Linux-Advocacy Digest #510, Volume #26 Mon, 15 May 00 06:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Jim Richardson)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (ajn)
Re: Linux Advocacy - Linux vs Windows 2000 vs Be vs OS/2 ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (J French)
Re: You people are full of shit.... (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (javelina)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux (Martin)
Re: Here is the solution ("Edwin")
Re: Linux Advocacy - Linux vs Windows 2000 vs Be vs OS/2 (2:1)
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux Advocacy - Linux vs Windows 2000 vs Be vs OS/2 (2:1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 23:44:42 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 13 May 2000 05:47:28 GMT,
Bloody Viking, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Linux can't go bankrupt.
>
>: Linux will never be drawn into an anti monopolistic lawsuit with the
>: Federal Government, or any other Government.
>
>: Linux will never be mis-trusted by the public.
>
>: Linux will be around when Bill Gates dies.
>
>: Linux will be around when Microsoft has long been forgotten and copies
>: of
>: NT are in the Smithsonian on display!
>
>: Linux will most likely outlast several of the worlds governments.
>
>: While it's name might not continue to be Linux, through the centuries it
>: will travel,
>: it will always be with mankind.
>
>: Linux is like a statue which has traveled through time.
>
>: Linux is like the human race - as long as there is love it will be
>: there.
>
>: In a strange way, Linux is like the pyramids in the respect that it will
>: be
>: with mankind for several centuries.
>
>I found the above funny. One thing computer-wise that Linux can't do to my
>knowledge is config a mouse driver for lefty operation. I could be wrong.
>If I'm wrong, it's no problem as I leave the mouse config alone and leave
>it righty while I use it lefty. I do it that way for righty-compliance. I
>would sooner add a toggle switch to a mouse than fuck with a mouse driver
>config.
>
No sweat, in gnome, use the control panel, in KDE, I think the control panel
will do this. In plain X, I am not sure, but I suspect that the XF86Config
file will have something to do with this. Under gpm, I don't know.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ajn)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: 15 May 2000 07:14:11 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Another thing, what can make Linux even more confusing to the average home user?? SIX
>DIFFERENT LINUX's!!!! Whats up with all the distributions?? That to me is
>ridiculous and
>will soley keep Linux out of the running for a decent market share in the OS
>industry. Way
>too confusing!
This is linux's killer feature: FREEDOM.
No corporate fat cat standing over you, saying "this is the way you must work,
this is the software you must use, pay your yearly upgrade fee now or become
outdated!"
It means that if you already know something about computers, you can get the
Debian distribution, but if you'd like to live on the edge with XFree 4.0 and
Reiser FS (for example) you can go and download Mandrake 7.1.
Anyway, who cares about market share; if linux has to become more like windows
to be mainstream, then let's question why we want to be mainstream at all.
>Also, I am deathly afraid of upgrading my RedHat 6.0 to 6.2 for fear of losing much
>information and for the time and effort that will have to go into it. I also do not
>know of
>a way to backup the entire system. It is no problem backing up Windows. There are
>many
>utilities writtten to do it. Are there any with Linux? Microsoft makes it as
>painless as
>possible to upgrade. Is it easy to upgrade Linux?
Backing up is trivial - linux has a unix heritage, and unix has been used in
mission-critical applications for decades now. Using tar (and optionally gzip
or bzip2) would be one approach. rtfm.
Upgrading is also trivial, but keeping up with distro release numbers is no
reason to mess with a system. If you need to upgrade a package, upgrade the
package and don't screw with the rest, but don't upgrade indiscriminantly
just because some company that makes money selling OS's and upgrades just
decided to try and drum up more business (and that applies to all platforms).
(Upgrades can be handled easily using your distro's package manager, or by
getting the source code and running the makefile.)
I still laugh at some of my friends who upgraded from win95 to win98se and
discovered that (a) they got no new features that they actually used,
(b) they got a less stable system which rarely gets past a weeks uptime,
and often goes comatose if left idle overnight (c) they had basically paid
to have the splash screen number increased by 3.
ajn
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Advocacy - Linux vs Windows 2000 vs Be vs OS/2
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 01:05:00 -0500
Brad Wardell wrote:
> Pros:
I forgot to mention two important ones:
* Low maintenance. Configure it like you want it, and it *stays* configured
until you have a hardware problem or decide on an upgrade. (And the upgrades
are driven by your own schedule; you can almost always postpone an upgrade
until new features come out that make the upgrade worth your trouble.)
* But it also supports the converse of the above: for those who wish it, it is
very "play-with-able". If you are a hobbyist or incurable tinkerer, there's
always some new configuration to try, something under the hood that you have
never explored, some new utility to download, etc.
Ironically, Linux offers both ends of the spectrum: rock-solid maintenance
free, and delve-in screw-up-what-you-please. The only difference is your style
of managing the system.
Also:
* Frequent, flexible updates. If you discover something that's broken, you
will almost always find out that someone else has already discovered it and a
fix is available ("dejanews is your friend"). No waiting around for that next
Service Pack. And you can pick and chose what updates you actually load, so
don't get the problems of having to back off a Service Pack because it fixed
two things and broke three others.
Finally:
* With much of the open source software associated with Linux, you can
*participate*. That means everything from sending in a patch, to sending a
suggestion directly to a product's chief maintainer, to listening in on a
developer's list to see what's coming up and how decisions about features are
made. This may be of more value to the hobbyist than to the "Joe User", but it
is of high value to some of us.
* Closely related to the above, you don't have to get your information (and
mis-information) as it comes filtered through someone's marketing department.
If you hear about something nifty and want to know whether it's vapourware or
nearly-there-ware, you can almost always find the code and try it out, or just
listen in on the developers' discussions if you aren't ready to jump in yet.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J French)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 07:45:36 GMT
On Fri, 12 May 2000 21:09:48 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Quoting J French from alt.destroy.microsoft; Fri, 12 May 2000 09:33:24
>GMT
>>On Thu, 11 May 2000 21:13:42 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
> [...]
>>Ok - to be honest - Microsoft did not invent the floppy - actually now
>>I remember 8" disks, 5.25" disks - Oh Yes the PC 160kb single sided
>>floppy. Do you remember the Sirius multi-speed disk ?
>
>Damn right they didn't. They weren't in any way instrumental in causing
>the adoption of the 3.5" disk on the PC platform, either, as it appears
>you may be trying to indicate.
>
No I am not trying to indicate that.
>>>>However it was the IBM PC that set the standard - not Microsoft - they
>>>>just implemented software on a standard machine.
>>>
>>>Then why did you say that Microsoft was a positive influence?
>>
>>Because they and Lotus (a rip off of Visicalc) ported languages and
>>software to the IBM PC which meant that people could get things up and
>>running in *hours*.
>
>Microsoft didn't port any of their existing products to the IBM PC,
>AFAIK. I guess I could be wrong with BASIC, but that is hardly support
>for your point; BASIC is so ubiquitous, I wouldn't that think it could
>be considered.
You most certainly are wrong about Basic
>
>Lotus, likewise, didn't "port" software to the PC; they wrote software
>for the PC, and didn't exist before 1-2-3, as far as I am aware.
>
>>If you look at DOWS 1.0 it was virtually CP/M compatible at the
>>interrupt level.
>
>That's because Bill was running a scam. DOS 1.0 *was* CP/M, with
>slightly modified shell utilities. How is buying code pathetically
>cheap from someone because they don't know you're going to "muss it up"
>a little and then sell licenses (without selling the code to begin
>with!) for millions upon millions of dollars a "positive influence"?
>
Well I thought that MSDOS came from Seattle System's QDOS (Quick &
Dirty O/S) - even so MSDOS *was* a standard - prior to that it was a
nightmare.
> [...]
>>>Alas, the horrible technical monstrosity of Win32 from a knowledgable user's
>>>standpoint is one of the few bad things that Microsoft has done which will
>>>never be considered a crime. I don't understand the "vertical split with
>>>initially identical source code" idea, nor why it keeps cropping up.
>>>
>>Yes well - just think about it.
>>Tip: 2 programmers working in separate room on 2 parts of an app.
>> or 2 programmers working in different rooms on the same app
>> + 1 public deciding which one gets a paycheck this month
>
>You seem to be saying "obviously, a market without competition results
>in crappy software." This confuses me, as it always does when
>technically knowledgeable people are willing to "concede that Microsoft
>isn't very ethical", but can't seem to work up the gumption to admit
>that Microsoft has acted illegally and has done great harm to their
>customers, their partners, and the PC industry and market as a whole.
>
I really do not care that much about Microsoft acting illegally and
screwing people. I am much more concerned with the TECHNICAL aspect
and finding a solution to the problem.
>>>That bugs me. Most of the time when people make the same mistake over and
>>>over again, I can pretty easily deconstruct the underlying flaw in their
>>>thinking, the conceptual pitfall which catches the unaware. But in this case,
>>>I have to admit that I am stumped.
>>
>>Yeah - so whats new
>
>The fact that I'm stumped, like I said. Usually I can understand
>people's thought processes much more easily. Its what I do.
>
>[For those who might see a distasteful amount of arrogance in that
>statement, especially those who find my sometimes formal and stilted
>manner of writing to be annoying, I apologize. I assure you that I am
>well aware that it is just about all I am talented in doing. But I do
>do that well. Its also why I often get very precise in word choice
>issues, and tend to use words like "ubiquitous" more than the average;
>using the right word for the right concept is critical if you're going
>to try to troubleshoot people's technical understanding and
>comprehension.]
>
>>>Where *does* this idea come from? Why is it so easily considered a "good
>>>idea", and the OS/apps split not?
>>
>>OS/apps split is fine - it is just not enough
>
>Agreed, but a horizontal split and behavioral controls are just about
>all we can expect to see, as anything more grievous or intrusive would
>have an uphill battle in both appeal and execution.
Which only goes to show that the guys at the controls do not
understand the problem.
In my opinion Microsoft are screwing up the Operating System - Windows
is too complicated - too 'integrated' - too 'un-layered'
>
>--
>T. Max Devlin
>Manager of Research & Educational Services
>Managed Services
>ELTRAX Technology Services Group
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 09:56:38 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: You people are full of shit....
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I use Windows 98se everyday running a graphics workshop business and I
> never get BSOD's nor do I seem to have all of the troubles you Linux
> nuts seem to have.
>
>
Read about some troubles at alt.windows98
--
==============
The following signature was created automatically under Linux:
.
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too
dark to read.
------------------------------
From: javelina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 08:06:27 GMT
Timberwoof wrote:
>Boy, that's brill... If I were in charge of that facility,
>I'd change that MS employee's job description to include
>writing training manuals and training his replacements, who
>will be enlisted soldiers. If things get bad, who do you
>think will be on the first plane back to Redmund,
>leaving the "intelligemnce" center dead in the water?
Standard procedure for a high-tech military organization.
Look at how many civilian technicians ship out on the
Navy's aircraft carriers every year.
When I was stationed in Berlin in the 80s, we had civilian
techs who were the admins for our mainframe systems.
I believe that they received hazardous pay, or something
similar to that.
Besides, with your average soldier only in for 4 years,
of which anywhere from 3 to 18 months is training, that
doesn't leave a lot of time for them to be useful to you.
If you were to further train them as admins, by the time
you're done training them, they're shipping out. Unless
you were to offer the training, in exchange for an
extended tour of duty. Who knows, maybe that'd be a good
way to keep some of them in longer? Offer them an MCSE
if they extend their tour. As incentive, they know they'll
be marketable when they do get out.
The vast majority of soldiers only stay in for 4 years.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 05:24:03 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
How can X Windows die if you can't play Quake III Arena, Heretic and
Unreal tournament without the GUI? Sure you can play Quake on a TTY,
but how many people would rather see text as graphics?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin )
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: Mon, 15 May 00 09:02:31 GMT
In article <c1hS4.367$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Cihl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Lord Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
>01bfba8b$bd437b40$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Technically Solaris is more advanced especially in
>> features for working on very large systems -- ones with dozens of
>processors
>> or even clusters of ones with dozens of processors. It "scales" much
>better
..
>> --
>> Williams
>>
>
>Did anybody ever say that Solaris is not as good as Linux? A Solaris system
>will always do the job just fine! But...
>
>Solaris is also *MUCH* more expensive than Linux for businesses or
>otherwise. It's very expensive, as far as purchasing and licensing are
>concerned, as well as for personnel salaries. :-)
>
These days, Solaris is no more expensive than a recognized commercial
distribution of Linux. Sun have dropped the price to less than $100 for an
unlimited site licence for commercial use on systems with up to 8 processors.
OK, you can get perfectly usable Linux distributions for a fraction of this,
but you have to agree that $100 more or less is not a consideration for
commercial organizations (actually, it should not be significant for most
hobby users either).
Solaris certainly is a bit more picky about hardware and you cannot be sure
about being able to run it on some ultra low-end machine built out of odds and
ends which will probably run Linux ok. However, we bought a generic
Celeron-based machine for about £500 that runs it fine, so you certainly don't
have to sell your soul to support it!
Martin
------------------------------
From: "Edwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 04:31:20 -0500
Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fnsje$9ru$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message <8ffc7n$3g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Todd wrote:
> >> >
[snip]
> ---
>
> So, my original challenge is really this -- show me an undocumented API
call
> that would allow MS to bring an application (specify application type)
ahead
> of their competition.
Todd, there have been several books written on undocumented Windows APIs.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764545698/o/qid=958382065/sr=8-1/ref
=aps_sr_b_1_1/002-6013324-5287463
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879304375/qid=958382231/sr=1-2/002-6
013324-5287463
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/9992742585/qid=958382231/sr=1-3/002-6
013324-5287463
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201608340/qid=958382231/sr=1-4/002-6
013324-5287463
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471064831/qid=958382231/sr=1-5/002-6
013324-5287463
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565296575/qid=958382231/sr=1-6/002-6
013324-5287463
Microsoft has offered to document all of their APIs as part of the
settlement of their anti-trust case.
> I personally subscribe to MSDN... and that package gives a developer more
> than they need to develop very high level applications.
But not the secret stuff that MS uses for itself.
[snip]
> Anyway, if you've read this far, hopefully you see my point -- anybody
> should be able to compete with MS head to head -- with or without these
> alleged undocumented APIs.
You've made yourself look incredibly naive, Todd. Scores of developers have
found out about undocumented Windows APIs the hard way. Microsoft has
recently admitted to their existance. Wake up and smell the dlls, would
ya?
> -Todd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
>
>
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Advocacy - Linux vs Windows 2000 vs Be vs OS/2
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 10:49:57 +0100
abraxas wrote:
> I think that these pros are a fair assesment of the workstation application
> of linux. Further, I would add:
>
> * SMP support (becoming more common in high end workstations)
> * fine resolution of process management; a fairly knowledgable user will
> have an entirely stable workstation as a result.
> * wide variety of network interface support; everything from old 10base
> ethernet and token ring through FIDDI and GigE.
> * runs in a wide variety of hardware; linux is not limited to X86 systems
> at all. Versions exist for Sun, SGI, PPC, Alpha...even IBM S/390
And even the Psion 5 (in a beta sort of way).
> mainframes. Linux runs on more hardware platforms than any other OS.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but have you lookes at the NetBSD supported
platform list? It is very long (is it longer than for linux?)
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 05:08:11 -0500
Edwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fofdg$la1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd, there have been several books written on undocumented Windows APIs.
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764545698/o/qid=958382065/sr=8-1/ref
> =aps_sr_b_1_1/002-6013324-5287463
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879304375/qid=958382231/sr=1-2/002-6
> 013324-5287463
Covers file formats, not API's.
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/9992742585/qid=958382231/sr=1-3/002-6
> 013324-5287463
This is nothing recent (8 years old in fact) and i've discussed this book at
length. The conclusion of the author is that the undocumented calls made by
MS apps at the time were leftovers from Windows 2.0, which was nowhere near
a complete OS.
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201608340/qid=958382231/sr=1-4/002-6
> 013324-5287463
Same book actually as the previous one (but then, you didn't bother to
actually check them to see that).
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471064831/qid=958382231/sr=1-5/002-6
> 013324-5287463
This is a book about Visual Basic, not Windows 95 (though the title has
Windows 95 in it).
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565296575/qid=958382231/sr=1-6/002-6
> 013324-5287463
This is really just one of those "tips and tricks" books with a silly name.
It doesn't document any hidden API's.
> Microsoft has offered to document all of their APIs as part of the
> settlement of their anti-trust case.
There are certain API's (primarily under NT) that are under non-disclosure.
If you become a MS partner, you can get access to them. This is primarily
the NT native API (Win32 is not the native API of NT) and similar things.
While I don't agree with MS for keeping this information secret, they do
have a certain amount of legitimate claim that it is trade secret
information. You don't need to know the Native API if you're writing Win32
apps, and none of MS's general applications use the native API (since those
apps would then not run under Windows 95).
> > I personally subscribe to MSDN... and that package gives a developer
more
> > than they need to develop very high level applications.
>
> But not the secret stuff that MS uses for itself.
Most undocumented API's are undocumented because they are internal to the
OS. The only reason they have external linkage is because other parts of
the OS need to use them.
> You've made yourself look incredibly naive, Todd. Scores of developers
have
> found out about undocumented Windows APIs the hard way. Microsoft has
> recently admitted to their existance. Wake up and smell the dlls, would
> ya?
Microsoft has never denied their existance, much less "recently" admitting
to them. MS has made no secret of the fact that the NT native API is not
documented and they've made no secret of the fact that there are
undocumented Windows API's.
What it boils down to is this. Does MS's Application division make use of
those API's, and if they do does it give them any benefit that could not be
achieved other ways just as efficiently and just as easily? Nobody has yet
proven that a single modern MS app uses any of the known undocumented API's.
It's much easier to discover if an app is using an undocumented API than it
is to find API's that are undocumented in the first place.
These OS spelunkers can find out detailed information regarding undocumented
functions, yet they can't seem to isolate if MS is using any of them in it's
apps? Why not?
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Advocacy - Linux vs Windows 2000 vs Be vs OS/2
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 11:00:37 +0100
Brad Wardell wrote:
> Pros:
> * Reasonable application support
> * Reasonable driver support
> * Ability to quickly and seamlessly switch between user sessions
> * Easy to do distributed computing - You're on a LAN on a 100mB ethernet
> connection you can really go to town.
> * Low resource requirements
> * Free
> * Mostly open source software available, OS itself is open source making it
> great to truly make it work like you want it to.
> * Far more options to control how it looks, feels, behaves, etc. than other
> OSes.
It's also generally much easier and quicker to install.
>
> Cons:
> * Horrible consistency - No universal clipboard support.
> * Very little drag and drop or true OO stuff (Gnome is getting there but
> it's not there yet)
> * Always behind the curve in hardware support.
> * No MS Office support (Staroffice and WP Office are both great but without
> MS Office, many corps won't switch)
> * Netscape the only reasonably good web browers and many people (including
> me) think Netscape is inferior to IE at this point.
I don't like netscape much, but I have found the StarOffice browser much
more stable. It actually seems to work quite well.
> * Too many rough edges requiring the user to go to a cryptic text base UI to
> do things (setting up VNC, a DNS, or a mail server tends to be a huge pain
> in the butt for "newbies" compared to a nice slick GUI implementation on
> OS/2, BeOS, Windows, etc.).
It depends if you consider editing a text file difficult. The aparent
inability of ordinary people to edit text files seems to occur more
often if they have been used to GUI tools before. Total newbies who have
to learn everything from scratch don't seem to mind nearly as much (in
my experience).
> * Overall lack of polish (WM's tend to have various graphic anamalies such
> as title bar text going over the buttons and other harmless but tell-tale
> signs of lack of attention to detail)
I use Fvwm, WindowMaker and (very rarely) twm. I haven't noticed any of
these problems.
> * No DDE or OLE (or OpenDOC or SOM) style framework which makes it hard to
> advocate Linux as a good platform to run your applications
> * Application selection is worse than Windows and in many cases OS/2.
> Opensource helps Linux a lot but also hurts it by creating an atmosphere
> that seems hostile to commercial software developers.
It depends what you want to do. A friend of mine needed a computer to do
a university physics project on, and the Linux distribution (RH 6.2)
came with application he needed / wanted for the project (on a single
CD). So the application support depends very much on what you want to
do.
> Some of my cons are based on perception and maybe not reality. What I am
> hoping is that some of you with a great deal of professional experience on
> Linux can point out the pros and qualify the cons I've listed here so that
> together, we can provide users with a reasonable objective comparison.
>
> To see what was written in 1998 go to:
> http://www.stardock.com/media/articles/oswars98a.html
>
> This year's is going to be much longer and much more thorough. OSWars 98
> was picked up by quite a few magazines and user groups so this time around I
> want to be very careful to be as fair as possible.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Brad
> --
> Brad Wardell
> Stardock - http://www.stardock.com
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
