Linux-Advocacy Digest #534, Volume #26 Tue, 16 May 00 12:13:05 EDT
Contents:
SuSE ("Raul Valero")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Chris Wenham)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (JEDIDIAH)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: WHICH LINUX??? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: WHICH LINUX??? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (Ian Bell)
Desktop use, office apps (R. Christopher Harshman)
Re: Here is the solution (JEDIDIAH)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (I R A Darth Aggie)
Re: Here is the solution ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Here is the solution ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Raul Valero" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: SuSE
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 15:19:02 GMT
Well, I know GNU/Linux since early Slackware versions, and when I
knew SuSE by 5.1 I though "well, this seems a big distro" (I was by then
using Redhat 4.1, 4.2, ...), then by 5.2, 5.3, 6.0, 6.1 and 6.2 I kept
thinking "well, this is a good distro". By 6.3, it surged YaST2, hmmm, I
thought, "well, at least, YaST1 still can be plenty used, I hope them
to change" ... now, with 6.4 I think "well, are they stupid ?". YaST2 text
mode is really awful, YaST2 X11 VGA mode is too restricted if you are
used to setup each step by yourself, and YaST1, while still usable, seems
like SuSE is going to remove it soon. A pity, well, I can always use Debian
and pray they won't fall to the game of stupid installation systems.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 16 May 2000 15:21:23 GMT
Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The web used to be about sharing information. Exclusion != sharing. Before
> commercialism of the internet, this was not an issue. Nobody had a problem
> conforming to a standard and nobody tried to differentiate themselves.
But we _can_ differentiate ourselves.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 15:21:17 GMT
On Tue, 16 May 2000 00:25:32 GMT, Syphon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1. Netscape as the primary gui browser. Need I say more? Netscape sux
>even under Windows. IE 5.0 is light years ahead.
>
>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.
Then again, you don't have to worry about people telling
you that they love you in email.
>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.
This is a peculiar bit. You whine about the relative unsophistication
of a particular sort of app and then make fun of one of the more useful
featuresets of that sort of app (namely filtering all of that junk you
get on a daily basis).
Mebbe it's just that no one likes you well enough such that you get
a decent volume of email (at work or at home).
>
>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.
What suck about them exactly? What do you really need out of
an mp3 player besides playing and organizing the media? What
doesn't xmms or mpg123 or gqmpeg do that winamp does?
Besdies, if you are going to whine about mp3 players at least
bring up FreeAmp. WinAmp's interface is stillborn and not
sufficiently flexible.
>
>4. Graphics... Gimp? Name says it all. Even the trial versions of
>Adobe included with scanners are more powerful.
...and what did you do with them that was so much more
interesting?
>
>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....
>
>6. Supported printers? Damm better be a Postscript printer, linsux
This old lie again.
What happened to mawa's frequently rehashed topics?
This might be something to repost on a regular basis:
Yes Wilbur, you can use a non PS printer under Linux.
>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.
>
>7. Have a scanner? read the above. same thing applies....
I do, do you?
>
>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...
If Win99 (assuming you have Win99) is so easy, then this should
never be a problem. You should always be able to rollback in a
timely fashion.
>
>Hint: Give up now, because others far more qualified than you have
>already thrown in the towel.
That is rather disputable.
It's the un-qualified, and un-willing that have given up.
Back on the subject of not having Win99: a dedicated hardware
solution is about the same price as a Win99 upgrade that one
would need to acquire to finally achieve these '95 Linux features.
>
>You'll be reading How-To's till the cows come home...Or your wife
>leaves you, whichever occurs first.
>
>9. USB...Most devices barely, if at all, function.
>
>10. Graphics...Take a look at the shitty font display of Netscrape
>under Linux...Makes your eyes tear doesn't it.
There must be a Shill HOWTO somewhere on the net...
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 08:24:24 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mlw wrote:
> One can form an opinion, pretty quickly, about one person by the way
> they address another.
Posts like tsm's make me wonder whether there is an incivility class
that some programmers get to take once they achieve a certain level of
proficiency. Can someone send me a brochure or something?
>> 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).
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 15:29:05 GMT
On Tue, 16 May 2000 05:19:49 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on Mon, 15 May 2000 23:37:06 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Evan DiBiase wrote:
>
>[snip!]
>
>>> Great attack, there. Try supporting your position... you're not going to
>>> convince anyone that _anything_ is worth using if you run around screaming,
>>> "I'VE BEEN USING COMPUTERS FOR 20 YEARS! MICROSOFT SUPPORTERS ARE STUPID!
>>> USE LINUX! YEAH!!!" I really can't believe that your argument is so
>>> completely unfounded.
>>>
>>> -Evan
>>
>>But Evan! You keep missing the point Son!
>>Microsoft won't be around another 6 years!
>>
>>Get it!
>>
>>There's no point on debating here!
>>
>>It's a slam dunk!
>
>This is very debatable. Note that IBM is still around,
>and *it* used to be top dog in both the "big iron" and,
IBM was also around BEFORE they got either into microcomputing or
computing of any kind. IBM is a bit more diversified than Microsoft.
IBM has actually been contributing with primary research since before
Microsoft even crept from beneath IBM's shadow.
>later on, the IBM PC market. (It lost the PC market later,
>when the clones wandered in -- and I don't know who's tops
>in the "big iron" market, now.)
While I agree that any Microsoft decline will be a long and
painful one: they aren't no IBM.
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 15:30:10 GMT
On 16 May 2000 05:56:31 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rob Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>: news:8fp33a$joh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>: <various snippage>
>
>: > I have seen a lot of BSODs in my time, and in every single
>: > instance, I was able to track them back to one of two
>: > things:
>: >
>: > 1.) Faulty, or chintzy hardware.
>: > 2.) Improperly written drivers.
>: >
>: > The above factors are merely a result of clueless
>: > administrators, who have spent too much time under
>: > UNIX, and who have tried to deploy WindowsNT in the
>: > same manner, which you cannot.
>
>: uhmm... MS doesn't aggree with you stephen. In a survey _they published_, 40
>: percent of BSODs were attributed to "internal NT components". Hardware,
>: apps, etc. got the rest.
>
>My point was, it's up to the system administrator to know and understand
>the OS, and that most of the problems that I've encountered, and witnessed
>other having, were due to thoughtless hardware purchases, and reflexively,
>poorly written drivers.
So, by your argumentation: my burden as a user would INCREASE
if I were to suddenly dump Linux for NT.
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: WHICH LINUX???
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 15:39:02 GMT
On Mon, 15 May 2000 23:50:14 GMT, Syphon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chances are a lot better that he can walk into best buy, pick up a
>product and it will work with Windows.
>
>Try that with LinuSux....
Which one? The Consumer piece of shit that is Win99 or the
one that is more likely not to eat itself: NT?
>
>Linux just plain sux....
Not if that's the best you can do.
While being able to plug any random piece of shit into Win99
might have some 'mental exertion avoidance', one is still
quite often left with a random piece of shit.
So if you actually would rather not have pieces of shit plugged
into your Win99 machine, the overhead is the same as if you were
shopping for NT, Be, Mac or Linux compatible hardware.
>
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, 15 May 2000 23:41:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 May 2000 23:17:14 GMT, Syphon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>None of them...Linux sucks and you will find this out in time. Run
>>>Windows 2k and run a real, supported operating system instead of a
>>>piece of junk hack job......
>>
>> ...just don't think you can just hook 'any old'
>> USB device to it... <snicker>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Mon, 15 May 2000 17:33:19 -0500, Kurt wrote:
>>>
>>>>I am a newbie to Linux and am wondering which Linux to go with. Suse,
>>>>Mandrake, Redhat, Debian, Corel Linux etc......... you get the point.
>>>>I am doing reading but haven't found good info that describes the
>>>>differences between the Linux variations. could anyone give me links,
>>>>or info that will explain differences of each and what they are best
>>>>suited for. I've heard Corel Linux is easy to work with, as far as
>>>>Linux goes, and am looking into that more than the others. Please
>>>>provide ANY INFORMATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for your input
>>>>KURT
>>>
>
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: WHICH LINUX???
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 15:39:39 GMT
On Mon, 15 May 2000 23:51:06 GMT, Syphon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Or he can spend the rest of his life reading outdated How-to's...
>
>Time is money in my world.
>
>
>Linux is a time waster and hence a money waster....
If your time was really that valuable, you would not be here.
>
>Linux sux....
>
>
>
>
>On 15 May 2000 23:42:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bastian) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 15 May 2000 23:17:14 GMT, Syphon wrote:
>>>None of them...Linux sucks and you will find this out in time. Run
>>>Windows 2k and run a real, supported operating system instead of a
>>>piece of junk hack job......
>>
>>The original poster didn't mention he's a millionaire so he can afford
>>a) the OS itself and b) the support for it. He didn't mention either
>>that he has at least 128megs RAM and more than 300 MHz.
>>
>>Bastian
>
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Linux file system vs. Win/DOS ?
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 17:29:10 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 16 May 2000 10:04:11 GMT...
...and Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The distinction between /opt and /usr/local is not very clear in practical
> > use, but the FHS clearly makes a difference between them. /opt looks a lot
> > like "C:\Program Files" in Windows in the sense that there is a tree under
> > /opt for each application. Additionally there are symbolic links to
> > the binaries and libraries in those in /opt/bin, /opt/lib, etc.
>
> My experience is that /usr/local and /opt serve basically the same
> purpose, with /usr/local coming from the BSD tradition and /opt coming
> from the SYSV tradition. I've even worked on systems where one was
> symlinked to the other...
Actually, in most modern Linux distributions, /opt contains software
packages which need their own directory hierarchy (i.e. one /opt
subdirectory per package) instead of using the Unix-ish system of
reparting stuff over lib, libexec, share, man etc.
That's why /usr/local normally only contains the usual subdirectories
/bin, doc, etc, games, include, info, lib, libexec, man, sbin, share
src) and /opt contains varying amounts of subdirectories such as
gnome, kde, soffice, etc.
mawa
--
Q: How many 17-year-old Germans does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Thirty. One of them holds the bulb, twenty-eight of them drink till
the room starts turning, and one of them gets screwed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 17:31:58 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Tue, 16 May 2000 01:25:22 GMT...
...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That great microcomputer system known as the VAX
The VAX is a minicomputer, not a microcomputer.
mawa
--
Namensschildträger!
Notarztrufer!
Nullpromillefahrer!
Nägelfeiler!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 15:49:12 GMT
2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>. wrote:
>> Try running the scanner identification program that Sane uses.
>>
>> Kills Linux completely...No other terminals to log into. Can't kill X
>> server. Completely dead.......Red Switch Time....
>I've got several more involving SVGA utilities.
And what all of these have in common is that they run as root, i.e.
in "supervisor" mode.
Once you allow *that*, a simple
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/mem
or even
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda
will usually do the trick quickly and easyly.
Bernie
--
Thou wilt show my head to the people: it is worth showing
Georges Jacques Danton
French revolutionary
To his executioner, 5 April 1794
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: 16 May 2000 22:17:48 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Syphon wrote:
>> 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....
>As oppose to MS, which will gladly list alpha quality products as v. 3.0.
Which brings up an interesting question --- is there *any* currently
shipping MS product with a 1.x version number?
Or does anyone know anybody who ever productively used a version 1.x
MS product in the last ten years?
Bernie
--
Older man declare war. But it is youth who must fight and die
Herbert Hoover
US President 1929-33
At the Republican National Convention, 27 June 1944
------------------------------
From: Ian Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:54:16 GMT
On 5/16/00, 1:14:25 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote regarding Re: Ten=20
Reasons Why Linux Sucks:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Syphon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1. Netscape as the primary gui browser. Need I say more? Netscape su=
x
> > even under Windows. IE 5.0 is light years ahead.
> application issue. Don't you know the difference between an=20
application
> and an OS???
Of course he doesn't, he uses windoze, and the browser is an integral=20
part of the OS, remember ;-)
thezulu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: R. Christopher Harshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 15:53:32 GMT
I'm going to get flamed for this one, but here goes... I use Linux, I
love Linux. All of our servers run Linux, and all are extremely
responsive, reliable, etc. You've heard all this before.
We are running Windows 9x and NT 4 Workstation on our lab workstation
computers. These don't get used for a whole lot, mostly word
processing, e-mail and web browsing. So when the complaints about
Windows stability and configuration issues gathered critical mass, we
investigated Linux.
I'm something of an old hand in these waters, so I built what I
considered to be a pretty trim system. We used RedHat 6.2 in custom
mode, installing just what we needed (Navigator instead of Communicator,
IceWM instead of full-fledged GNOME or KDE, etc). Removed unnecessary
entries from /etc/rc.d/rc*.d, trimmed /etc/inittab, installed custom
kernels, etc.
The problem: We cannot find office productivity software that fits our
needs, and I was wondering why I had not heard more about the glaring
problems that exist with the current offerings. In a nutshell:
StarOffice
Far too slow to load. We're using just the applications (launching
`soffice staroffice.private:starwriter` for instance, to use just the
word-processor without the desktop). Even on the fastest of our
workstations, a Celeron 466 with a brand-new UDMA/66 hard drive, it
takes almost a minute to load. Once loaded, it's more or less
responsive enough to use, but the users we've had test the configuration
have universally complained about the wait.
WordPerfect Office Suite 2000
WAY too slow in operation. I read somewhere about their using WINE as
an abstraction layer, and Windows code running on top of this. This
offers an explanation, but not a solution. I thought Corel was serious
about Linux; why then this half-hearted attempt that is, for the most
part, unusable? None of our testers would put up with the sluggish
response they got from WP:2000.
Applix 5.0
Rough around the edges, enough so that users complained. Also, a big
problem is that it won't import or export MS Office file formats
properly. We're in a very hetrogenous environment, and like it or not,
MS Office file format compatibility is a must, at least enough that
formatting carries across. But at least it's fast enough to be usable.
Word Perfect 8
This one Corel got right; it's a little slower than the equivalent
hardware and software on Windows (Word Perfect 8 running on NT 4
Workstation SP5 with Intel's bus mastering IDE drivers) but still very
usable. However, file format compatibility is an issue.
For Linux to succeed on the desktop, it needs an office package that is
polished, professional, compatible, usable, and ideally fast.
I'm continually frustrated by Linux on the desktop, in all honesty. Not
just the fit-and-finish user interface elements that are being worked on
by the various projects (GNOME, Eazel, etc). But the speed of the OS.
Launching Netscape Communicator takes much longer under Linux than it
does under Windows, on the same box. Ditto for office applications.
For all the vaunted speed of Linux (running in command line mode), when
you saddle it with X and ask it to do the things Windows users do daily,
it doesn't seem to be able to keep up. This is my experience from my
personal workstation (PIII-450, 160MB RAM, UDMA/66 drives) down to the
lowest configuration still in use in our labs (Compaq Prolinea 466,
486DX2/66, 32MB RAM, 420MB IDE drives - they run Windows 95a nimbly, but
Linux with X is painfully slow).
Flames are inevitable, but I'm hoping for some constructive feedback.
Suggestions on configuration issues that I might have overlooked,
assurances that this is a known problem that is not being ignored,
anything that might suggest that Linux is or will soon be a viable
desktop OS, given the shortcomings discussed herein.
Thank you for your time.
Chris Harshman
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 15:59:13 GMT
On Tue, 16 May 2000 15:05:58 GMT, Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 May 2000 02:00:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>This is an _extremely_ close minded view as you do not consider any
>>systems besides Unix, Mac, and Windows. Did you even know that (GASP!)
>>other systems actually exist?
>
>Actually, yes I do know that. VMS is so far from the right solution for a
>home user that it never entered my mind. Similarly, I would not recommend
>MVS or TOPS-20 or VxWorks for the home or small business user.
VMS might make a good core, just so long as the guts of it are
kept away from the end user. I has the necessary characteristic
of an appliance of being reliable.
>
>
>>The best OS for an OS/2 user to move to is VMS. Point by point:
>
>You have _got_ to be kidding. If you really believe that VMS is the right
>system for someone coming from OS/2, then you are a lunatic.
It would make more sense for the end user to just start porting
gtk... ...if they would have to deal with VMS personally.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I R A Darth Aggie)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: 16 May 2000 15:55:27 GMT
Reply-To: no-courtesy-copies-please
On Tue, 16 May 2000 01:44:54 GMT,
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+ 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.
Well, on my system, you've got a choice of Courier (Adobe), Courier
(Bitstream) and lucidatypwriter.
James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
The Bill of Rights is paid in Responsibilities - Jean McGuire
To cure your perl CGI problems, please look at:
<url:http://www.perl.com/CPAN/doc/FAQs/cgi/idiots-guide.html>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 16 May 2000 16:04:57 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob
Hauck) writes:
|On Tue, 16 May 2000 02:00:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|wrote:
|
||This is an _extremely_ close minded view as you do not consider any
||systems besides Unix, Mac, and Windows. Did you even know that (GASP!)
||other systems actually exist?
|
|Actually, yes I do know that. VMS is so far from the right solution for a
|home user that it never entered my mind. Similarly, I would not recommend
|MVS or TOPS-20 or VxWorks for the home or small business user.
|
|
||The best OS for an OS/2 user to move to is VMS. Point by point:
|
|You have _got_ to be kidding. If you really believe that VMS is the right
|system for someone coming from OS/2, then you are a lunatic.
|
| -| Bob Hauck
Oddly enough, VMS is one of a short list of major OS's I haven't had
a chance to play with; although, some folks I respect from the VM days
thought that VMS was pretty good stuff...
Isn't VMS a batch OS underneath, like MVS? I suppose you might replace
some OS/2 server usage with that; but, what about the interactive stuff.
I don't imagine VMS is exactly overflowing with word processors and
stuff... Doesn't seem a likely choice to me.
Guido
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 16 May 2000 16:08:54 GMT
Whoo Boy, Todd's spinning a mile a minute here:
Prove something that's being hidden exists.
Prove that that something is being used.
Prove that that something is advantageous to use.
Prove that it matters.
Oh wait! We don't need to do that, David Boies already has it covered!
Now, on to the important part: how many pieces do we break them into?
Regards,
Guido
BTW, none of the plaintifs in the class action suits will have
to prove it either...
In <8frj5g$t48$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
|josco wrote in message ...
||On Thu, 11 May 2000, Todd wrote:
||
|||
||| josco wrote in message ...
||| >On Thu, 11 May 2000, Todd wrote:
|||
||| So in other words, you can't provide a secret API call that you couldn't
|do
||| with the normal SDK.
||
||I haven't found a good reason to bother.
||
||Your test is irrelevant - it doesn't include efficiency. The existance
||and use of undocumented APIs is proof enough MS cheated.
|
|Undocumented APIs do not necessarily give MS an advantage... if they exist
|and are not documented, don't you think that MS didn't want developers using
|these because those same APIs may not be present in an upgraded version of
|the OS??
|
|Why is everything a conspiracy to you?
|
|| Arguing they had
||no purposes presupposes you know how MS competitors were supposed to build
||software. The crime is the lack of full access to the OS.
|
|
|Yet, these supposed few undocumented APIs that do exist do not give any
|programmatic advantage MS ! If so, point out an example that Office or IIS
|or anything MS writes...
|
|-Todd
|
||
||
|
|
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
