Linux-Advocacy Digest #524, Volume #26 Mon, 15 May 00 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Advocacy - Linux vs Windows 2000 vs Be vs OS/2 ("Brad Wardell")
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (Thomas Phipps)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Johan Kullstam)
Re: ILOVEYOU virus for Linux (attached) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Closed-mindedness and zeal... (was Re: Things Linux can't do!) ("Stephen S. Edwards
II")
Re: Linux lacks ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (mlw)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re: The
"outlook" for MS) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 01:25:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The brief fad we call micro computers, i.e. CPUs that, today, would
not
> even be used in many embedded applications. The Z-80, 8080, 8086(88)
> were all so underpowered that so many short cuts had to be made. The
> single tasking paradigms, etc. They have all affected how we develop
> programs today.
>
> Look at Windows. This is a prime example of an environment where micro
> computer paradigms that have survived, not because they are better,
but
> it is what people have gotten used to.
>
> Just to name one: drive letters.
> Why does one need drive letters? The only reason they exist is because
> DOS did not have a hierarchical file system until version 2.0. 2.0!!!
do
> you believe it?
First of all, your subject is wrong. This has absolutely nothing at all
to do with programming models.
Second, drive letters have absolutely nothing to do with
microcomputers. You are just displaying your ignorance of computer
history by stating this. That great microcomputer system known as the
VAX used drive letters (labels, actually) when running VMS. So did the
PDP-11 operating systems such as RSX-11 and RT-11 (which, if you
actually knew the basics of computing history, CP/M, and thus MS-DOS
and Windows, were derived from). To continue my compelling attack of
your fallacious argument, that great mainframe computer known as the
Apple II did NOT use drive letters. As you can see, both microcomputer
and non-microcomputer systems have used drive letters, and both
microcomputer and non-microcomputer systems have NOT used drive
letters, thereby blowing your whole argument completely out of the
water.
Obviously, you have never used any operating system aside from Winux or
Lindows. The argument between drive labels and mount points is well-
understood by most seasoned computer users, but you have given no
indication that you understand the issues (you state no reason why
mount points are better than drive labels).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Brad Wardell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Advocacy - Linux vs Windows 2000 vs Be vs OS/2
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 01:43:38 GMT
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
Than what? Red Hat was a huge pain to install, for instance.
>
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
No disagreement here but we are comparing this to other OSes and this is
definitely not something in linux's favor.
> > * 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).
Well, it comes down to how you value your time. I choose not to learn how
to fix my car, I take it in because my time is better spent on other things.
To most people, computers are just a tool. Expecting people to muck around
with text configuration files takes away from productivity since it requires
a much steeper learning curve to get going.
>
>
>
> > * 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.
>
It was in WindowMaker I noticed this. But it was awhile ago.
>
>
> > * 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.
I agree. But in this case, we are trying to talk about the broadest scope
of users here. Solaris, VMS, OS/400, etc. all have these things in their
favor too.
Brad
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Phipps)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 01:44:14 GMT
I kept telling myself I wasn't going to do it ...
I shouldn't have thought about it ...
oh well here it goes...
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Syphon wrote:
>1. Netscape as the primary gui browser. Need I say more? Netscape sux
>even under Windows. IE 5.0 is light years ahead.
light years ahead? ... last I checked light years didn't include secuity risks
to the entire operating system...
>
>2. Email clients...Pine? Sendmail? Archaic kludges. If you want to
>MANAGE and play with your email instead of read it Linux is for you.
>You can sort catalog and score all that email on a bit by bit basis
>under Linux. real great geek stuff. Reading email seems to be
>secondary to playing with it.
arrow ... spruce ... Kmail ... mail{talk about old}
play with my e-mail? I only set up fetchmail run it ... and poof
theres my e-mail going to each user on my system ...
>
>3. Multimedia...Run antique versions of Real Player and not be able to
>run Real Juke box (no Linux version). Run cheap Winamp Clones that
>suck.
antique? realplayer7 is antique?
then theres xanim ... plaympeg {comes with the SDL and smpeg libs}
MpegTV
>
>4. Graphics... Gimp? Name says it all. Even the trial versions of
>Adobe included with scanners are more powerful.
well Gimp is free .. and getting better every day
then if you want 3d there is blender and pov-ray
>
>5. Internet? Call your favorite ISP and tell them you run Linux...
>Make sure and listen to the laughter at the end of the phone....
laughter? mostly I get asked on tips for apache
>
>6. Supported printers? Damm better be a Postscript printer, linsux
>seems to be the only folks using these printers these days....
>Otherwise you will be burdened by some filter that a pimple faced geek
>dreamed up that won't utilize 10 percent of your printers
>capabilities.
talk about hacks ... tahts all the drivers in NT really are .. postscript hacks
>
>7. Have a scanner? read the above. same thing applies...
>
>8. Networking....Want to get the whole family pissed off at you? Take
>away their internet conection sharing, standard under Win98se, and try
>and set up the same deal under Linux...
>
whole family pissed off at me? hell linux is the only operating system in
this house ... my girlfriend loves it ... {and no she useta be a win troll}
she hadn't even heard of linux till she met me ... {now she can use it with
the best of them}
>Hint: Give up now, because others far more qualified than you have
>already thrown in the towel.
more qualified? depends ... how many NT profesionals really know
the sequncing for a packet sniffer{don't bother asking}
>
>You'll be reading How-To's till the cows come home...Or your wife
>leaves you, whichever occurs first.
Reading How-To's? I"ve only ever glanced over them ...
never needed to actualy look at them in detail
altho I have been getitng interested in the LFS one
>
>9. USB...Most devices barely, if at all, function.
and that proves what? that microsoft has totaly dominated the world?
>
>10. Graphics...Take a look at the shitty font display of Netscrape
>under Linux...Makes your eyes tear doesn't it.
shitty?? hell the graphix in IE were terable in comparison ...
>
>
>That's only the surface. Linusx is a piece of garbage that needs to be
>exposed for the crap that it is...
and microsoft is a dictatorship thats been brain washing to many heads
>
>WANT TO RUN OUTDATED TEXT APPLICATIONS? TRY LINUX!!!!
out dated? Alot of thease *outdated* text applications tend to be alot
more secure and faster then your GUI ... guess why?
>
>Ever Wonder why there are very few 1.x version Linux applications?
>Reason is they are too scared to commit to anything...Bunch of back
>room hackers they are....
>
nope I don't wonder why ... I know why ... it's because there are actualy
people that are willing to program decent beta software for linux ...
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 01:44:54 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (I R A Darth Aggie) writes:
> On 15 May 2000 15:40:28 -0400,
> Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> + i want something in the 19-20 pixel height range. what's out there?
>
> Try xfontsel (or gfontsel, if it is installed) to browser your installed
> font-base.
i have done that, but i am still not satisfied. how many 19 or 20
pixel high, unscaled, monospaced fonts with a full complement of
normal, bold, slanted and bold/slant variants are there? none as far
as i can tell.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: ILOVEYOU virus for Linux (attached)
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 20:47:59 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "cal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
>
YOU INFIDEL YOU!!!!
Godd-----!!!
All my Bill/Melissa && Tommy/Pam jpegs gone!!!!
Now I gotta do an unscheduled backup restore...(sigh)
PS: Some virus: didn't have to reboot the boxes two or three
times...harumph.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Closed-mindedness and zeal... (was Re: Things Linux can't do!)
Date: 16 May 2000 01:46:49 GMT
Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
: > Okay. Microsoft is a blue screening mess which can't handle a load.
: Whoa ! Nice blanket statement ! Really, I'm impressed.
You might also have noticed that he has refused to prove any of his claims
about "being on the front of boxed software", or "being in several
magazines". And I'd hardly attribute this lack of action to humility, as
he apparently has none. I'd attribute it to FAS (False Authority
Syndrome).
: > IN FACT, the only time you can associate the word load and Microsoft
: > together is when you say 'PANTLOAD'. Because you'll have a pantload when
: you found
: > out YOUR server just blue screened about 650 users during month end.
: Apparently www.microsoft.com , www.dell.com , www.compaq.com ,
: www.bigcharts.com , www.nasdaq.com, www.ebay.com among others disagree.
Microsoft's products have had some serious issues to consider in the past,
but WindowsNT v4.0 was the beginning of Microsoft actually getting serious
about high-end applications.
Windows2000 clearly shows the amount of effort that can be put into a
commercial product, if the proprietors get a bit of a nip in the rear by
its userbase. I think Microsoft has wised up a lot, and their products
are going to be getting much better still.
Despite this, I still find myself fascinated with NetBSD. It's really a
very (suprisingly) clean BSD derivative. I mean, the directory structure
is laid out in a very organized manner, and the package distribution
organization is top notch, IMHO.
: Have a look at this http://www.tpc.org/new_result/ttperf.idc , it seems that
: WinNT/Win2K is up there with the bad boys.
Sorry Paul. But when you are arguing with people like Charlie, facts
don't come into play. Only anecdotes, and unclever anti-corporate slogans
matter.
: Who am I going to believe, some evidence that stuff can be done on WinNT/2K
: platfoms or some random usenet persons blanket statements. Hmmmm.
My sentiments exactly.
What grinds me up, is how people feel as if they have to choose "sides" in
this regard. It's ridiculous. I use WindowsNT v4.0, NetBSD, and IRIX,
each for separate things. I don't do this because I have to, but rather,
because using multiple operating systems gives me much more insight on
how I can do things more effectively and efficiently. And, it's also
fun, since I enjoy using computers in general, for 3D, web authoring,
development, or just good old-fashioned futzing.
I simply don't understand why people take sides with or against a
community or a corporation that couldn't care any less if they existed or
not. It boggles the mind.
I love NetBSD. Do I support its use? Sure. Do I go on crowing about how
much better it is than Linux, or DOS, or BeOS, or something to that
effect? Never. Do I "speak on behalf" of those who are responsible for
its development? Not once. Have I ever once tried to cram it down
anyone's throat in these newgroups? Never. In fact, I don't even try to
persuade people to use WindowsNT. The only thing I can notice myself
doing in these newgroups is responding to the preposterous claims coming
from the anti-Microsoft crowd.
I use NetBSD, because I simply think it's the bees knees. But I don't
expect every single user to share my viewpoint, because I know that they
do not. In fact, there are probably some people out there who vehemently
despise NetBSD, but as long as they don't try to cram their negative
sentiments down my throat, I won't care one bit.
I vehemently dislike Sun Microsystems. Do I constantly spout off about
it? No. Do I post hundreds of lines of text berating them on a regular
basis? No, I do not. Would I purchase a Sun workstation, if I thought it
would get the job done, or felt a need for it, despite my dislike for Sun?
Absolutely I would. I'd be a fool if I didn't.
Charlie, I'm not disputing your dislike of Microsoft products. I'm
disputing your reasons for doing so, and your reasons for posting your
Linux utopian wet-dream fantasies in COMNA. I think you're a very
inexperienced user, who's had a taste of something different, and now,
because you are among a smaller userbase (many of its members who consider
themselves the "elite" of computing for some perverse and convoluted
reason), you're trying to justify your newly found sense of "no longer in
the droves", "holier than thou" mentality with your anti-Microsoft
blithering. This is my opinion only, but it's exactly what I percieve.
With that said, I can say that I for one do not like Linux. I dislike it
because I think it's being driven by an anti-Microsoft agenda. The reason
why that bothers me, is not because I am a Microsoft fan, or because I am
a Windows zealot. I am neither of those things. It bothers me, because I
don't think that any good can come out of a product that seems to be based
in sour sentiments towards another product. I think a product that is
driven by an negative sentiment is going to lack in quality. I realize
that this may sound odd to some people, but Linux just leaves a bad taste
in my mouth, regardless of the problems it has given me in the past.
I can't take Linux seriously, because many of its developers I do not take
seriously. Some of them leave vulgar comments in source code, and such
(at least, they used to... they may not do that anymore), which I think is
very unprofessional. I grew up in an IBM-driven computer culture, and I
cannot bring myself to take the developers of an operating system
seriously, when they themselves seem to lack couth and a universal
understanding of the benefits and caveats of design implementations in
their own products, and other peoples products simultaneously.
Advocacy by denigration is anything but respectable. Sure, I've
denigrated Linux _users_... users who are so blinded by zeal, that they
cannot see that there are some people who don't want Linux on their
machines. Users like Charlie.
But I've never insulted a Linux user, simply for stating that he/she
prefers Linux to Windows.
: > There! You happy now?
: At least you stopped flaunting your age and supposed experience around. Not
: that this has much effect on my happiness levels.
Anytime I've heard people start spouting off about their experience, it's
usually because they are trying to justify something that is either
untrue, or that they cannot quantify.
This is another thing that grinds my gears. As Evan stated in previous
threads, who cares how many years a person has been programming? Does
that make them any less adept? Hell no. It only makes them less
experienced. Charlie's (used again, as a convenient example) assertion of
his own prowess only serves to show how small-minded, and arrogant he
really is. Evan said he himself is only 16 years of age, and yet he has
responded to Charlie's threads with nothing but dignified rebuttal, and
sane rationale. Charlie has offered nothing but snide remarks, and
useless anecdotes. Respect is not commanded by "status". It's commanded
by the ability to speak well, and the ability to know exactly how much you
know (or more importantly, how much you don't know). If Linux's
development community were comprised of people more like Evan, I'd have no
trouble accepting Linux as a serious computing solution, I'm sure.
And maybe the Linux community as a whole really does consist of very
open-minded, couth, and rational beings. But judging by what I see and
hear in computer shops/stores, on IRC, and in these newsgroups, I cannot
help but to think that the majority of Linux users fall into the "snobbish
elitist" category.
People like Charlie, and abraxas have stated that they believe themselves
to be more intelligent simply because they are Linux users. This is not
only arrogant, it is laughably misguided and falsely conceived, and if
users such as these two represent the majority of Linux users, then the
Linux project will never be anything other than just that... a project.
I hope my perceptions are wrong. I'd like to see OpenSource software gain
a very tremendous foothold in the market. There's room for both bearded
hippies, and starched collars, IMHO. :-) OSS is catching on, but for
now, it's only catching on as the "cool" thing to do. It needs to catch
on as a "wise and rational" thing to do. It will only do this, when users
like Charlie and abraxas become the shunned minority.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| 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
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 01:47:11 GMT
Syphon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Charlie is an idiot... A complete LinoNazi....
>
> He needs to wake up and realize that he is stepping back in time to
> the 19th centuries running Linsux....
Moron. Especially if you think anyone believes your garbage
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 16 May 2000 01:49:17 GMT
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Evan DiBiase wrote:
: >
: > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > > You haven't been alive very long.
: > >
: > > BTW, did I mention I actually started my computer career before you were
: > > born.
: >
: > You've got a pretty bad attitude. "I can't think of anything to say to you,
: > so I win because I've had more experience." Come on, this is the internet.
: > I'd expect more than that from you.
: >
: > I try to be very open-minded. If you'd like to ask me some questions about
: > my Linux experience, or why I'm using Windows 2000 now instead of Linux, I'd
: > be glad to talk with you. Maybe you can bring up some points that I haven't
: > thought of. But _please_ don't lord your age over me. What would you have
: > responded if you didn't know my age at all?
: >
: > -Evan
: The same way unfortunately. It seems every Microsoft supporter has
: about your same intelligence.
Charlie, Evan is trying to engage you in a battle of wits, but it seems
that you have yet to figure out how to put your gloves on, let alone, your
dukes up.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| 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
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 21:47:46 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The A20 gate was a hardware hack for 80286 based computers running in
> > real mode. An 8088 running in real mode, using FFFF:0000 would address
> > the lowest memory, because it could only access 1M. The 80286 could
> > access up to 16M, so in real mode, the hardware could addrress an
> extra
> > 64k over that which the 8088(86) could do. This broke a lot of
> programs
> > that used the FFFF segment to access the lower 64K. (You would be
> > suprised at how many it did break!) The A20 gate enabled "legacy"
> > programs to opperate.
>
> You do not understand the A20 problem.
>
> Segment FFFF has absolutely nothing to do with A20. You can construct
> addresses in segment FFFF which lie below 1M. For example, the example
> you gave, FFFF:0000 is at physical address FFFF0, which is below 100000
> (1M). In fact, this is the exact address which the processors begins
> fetching from after reset. Furthermore, there are addresses with
> segments which are not FFFF which will do lie above A20, such as
> F001:FFFF.
>
> The A20 problem is exactly what it says: the A20 line on the bus. It
> has absolutely nothing to do with the internal segmentation of the
> processor.
Wrong. I am talking about REAL MODE!!! on a 80286 (and higher). The A20
line is the address line which the 8088 and 8086 does not have (A0-A19),
when FFFF:0010 is addressed, this will either point to location zero
(8086) or the first location above 1M. The specialized A20 line hardware
takes care of this.
Segments in standard mode (286 protected) are called selectors, and
discriptor tables define the physical addresses referenced by the
segment registers.
In 386 "flat" mode, the descriptor tables reference virtual memory
described by the page registers.
I know how the hardware works, trust me on this one.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for MS)
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 01:42:21 GMT
In article <8fphc1$vl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A UNIX advocate posting from a Macintosh? How interesting.
>
> Alot more common than youd think. Half the computers in my house
> are macs, and rightfully so.
IMHO, anybody who advocates both Unix and Mac, at the expense of
Windows, has a non-technical agenda, and should be globally kill-filed
by all readers of the advocacy nesgroups.
Let's go issue-by-issue. First, the Linux vs. Windows issues:
(a) scalability
(b) reliability
(c) security
(d) remote access
(e) command line vs. GUI
Clearly, even Windows 98 does most of these demonstrably superior than
a Mac does. Windows 2000 does all of them considerably better than a
Mac. Therefore it would be foolish to advocate Mac AND Unix but not
Windows on the basis of any of these issues.
Next, the Mac vs. Windows issues:
(a) ease of adding hardware
(b) ease of installing software
(c) consistent user interface
(d) command line vs. GUI
Clearly, Windows 98 does any of these far better than Unix (except
possibly b). Therefore it would be foolish to advocate Mac AND Unix but
not Windows on the basis of any of these issues (except b, which is
pretty minor).
I cannot think of any single technical issue which both Unix and Mac do
better than Windows. I would like a point-by-point discussion of what
metrics you value for a computer system (of at least five points), and
would like substantial evidence that both Mac and Unix perform these
functions better than Windows.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
