Linux-Advocacy Digest #492, Volume #26 Sat, 13 May 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Here is the solution (Forrest Gehrke)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Online Banking ("Rich C")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Roger)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Chris Wenham)
ILOVEYOU virus for Linux (attached) ("cal")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Peter Ammon)
Re: What's the difference between.... (Perry Pip)
The future of operating systems and applications? ("Mats Pettersson")
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Full Name)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Christopher Smith")
SV: Things Linux can't do! ("Mats Pettersson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 21:48:12 GMT
In article <8fk9be$27ot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
> Yet there is nothing about Linux that precludes high uptimes.
... Only all of the bugs.
> This is a 'big picture' observation and only partly correct. These
> releases are equivalent to what a commercial company would internally
> give to a quality assurance department before public release.
> However no company can afford to test to the extent that a Linux
> kernel is tested in a few weeks of public use.
Sure they can, and this is indeed done for VMS. Digital releases field
test versions which employees run on their machines. Digital is a large
organization, and most configurations of VAXes and Alpha's are present
at the company, so it is a good test.
For Linux, you rely on _customers_ testing the software. That is the
flaw. On reliable commercial environments such as VMS, a company can
extensive testing _internally_. For Linux, the customers are guinea
pigs. Moreover, customers do not have the expertise to do sophisticated
testing. The customer's test will consist of: I can compile the kernel
on it, so it must be OK. The company who manufacturers an OS knows the
corner cases which are interesting to test. To the Linux customer who
is doing the test, it is strictly black box testing.
> This is exactly backwards. For a stable Linux system you pick a
> well-tested version and leave it alone until another version
> has proven itself to be better. There are still plenty of systems
> chugging along on 2.0.36.
But how did you get the 2.0.36? You had to go through 36 patch-levels.
When you go to a certain version, how do you know it will be the last
in the series? What do you do when you add some piece of hardware which
that kernel doesn't support? It's Linux so you have to patch,
recompile, and reboot!
> You get the best of both situations. For home/desktop use it is
> nice to have access to the cutting-edge code, latest device drivers,
> etc. This obviously won't be heavily tested but having to do
> an update/reboot on a personal machine isn't a disaster either.
> For servers and other critical machines you just use something
> that has survived testing or that has been put together by
> other people with reliability in mind - like the VALinux distribution.
But how does it survive testing? VALinux and Bug Hat are not big enough
to have extensive testing programs. Especially Bug Hat, since they do
not even sell the hardware which their software runs on, and it can run
on any little three ring PC configuration.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 22:04:29 GMT
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 May 2000 01:10:04 +1000, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Sat, 13 May 2000 15:23:34 +0200, Julius Apweiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>ax wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Is this an "American Dream"?
> >>Maybe more like a "Global Dream"? This is one WORLD, not one America.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> No mather how much you dislike Bill Gates, he is still your American pride,
> >>> but Linus is not.
> >
> >>I wouldn't be proud of Bill Gates. All he ever was good at was deceiving
> >>(or, to put it that way, screwing) people and making money from that.
> >
> >Now that Larry Elison is richer then Bill why aren't you angry at him?
>
> Mebbe he hasn't had an Oracle database coredump on him lately...
>
> [deletia]
>
> --
>
> In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
> a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
Bill Gates is our American Pride? Buddy? Are you just flat nuts or
what?
Bill Gates ain't nobody's pride!
Geeze
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 22:08:39 GMT
"John S. Dyson" wrote:
>
> ax wrote:
>
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh shoot! Did I forget to mention Linux actually works whilst Microsoft
> > > products really don't.
> > >
> > > Let's not forget that NEW technology is great, so long as it works.
> > >
> >
> > What makes you believe Linux is NEW technology? What's NEW?
> >
>
> An advantage that the Linux developers had (over Microsoft) is that
> the Linux developers didn't have deep pockets to re-invent the world.
> Linux is just yet another UNIX-api type OS, an almost gratuitious
> reinvention of the same story over and over again. The advantage
> to the Linux approach is that the Linux work is based upon true
> genius (the original UNIX concept from which the *BSD's are more
> directly derived.) Microsoft tried to create too much, and has done a
> relatively
> incompetent job so far.
>
> Given a group of competent, but non-genius developers, the Linux
> approach (also *BSD) is indeed safer.
>
> --
> John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] | it makes one look stupid
> | and it irritates the pig.
NO NO NO! The problem with Microsoft is they got a wild HAIR up their
asses!
They stole bits and peices of technology from every OS and smashed them
together
in some bowl like Julia Childs would during a cooking show!
Their HALF baked version was always a year behind and when it did arrive
it
was expensive and extremely buggy!
My opinion of Microsoft is the people of Redmond,Washington is they
should have stuck to
being lumber jacks!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 21:59:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> Oh really?
>
> 'Many' certainly seems to be getting and smaller these days.
What you need to understand is that the people making purchasing
decisions do not have the technical expertise to judge systems, so they
jump on the latest bandwagon, in this case Linux. The pointy-haired
managers read some feel-good fluff about Linux in the mass-cultural,
mainstream media, and then decommision the VAXes and install Linux.
This does not mean that Linux is better than VMS. Most technically
competent people believe that VMS is much better than Linux. But the
industry websites, mass popular press, and stock market believes that
Linux is better than VMS, and constantly publish articles, FUD, and
propaganda supporting this position. This is no reflection on technical
reality.
> BTW, letting your licenses run out is one extra 'reliability'
> issue that Unix doesn't tend to expose you any more.
Obviously, your experience with VMS is limited. Most VMS licenses do
not have expriration dates though it is possible to purchase discounted
licenses in this configuration.
> It's one thing to comment on VMS robustness, it'squite another
> to grossly misrepresent the state of it's market.
Excuse me, I thought that this was a technical forum, not a business
forum. There are separate forums for discussing commercial viability,
but as a professional engineer, I am not interested in such fluff, but
only which system is best (and in this case I choose VMS).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 22:10:08 GMT
ax wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Oh shoot! Did I forget to mention Linux actually works whilst Microsoft
> > products really don't.
> >
> > Let's not forget that NEW technology is great, so long as it works.
> >
>
> What makes you believe Linux is NEW technology? What's NEW?
>
> > Charlie
Somebody said Microsoft was NEW technology and it's not.
IT's for the most part borrowed technology.
I don't think anybody has anything really NEW! That died in the 70's.
The topic for tonight isn't NEW anyway, it's WORKING.
And in the WORKING catagory, Microsoft lacks.
Linux WORKS.
charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 22:13:27 GMT
ax wrote:
>
> "Bloody Viking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Q%5T4.8830$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Linux is copy-LEFTed and everything will follow to the "LEFT" slowly but
> surely,
> including your mouse (I suppose).
>
> COPY-LEFT means COPY-is-RIGHT. COPY-RIGHT means COPY-isn't-RIGHT.
> Confusing?
>
> > --
> > CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
> > First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
> >
> > 4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
When I was writing software for HBOC, I felt I was doing something great
for the
company. I was comming up with new packages, helping them go into new
markets
with new ideas.
Then I saw their profit board and realized that their profits were 80%
from support
and maintainance contracts and very little of the top line came from my
writing code.
They would GIVE away my work in order to get the more lucrative
maintenance contract
as the medical software industry is a continually changing thing.
So Linux will survive and the GPL is sound.
Microsoft does the reverse of this, or course.
Charlie
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 22:15:38 GMT
> On Sat, 13 May 2000 13:47:14 +1000, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, 12 May 2000 16:08:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >>Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Always been ??
> >>>
> >>> Linux is only 10 years old and only came out of the geek closet three
> >>> years ago.
> >>>
> >>> I have T shirts older then that.
> >>>
> >>> Sam.
> >>
> >>
> >> Besides showing your lack of wardrobe, what the hell does this post
> >>accomplish? So it's only ten years old, how does this disprove the claim that
> >>it always has been....? In otherwords, your post is a strawman.
> >
> >Do I have to explain it ?
> >
> >The original poster said
No moron. THe original poster said, that Linux as ALWAYS BEEN...
Your response, which is shown above was the lame, "I have t-shirts older
than that." What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
From: Forrest Gehrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 22:20:04 GMT
rj friedman wrote:
> On Fri, 12 May 2000 10:29:07 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> ¯Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> ¯> [blattedy blat]
>
> ¯How much does gates pay you to be here ?
>
> One thing to bear in mind is that there is no "Erik
> Funkenbush". For as long as I can remember, MS shills using
> phony "ethnic sounding' names have been hanging around to
> lie for MS. Before the 'Erik Funkenbush' persona, there was
> the 'Demetrio Lamazaki' persona -- going all the way back to
> the 'Steve Barkto' persona.
>
> This we know for a fact: Right down to as recently as the
> DOJ trial, MS pays people to write pro MS propoganda (anti
> MS-competitor propoganda) posing as 'ordinary' (i.e., not
> connected with MS) individuals.
>
> You can bet your bottom dollar that the 'Erik Funkenbush'
> persona is an MS propogandist - whether beind paid directly
> by MS, or receiving benefits from supporting the MS monopoly
> in other ways.
You've got it RJ. Funkenbusch and Lamazaki have been around for years.
They both were on hand at different times on the nets supported by
some
BBS when those were popular. One of 'em even hosted an MS advocacy group
on a BBS net.
.
You could tell they were one and the same because they used exactly
the same expressions and misspelled words identically.. They showed
up right on time back when IBM went it alone with OS/2.
Reading Funkenbusch now one would get the impression he sits next to
BG's office. He attempts to pass himself off as mighty knowledgeable
about
MS management decisions and history. He's been quiet for a long time.
This
must have some meaning about the long term for OS/2. Like Lazarus, OS/2
is showing renewed signs of life and the MS pitchers have to be recalled
from the bullpen.
//
>
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
> [RJ] OS/2 - Live it, or live with it.
> rj friedman Team ABW
> Taipei, Taiwan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To send email - remove the `yyy'
> ________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 22:47:16 +0000
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
>
> No. Microsoft is merely an expression of another very old
> conversation. Since Alexander the Great, the possibility of
> world domination has become the obsession of remarkable men
> such as Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, Napoleon, Hitler,
> Stalin, and now Gates.
>
> Each used the best technology of his day. They combined
> effective control of information, effective combat strategies,
> and effective technology to leverage an advantage over
> any opposition. They accomplished something great initially
> and were soon surrounded by those obsessed with power, who
> forced the abuse of power.
>
> Alexandar used the Phalanx, the Ceasars used circuses, crucifixion,
> and the Roman Legion, Napoleon managed logistics and supply lines,
> Hitler exploited airplanes, tanks, propaganda, intelligence gathering,
> and the Houlocaust.
>
> Bill Gates is a bit more sophisticated. A more benevolent dictator.
> His tactics included gathering of information through access to
> people's private storage, one-sided contracts,
> all or nothing terms, contracts designed to exclude competitors,
> and nondisclosure agreements, along with hostile takeovers and
> acceptance of royalty payments in equity.
>
> > > There are a few corporations which are 100 years old.
>
> Actually, this conversation is probably as old as mankind.
> Before Rameses, there was probably some Neanderthal committed
> to world domination (all 500 people). It's the desire to BE GOD!
>
> On the other hand, each participant was destroyed in their prime.
> Hannable showed up with Elephants and wiped out Alexander.
Hannibal used in elephants against Rome in 217 BC, whereas Alexander
died in 323 BC.
> Ghengis
> Khan showed up with armored riders on horseback and nearly sacked
> Rome.
Ghengis Khan was born centuries after the fall of Rome.
>
> --
> Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
> I/T Architect, MIS Director
> http://www.open4success.com
> Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
> and growing at over 1%/week!
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Online Banking
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 18:52:23 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fk2b0$3m5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Is there any reason why Netscape in windows would work with a Online
> Bank and Netscape in Linux would not? I have tried Redhat 6.1 with
> Nescape 6.1 and 4.7 and Suse 6.4 with Netscape 4.72 and I can not view
> my online bank account. It gives no error message, it just gets stuck
> after logging in. I got javascript, style sheets enabled, cookies
> enabled. I have tried 3 Netscape versions in windows 95 and NT and they
> all work fine. The browser should make these things independent of the
> OS. I use Linux with many secure Brokerage accounts and shopping sites
> and Never had a problem. Could my bank have a bug in their .asp files?
> This bank http://www.citifi.com (this isn't my bank)claims my browser or
> OS isn't good enough. Why is that?
>
Most (all?) on-line bank software requires 128 bit strong encryption. Make
sure you have this version of Netscape for Linux. I'm surprised there is no
warning message, although perhaps the bank server software isn't smart
enough to determine the encryption strength on a Linux box.
--
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 16:13:55 -0400
From: Joseph <[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
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> The real question here is how many companies shied away from the
> advantages of DRDOS because of the Microsoft ploy.
Here's another thought:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2559857,00.html
No one wants to use MS's technology and those who do like AT&T were paid
5 billion by MS for committing to use MS's WInCE.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 23:18:56 GMT
On 13 May 2000 13:10:52 -0500, someone claiming to be Leslie Mikesell
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>>Again, which gaping hole do you see when a user has to explicitly
>>>>launch the application? A user should not run unknown code, whether
>>>>it comes in email, is downloaded off the web, or is handed to them on
>>>>a floppy.
>>>But they did, and it will happen again as long as the difference
>>>between code and normal multimedia attachments is difficult to
>>>distinguish. Unfortunately, nearly half of all people are
>>>below average...
>>Ah, so you are of the opinion that these users need to be protected
>>from themselves, no matter the impact on other users.
>Yes, safety first if it is an issue, but what 'impact' are you
>talking about?
I * like * being able to launch attachments directly from email -- I
get probably 15 or twenty a day, and it saves me a considerable amount
of time. What you want to do is make OL incapable of doing this.
>Who are these other users that have any
>reason to execute untrusted program attachments directly from
>the mailer?
How is the program going to make the determination which is trusted
and which not is such a way as to impact the legitimate use of
attachments?
>In all the ranting here I have not seen one
>instance showing a legimate reason to allow this. Do you
>have friends that don't know how to delete their own files
>so you have to send scripts they can click to do it for them?
Of course, deleting files is not the only thing WSH is capable of,
anymore than deleting files is all a .BAT is capable of.
>>I prefer education (from the school of hard knocks, if necessary)
>I prefer computer programs that help you, not ones that cause
>extra trouble.
But you seem to be unaware that * any * sort of system automation
utility would have been capable of this. And that such utilities are
extremely helpful.
------------------------------
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
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 23:20:43 GMT
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> > The real question here is how many companies shied away from the
> > advantages of DRDOS because of the Microsoft ploy.
>
> Here's another thought:
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2559857,00.html
>
> No one wants to use MS's technology and those who do like AT&T were paid
> 5 billion by MS for committing to use MS's WInCE.
I have a story that goes to show.
The NATO Inteligence Center in Luxembourg uses Windows NT
exclusively, but the only reason they do is because Microsoft gave it
to them for free _AND_ paid for a Microsoft employee to work there
full time for the sole purpose of keeping it running. They're not
doing too bad, they only have to reboot once a month.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: "cal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: ILOVEYOU virus for Linux (attached)
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 19:24:40 -0700
> This virus works on the honor system. Please delete a
> bunch of JPG and MP3 files from your system and
> forward this message to all your contacts.
------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[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: Sat, 13 May 2000 19:29:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chris Wenham wrote:
>
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> >
> > > The real question here is how many companies shied away from the
> > > advantages of DRDOS because of the Microsoft ploy.
> >
> > Here's another thought:
> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2559857,00.html
> >
> > No one wants to use MS's technology and those who do like AT&T were paid
> > 5 billion by MS for committing to use MS's WInCE.
>
> I have a story that goes to show.
>
> The NATO Inteligence Center in Luxembourg uses Windows NT
> exclusively, but the only reason they do is because Microsoft gave it
> to them for free _AND_ paid for a Microsoft employee to work there
> full time for the sole purpose of keeping it running. They're not
> doing too bad, they only have to reboot once a month.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Wenham
There's also the case where Microsoft paid Vobis $50,000 to start
shipping MS-DOS.
-Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: What's the difference between....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 23:27:13 GMT
On Sat, 13 May 2000 14:26:01 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Full Name wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 13 May 2000 09:07:27 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >The other is a forum in which people promote an operating system which
>> >was created out of need and shared due to a sense of public good.
>> >
>>
>> Excuse me while I grab a bucket and throw up.
>
>None of what you have responded with addresses anything I have written.
However his post does say something about Windows Advocates: They
spend little time advocating Windows and most of their time
anti-advocating more capable OS's simply becuase they are not
competent enough to administrate them.
Perry
------------------------------
From: "Mats Pettersson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The future of operating systems and applications?
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 01:31:35 +0200
Hi!
It's fun to read all posts by biased win vs biased linux users (easy to use
vs powerful stable).
I don't know how many of you are administrators on a place that use about 4
different operating systems and tries to get all servers and users updated
with the latest versions of software with all the bugs, incompabilities and
reinstalls that comes with it.
I think most of you have to take a step back and look at what people need.
You can easily split the different users needs in (at least) three
categories...
1. Home/private users. -- Users that use the computer for
entertainment(game/internet) and/or homework
2. Commersial application users. -- Users that use specific applications at
work
3. Server administration/administrators. -- Administrators that operate
servers, backup, programming, scripting, upgrading, installing, reinstalling
etc..
The category 1 users uses their computer to play games, connect to internet,
chat and maybe do some homework. They want easy to install software, easy to
use software/system with a minimum of waiting times for startup of
games/software. This category of users don't know anything about
operatingsystems. The OS is preinstalled and shouldn't need to be
reinstalled.
The category 2 users often know all about the applications they use but
probably not much about computers in general and thats a good thing. They
should get their job done, not bother with reinstalls, configuring network
and such.
The category 3 users are administrators with all the whoes bells and
whistles that comes with it. They are in charge of keeping the company
computers/servers updated with the latest software/upgrades/bugfixes of
application/services/os-software.
Category 2 and 3 could be said to be in the same group because administraors
are often responsible for category 2 users software/system maintainance.
As a category 3 user myself along with my two collegues i stumble into
problem with most operating systems whether it be with Win NT/95/98, Linux,
Sun, MacOS. Why? Because they are all using the same basics and all try to
be like eachother. When i say "problems" i don't mean it can't be done, but
it's unnessesary compilcated to do. Most of the "problems" has to do with
upgrading software, switching computers (wich leads to reinstalling),
switching hardware (wich leads to reinstalling).
I know there are some flavours of "application servers" out there, but they
still need some work. If the Linux community could develop some easy to
maintain/use "application server system" where it's easy to both write and
use applications and get some commercial developers to hook up on it, i know
it would be a hit with many commercial companies.
What i'm looking for as a category 3 user is a sort of a "extended" X
window-terminal/application-server system.
Just my biased point of view :)
Mats
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 23:46:18 GMT
On Sat, 13 May 2000 20:45:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>
> Mebbe he hasn't had an Oracle database coredump on him lately...
>
You clearly have no experience with Oracle.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Sun, 14 May 2000 10:08:59 +1000
"WickedDyno" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <391d6f75$1$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Proof" obviously must mean something different in the world of OS/2
> fanatacism than in any other world. (Well, other than other fanatacism
> worlds, that is.) Last I heard, you needed evidence to provide proof,
> either that or a flawlwss logical argument. What do you have?
>
> "Well, you're not condemning MS as the spawn of Satan, so you must be in
> their pay!"
What more proof do you need !? ;)
------------------------------
From: "Mats Pettersson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: SV: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 01:58:26 +0200
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> OK, I can play this game.
>
> Let me give you a better example.
>
> Lets say the "Cancer cure" is sticking a Pineapple up your arse,
> painful but effective, This would be the Linux version, cost minimal.
>
> Lets say someone (MS) develops a different cure, and charges you $100
> for a Pineapple fruit juice in a convenient go anywhere pack with a
> drinking straw.
>
> Which would you choose ?
I wouldn't drink from that straw. It would probably get you a "I love you"
virus. By the way, i think Bill would love that pineapple up his arse, even
if it costs him a $100.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
