Linux-Advocacy Digest #45, Volume #27 Mon, 12 Jun 00 23:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux advocate trapped inside a Windows Box (Secretly Cruel)
Re: The sad Linux story (Christopher Browne)
Re: Linux advocate trapped inside a Windows Box (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (TholenBotPro)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Bob Hauck)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Michael Marion)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (TholenBotPro)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Michael Marion)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ("Tim")
Re: Linux & Winmodem (Jody Lowes)
Re: Boring (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux Game Available ("Tim")
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence ("Tim")
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight (Charlie Ebert)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocate trapped inside a Windows Box
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:08:37 -0400
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:14:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
> ..."night and day" in this instance being EYE CANDY.
The eye candy made a big difference to THIS newbie, and made me a
Linux fan. Not everyone has the skill to be a command line commander
in Linux. :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: The sad Linux story
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:10:56 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Craig Kelley would say:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> [snip]
>
>> However, in a few months/years Linux is going to completely destroy any
>> remnants of any other system, and there literally won't even be a
>> possibilty of using VMS (or any other non-Linux system): my only choice
>> in software will be Red Hat, Corel, or Debian.
>
>I hope (and believe) you're wrong.
>
>NT will not be going away any time soon, neither will (unfortunately)
>DOS. Amiga just released their SDK for Elate/Tao, but it lacks memory
>protection *by design*, so I doubt it'll even take off. Be recently
>came out with version 5, but they use the BSD userland tools.
>Speaking of which, MacOS X will be even more invested into UNIX.
I think the claim is incorrect for _another_ reason, namely that the
floodgates appear to have reopened, and operating system research
seems to be back under way, after the "Microsoft Hiatus."
During the 1990s, Microsoft spent a lot of stock options buying out
whatever competive research groups that they could. Notably:
a) They eliminated the VMS group at Digital;
b) They eliminated the Mach group at CMU/IBM. WorkPlace OS was the
most enormous failure that practically nobody ever heard about...
Side-effects appear to include:
c) Discouragement of proceedings on Plan 9 and Inferno at Bell Labs
d) Slowed progress of efforts relating to FluxOS at University of
Utah
e) What's up with the L4 group in Dresden?
f) I'm not 100% clear on how the BSD research efforts wound up dying
g) Novell never really leveraged into anything _truly important_ after
Netware 4.
While the "side-effects" are not unambiguously MSFT-related, it is
quite sure that the juggernaut of Microsoft lumbering around spreading
FUD and stock options in the direction of anything "disagreeable" to
NT Domination had considerable effect all around.
Some of the above projects were UNIX-related, but involved different
kinds of directions, from which useful things could be learned, and
which would certainly have led to a _bit_ more diversity than [SuSE |
RedHat | Debian].
The encouraging thing is that with the _MAJOR_ fear over Microsoft
mitigated by the "Linux effect" as well as DOJ action, some of the OS
research projects have been emerging from the ashes.
-> FluxOS has had some new releases.
-> Plan 9 recent released Version 3 in an "Open Source" form.
-> Hurd is lumbering on, albeit slowly.
-> You might be able to compile EROS soon, although it is unlikely to
be self-hosting terribly soon.
It seems to me that the "death of diversity" is overestimated.
The problem seems to me _NOT_ to be that Linux represents a
devastating destroyer, laying waste to diversity, but rather that
_WINDOWS_ was purposed as such, and with a significant _BUDGET_ to
that end that doesn't exist for Linux.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/oses.html>
We all live in a yellow subroutine, a yellow subroutine, a yellow
subroutine...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux advocate trapped inside a Windows Box
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:17:22 GMT
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:08:37 -0400, Secretly Cruel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:14:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>> ..."night and day" in this instance being EYE CANDY.
>
>The eye candy made a big difference to THIS newbie, and made me a
>Linux fan. Not everyone has the skill to be a command line commander
>in Linux. :-)
Redhat 5.x is no more dependent on the command line than
is version 6.x. They both have similar levels of device
autodetection and similar 'wizards'. The 'wizards' in 5.x
just happen to be rendered in ascii rather than pixels.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: TholenBotPro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:32:06 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> TholenBotPro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > tholenbot
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ask Chris Pott, it's his balderdash garden.
> > > >
> > > > Typical incorrect illogic, laced with invective. How predictable,
> > > > coming from you.
> > >
> > > Liar.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> See what I mean?
Typical erroneous pontification.
> > I wonder how the Square Lens Polishing Astrologers Assistants Local No. 246
> > would react to the information that you're forging posts again, Eric.
>
> Illogical.
On the contrary, quite logical.
--
"You're erroneously presuming that I'm being pedantic."
-- Dave Tholen
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:32:33 GMT
On 12 Jun 2000 08:11:34 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yes, you're right, I'm testing the compiler. The same compiler that builds
>the OS, right?
How does the fact that gcc generates 10% fewer dhrystones than VC++
lead to any conclusion at all about the speeds of the Linux kernel vs
Win9x? The two systems are completely different in design and
implementation.
Are you a software engineer or a marketer?
>>It is very hard to show that one OS is "faster" than another,
>>particularly since there are lots of ways to interpret that.
>Somebody did say Linux is three times faster than Windows. Someone else
Not me. You seem to want me to defend that statement, and I won't.
>here in this thread has said they've demonstrated an industry standard
>insurance test running twice as fast on Linux as on Windows.
This is entirely possible if the test involves any multitasking. Win9x
is very bad at that, especially under heavy load. It is also entirely
possible that Win9x is twice as fast as Linux at something else. I can
think of a few candidate things, but I'll leave it to you to think of
something to test. It seems to amuse you.
This is the sort of game that is played with benchmarks. You find one
that makes you look good and your competitor look bad. The tests can
be completely "honest" yet still give a predetermined conclusion.
>I did my own tests based on my own interests, and I find Linux is slower
>than Windows. Not one test, but three seperate ones. How many more do I
>need to do before I can make the conclusion "Linux is NOT faster than
>Windows"?
None. You are free to conclude whatever you want whenever you want.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:32:52 GMT
mlw wrote:
> Usability and reliability are far more important. For every example of
> "easy" you can present, I can post examples of where installations screw
> up the box and programs previously functioning correctly cease to do so.
AAMOF: Here's one for you...
I finally plunked down the cash for the W2kPro upgrade (I feel dirty
now... like I've betrayed the cause or something :) ) because I want to
do some large mpg captures using my TV tuner card and WinVCR. It works
under 98 but 98 has a habit of blue screening a little too often during
captures.. thus wasting my time. This is on a fresh reinstall with
nothing but the drivers for what I need to capture installed
nonetheless.
You know how the winvocates have been touting the livewire drivers for
w2k lately? Well it turns out that if I install the new "livewire"
drivers for my sblive in w2k I get my first taste of the w2k protection
program (the one that's supposed to save us from "dll hell"). It gives
you the option of replacing the system files that changed with the
proper ones, or allowing them to be replaced.. which equates to: you can
have system stability but not full functionality of your SBLive, or full
SBLive drivers but not the stability you're used to. If I do let it
install livewire and replace those files.. I get many other odd things.
If I install the drivers for my Hollywood Plus DVD card after installing
livewire, the machine BSOD's with a short message, but proceeds to
reboot before I can read it. Yipee!
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"The Tuxomatic 2200(TM) with patented Gates-Be-Gone(TM) gets rid of blue
screens in a flash! It forks! It blits! Look at those fantastic pixels!
It surfs the web! You could even host an ISP with it!"
-- Matthew Sachs on
Slashdot
------------------------------
From: TholenBotPro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:42:31 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> TholenBotPro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > X-Face: &'`TcHchf{Dv=[je~bQVYl/3/UyvgwH.r{Vp"kPk_yV^%KhO3ZAfB,^[o@-d,
> > i<87P$$Vh/Y8zPCSSunqSrl{%__y3k/g4/r2/VEUUlRbpn]`a6-3-3P9vSW=`A*]T^Oz
> > uAe!\b#:+G,;/!^*a`/E'4i-0@#nV9#sW\BjGv#dq'ad0=W;kFd6uX',
>
> Typical invective.
More evidence of your lack of X-Face interpretation skills.
> I wonder how the Borg would react to this
> information.
Taking posting lessons from Hugh again, Eric?
--
"I am Dyslexic of Borg. Your ass will be laminated."
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:48:37 GMT
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> I find this most handy for my mp3 collection.
Heh.. I just wrote a little perl script the other day to take my 1100+
mp3s, and grab info from the 3 or 4 naming conventions, then use an id3
tool to put id3 tags on them. Considering that windows tends to mangle
most of the filenames.. I doubt it would've worked under windows.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"My chauffer was injured by a falling gargoyle while standing outside in
Chinese footprints. We rang the bell, a woman screamed, a mouse ran by
us,
through the door. As you can plainly see, I miss nothing."
Monsieur Perrier (James Coco) Murder By Death
------------------------------
From: "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:16:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Marion
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> If I install the drivers for my Hollywood Plus DVD card after installing
> livewire, the machine BSOD's with a short message, but proceeds to
> reboot before I can read it. Yipee!
BTW, that reboot is just a setting, you can choose to have it let you
stare at the blue screen and then reboot manually. Not that that
makes it any better.
TimL
------------------------------
From: Jody Lowes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux & Winmodem
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:49:54 -0600
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Secretly Cruel wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 12:38:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>> eBay rocks. I didn't get my ext. modem quite as cheaply as you did,
>>> but it cost half of retail and was still in the unopened box. I could
>>> not believe the difference in speed when running Windoze.
>>
>>Did you remove the winmodem component and use the external modem for
>>both windows and Linux? Or keep both - one for W and one for Linux?
>>If so, I assume this wouldn't cause a problem under different operating
>>systems....
I still have both modems up and runing. Hell, since modems are
pass-thrugh devices I plugged the winmodem into the wall,then the external into
the windmodem's out jack and finally my phone into the outjack on the external.
Works great. :) I can call either modem when in windows and use the external
in linux.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:26:47 GMT
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Jorge Cueto wrote:
>This newsgroup is starting to be bored ... I guess GNU/Linux has finally
>won and Windows advocates can't just debate anymore :-)
I think the real problem with advocacy is that Linux has won.
What is Microsoft going to do in the next 5 years but die.
If people don't think the KDE is a better desktop than W2k then
what are they going to say when KDE2 is out soon?
I think the Microsoft community realizes that there is no competing with
Linux as the Linux community comes out with a new version roughly once
every 6-9 months. This in comparison to Windows 2-4 year revisionary
history,,, with complete writeups from the ground floor up.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Game Available
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:29:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Simms
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>
> A brief nettiquette refresher:
>
> 1 ) I slightly bent nettiquette by posting an article that was only half
> on topic
> 2 ) Replies involved a one line reply quoting my entire article
> 3 ) Flames were sent to the group, instead of to my email address.
As to item#3: What?! Then flame wars would be private! What good
is that?
Anyhow, you neatly sidestep the fact the you SPAMMED this
newsgroup. You posted an advertisement. We advocates surely
want to see Linux succeed, but we Usenuts dont want to see SPAM
in any form. If it is acceptable fo you to post advertisements than
OPEN THE FLOODGATES, HERE THEY COME!!!! Get it?
TimL
>>>> FLAME AWAY!!! <<<<
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:35:52 GMT
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>If your going to write a test, the test should run for at least 10
>>minutes duration. The test should include File I/O both sequential and
>>random writes and reads, which over 3 files of varying sizes where these
>>three files are exercised at least 6 times. Then the test must include
>>video diplays of some kind, simple text scrolls would be nice with
>>colors. Then the test should compute the prime numbers between say
>>1,000,000 and 3,000,000, just for a good math exercise and store the
>>results into tables in memory. You could produce one of the 3 test files
>>using the results of this math.
>
>Just to keep you happy, I ran a scene called chess2.pov through POVray on
>both Windows 98 SE. This ran for 22 minutes 51 seconds on Windows 98 SE and
>32 minutes 42 seconds on Linux.
>
>In both cases I chose an image size of 640x480 with antialiasing of 0.3.
>
>Do you see the trend here? Linux is _still_ slower than Windows 98 SE.
>
>Oh yeah, before I forget. I cheated. I biased the test in favour or Linux.
>The Windows version is a full blown editor with a POVray engine. It
>generated an image as it ran on Windows.
>
>The Linux version I ran straight from the shell. No X-windows running, also
>no image rendered as it ran.
>
>Linux still came out slower than Windows 98 SE!
>
>>You MUST give the machine an exercise in order to determine who has
>>the best OS.
>
>Is 30 minutes long enough for you?
>
>>We had a comprehensive insurance industry standards test which lasted
>>almost 4 days and that's why we've proven Linux is 2 times the speed of
>>NT in handling 200 applications doing this kind of testing running
>>simultaneously.
>
>Well, the results I'm seeing from my perspective tells me Linux is not a
>good solution for doing intensive floating point operations. If the ray
>tracer takes longer to run on Linux, then any scene I create that takes,
>say 22 hours on Windows might take 32 hours on Linux.
>
>--
>------------
>Pete Goodwin
Pete,
I'll tell you what. I'll take that write up.
And I'll add to it that Linux during the competitive tests we ran was 1.5 times
faster than NT 4.0 with SP4 and twice as fast as W2k in the same test
on newer servers.
So what I'll say is you have your test and I have mine.
I don't think the tests are equal. I think they score in different areas.
But I do want to say that I'll accept that.
I would like you to say which version and distribution were you using to
perform that test?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Source Programmers Demonstrate Incompetence
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:37:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> pie@nowhere wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> says...
>>
>> >But you don't know the design goal of the program. If the main design
>> >goal was portability,
>>
>> Why do not you guys just use Java and be done with it?
>>
>> All this stupid talk about this might be portable and that might not,
>> is a waste of time. C sucks and so does C++.
>>
>> Use Java. Be smart. Who cares about C any more.
>
> You are really stupid.
>
> -Ed
>
>
Aren't we ready for D yet?
(get it?)
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:40:00 GMT
On Sun, 11 Jun 2000, Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote in <960739512.375557603@news-
>>server.mmcable.com>:
>>
>>>HA! That's where I get Linux is 200% faster.
>>>
>>>Try it!
>>
>>That's interesting...
>>
>>It strikes me as odd that in my own limited testing I am not seeing a 200%
>>speed increase on Linux. I would have thought ANY testing, be it simplistic
>>or complex would show SOME kind of speed increase if Linux was 200% faster.
>>
>>However it does not.
>
>How many other processes are you running on the Linux box while
>you are testing? (Try 'ps ax |wc -l' for a count). There is
>not much an OS can do to speed up the CPU for a single CPU
>bound task, and any OS should be able to run a single disk
>drive or network card at its hardware limits. For a test
>of what the OS does, you need to compare the things it actually
>handles, like scheduling multiple tasks, multiple disk queues,
>etc.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To follow up.
We tested the mix with 180 to 200 applications runnning at the same time,
some doing batch processing, other's printing to one of 4 printers, whilst
others were handling mach I/O from stations.
A typical day at the office.
I think the problem with NT and W2k is they were never designed for that
kind of use. BTW it was the server variety of NT and W2k and not the
desktop version....
But the server variety should have done much better than it did.
Linux just litterally mopped the floor with W2k and soundly beat NT
earlier.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:32:26 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tiberious
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Subject:
> Installing a printer, scanner and Fax program on a Win98SE
> system.
>
> Specifics: Canon FB630P scanner. Parallel port version.
> Canon BJC 4400 Printer.
> Software including Winfax and what ever came with the
> scanner and printer.
>
> Install printer with CDROM supplied. Nice CanoCraft programs and
> Greeting Card Designer included. Add's all kinds of menu options to the
> standard print menu so that resolution, paper size, diagnostics and so
> forth are easily accessible to the user.
>
> Install scanner, including Adobe Photoshop (Home version, almost the
> same as pro version) and Canocraft software plus a large selection of
> other software.
>
> Install Winfax. Surprise, surprise, it recognizes the printer and
> scanner and adds a fax option to all menus.
>
> Super easy.
>
> Try out all options and there are wizards to guide the user through all
> the operations of scanning/printing and faxing and most importantly ALL
> FUNCTIONS WORK TOGETHER, meaning you don't have to scan a printed
> document in order to fax it. You can just do it from the scanner menu.
>
> Linux on the other hand?
>
> 1. Doesn't support the scanner.
> 2. Barely supports the printer.
> 3.Gimp vs Adobe? Need I say more?
> 4. You are on your own trying to figure out how to make things work.
> Assuming of course you CAN make things work.
> Integration between programs like in the Windows world? You'll be
> lucky if the programs put an icon in the menus let alone work together.
>
> This person walked into Staples, presented a problem and walked away
> with a solution for $225.00 that was a breeze to install and worked from
> the getgo.
>
> Switch from Windows to Linux? Why?
>
> Why should someone take a step back in time to a half supported system?
>
> What advantage does the person above gain running Linux?
>
> I have yet to se a valid reason to do so except for cost, and running a
> desktop system kills that reason.
>
> Sorry but Linux loses again.
DUH! (...another win-boy...)
Why are you trying to use *nix as
a desktop os?
*nix != BillDOS; \\ get the point(er)?
*nix == *server; \\ multi-box-only
// re-boot in peace
// C. Kolin Bakslas
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 02:43:06 GMT
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Cihl wrote:
>Nico Coetzee wrote:
>>
>> I don't know if I'm just lucky or what but I have installed about 12
>> Linux Workstations the last two weeks. The Package: RedHat 6.2. I had
>> *no* hardware problems. Some of the PC's still give trouble under NT -
>> especially the Packard Bells (which seems to be designed only with Win9x
>> in mind). But even they have no problems.
TRUE! and if you liked that gang, you'll love Mandrakes Lothar system...
>>
>> At home I have the same thing. I don't even bother anymore to check the
>> Hardware Specs. The RedHat installer does everything. The only thing
>> that takes a while is to pick and choose all the packages you want -
>> because there is so many.
>>
TRUE!
>> So far I can install an average Linux Workstation quicker then a NT
>> Workstation (basic OS plus a Office Suite)
>>
OH SO TRUE!
>> The hardware I used was anything from a P166 to PII333 and AMD K6-3.
>>
TRUE!
>> So... Am I just lucky or what is this about hardware?
>>
It's very good...
>> O, before I forget - if you want to reply negatively - just keep in mind
>> that these are *training* PC's and therefor don't need DVD and all these
>> fancy stuff. In fact, I still don't understand why people use
>> SoundBlaster Live except if they are in the music industry. I just
>> coupled my ESS card to my hi-fi and I think I have pretty good sound.
>>
Mandrake and Suse and probably Redhat support DVD and SBlive.
Mine does.
>> What is the rest of the groups feeling? Is Linux finally winning with
>> hardware?
>>
>> Cheers all,
>>
>> Nico
>>
>> --
>> --------------
>> The following signature was created automatically under Linux:
>> .
>> "I said I hope it is a good party," said Galder, loudly.
>> "AT THE MOMENT IT IS," said Death levelly. "I THINK IT MIGHT GO
>> DOWNHILL VERY QUICKLY AT MIDNIGHT."
>> "Why?"
>> "THAT'S WHEN THEY THINK I'LL BE TAKING MY MASK OFF."
>> -- Terry Pratchett, "The Light Fantastic"
>
>It think it would be a good idea to send this message to the NG's the
>newbies come often, like alt.os.linux. It really is no good in
>c.o.l.a., only "advocates" for the various systems come here.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:35:59 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:40:15 GMT, Cihl
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Tiberious wrote:
>>>
>>> Subject:
>>> Installing a printer, scanner and Fax program on a Win98SE
>>> system.
>>>
>>> Specifics: Canon FB630P scanner. Parallel port version.
>>> Canon BJC 4400 Printer.
>>> Software including Winfax and what ever came with the
>>> scanner and printer.
>>>
>>> Install printer with CDROM supplied. Nice CanoCraft programs and
>>> Greeting Card Designer included. Add's all kinds of menu options to the
>>> standard print menu so that resolution, paper size, diagnostics and so
>>> forth are easily accessible to the user.
>>>
>>> Install scanner, including Adobe Photoshop (Home version, almost the
>>> same as pro version) and Canocraft software plus a large selection of
>>> other software.
>>>
>>> Install Winfax. Surprise, surprise, it recognizes the printer and
>>> scanner and adds a fax option to all menus.
>>>
>>> Super easy.
>>>
>>> Try out all options and there are wizards to guide the user through all
>>> the operations of scanning/printing and faxing and most importantly ALL
>>> FUNCTIONS WORK TOGETHER, meaning you don't have to scan a printed
>>> document in order to fax it. You can just do it from the scanner menu.
>>>
>>> Linux on the other hand?
>>>
>>> 1. Doesn't support the scanner.
>>> 2. Barely supports the printer.
>>> 3.Gimp vs Adobe? Need I say more?
>>> 4. You are on your own trying to figure out how to make things work.
>>> Assuming of course you CAN make things work.
>>> Integration between programs like in the Windows world? You'll be
>>> lucky if the programs put an icon in the menus let alone work together.
>>>
>>> This person walked into Staples, presented a problem and walked away
>>> with a solution for $225.00 that was a breeze to install and worked from
>>> the getgo.
>>>
>>> Switch from Windows to Linux? Why?
>>>
>>> Why should someone take a step back in time to a half supported system?
>>>
>>> What advantage does the person above gain running Linux?
>>>
>>> I have yet to se a valid reason to do so except for cost, and running a
>>> desktop system kills that reason.
>>>
>>> Sorry but Linux loses again.
>>
>>So? Is it Linux' fault for not having all the hardware drivers? OEM's
>>deliver drivers for Windows, Microsoft hasn't much to do with that.
>
> Tell that to an end user. It's all about results.
> Getting from A to B in the easiest, most cost
> efficient manner possible.
>
> Is it Fords problem for not having built in baby
> car seats while Chrysler does? Guess what van the
> typical soccer mom drives? Guess why, in part...
whoa-ho....
so this win-boy-f---'s pa's
a soccer mom?
>>Are you paid by Microsoft for this, or what? Advocating
>>Windows/Microsoft doesn't seem very logical to me. They already have a
>>big commercial marketing department. Your whining doesn't do shit.
>
hey lin-boy...
hows your cdrw?
cdrom?
> So in reality you have failed to address any point
> made, which makes YOU a LinoSHILL...
>
>
>
>>Have a nice day. Don't forget to blow Billy's cock, or he won't pay
>>you any more.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 21:47:01 -0600
Semantics _and_ spelling....
Please, its important...
[
urrppp +
|
V
]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
