Linux-Advocacy Digest #62, Volume #27 Tue, 13 Jun 00 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: iMacs With iTitude (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Boring ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MS Windows WM ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux newbie requires advice..... ("Alistair G. MacDonald")
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (JEDIDIAH)
Re: democracy? ("John S. Dyson")
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: iMacs With iTitude
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:52:36 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:10:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 13 Jun 2000 21:27:07 GMT,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:10:20 +1200, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> This is what I mean. UNIX has been around so long that people have given
>>> up trying to even think about fixing its fundamental flaws. And they
>>> wonder why new users are so put off by it all, and why Linux is
>>> completely failing to make any headway on the desktop...
>>
>>That's complete bullshit. Linux is gaining market share at an
>>increadible rate.
>
>On the desktop?
>
>Prove it!!!!
try www.idc.com
>
>>> Under UNIX, the mount point is part of the file path, remember. Consider
>>> a CD-ROM called "My Photos", with a file on it called "Fred the Cat". On
>>> a UNIX system, you might or might not be able to use the pathname
>>> "/cdrom/Fred the Cat". And what if you have both a CD-ROM and a
>>> CD-writer drive attached (as I do), and you put the CD in the latter?
>>
>>/mnt/cdrw and /mnt/cdrom. At least that's how it would work on this
>>guy's system. Oh, and it would likely be /mnt/cdrom/Fred\ The\ Cat.
>
>
>Yawn..under Windows you need not concern yourself with such tripe.
Only because WinDOS is braindead and underfeatured.
>
>And what happens when this mounted CDROM is needed by one of the Linux
>WinAmp Clones (terrible and cheap as they are)?
WinAmp is the cheap one. Why would a shill such as yourself be
boosting one of the posterboys for the UI hall of shame and
UI inconsitency?
As far as needing a disk, one could always ask to it by name.
This is something that WinDOS is incapable of doing. It also
doesn't bother to lock the CD tray when in action so you can
really give that 'gem' winamp fits. Of course WinDOS doesn't
deal very gracefully with this error condition at the system
level either.
...a classic case of the interns in Redmond not quite
thinking ahead well enough.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:53:24 GMT
Yet another Linux Luser trait....
"Oh kind salesman, I want the 686 compiled version of StarOffice"
Yea sure...
linux a complete joke......
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:42:40 -0400, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:55:55 GMT
You are responding to your own message.....
BTW I have used Mandrake 7.x and ISAPNP support is mediocre at best.
Much the same as Windows.
ISA is dead, thank God....
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:44:52 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[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]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:56:44 GMT
So I type in Wordperfect and it works?
I think not.......
This is exactly the reason why Linux is dying fast...
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:44:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>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]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:57:49 GMT
I can re-compile "helloworld.c and make it work on any OS you want....
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:45:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>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]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:58:59 GMT
Typical jedi "linux is great" by omission statement....
The Linonut loves leaving out those important details....
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:47:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>>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]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MS Windows WM
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:59:32 GMT
Nitey nite :)
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:48:43 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>(I'm going to bed now, it's getting really late here, and i have to
>work in the morning.)
------------------------------
From: "Alistair G. MacDonald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux newbie requires advice.....
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:59:21 +0100
...erm, why??
--
Alistair G. MacDonald
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8i4701$10oc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on
Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:00:03 +0100 in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
> What's the first few things I should do after installing Linux??
type 'man man'
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:00:29 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:07:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:19:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 20:58:01 GMT, Tiberious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>So I post a true account of an installation of some hardware and
>>>software, and how it is so superior under Windows than under Linux, if
>>>it can even be done under Linux and this is the result:
>>>
>>>1. The hardware is called crap. Hmmm that's an interesting comment from
>>
>> Winmodems and parallel scanners were called crap here long
>> before you 'graced us' with your 'valueable pearls of wisdom'.
>
>Called crap only by virtue of sour grapes meaning Linux users need not
>apply.
Nope, slow hacks are simply not appreciated by those of us that
have any understanding of the technology or interest in quality.
>
>I used to call Chevy Corvettes crap back when was 18 and couldn't
>afford one.
I can afford one and I still think they're crap.
The same goes for scanners hacked onto an interface never designed
to be a bus, and modems that really aren't that. As far as UNmodems
go, the serious non-shill Windows using crowd agrees with us, not you.
>
>
>
>
>>>a group of people that seem to like to extoll the virtues of running
>>>linux on 486 machines.The hardware works fine under Windows and none of
>>>it is Win* hardware. Of course there will always be some command line
>>
>> Where are the NT drivers? How about the BeOS drivers? Are there
>> any OS/2 drivers? Howabout some Solaris drivers? Can the devices
>> even be hooked up to a Macintosh of any kind.
>
>Fully supported under Win 2k.
What about NT4, it's not been very long since it was obsoleted.
That means that a few months ago, buying a Microsoft product
didn't buy you any more in the way of being "universally compatible"
than would buying an iMac.
>
>Audio support for BEOS is dying, see the groups for details. BEOS will
>be dead soon.
>
>OS/2 is dead..Ask IBM....
>
>Why doesn't Winfax work under MVS ESA?
>
>Your argument negates the fact that only Linux is trying to equal
>Windows
If I need to print or scan something, it has been that for
quite some time already. Trying to be DOS, is something else
entirely.
>
>
>>>nut who will conjure up some oddball application where he needs 200
>>>scans re-scanned multiple times in succession. Command lines were made
>>>just for yahoo's like that.
>>>
>>>
>>>2.I'm called an idiot for not knowing how to manipulate files and data
>>>types. Sure...... Maybe Linux users have to do that but under Windows
>>>point and click and it works. Fax from your scanner program, links added
>>
>> ...assuming everything is set up just so beforehand and every
>> fileytype that you're going to encounter EVER is already accounted
>> for.
>
>Windows does that automagically. Excepting of course the odball
>filetype that some LinoIdiot will send now and then.
IOW, you're full of shit just like you've always been.
[deletia]
Poor frightened moron...
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "John S. Dyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:03:35 -0500
Robert Hampf wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> hélt þessu fram:
> :
> : In case you haven't noticed, the USA is NOT a "democracy"! The people
> : who conduct these invalid polls would love for you to think it is, but
> : if you'll read the Constitution (RTFM) you'll see we're actually
> : configured as a "republic".
>
> I would be tempted to call this American bullshit. Instead I'll just
> call it bullshit.
>
> The reason I nearly called it American bullshit is that over there in
> their language republican is opposite of democrate and liberal is
> not-liberal.
>
The fact is that the USA is not a democracy in the truest sense, it
is representative government, with basic 'guarantees' of certain
rights. In the USA, the rights are technically not
created by the government, but are respected and supported by the
government. In fact, technically in the USA the gov't is there
only for the benefit of the people, and the people aren't 'subjects'
and are collectively sovereign. A difference between the USA
and alot of other gov'ts are that many other, NON-USA gov'ts,
the people are technically not sovereign, but the gov't is (or
in England, the Queen is.) In reality, the gov't in the USA
ends up with most of the same control that a sovereign has. The
major difference is in the mindset and not in the implementation.
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | it makes one look stupid
| and it irritates the pig.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:07:32 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:52:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>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.
As arcana goes, it's actually not bad.
"scanimage" ...oooh, whatever could that be.
"/dev/scanner" ...now that's a non-descript name if there ever
was one.
>>>
>>>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.
If? That sounds suspiciously like an ignoramus caught in his ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
Then start making some real comparisons, instead of making it
apparent to everyone that you've never used any of this stuff
even under windows and that you're just talking out your ass.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: 13 Jun 2000 23:08:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Martijn Bruns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Agree to much of it. I've recently seen Win2k and it's really not
>> bad, not bad at all. It reacts better to the user than WinNT, and
>> both are of course better than Win98(SE), which is probably the
>> worst OS ever made (reliability/usability) by anybody.
>>
>> I still like Linux more, though. It's not so much the overall
>> quality of the OS, as well as the thought -behind- the OS that
>> appeals to me. I like the fact that it's a large community
>> effort, instead of being the child of an evil, criminal
>> corporation. Because of this, development is going so fast you
>> can hardly keep track of it. You should never get a Linux-version
>> older than 2 months.
>>
>> But that's just me being idealistic. Maybe one day i'll learn,
>> but i don't think i'll do that just yet. I like to dream, how
>> about you?
> What hardly anyone might believe is that I would change in an instant if
> someone showed me something better. I like using W2K because it works so
> well for me. It's the best tool for all the jobs I need to get done. How can
> I complain? I'm not tied to it just because it's from MS (just like I'm not
> opposed to <insert OS here> because it's NOT from MS). People think I "hate"
> Linux because it's not an MS product. HA! What crap. I hate linux fanatics
> far more than I have any feelings one way or another for Linux the product
> (which has it's good points as well as bad, like anything else).
Dresden is lying. He continually slings mud at linux the OS as well as
linux users, both passionate and apathetic alike.
Dresden is a habitual liar. It is in everyones best interest to believe
nothing that he says at all.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
