Linux-Advocacy Digest #567, Volume #26 Wed, 17 May 00 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Closed-mindedness and zeal... (was Re: Things Linux can't do!) ("Stephen S.
Edwards II")
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks ("Jim Ross")
Re: Desktop use, office apps (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (eyez)
Re: Desktop use, office apps ("Jim Ross")
Re: Desktop use, office apps ("Jim Ross")
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re: The
"outlook" for kooks) (tholenbot)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Closed-mindedness and zeal... (was Re: Things Linux can't do!)
Date: 18 May 2000 00:27:31 GMT
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Sam wrote:
: >
: > On 16 May 2000 03:41:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
: >
: > >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > >
: > >*snip a rational, well placed expository*
: > >
: > >> People like Charlie, and abraxas have stated that they believe themselves
: > >> to be more intelligent simply because they are Linux users.
: > >
: > >I never stated that.
: > >
: > >Let me be very clear:
: > >
: > >I am more intelligent than a potential linux user who throws their hands
: > >up in disgust the moment linux becomes 'difficult'.
: >
: > Sometimes it is best not to waste time on something you do not need.
: >
: > >Linux is not difficult. Linux is easy.
: >
: > What do you mean by 'Linux' ? Do you mean installing, administering,
: > managing files, or just clicking on an app to make it run ? The skill
: > level goes from minor to enormous.
: >
: > >The problem comes with individuals
: > >approaching it in the same way that they approach windows--whether or not
: > >windows is inferior, it is an entirely different beast, and the
: > >intelligent person treats it accordingly.
: >
: > Depends what you are trying to do, The average person at home wants to
: > access the net, email, and run a few consumer apps and games.
: >
: > Windows is the best for them and it has a growth path all the way to
: > professional level.
: >
: > An intelligent person does not use a sledge hammer where a normal
: > hammer will do. What possible reason would there be for the average
: > user to use Linux, Crasy !!.
: >
: > The only viable option to windows is an iMac.
: >
: > Sam
: NO. The mac OS is based on the FreeBSD kernel!
Not exactly true (nor is it exactly false). Read below.
: So you'd be getting about the same thing.
: http:\\www.freebsd.org
Half true. The kernel is also partially based on the Carnegie Mellon MACH
microkernel, as well as being based partially on FreeBSD v3.2. The name
for the core running underneath MacOS X is known as "Darwin". It's going
to be OpenSource software (at least, that was the situation when I last
read about it), and it promises to be one heck of a kickass operating
system for graphics applications. Let's hope Apple gets things like SMP
right with this one.
The WindowsNT kernel is similar, in that it too is partially derived from
the MACH microkernel. It's officially referred to a "modified
microkernel" in Microsoftie terms. Microsoft has made its design a little
more monolithic-like than they should have, IMHO, but I think the
WindowsNT kernel is still very efficient, from what I have experienced
using the OS.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| 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: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 20:28:05 -0400
Tim Koklas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ian Bell wrote:
> > Trial versions? Maybe they're good when the full version costs more
> > thatn the scanner itself.
>
> There is more software out there, quite complicated, having all sorts of
> fancy filters etc, costing no more than £9.99, which is $20?
Name some for our benefit.
>
> > No, it never will.... I have to give you that one, no-one will ever
> > develop any applications for the fastest growing OS platform in the
> > world...
>
> lol
That is as a server.
And why would a server OS need scanner support?
That's clearly a desktop application.
Linux only has 4% desktop market share and won't grow since it's not easy
enough,
and missing critical features like anti-aliased support.
Jim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 00:31:40 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 20:21:05 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>R. Christopher Harshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8fuu2u$uid$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I suppose I should have been more clear initially. Our requirements:
>> * Microsoft Office compatibility, import and export.
>> * Runs and loads with a reasonable amount of performance across a wide
>> variety of workstation hardware, from a 32MB 486DX2/66 to a 64MB Celeron
>> 466. (The hardware Linux is supposed to increase the usefulness of.)
>
>That's the first lie.
Not quite. It depends on what you're running. The most MS compatible
office products also seem to be the most bloated. That, and Windows
isn't that hot on a 32M 486 either.
>The Linux people don't expect you to want a GUI too.
That's just the Shill's mantra.
I've likely been running Unix GUI's longer than you've been running
any computer of any kind.
[deletia]
As far as the 'bloat' goes: you get more from a Suse DVD in
terms of end user applications than a set of Win95 CAB's
(which are a bit more than 20M, actually).
Although this is a red herring as Unix doesn't need any disk at all.
--
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: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 00:34:20 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 20:28:05 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Tim Koklas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ian Bell wrote:
>> > Trial versions? Maybe they're good when the full version costs more
>> > thatn the scanner itself.
>>
>> There is more software out there, quite complicated, having all sorts of
>> fancy filters etc, costing no more than £9.99, which is $20?
>
>Name some for our benefit.
>
>>
>> > No, it never will.... I have to give you that one, no-one will ever
>> > develop any applications for the fastest growing OS platform in the
>> > world...
>>
>> lol
>
>That is as a server.
>
>And why would a server OS need scanner support?
>That's clearly a desktop application.
>
>Linux only has 4% desktop market share and won't grow since it's not easy
>enough,
>and missing critical features like anti-aliased support.
If that's all that you think is missing then you are going
to be quite dissapointed.
--
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] (eyez)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 00:33:00 GMT
quoting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (eyez) writes:
>> quoting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> >In order to beat Windows, client-side, we need:
>
>> >1. A GUI interface to *all* configuration files;
>
>> Ugh. that's why i LEFT windows.
>
>I'm not saying that you should *have* to go through the GUI, just that
>you can if you want to.
True Enough. However, it seems in my mind that that can cause an evil
spiral. Once you can do it with a gui, you may never learn the RIGHT way,
and especially with the way commercial distributions are, They probably
will all be separate models for doing so.
>
>I concur, though, that for some applications (recovery and
>auto-configs/-installs, to name two) it's a really bad idea. And it's
>a trap that Windows has never managed to get out of. (It's why the
>"Windows Resource Kit" includes a bunch of UNIX utilities.)
>
>> maybe the whole world SHOULDN'T run linux. It's not a system that's
>> made to be like windows.
>
>Perhaps it wasn't made to have a GUI (and I'm not saying "Windows," I'm
>saying "a GUI"), but it's certainly become a part of it over time.
I wouldn't say it wasn't made to have a GUI, i say it wasn't made to DEPEND
ON the GUI.
>
>--
>Eric P. McCoy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
>non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
> - Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
--
Rando Christensen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<perception is reality>
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 20:12:48 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 17 May 2000 14:18:49 GMT, Tim Koklas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Now, that's the first time I hear someone claim that Word is crap. But
> >again ... equal alternatives?
>
> Star Office. It lets me share files in a microsoft dominated world, does
> everything office does and isn't a second guessing abomination.
Maybe but their are limitations in Star Office.
Besides less than stellar filters, having to run everything to do
wordprocessing is about the worst idea I can think of.
It does seem Star Division was trying to replace everything in the OS. Not
very good idea I don't think.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 20:26:10 -0400
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 17 May 2000 20:06:05 GMT, R. Christopher Harshman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I suppose I should have been more clear initially. Our requirements:
> >* Microsoft Office compatibility, import and export.
> >* Runs and loads with a reasonable amount of performance across a wide
> >variety of workstation hardware, from a 32MB 486DX2/66 to a 64MB Celeron
>
> A current version of Windows isn't going to run very well on a 486
> nevermind Windows+MS Office. Whereas a 486 would do quite nicely as
> an xterminal.
I think people have rejected this idea Jedi years ago.
People want the stuff local and it should be damn fast.
Until most networking is 1Gbps and clustering is commonplace,
running everything remotely will cause loss of uptime and performance.
People have said no to this so many times it should be understood.
>
> >466. (The hardware Linux is supposed to increase the usefulness of.)
> >
> >My issue is predominantly that machines that performed acceptably well
> >under Windows 9x with MS Office 97 either do not perform reasonably well
>
> Yeah, sure.
Word loads very fast on recent machines.
SO doesn't. Corel Office doesn't. Filters sux uniformly.
If there were a place where Linux shouldn't be uniform, filters would be my
vote.
>
> >, or are not reasonably MS Office compatible, when running Linux and
> >currently available office solutions.
>
> Any Linux Desktop & Office Suite combo will run reasonably
> well on any hardware where you could reasonably say the same
> thing about Office 97.
SO 5.1 will running slower.
It runs slow on my AMD 850.
Their are serious challenges ahead for Linux as a desktop.
Antialised fonts are a good start.
Jim
>
> [deletia]
>
> I'm not sure I would characterize Office 97 performance on a P6/200
> with 64M as reasonable, nevermind a 486/66 with 32.
>
> --
>
> In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of'
|||
> a document? --Les Mikesell / |
\
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
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: 18 May 2000 00:44:19 GMT
Bob Hauck <hauck[at]codem{dot}com> writes:
: On 16 May 2000 23:40:20 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: wrote:
: >I was a Linux user since kernel v0.92. I used Linux until
: >late 1996. Do you still wish to debate with me?
: Linux has come a long way since 1996. Your knowledge is a bit dated.
I'm sure it is. I'm not arguing the technical validity of Linux here,
Bob. If you read my previous replies to Charlie, you'll see that I'm
merely attacking his "Linux r00l3s, and if you don't think so, then fuck
you!" attitude. I'm also questioning his rationale for why he's posting,
and on several occasions, I've requested that he prove his claims about
being published in magazines, and so forth. He has yet to post proof of
anything other than childish tantrums that exhibit him to be a ignorant
mouth-breathing twit.
He keeps spewing off about his "experience" with WindowsNT, and how much
it crashes, and BSODs. He then goes on to explain that his experience
alone is hard proof that WindowsNT is unstable and unreliable. It is his
childish, and wankish behavior that I am downplaying and not Linux (though
in another thread, I did explain one of my personal reasons for disliking
Linux which some may consider silly... you decide).
Leslie was perfectly willing to post a way to get WindowsNT to BSOD (which
I plan to try soon, just for kicks, although I've already done it several
times successfully without any problems that I can recall), and for that,
I say kudos. All posters like Charlie and Perry seem to do is post
anecdotal nonsense, and then complain when we don't prove _our_
counterpoints to their opinions. That is monumentally stupid, when you
consider the fact that the person making a claim is supposed to provide
proof. The person challenging the claim has no burden of proof (proof of
the counterclaim is at their discretion).
--
.-----.
|[_] :| 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: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for kooks)
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 20:53:35 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Myrat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Eric Templetonbot wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
Having more attribution problems, Myrat?
> > In article <3922db3e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Brian Lewis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "tholenbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <8fk3j9$8g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S.
> > > > > > Edwards
> > > > > > II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If anyone on USENET ever wishes to emulate Templeton, as
> > > > > > > some seem take great pride and joy in emulating Dave Tholen
> > > > > > > (whom I know nothing of, outside of the opinions of others),
> > > > > > > just simply follow these steps:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Illogical. The true home of the tholenbot is
> > > > > > comp.os.os2.advocacy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Incorrect. How typical.
> > > >
> > > > Evidence, please.
> > >
> > > $19.95 please (shipping and handling fees.)
> >
> > Jumping into a discussion, again, Brian?
>
> See what he means?
How predictable, coming from someone having attribution problems.
> I see you failed to answer the question.
Incorrect.
> > How predictable.
>
> How ironic.
Balderdash.
> > > > > At least you made no attempt to conceal your own misinformation.
> > > >
> > > > What alleged "misinformation"?
> > >
> > > Why, don't you know?
> >
> > I see that,
>
> What you see is irrelevant, especially given your dirty glasses.
"Your dirty glasses" are not a given.
> > in typical Brian "I Don't Answer the Question" Lewis
> > fashion, you didn't answer the question.
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who, in a typical Brian "I Don't Answer
> the
> Question" Lewis fashion, failed to answer the question.
Illogical.
> > > > > > On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ask your grasshopper
> > > >
> > > > The grasshopper is in my head.
> > >
> > > What alleged "head"?
> >
> > If you hadn't jumped into the discussion,
>
> The key word is "if".
What is "key" about that word?
> > you would have recognized the correct head.
>
> You are presupposing that he has "jumped into the discussion".
I see you fail to dispute that he jumped into the discussion.
> > > > On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
> > >
> > > Illogical.
> >
> > Yet again you fail to answer the question.
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who yet again failed to answer the
> question.
Impossible.
> > Of course, that is to be expected, coming from you.
>
> As your illogic is to be expected, coming from you.
Illogical.
> > Prove that there must be fifty ways to leave your lover, if you think
> > you can.
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who just "slipped out the back, Jack".
I see you continue to hop on the illogic bus.
--
Prove that there must be fifty ways to leave your lover, if you think you can.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 01:00:45 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
[installing from source]
> Odd, I've got an xemacs from the default install...
Really? I haven't used a bleeding-edge RH, but all the ones I *have*
used don't have XEmacs packages.
> >I want to click on a damn button and have the program install. I want
> >the option to do it by hand if I have to, but installing anything on
> >Linux is a nightmare if you have to build it from the source. Note
> >also that "make install" will occasionally break, depending on your
> >distribution. And they all seem to be going in tangential directions
> >on this one.
> Have you found something you wanted where you couldn't find a
> recent source rpm already tuned for your base installation
> that you could tweak and rebuild with a couple of rpm commands?
Actually, I use Debian, not RedHat. Basically the same situation
(though Debian doesn't package their sources). No, my only point
there was that, frex, Debian makes extensive use of /usr/share,
whereas some other distros use /usr/local for the same thing.
Actually, Debian is now putting all docs in /usr/share/doc instead of
/usr/doc, which is certainly a big departure. (Although they've been
good about putting symlinks in, so far.)
> >There's just no excuse for not having an adequate installer. We have
> >two excellent package-management tools, dpkg (and apt) and rpm. All
> >we have to do is put a shiny new GUI front-end on them.
> What is wrong with clicking on an rpm file with the kde
> file manager/browser? It will automatically start kpackage
> so you can click the install button. Toss in the powertools
> CD and go wild.
Oh, nothing's wrong with it. But some (non-free) programs require you
to, for example, first download the program to /tmp and then "install"
the package. And packages often run behind the latest release,
because the maintainers can't be bothered to wrap them up in anything
but a tarball.
I didn't know RH/KDE had a GUI installer. That's great. Debian
doesn't have one. (I'm talking about something other than gnome-apt.)
> >Not that I am bitter.
> Have you been doing it the hard way?
Sometimes, that's the only way to do it.
[too many Linux packages]
> If it is free and useful you'll probably find it in either the
> RedHat or Mandrake base RPMs or on the powertools CD. Or
> the VALinux variation - all pretty much binary-rpm compatible.
Searching through billions and billions of packages is no fun. Maybe
I'm in worse shape because I use Debian (where if it ends in ".dpkg"
it's on the master list of packages).
Actually, Debian seems to have some nice categories (optional, extra,
important, required) that would be useful, if they were implemented
properly. Well, in time, maybe.
> >I much, much, much prefer being able to right-click on something and
> >hit "Properties." I also like being able to press F1 when the mouse
> >is over a confusing field and get an explanation of it. (The
> >explanation often isn't a help, and I expect that would carry over to
> >Linux, but at least there's no flipping around between screens.)
> So what is the problem with doing this in the KDE desktop?
KDE isn't free.
And GNOME is nowhere near fully-developed.
> >Please excuse the rant. But Linux has been a pain in the ass to
> >configure since I started using it in the early 90's, and it's
> >improved not at all since then.
> Huh? A recent Mandrake/RedHat does most of what you say
> is missing right out of the box.
Perhaps. I've never actively administered a RedHat system. Are all
of RH's configuration tools proprietary or non-free? If they were
open source and portable between distros, I'd think they'd show up in
Debian. (After all, Bonobo and friends have.)
--
Eric P. McCoy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
