Linux-Advocacy Digest #61, Volume #27 Tue, 13 Jun 00 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Cihl)
Re: Boring ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Cihl)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Cihl)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Boring (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight (JEDIDIAH)
Re: MS Windows WM (Cihl)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:40:13 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:22:35 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >>Hello? Pete? Have you been paying attention at all? Linux does NOT
> >>belong to any business or (evil) corporation, it exists out of a
> >>community effort.
> >
> >There's one thing I've noticed about altruistic organisations - they tend
> >to disappear once the real world intrudes.
>
> Just like the Linux IPO's are dying one after the other now that the
> real world of the corporation has taken a good look at Linux and has
> deemed it a mess.
>
> >>Linux cannot die, ever! As a manner of speaking you could shoot Linus
> >>Torvalds, Alan Cox and Alexander Viro, and Linux development would
> >>STILL continue. There's NO WAY of stopping it, EVER. It's estimated
> >>that the Linux-effort has over 50.000 developers working on the
> >>various components at any given time!
> >
> >Oh it can die alright. When the next fad comes along and sweeps all the
> >Linux developers then you can kiss Linux bye bye.
>
> It's already dying. Along with BEOS, which Stienberg has withdrawn
> support and according to rumour Emagic is the next one.
> >>For instance, the graphical installation procedures have only even
> >>existed for the last 3 (three) months. Give it another year, and Linux
> >>will BLOW Windows AWAY for the installation.
> >
> >Another year...
>
> Linux is always behind. It has no future....
>
> >>Give it another two years from now, and Linux will support all
> >>hardware, old and new.
>
> Yea sure. It will support the same hardware in 2 years that Windows
> supports now....
Once again, lack of driver support is NOT Linux' fault. It's the fault
of hardware manufacturers. Microsoft has them only making drivers for
their OS. That's one of the reasons they are is court.
> >Another two years...
>
> It will be gone...
>
And leave Linux without competition? There will surely be others!
> >>Desktop environments are evolving so fast you won't believe it! Look
> >>at the difference between KDE1 and KDE2, for instance! Look at the new
> >>Gnome! They all get slicker with every new version, which appear about
> >>every 3 to 4 months!
> >
> >Getting slicker...
>
> Sure and another 20 meg of convoluted files for the already confused
> user to download.
Linux is NOT Windows. That's the main mistake you people keep making.
> >>The X-environment is getting a hook into the kernel (DRI), which
> >>ensures the same performance as in Windows.
> >
> >Getting a hook...
>
> When you run Linsux you are hooked alright.
>
That's absolutely right! You'll never want to go back after you used
Linux for a while!
> >> Linux is developing a new
> >>3D-audio library (http://www.openal.org), after which the SB-Live
> >>drivers will come out for Linux.
> >
> >...is developing...
>
> Always the promise, never the present.....
It'll be out in august, along with the Live-drivers.
> >Congratulations! You've proved my point! Linux is lagging behind Windows!
> >Linux is playing catchup! Thank you! Thank you!
>
> By about 10 years......
> >Now, how many years does it all add up to I wonder...
>
> total?
>
> I would say 15 years at best.....
You can make that 15 months. That's the time you have to sell your
MS-stock.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:40:17 GMT
It looks like Unix but does it have Logical Volumes like AIX?
Or the Solaris equivilant?
Just one example...
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:29:59 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Linux is based on Unix?
>>
>> Care to prove that?
>
>Linux tries to be as POSIX-compliant as possible. This means it's a
>Unix-derivative. Don't you think it looks like Unix, too?
>
>Even some of you WinTrolls say it's based on Unix.
>
>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:56:50 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Linux is based on UNIX.
>> >
>> >Windows 9x is based on MS-DOS.
>> >
>> >Which one would you prefer?
>> >
>> >(That's it)
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:41:34 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Just in time for ISA slots to be eliminated from motherboards.....
>
> At best you can buy a Motherboard with ONE ISA slot....
>
> Typical Linux....
>
> It's there just in time for something else to surpass it.
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:19:09 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >ISAPnP support is in the development kernels. It should be out in a
> >couple of months.
I actually agree with you on this one. It's a little like putting the
horse behind the carriage. Oh well.. If you don't have any ISA cards,
you can at least leave it out of the kernel. Try doing that with
Windows.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:42:01 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:14:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:35:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:30:14 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:47:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 13 Jun 2000 14:02:55 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:57:13 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>Tiberious wrote:
>>>>>> [CUT the entire crap]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The fun part of you guys posts is that lately you're atacking Linux on its
>>>>>>lack of support for "home devices". This must mean that the server side of
>>>>>>things is allready won by Linux - i can only agree on that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Regarding end-user PC's its very simple... simply just aquire devices that
>>>>>>are supported by Linux..
>>>>>
>>>>>And you still cant get the hardwair to work together. Instead of being abal to
>scan something
>>>>>and have it go strate to the printer or FAX, you half to save it to fial and
>cibvert it to
>>>>>postscrit, and thats' just to print. FAX modems just don't work on UNIX.
>>>>
>>>> Sure they do. My Phoebe works just fine. As far as treating several
>>>> peripherals as if they were one virtual dedicated device, that's also
>>>> trivial.
>>>
>>>So why doesn't Linux?
>>
>> Repeating lies won't make them any more true, regardless of
>> how many times you repeat the lies.
>
>
>But you still haven't answered the original question.
>
>So why doesn't Linux......?
>>>It can barely put an icon in a menu when you install a commercial program like
>>>Wordperfect.
>>
>> Neither can Windows, if you didn't manage to hire a reasonably
>> intellegent student intern this quarter.
>
>Every Windows program that I have installed has put an icon either on
>the desktop or in the Starup->program menu and that includes the
>README and other information.
That must get pretty cluttered after awhile.
>
>Please provide me with an example of a current Windows program that
>does not?
Crystal Reports.
[deletia]
>>>
>>>So if it is so easy, again why does not Linux do it?
>>
>> scanimage -d /dev/scanner | lpr
>
>
>Oh that's certainly something Joe Sixpack will remember..
Then someone can encapsulate it in a button, menu or
an entire pointless little shiny little applet.
>
>You prove my point all the time....
>
>I prefer clicking on the icon that says "Scan image"
That usually the way I do it as well. The expert interface
does not negate the existence of the "morons-only" interface.
>>>
>>>
>>>> There are even some shiny happy gui tools that do the "scanner as fax
>>>> machine or copier trick".
>>>
>>>
>>>Sane is a bare bones abortion.
>>
>> How do the Windows variants "best it" exactly?
>
>
>Try them and you will see. I have used both Linux deviants and Windows
In other words: you have no idea.
You are just an uninformed ingoramus talking out of his ass.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:42:40 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> The windows version I allowed to render to the screen; the Linux version I
> deliberately switched off that feature, thereby giving Linux a slight edge.
> Even still it ran slower than the Windows version.
>
> Both versions were V3.1g - built by the POV team themselves.
>
But was the Linux version built for 386 or 686? Many compiled Linux programs
are provided only for 386 to allow them to run anywhere. Somtimes the
binaries are provided for 386, 586, and 686. To get the best performance you
need to 686 version.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:43:37 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:34:30 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> >Hello? Pete? Have you been paying attention at all? Linux does NOT
>> >belong to any business or (evil) corporation, it exists out of a
>> >community effort.
>>
>> There's one thing I've noticed about altruistic organisations - they tend
>> to disappear once the real world intrudes.
>>
>> >Linux cannot die, ever! As a manner of speaking you could shoot Linus
>> >Torvalds, Alan Cox and Alexander Viro, and Linux development would
>> >STILL continue. There's NO WAY of stopping it, EVER. It's estimated
>> >that the Linux-effort has over 50.000 developers working on the
>> >various components at any given time!
>>
>> Oh it can die alright. When the next fad comes along and sweeps all the
>> Linux developers then you can kiss Linux bye bye.
>>
>> >For instance, the graphical installation procedures have only even
>> >existed for the last 3 (three) months. Give it another year, and Linux
>> >will BLOW Windows AWAY for the installation.
>>
>> Another year...
>>
>> >Give it another two years from now, and Linux will support all
>> >hardware, old and new.
>>
>> Another two years...
>>
>> >Desktop environments are evolving so fast you won't believe it! Look
>> >at the difference between KDE1 and KDE2, for instance! Look at the new
>> >Gnome! They all get slicker with every new version, which appear about
>> >every 3 to 4 months!
>>
>> Getting slicker...
>>
>> >The X-environment is getting a hook into the kernel (DRI), which
>> >ensures the same performance as in Windows.
>>
>> Getting a hook...
>>
>> > Linux is developing a new
>> >3D-audio library (http://www.openal.org), after which the SB-Live
>> >drivers will come out for Linux.
>>
>> ...is developing...
>>
>> Congratulations! You've proved my point! Linux is lagging behind Windows!
>> Linux is playing catchup! Thank you! Thank you!
>>
>> Now, how many years does it all add up to I wonder...
>>
>> Pete
>
>Note that these developments are mainly details. The main operation of
>Linux is already far superior to anything Microsoft can offer. (not
>that it's very hard to do that, but ok)
No it's not. I can stream 48 tracks of digital audio with full FFT
based effects under WIndows 98SE without a hic-up. My scanner/printer
is supported under Windows, just like 99 percent of every peice of
hardware out on the market.
Can Linux claim the same?
Doubtful...
>Linux development is proceeding MUCH, MUCH faster than Windows
>development. Linux will overtake Windows sooner or later. There's no
>way of stopping it.
Linux development IS moving faster than WIndows, this is true. But it
STILL has NOT even come close. The future will tell whether or not it
surpasses Windows. I look forward to the future...
>(Your turn.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:43:28 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:16:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>And you are missing the fact that folks want an end result, the
>easiest path between two points.
His end result is actually better than your "end result".
>Ecommerce, E-Web, E-banking are all examples.
>
>Linux is an example of an operating system getting in the way time and
>time again.
That's why he can access his faxes from anywhere on the planet
and you can't.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:44:52 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Just in time for ISA slots to be eliminated from motherboards.....
>
> At best you can buy a Motherboard with ONE ISA slot....
>
> Typical Linux....
>
> It's there just in time for something else to surpass it.
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:19:09 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >ISAPnP support is in the development kernels. It should be out in a
> >couple of months.
Hey, hold it just one minute! You mean you didn't know?! How can you
effectively bash Linux without knowing everything about it! When was
the last time you downloaded Linux?
If it's over 6 months ago, no wonder you don't like it. Linux wasn't
fit for the desktop back then! Try it again now, you'll like it much
better. I suggest Mandrake 7.1, it's two CD's.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:44:56 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:35:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>You had better post that ditty to the setup groups because you would
>not believe how many people ask the question:
>
>I just installed Wordperfect, now how do I start it?
If it's a good little Unix program, just call it by name.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:45:35 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:24:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
>
>Linux is based on Unix?
>
>Care to prove that?
Oracle 8i.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:46:56 GMT
"Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >
> > "Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8i3529$2pha$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <kO315.6297$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > > Beg your pardon? When did Microsoft *ever* stick to standard
> > > formats and protocols? If the one they replaced was problematic,
> > > it was entirely their own problem that they invented and sold
> > > us.
> >
> > I am not aware of any case where MS stuck with decades old
> > Unix technology without at least trying to make *some* improvements.
> >
> > So I guess the answer is "never".
>
> What about Hotmail?
Hotmail is standard format or protocol?
> What they attempted with it was a far from an
> improvement, hence they stuck with BSD.
They haven't attempted anything with it that I know
of.
> MS also bragged about how their media production facilities were not prone
to
> virii because they were using Unix boxes. [anybody still have a link to
that
> web page?]
That strikes me as very likely a fabrication. Even if it were true,
MS would never admit it. :D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:46:57 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8i64ek$n5n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <m7p15.8124$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >> The
> >> display window size negotiation is part of the telnet protocol
> >> and most (non-microsoft) versions allow on-the fly resizing
> >> which most unix character-mode screen apps understand.
> >
> >Well, if you say so- this is news to me. However, this has nothing
> >to do with vt100 emulation.
>
> Right - it is in the telnet protocol. We are talking about
> a telnet program here. Or what is supposed to be a telnet program.
Okay. So what is a vt100 emulator supposed to do about it?
> >> For
> >> example, if you drag a window larger while in a remote vi session,
> >> it will redraw the screen with the new correct number of lines.
> >
> >That is possible, given a terminal protocol that supports it. I do
> >not think it is dependant on *telnet* though; surely that will work
> >on any terminal that support such stunds, including physical
> >real chunks of hardware on serial ports.
>
> It has nothing to do with terminals or terminal emulation.
Wasn't your original complaint that the vt100 emulation was
broken?
> >> It is not in Microsoft's interest to make it easy for you
> >> to use unix systems, and their telnet certainly doesn't.
> >
> >Make Unix easy to use a very difficult task. :D
>
> Unix has an elegant simplicity.
That is not the same thing as being easy for you to use.
> >MS's little telnet doesn't make any serious effort to do this;
> >it's a telnet client with a rather second-rate terminal emulator.
> >That's better than *just* being a telnet client, but not by much.
>
> No, it is not a complete telnet implementation. Try running CRT
> or netterm, or several others that get it right. It isn't just
> the terminal emulation that makes the difference.
Those may be better telnet programs, but so far what I've
heard from you is that MS's telnet's problem is that it
can't do anything better than a lousy vt100.
[snip]
> If it were just one bad program I might agree, but since the big
> picture is that virtually *every* Microsoft program has annoying
> flaws that make correct interoperation with any non-Microsoft
> product difficult (FrontPage extensions, J++, compilers that
> encourage use of MFC, Outlook's different treatment of LDAP, service
> packs that break samba passwords, non-standard HTML additions and
> on and on...), I can't believe it is just simple stupidity.
Well, what you call "annoying flaws" other people call "useful
features", for the most part. Things like frontpage extensions are
not comparable to the limitations in MS's telnet.
MS is succesfull in large part because it is able to see the need
for these features, and the people who are creating these
'open standards' either don't see it, or don't care, or can't get the
standards improved.
> All
> of these cleverly make the competition look bad compared to using
> an all-Microsoft solution when in fact it is the Microsoft code
> that is incorrect, non-portable, non-standard and causes the problems
> that you see.
They do make non MS products look bad, and I think that is
the point.
But failure to stick to the limitations of Unix is not 'incorrect'
in my book.
> >They probably thought this wasn't important to their real
> >users, but I wonder if this will change. Unix seems to have
> >become Windows NT/2000's main competitor.
>
> Yes, it will be interesting to see if the pattern of subtle
> breakage is repeated in the unix add-on pack for w2k. It
> was a touch of brilliance to make the posix subsystem
> for NT unusable for any normal networking programs so
> people wouldn't be able to easily use it to write
> portable code and escape their vendor-lock. Have they
> done it again?
I assume so. The idea of using POSIX on NT was very silly
to start with; intended, I think, to check a checkbox on somebody
list and no more.
But I think it is a good example of the limitations of Office Standards;
MS has adhered to the letter of the (basic) POSIX API, well, you
know what came out.
POSIX is just the minimum that the Unix vendors could agree
to, and as such it is almost completely useless by itself.
To make it useful what you need to a Unix clone, pretty much all the
way- and not just POSIX.
Fortunately, MS has declined to go that route.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:47:14 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:34:38 -0500, Michael Guyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:34:12 -0500, Michael Guyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >True surround sound and 3d enviromental mapping are the reasons to use a
>SB
>> >live card. For DVD and games a SB live card makes a big difference. For
>>
>> Enviromental audio doesn't require 4 channel audio, so ultimately
>> any soundcard should do. The real problem would be hardware
>> acceleration and whether or not a contemporary CPU is capable of
>> overcoming the computational overhead involved.
>>
>
>Yes but surround sound is different from enviromental audio and cannot be
>done with a standard 16 bit stereo card.
...that's why I didn't state otherwise.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Windows WM
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:48:43 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:28:18 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:54:21 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hmm.. Could you repeat these complaints to the KDE and Gnome teams?
> >> >They should be very interested in what you have to say. They'll
> >> >probably actually do something about it. That's one of the main
> >> >strenghts in open-source.
> >>
> >> Ok so why does Gnome keep crashing all the time?
> >>
> >> I have more of those tiny Time-Bomb icons around than I care to.
> >
> >It never crashes with me. Are you sure it isn't X that's crashing?
> >Which videocard do you have?
>
> KDE rarely crashes so I have to assume it is Gnome.
>
> I have a Matrox G200 with 8 meg..
Then maybe it IS Gnome after all. The G200 normally doesn't crash with
X at all. Sorry, can't help you there.
> >> KDE is much more stable, but doesn't look as smooth to me.
> >
> >Look at the screenshots for KDE2.
>
> I will take a look..
>
> Thanks...
>
> >> Neither is anywhere near to Windows GUI for consistency with
> >> applications and look and feel.
> >
> >It's coming. Just wait and see.
> >
> >> Not even close....
> >
> >That's your opinion.
(I'm going to bed now, it's getting really late here, and i have to
work in the morning.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:52:02 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:42:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:14:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:35:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:30:14 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:47:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 13 Jun 2000 14:02:55 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:57:13 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>Tiberious wrote:
>>>>>>> [CUT the entire crap]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The fun part of you guys posts is that lately you're atacking Linux on its
>>>>>>>lack of support for "home devices". This must mean that the server side of
>>>>>>>things is allready won by Linux - i can only agree on that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Regarding end-user PC's its very simple... simply just aquire devices that
>>>>>>>are supported by Linux..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And you still cant get the hardwair to work together. Instead of being abal to
>scan something
>>>>>>and have it go strate to the printer or FAX, you half to save it to fial and
>cibvert it to
>>>>>>postscrit, and thats' just to print. FAX modems just don't work on UNIX.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure they do. My Phoebe works just fine. As far as treating several
>>>>> peripherals as if they were one virtual dedicated device, that's also
>>>>> trivial.
>>>>
>>>>So why doesn't Linux?
>>>
>>> Repeating lies won't make them any more true, regardless of
>>> how many times you repeat the lies.
>>
>>
>>But you still haven't answered the original question.
>>
>>So why doesn't Linux......?
>>>>It can barely put an icon in a menu when you install a commercial program like
>>>>Wordperfect.
>>>
>>> Neither can Windows, if you didn't manage to hire a reasonably
>>> intellegent student intern this quarter.
>>
>>Every Windows program that I have installed has put an icon either on
>>the desktop or in the Starup->program menu and that includes the
>>README and other information.
>
> That must get pretty cluttered after awhile.
You can easily erase or move them unlike Linux....
>>
>>Please provide me with an example of a current Windows program that
>>does not?
>
> Crystal Reports.
Never heard of it.
Some sort of Physic program or something?
>[deletia]
>>>>
>>>>So if it is so easy, again why does not Linux do it?
>>>
>>> scanimage -d /dev/scanner | lpr
>>
>>
>>Oh that's certainly something Joe Sixpack will remember..
>
> Then someone can encapsulate it in a button, menu or
> an entire pointless little shiny little applet.
No that's a demonstration of the ease of Windows and the archaicness
of Linux.
>>
>>You prove my point all the time....
>>
>>I prefer clicking on the icon that says "Scan image"
>
> That usually the way I do it as well. The expert interface
> does not negate the existence of the "morons-only" interface.
If both are indeed provided.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There are even some shiny happy gui tools that do the "scanner as fax
>>>>> machine or copier trick".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Sane is a bare bones abortion.
>>>
>>> How do the Windows variants "best it" exactly?
>>
>>
>>Try them and you will see. I have used both Linux deviants and Windows
>
> In other words: you have no idea.
No... I have used both SANE and Winfax and there is absolutely no
comparison.
Not even close.
Iter-program operability is only one area.
> You are just an uninformed ingoramus talking out of his ass.
>
>[deletia]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
