Linux-Advocacy Digest #727, Volume #26 Sun, 28 May 00 11:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (herk)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux Losers (herk)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 (Robert Heininger)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: democracy? (Robert Heininger)
Re: any screen capture package? (Robert Heininger)
Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: herk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 14:12:25 GMT
They're both pretty windows'ish. There's alot of great window managers which are
lightning fast and much more stable out there. Take a look at fvwm2 or blackbox, both
very simple, stable, and fast.
In article <8gqqio$e0a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <Ww3S4.869$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "none2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> one thing i hate about KDE is that
>> (a) it looks likes windows
>> (b) gnome doesnt
>>
>> even KDE2, is going down the path of intregated www browser in file
>> manager tool,too all those KDE users who want Windows type interface, how
>> about.. run windows? I Installed linux to get away from windows, not to
>> see another wannbe windows interface. KDE is a toy. QT sucks as a widget
>> looks bland, and licensing issues make it undesirable to use.
>>
>> btw I run Windowmaker/Gnome, and it looks *nothin* like windows.
>>
>> linux and damn proud of it.
>>
>
> I'm using KDE Web browser 1.1.2 or whatever, see my message header to verify
> it. I don't like GNOME because it's annoys me frequencly sliding as auto
> hide, not for KDE. I've customized KDE panels, shortcuts, almost M$ Windows
> look alike. I'm proud of it.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 10:16:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting budgie from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sun, 28 May 2000 11:19:58 GMT
>On 27 May 2000 15:35:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 May 2000 14:07:17 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>>budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>(snip)
>>| Time to reinstall the whole shebang. Gets rid of a closet full of
>>| ghosts.
>>
>>Do you consider that an acceptable solution?
>
>I haven't needed to do that (except one occasion when Netscape
>Communicator turned feral) but it ensures that you have things in
>order.
So I imagine that's a "yes", eh? It doesn't look like Damien finds that
an acceptable solution, nor do I. Why are your standards lower than
ours?
>The ONLY way that a 1994 product could handle the format of a 1997
>product is if there were no advancement.
This is blatantly and obviously incorrect. So I guess the answer to my
question seems to be "the reason your standards are lower is because you
don't understand how software and file formats work".
But I don't think Damien's or my standards are quite so high that we
would use 1994 to 1997 as the time span under discussion. I would be
satisfied with 1997 products being able to read 1999 formats.
>The biggest limitation of
>Wintel systems is the designers' perceived need to maintain backward
>compatibility.
The biggest requirement of PC systems are the seller's need to maintain
compatibility with the buyer's installed base. Distributed systems are
like that. That's why Bill Gates belatedly realized that his "Internet
strategy" was all wrong, and corrected it by trying to kill Netscape.
This will, it appears, result in the breakup of Microsoft, because any
level of understanding of distributed systems is enough to understand
why that's illegal.
>While I like B/C I also recognise it is like running
>the marathon towing a caravan. If new features are going to be
>introduced then there will inevitably be a need to modify or extend
>the file format. That's the price of progress. That's reality.
No, that's limited imagination. There is no reason why any specific
advancement would have to modify the file structure. Given a modular
file structure, you can account for changes in file format. Given
modular file formats, you can extend the application capabilities. The
only reason that a file structure change is necessary to change
application capabilities is the extend of the lack of thinking in the
design of the file structure.
Now, we know programmers can't be perfect, so they are going to design
flawed file structures, and may eventually have to modify them in order
to correct whatever flaw is preventing a change in application
capabilities. But backwards compatibility of file formats isn't
anywhere near the extreme functionality you put it out to be. It hasn't
necessarily been the rule in the PCs short history, but there have been
enough exceptions to recognize the flaw in the argument that
incompatibility equals "the price of progress".
The hassle of changing the software is the price of progress. Anything
which makes this more difficult, notably gratuitous changes in file
format to prevent competition from establishing a persistent market
share, is a crime against the consumer as well as against the potential
competitors.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: herk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Losers
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 14:16:45 GMT
Just out of curiosity how long did it take you to write this hard hitting commentary?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Truth) wrote:
> You people are a bunch of losers.
>
> Each day millions of people use Microsoft product and are glad to do
> so. They send e-mails to their friends and lovers with happy messages
> and delightful attachments.
>
> You Linux losers preach that all this should be stopped because one of
> your low life counterparts writes a stupid virus. I'm sure these
> individuals do this from within the solitude of their lives driven
> only by spite. Much akin to the sad individuals who advocate Linux.
>
> Only pathetic computer geeks use Linux. Ugly stupid people who are
> shunned by society use Linux.
>
> Trendy happy people who laugh with their friends at popular
> restaurants use Microsoft products.
>
> Sad, poxy-faced perpetually virgin males use Linux.
>
> These are the facts. And you sad embittered individuals know this.
>
> The only way you pathetic people can gain any self-esteem is to force
> yourselves to use a system that most people who have better ways to
> spend their time regard as an esoteric oddity.
>
> Crawl back into you isolated holes and stop bothering those of us who
> are happy to have lives that don't revolve around building kernels and
> waiting for patches.
>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 10:18:27 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting budgie from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sun, 28 May 2000 11:23:06 GMT
>On Sun, 28 May 2000 02:03:03 +0200, Giuliano Colla
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>(snip)
>
>>Don't make me laugh lad! Do you think that Epson Computers delivers
>>faulty pre-installed systems? And so does Fujitsu-Siemens?
>
>Yes, fujitsu have and so have Compaq. But what does that prove?
It proves its bugs in the software, not "a bad installation". Even if
you suggest that it is "poor quality control, and hence the installer's
responsibility, and hence a 'bad installation'", its merely
misdirection. Mere quibbling about the definition of "bug" in order to
insist that the statement "Microsoft software has severe bugs" has not
been supported by the example given.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger)
Subject: Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 14:26:22 GMT
On Sun, 28 May 2000 09:03:58 GMT,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Pete Goodwin' wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mig Mig) wrote in <8gpffl$qis$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mig Mig) wrote in <8gmpjq$94q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>> >No i was not in denial... and he just admitted that the problem was
>>> >his own error by installing linx4win and not a real install of
>>> >Mandrake.
>>>
>>> You said you didn't believe me. I mean, I made the assumption that
>>> lnx4win works - how was I supposed to know that it doesn't? Isn't it a
>>> version of Linux after all?
>>
>>Beause you didnt Read The Fucking manual.. i think README file
>>for both RedHat and Mandrake installations tells you what to do.. at
>>least i remenber reading it in some file in the CD's root directory
>
>What you mean I have to actually READ something! I can't just install and
>go? You do realise with Windows I've never read any of the manuals, yet I
>do installs all the time!
rpm -ivh some-application-1.2.3.i386.rpm / or / GnoRPM click the install
thingy? What's so hard about doing that?
>I'll go and check the README file for lnx4win and see if it mentions the
>problems I found:
>i) Time zone screwed up
timeconfig
>ii) 64MByte limit
lilo (not sure how Lnx4Win works though)
>iii) Broken sound
sndconfig
>iv) Broken network
linuxconf
>However, I have a feeling it won't tell me anything useful.
Quote from the Mandrake web site:
"You can download Lnx4Win now from this directory. Note that this is not
**Official Distribution** yet. You need to download latest Mandrake
Distribution (aka cooker) and you need to put files in right places manually."
Have you followed these very simple instructions? I think not. Does this
actually make any sense at all to you?
--
Robert Heininger
Where Do You Want To Go Today?
Every time I get asked that question, someone wants to take me for a ride.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 14:37:30 GMT
"Wally Bass" <wallyb6@nospam> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 27 May 2000 12:19:07 GMT, "Daniel Johnson"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >Hardware and software are not the same.
>
> True
>
> >Manufacturing technology has improved; computer components are
> >cheaper.
>
> Surprise! No monopolies there, lots of good competition.
It's not immediately obvious that there's a relationship to be found
there. I've noticed an widespread assumption that competition
between a lot of small vendors is better than that between a few
big ones, or between one big one and many small ones.
I'm not sure I see why.
> >Programmers, well, aren't; they are quite scarce (and so
> >expensive) these days. Especially ones that can do the hard
> >stuff, like OSes.
>
> Er, ah, you're drawing the wrong comparison here. Hardware, like
> software, has to be designed by skilled people. Have you checked
> the price of or tried to hire a hardware engineer in Silicon
> Valley lately?
You've a point. This is, basically, the reason why CPUs are
bloody expensive. But most of the stuff in your computer isn't
a CPU.
> Do you think that designing chips (with N million
> circuits, and usually zero bugs) is easy?
Zero bugs? You believe that?
Simple stuff like RAM chips generally doesn't have
'bugs' in the usual sense, but CPUs do.
> The correct comparison to manufacturing technology costs are
> software reproduction costs. The cost of replicating a CD (in
> volume) probably comes in at about a dime these days (certainly
> well less than a dollar), again, not due to Microsoft's
> innovation, but due to the rest of the industry's inovation.
Well, yes. Though I was not aware that MS is culpable because
someone else had an innovation. Perhaps you are saying this
because you are annoyed that MS did not somehow prevent it?
Or just that they don't own all rights to it?
Or what?
> Don't know about the cost of manuals, but MS has for all
> practical purpose stopped including any significant manual in its
> SW distributions these days anyhow.
Well, the book they ship must cost some money to print, but
I doubt it's all that much.
> Relative to the question of development technology... SW
> development technology has improved enormously since the days of
> DOS. The tools revolution really started with Borland, but
> (surprise) the profits are now taken almost excusively by MS, now
> that they have all but wiped Borland out by leveraging their
> insider knowledge of the API's in favor of MS tools.
This is nonsense.
> Also, the tools benefit enormously from the improved hardware...
> also not Microsoft's doing.
How do they benefit from improved hardware?
> >(Really. Just *try* building an OS in Visual Basic. I dare you.
> >:D )
>
> Give me a break. You don't have to program in VB to benefit from
> the improvement in tools. C and C++ are just fine for OS work.
This is why I cited C++ as an example of progress that *is*
relevant. But most of the cool new stuff *isn't*.
Think about all the amazing stuff Borland C++ Builder does
with Delphi. They manage to make C++ into a rapid
application development environment; it's really wild.
But in doing so, they are invading Visual Basic's turf; they
aren't producing something you can use for low-level
work.
They are doing this for the very good reason that must software
development isn't low level work.
> By what measure to you conclude the C++ is not "very much" of an
> improvement for large projects.
I didn't. It's enough of an exception to me "not much improvement"
claim that I felt I had to mention it; had I felt it was not much of
an improvement, I wouldn't have bothered with it.
> In any case, you have to constrast
> this with improvements in chip design tools before you can draw
> any conclusions from it.
Oh? Why?
> >Hardware and software are not the same.
>
> Yes, and in particular, MS software is different both from other
> peoples software and from hardware.
Well, some of it is.
> MS has a monopoly, and sells
> to a MUCH larger base than anyone else in the industry; since SW
> replication costs are virtually zero, that ought to go to lower
> costs for everyone. Does it? Well, Bill G has for some time been
> the richest man in the world, and there are an incredible number
> of millionares at MS... that is some sort of clue.
<sarcasm>
After all, if they are succesfull, they *must* be evil, right? Money
*is* wrong, I'm sure we can all agree on that.
</sarcasm>
> Their profit
> margins are 5 times higher than anyone else in the industry...
> that is another clue.
I rather doubt that. But they are high; Microsoft has a real
cash cow in Office.
That is why they can do things like give Internet Explorer away
for free. Course, some people feel that free software is a bad
thing, but I don't.
Or did you think "profit margin" means the money that goes
directly into Bill's pocket?
> It's true that MS could probably charge more and get away with
> it. That being the case, I suspect that Bill G sees himself as
> rather benevolent, and he probably also sees the world as being
> beholden to Him.
The technical term for this is "guesswork".
> That is certainly what comes across to me in his
> "gee, ain't I, my 'vision', and MS great" TV commercials.
Don't confuse PR with reality. He's trying to overcome the
constant FUD spread about his company- ineffectively though.
> He is
> not the first benevolent despot that the world has ever seen, and
> not the first to confuse his role with that of the Creator.
You gotta teach me that telepathy trick sometime. :D
> But,
> to me, it's surprising how many people that contribute to these
> newsgroups subscribe to that role confusion.
Well, if you assume that anyone who doesn't *hate* Bill Gates
worships him, it probably seems that way.
> However, it does
> help explain some of the anger: "how dare the mere United States
> of America challenge Him." "Why should He be subject to those
> dumb old laws, anyhow?" Read some of the Seán Ó Donnchadha
> and Drestin Black stuff in this newsgroup.
I have on occasion; these people aren't saying what you say
they are saying.
> >And the proliferation of new, better components has made the
> >task of a general purpose OS rather harder; there is now more
> >stuff to support. You can't just drop the old hardware the way
> >computer manufacturers sometimes can.
>
> It would be better if you knew what you were talking about, here.
> MS uses it's monopoly magnificantly to get most of that work done
> by the HW vendors... and if you don't play Bill's game, you don't
> get the MS logo....
You probably think it's all just drivers. Windows has been
made massively more complex to handle this stuff.
> True, MS does distribute lots of drivers with their OS's, and
> that's a significant convenience. But, they don't particularly
> support them..., they will direct you back to the manufacturer in
> a heartbeat.
That is, sad to say, pretty much universal.
> The reality is that MS can't seem to produce two OS's in a row
> without forcing the rewrite of all of the hardward drivers (you
> could argue that they have, in W95 and W98. I would argue that
> those two are really the same OS).
Sure they can. MS continues to support the older drivers
in new releases.
> The reality is that MS
> exacerbates this problem because they, as a monopoly, can and do
> stick it to the HW vendors, while they march off to the bank.
With sufficient effort, it is possible to see evil in *everything*; what
continues to baffle me is the way MS's detractors undermine their
own case by *focusing* on things that are, well, not exactly
unambigously bad. Rather than trying to nail MS for *clear cut*
malfeasance.
Perhaps this is because MS has never engaged in clear cut
malfeasance?
I find that hard to believe. But it's still baffling.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 09:53:25 -0500
<jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-pGPvkfrTNDos@localhost...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Who cares if it washes with you. It washed with the judge, and he
accepted
> > the revised evidence.
> You should make it more clear to us when exactly you want us to accept
> the judge's rulings and when we should consider them dishwater. You
> just keep swinging both ways.
Hey, I'll be perfectly willing to accept that the jduge doesn't know what
he's talking about if that's your story. Are you now suggesting that to be
the case?
Whoever "us" is, is taking the tact that the judge has not made any
mistakes. Thus, the claim of falsified evidence cannot be made, or else you
would have to admit that the judge made a mistake. Correct?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 14:47:32 GMT
On 28 May 2000 05:37:47 GMT,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Loren Petrich' wrote:
>In article <392eb767$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Gerald Willmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
>>The results of these MS breakup polls (consistently 2/3 against) raise some
>>interesting questions about the implementation of democracy (in this case in
>>the USA).
>
> How many such people are familiar with the anti-Microsoft
>litigation and the issues at stake? Here are some possible reasons why
>many people may not be familiar with the issue:
>
>* It goes over their heads
>* They feel that they have better things to do than be interested in this
>issue
* A large portion of the desktop consumer base is not even aware of anything
besides Microsoft. (and Apple) For them : PCs=Windows : Consumers don't think,
they are too busy watching TV. Consumers have herd mentalities and they ride
the latest trends to be hip.
> But among people familiar with computer stuff, there is a big
>contingent that seriously dislikes M$. So one may be more likely to
>dislike M$ if one is familiar with it.
I Agree:
The more I learn about computers is the more I dislike the Redmond Marketing
Machine.
--
Robert Heininger
Where Do You Want To Go Today?
Every time I get asked that question, someone wants to take me for a ride.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger)
Subject: Re: any screen capture package?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 14:56:21 GMT
On Sun, 28 May 2000 11:18:18 +0800,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `paokai chang' wrote:
>Is there anybody tell me : where to find a "screen capture" package
>for KDE 1.1 (except Ksnapshot)
eh? What's wrong with Ksnapshot? It works fine.
http://www.freshmeat.net Do a search for "screen shots".
--
Robert Heininger
Where Do You Want To Go Today?
Every time I get asked that question, someone wants to take me for a ride.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows by Day, Linux by Night
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 14:58:30 GMT
Sure, Windows is pure, just like the Aryan race is pure. What a load of rubbish.
Windows has cobbled together a million ad-hoc features created by Microserf
programmers along with a few incorrectly-ported features from older operating systems.
In addition, we mustn't forget all of the third-party products that Microsoft
subsumed into Windows by dint of their purchasing power.
(MS-Visio 2000, what
a ghastly concept!!!!!)
Chris
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
>
> Actually, you'll find that lots of us like lots of other things. The only thing
>we're
> approximately unanimous on is that *Windows* is pure.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
