Linux-Advocacy Digest #80, Volume #27            Wed, 14 Jun 00 17:13:05 EDT

Contents:
  Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
  Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity... (Gary Hallock)
  Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (abraxas)
  Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (tinman)
  Re: Linux Mandrake Update: DOH! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  Re: BSOD in the airport (Cihl)
  Re: Linux Mandrake Update: DOH! (Cihl)
  Re: Boring ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Gary Hallock)
  Re: iMacs With iTitude (tinman)
  Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Stefan Ohlsson)
  Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
  Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[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: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:51:24 -0400

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:

>>
>>The point is that the retail products currently being called operating
>>systems - things like Windows, MacOS, Redhat Linux, Solaris, etc. -
>>have nothing to do with the academic definition of the term "operating
>>system". They all *INCLUDE* things the scientists would call operating
>>systems, but they also all include much more. Therefore, it's totally
>>unfair to restrict Microsoft from including in Windows functionality
>>that falls outside the academic definition of "operating system",
>
>       That is not what is occuring.
>

Of course it is.

>
>       You lie to imply otherwise.
>

I'm just stating my observations. You lie to imply otherwise.

>
>       Microsoft has been quite able to bundle elements not 
>       academically OS components for over a decade now without
>       any serious complaint. They've been allowed to increase
>       what they have been bundling while putting 3rd party 
>       vendors out of business, for over a decade, without any
>       serious complaint.
>

Agreed. I used to work for just such a company. It was in the business
of providing TCP/IP stacks for PCs.

>
>       They crossed a line with Netscape between system utility 
>       and end user application.
>

First of all, that's a ridiculous claim. For one thing, "system
utility" is just as academic a term as "operating system", and we've
already agreed that such terms are irrelevant when it comes to product
design. In addition, in products like Windows, Solaris, Redhat, and
MacOS, the line has never even existed, because all these products
have always included end-user applications.

Second, even if the distinction between utilities and applications had
any meaning here, your claim would still be bogus. Web browsers became
system utilities as soon as the Web became the primary reason why
people buy PCs. In many cases Web browsers are even required for
system administration (the Sun Netra comes to mind). Hell, you can't
even configure a router these days without a browser. In 2000, the Web
browser is at least as much a system utility as the telnet client.

>
>       NO ONE ELSE bundles a web browser with the express intent
>       of preventing 3rd party vendors from being able to stay
>       in business developing alternatives.
>

I totally reject your assertion that Microsoft bundled a browser only
to hurt Netscape. If that had truly been their sole intention, they
would have had no reason to redesign IE prior to bundling it. In fact,
the version that was bundled (unlike the original version) was about
as far away from a typical end-user application as it could be. It had
been redesigned from the ground up as a system component. That's why
it not only added Web browsing capabilities to Windows, but it also
enhanced the help system, the desktop, the file manager, and the API.

>
>       They could easily solve the problem by choosing to also 
>       include Netscape and Opera and allowing the end user to
>       choose, or simply allow the OEM to choose.
>

I agree that Microsoft has absolutely no business telling OEMs not to
include other companies' products. That practice, if it ever existed,
simply must stop. However, Microsoft has every right to demand that
Windows itself not be dismantled in any way.

>>
>>By the way, why the hell should computer scientists have any say in
>>product design? They don't sell products. When it comes to product
>>design, *THEY* are the incompetent ones. Perhaps some of the more anal
>
>       ...easy to say from the peanut gallery.
>

Oh please! I suppose you think that programmers are omnipotent beings
capable of assuming any position within a commercial software
development organization, right? Well, think again, Jed!

>
>       ...except IE is just an application, rather than an applications
>       platform. It is not an extension to Win32 so much as it is 
>       orthogonal to it, and present primarily to prevent someone else's
>       variant from undermining the hegemony of Win32.
>

Nonsense. IE as bundled is a set of reusable components that enhance
not only many aspects of Windows but also a growing number of
third-party products. And even if it wasn't, all I'd have to do here
is point you to the very comments that caused Microsoft to wake up and
go to work on IE in the first place - Marc Andreessen's proclamation,
about five years ago, that the Web browser was the new platform that
made Windows and other traditional platforms irrelevant.

>>>
>>>     There is certainly a correlation between the existence of
>>>competitors and price competitiveness. All the other players described
>>>have to deal with the real possibility that they may be done in by another
>>>company that 'does it better'.
>>
>>As does Microsoft. Unfortunately, nobody seems to "do it better",
>
>       Bullshit.
>

We all have our opinions.

>>
>>where the "it" refers not just to coding, but to the whole enchilada.
>
>       This is simple circular & post factum bullshit.
>

Would you care to elaborate on that?

>
>       The "whole enchilada" is not something Microsoft can take credit
>       for but they can exploit it as a natural monopoly.
>

I think you and I are referring to different things when we talk about
"the whole enchilada". I was talking about the entire process of
consumer software product development, of which coding represents at
best a quarter of the effort. What did you mean by it?

>>>
>>>     Thus 32bit consumer Windows with a reasonable desktop shell in
>>>1995 rather than 1985.
>>>
>>
>>According to whose definition of "reasonable"? Yours? Give me a break.
>
>       Yours actually.
>

Huh?

>>
>>Microsoft designed and implemented a modern operating system - fully
>>preemptive, multithreaded, robust, virtual memory, etc. - back in the
>>mid '80's. In fact, they wanted it to be fully 32-bit and target the
>>then-upcoming Intel 80386, but their partner IBM insisted on it being
>>able to run on their 16-bit PC-AT. That OS was OS/2 1.x. Look it up.
>
>       So? QNX ran fine on a 8088 & it didn't hurt it any. That's a 
>       side effect of sane system design,
>

No, it's a side effect of having a consumer market share of zero and
the backward compatibility implications of such a market share.

>
>       things advocated by the
>       academics you show such obvious anti-intellectual bias against.
>

You've got me all wrong. I am not biased against all academics - only
those who mistakenly believe they know anything about commercial
software product design.

>
>       Besides, a product in the labs doesn't mean squat if your captive
>       customer base is still stuck doing manual memory management.
>

Umm, we were talking about OS/2 1.x, a product that made it well past
the labs, yet was totally rejected by the market due to insufficient
backward compatibility and despite its academically superior design
and implementation.

>>>
>>>     Prior to August 1995, the 'market leader' was still subjecting fools
>>>like you to DOS, yes that's MS-DOS, 10 YEARS after the introduction of the
>>>Macintosh and the 386.
>>>
>>
>>That is total bullshit, Jed. I was running OS/2 1.x with a nice GUI
>>back in 1988. In 1992 I was running Windows NT. These were both
>
>       Both of these were limited scope non-consumer systems.
>

Nevertheless, my point stands. It wasn't Microsoft that subjected
consumers to MS-DOS until 1995. On the contrary, Microsoft tried all
it could to move consumers to a real OS. Unfortunately, consumers
chose the path of best backward compatibility, subjecting themselves
to MS-DOS until 1995.

>
>       Also, version 1.x of OS/2 was a joint venture with the really
>       interesting GUI being strictly an IBM development and no GUI
>       of any kind initially.
>

You've got it backwards; the low-level 2D graphics subsystem was
IBM's, but the GUI was 100% Microsoft.

>>
>>Microsoft operating systems (OK, Microsoft had help from IBM on the
>>former), and were both solid, modern GUI operating systems. MacOS in
>>2000 is still a joke as far as OS design is concerned. It's a great
>
>       ...not compared to the competition. It still manages to be
>       more robust in some ways (registry) than the most numerous
>       competitor.
>

Sorry, but I have to challenge you on this registry thing.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:52:03 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity...

Pete Goodwin wrote:

> But, silly boy, Linux is built with (gasp) the GNU C compiler, the one I
> did my benchmarks with. That says that Linux might run a bit faster if the
> compiler were a bit better.
>

Perhaps.  But that is pure speculation on your part.   The kernel does use
inline assembler in some performance critical areas.   And the basic design of
such things as processes and threads means Linux has faster context switching
than Windows.   If you want to test the OS then use a benchmark that stresses
OS functions.  Until then, you have proved nothing about Linux.

Gary


------------------------------

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: 14 Jun 2000 20:53:09 GMT

In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8i6p42$ube$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <39469741$0$22155$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>   "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > 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).
>>
>> Its a shame you can't categorize the alternate-OS advocates as well as
>> you can the alternate-OSen.  Life is much too short to waste even a
>> small portion of it on hating anything or anybody.  There are many here
>> who are truly sincere, certainly more jerks than we need, but the
>> majority fall somewhere in between.

> That's unfair. I thought I DID categorize them. It's the "fanatics" I hate.
> I do not hate Linux users or advocates, as a rule. I hate those that hate MS
> JUST BECAUSE it's MS. I hate those that make up shit about NT then lie to
> defend their lies and have usually never even tried the product. 

Gee.  Just like you do with linux.  So now your two faced and backhanded.
That would make you a two faced, backhanded, retarded liar.




=====yttrx


------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:54:52 -0400

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Josiah Fizer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[snip]

> I have yet to see a GUI ping tool that could pipe output into (as an
example) an
> e-mail program. I have several scripts running that do a pin | grep | mail
> sequience to let me know if a server goes down.

Well, it's not based on a pipe, but since you brought it up, Intermapper
will pop you mail via an smtp gateway on a failed ping....('

-- 
______
tinman

------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Update: DOH!
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:54:58 GMT

On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:09:31 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:

>I thought I would try Linux Mandrake 7.0's update. So, I fired up Kppp and 
>tried to connect to the internet. First attempt failed (hmmm... Windows has 
>yet to fail), second attempt got through.


Typical.. It's amazing what the Linux users have to put up with. Kppp
is variable, sometimes it loses my modem, sometimes my
password,sometimes the DNS.


Welcome to the braindead world of Linux.

------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:58:33 GMT

I was turned into a believer the first time I heard it.

I have Mackie HR's as my mains powered by a Hafler Transnova amplifier
putting out about 400 watts per channel.

I have Event 20/20's coupled with a Mackie Amplifier on the rear
putting out about 600 watts per channel.

Of course I run a recording studio and this is not typical hardware:)

It does shake the entire house though :)

Point is Linux can't do it, at all......





On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:17:35 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:

>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: 
>
>>The LinoNuts won't hear the difference. They are so used to running
>>with shit hardware and software that they accept it as normal....
>>
>>They should try running a game with full audio support and hear the
>>difference some time....
>
>Yep, 3D sound on four speakers certainly is amazing to listen to. In Unreal 
>Tournament, hearing a rocket blast past you is something else!
>
>Pete


------------------------------

From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BSOD in the airport
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:59:30 GMT

Mikey wrote:
> 
> If you are in the New Orleans airport, take a look at this column in
> concourse C that is supposed to have schedule information or something.
> It has a monitor with the Windows BSOD.  It was blue-screened when I was
> leaving for Paris, and when I came back to New Orleans, I made a special
> trip before picking up my luggage to check, and it was *still*
> blue-screened.
> 
> What an advert for M$
> 
> --
> Since-beer-leekz,
> Mikey
> Exerciser of Daemons

Come to think of it, i had the same thing a year ago. I was working a
holiday job in a glass factory running an eight-section machine at the
hot-end, where the process controlling computer was running NT. (the
others were all still running a 20 year old version of Unix, which
worked just fine, though)

I punched a few keys to get some info on timings, and [startle, gasp]
BSOD. This is obviously not a good thing if hot glass will start to
fly through the factory if you don't do something quick.

I think this was the start of my dislike in Windows. It was the night
shift, so it took several HOURS to get the sysadmin out of bed.
Several hours of -manually- cranking levers and wheels and reading
oily gauges. Yuck!

------------------------------

From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Update: DOH!
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:01:57 GMT

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:09:31 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
> 
> >I thought I would try Linux Mandrake 7.0's update. So, I fired up Kppp and
> >tried to connect to the internet. First attempt failed (hmmm... Windows has
> >yet to fail), second attempt got through.
> 
> Typical.. It's amazing what the Linux users have to put up with. Kppp
> is variable, sometimes it loses my modem, sometimes my
> password,sometimes the DNS.
> 
> Welcome to the braindead world of Linux.

Heheheh. That's because Linux knows when a Wintroll is working at it.
There's a WindowsUser-daemon which makes the system do something
unexpected once in a while. Makes the Windows-users feel right at
home.

------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:02:55 GMT


This morning in fact. One of the top booksellers in the country. They
are mostly IBM based but have Sun and HP also as well as rack after
rack of Compaq Pro stuff. Linux was a miserable experience for them
and it has been jettisoned from their upgrade plans.

The DP manager turned green when I asked him about Linux and went into
this whole dissertation about hackers, comprimised security and so
forth.

Sounds like Linux made a great impression on them.




On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:57:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:06:07 GMT, 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Nobody is interested in Linux, nobody that I speak with anyway.
>>
>
>Sorry to burst your bubble but when was the last time you actually
>spoke to another human being face to face?? Your "social life" over
>the Internet doesn't count.
>
>Perry


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:02:57 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> And my Mac software won't run on my PC...
> Your point?
>
>

You said:

My scanner/printer is supported under Windows, just like 99 percent of every peice
of
hardware out on the market.

I said:

My Linux box supports IBM 3390 disk drives and OSA network cards.  Can your
Windows box do that?

I think my point is obvious.

Gary


------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: iMacs With iTitude
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:03:50 -0400

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper) writes:
> 
> > 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.
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > There is also nothing stopping you from using /cdrom and /cdrw.
> > 
> > > What's the standard mount point for that? On a Mac, you could use the 
> > > pathname string "My Photos:Fred the Cat", and have that work on *any* 
> > > Mac, no matter what drives they've got attached.
> > 
> > What if the Mac has two "My Photos" CDs/hard disks etc?
> 
> Now, now Darren.  Don't confuse the poor Mac users.
> 
> The second disk would be called "My Photos (2)" if memory serves (my
> last "Mac" was a PowerBase 180), and your AppleScript would fail
> miserably.  

I don't think memory's serving, I just renamed my HD to match a CD, no
problems, and no (2). I dunno whether a script would fail....


> It's a good thing darwin (UNIX) is coming to fix the situation.  ;)
>

-- 
______
tinman

------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Reply-To: Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 14 Jun 2000 23:05:55 +0100

Drestin Black wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].
>..
>> Bullshit.  There's a point when no pages are swapped and everything is
>> resident.  Adding more memory won't have the slightest effect.
>
>BULLSHIT! The extra memory is then used for file system caching.
>
BULLSHIT what? ...or are you saying that the entire file system
can't be cached in RAM?
 
/Stefan
-- 
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] · http://www.mds.mdh.se/~dal95son/ · [ ICQ# 17519554 ]

------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:06:55 GMT

On 14 Jun 2000 16:29:12 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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]
[deletia]
>>>>>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 left out the switch you used. And scanimage sends its output to stdout. What 
>formatt is it in

        -d : -<firstletter of fullword descriptor>

        That's not terribly obscure either.

        As far as the format of the output goes: any reasonable print
        filter should be able to sort that out by itself.

>and how much of the MAN page do you half to read to get to that part? How many 
>filters to you half
>to pipe it thruogh before its' readabal by GIMP?

        Once again you demonstrate your cluelessness.

        The X version of scanimage that comes with SANE is directly 
        employable by GIMP as a plug-in.

>
>Now, it's tommorro. What happens when the average user doesnt' remember wheather it's 
>"scanimage"
>or "scanpicture" or, worse, yet, when the user does'nt remember what's supposed to go 
>in front of
>the word "scanner"?

        They could just use GIMP or StarOffice or Xscanimage or Xsane
        or just have a button or menu in their favorite enviroment.

        It will certainly be more friendly than anything in DCL.

[deletia]


-- 

                                                                        |||
                                                                       / | \
    
                                      Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.

------------------------------

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:07:28 GMT

Very well put Tim....


On 14 Jun 2000 16:29:12 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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 left out the switch you used. And scanimage sends its output to stdout. What 
>formatt is it in
>and how much of the MAN page do you half to read to get to that part? How many 
>filters to you half
>to pipe it thruogh before its' readabal by GIMP?
>
>Now, it's tommorro. What happens when the average user doesnt' remember wheather it's 
>"scanimage"
>or "scanpicture" or, worse, yet, when the user does'nt remember what's supposed to go 
>in front of
>the word "scanner"?
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>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.


------------------------------


** 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
******************************

Reply via email to