightest clue that something is screwed up? In other
> >words, Linux today can't even make something like PPP braindead
> >simple--which Microsoft achieved in 1995.
>
> Microsoft's size allowed it to force everyone else to make their
> PPP equipment match up with the non-standard MS version of PPP.
> While this might appear simple from the windows user side it
> was a nightmare for anyone with dialup hardware in 1994. And
> most Linux distributions have fill-in-the-form dialogs to set
> up the connections too (and they are fully capable of running
> both ends of the connections).
Non-standard version of PPP? In 1997 there were no fewer than 10 proposals
for PPP compression on the table. How could there be a standard? Compression
was a vital part of making the internet experience tolerable very early on.
Had Microsoft not driven a stake in the ground for PPP and compression,
consumers would have had to suffer with compromised connect speeds.
I think Microsoft assumed a leadership position for PPP.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 09:19:08 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name) writes:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
>All my family and friends use Win95/98 without problem. I guess they
>are lucky to have someone around who is good with computers...
Who would that be?
Bernie
--
Experience is not what happens to a man; it is what a man does with
what happens to him.
Aldous Huxley
English novelist, 1894-1963
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 09:19:09 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Anyway how is a home network with internet connection sharing, printer
>sharing, scanner sharing and firewall set up easily under Linux?
>Answer; it isn't.
OK, here is another question: Why didn't Win98 include the "find computer"
program when it installed on my laptop? It's a real pain --- instead of
simply copying back and forth from the Samba exported filesystems of my
linux boxes, I have to use the (sickening) ftp client or put the files
up on my linux box's http server, and use IE to download them.
Bernie
--
As a woman, I find it very embarrassing to be in a meeting
and realize I'm the only one in the room with balls
Rita Mae Brown
------------------------------
From: Adams Klaus-Georg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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?
Date: 02 May 2000 13:09:21 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On 28 Apr 2000 21:58:05 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
> wrote:
>
> >>>This is correct, I was going to install GS/GV for windows, but never got
> >>>around to it, it was simply easier to ps2pdf the file on the linux machine,
> >>>and print from the windows box via acrobat, annoying, far from "integrated"
> >>>and slow, but it worked.
> >>> It just boggles the mind that win9X doesn't know what to do with a postscript
> >>>file...
> >>
> >>Why would it? It's not as if I (or most users) routinely run across
> >>raw .ps files.
> >
> >Errr... Lots of people have raw .ps files. The reason you don't is
> >that Microsoft would have had to share some of their wealth with
> >another company and follow published standards to include the tools
> >for you.
>
> Sorry; I don't see the point of it. If I need to print something, I'm
> perfectly willing to re-send it thru the driver, have it re-rasterize,
> and then sent to the print device.
...assuming you have the application which can read the what you want
to print. If I sent you a latex file, you most probably would have a
lot of trouble to get it to print. Same thing if you sent me a word
document (I don't have Word, and don't want it).
--
MfG, Klaus-Georg Adams
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff Lane)
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 10:28:41 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Not trying to assume anything, but if YOU go to any computer club,
> strike up a chat at Compusa, strike up at chat at any trade show,
> Computer show, ham fest etc, it will be YOU that is in the minority
> and YOU that will spend countless time explaining Linux and what it is
> about.
A huge generalisation, but I suspect that the kids that know Linux/Unix will
be able to pick up the basics of Win-whatever in an hour or two. Maybe a
few more hours for the apps (but then in the real world the app <> the OS.)
> It will be YOUR kids that will have to go in circles trying to find
> software that conforms to their college standards. It will be YOUR
> kids that will have to explain Linux to all of the other kids as well
> as teachers in their school that will most likely be running Windows.
You never know, they may actually pursuade people that Linux is _better_ for
a particular job.
The ideal personal computer system has yet to appear. All we know at the
moment is the current systems suck. The only way to discover the best is
try the rest.
--
/\ Geoff. Lane. /\ Manchester Computing /\ Manchester /\ M13 9PL /\ England /\
Starkle Starkle Little Twink What the hell you are I think?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Hedley)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: 2 May 2000 09:59:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My mom still calls the whole case the CPU, I can't convince her that the CPU is
> just the chip.
The term CPU often refers to the enclosure in which the actual processor
complex(es) reside; the chip, OTOH, is more properly referred to as a
microprocessor or logic array (depending on the system involved.) Many
people think otherwise, however, which is what I believe is referred to
as "small computer thinking." :)
Chris.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
