Linux-Advocacy Digest #96, Volume #27 Thu, 15 Jun 00 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft invites Canada south (tholenbot)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (aflinsch)
Re: Microsoft eats Canadian bacon (tholenbot)
Re: OT Aboriginal Lifespans was Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (billy ball)
What UNIX is good for. (Tim Palmer)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Tim Palmer)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Tim Palmer)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Tim Palmer)
Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight (Tim Palmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invites Canada south
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:20:24 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> tholenbot wrote:
>
> [42 lines quoted]
Of what relevance is this remark?
> > Non sequitur.
>
> [14 lines quoted]
Of what relevance is this remark?
> > See what I mean?
Of what relevance is this remark?
> [12 lines quoted]
Of what relevance is this remark?
> > How ironic.
>
> [13 lines quoted]
Of what relevance is this remark?
> > On the contrary.
>
> [5 lines quoted]
Of what relevance is this remark?
> > Typical erroneous presupposition of a lack of decent reading
> > comprehension skills.
>
> Wow! Being a bit chatty, aren't you old cock?
What alleged "old cock"?
> [9 lines quoted]
Of what relevance is this remark?
> > See what I mean?
>
> Uh, yes. I should have quoted it all in full, just adding
> "duh!" isn't that right?
Don't you know?
> > Prove that it's just a flesh wound, if you think you can.
>
> What are you going to do next? Bleed on me?
Don't you know?
--
Prove that it's just a flesh wound, if you think you can.
------------------------------
From: aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:08:30 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> And my Mac software won't run on my PC...
> Your point?
>
The point is that Linux runs on more platforms than Windows.
Since a given platform would be considered hardware, then it could be
argued that Linux actually supports more hardware than Windows. This
is a different topic from hardware manufacturers supporting a given
OS.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Yep, Linux on VM/ESA on an S/390. I currently only have one copy of Linux
>>running - the box is currently being shared with CMS. I have to change the
>>partitions a bit so that things like /usr can be mounted read-only. Then I can
>>bring up mulitple copies.
>>
Got a 3900 attached? Probably could print the web in a week or so...
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft eats Canadian bacon
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 10:22:32 -0400
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
TholenBotPro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > TholenBotPro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > ws.n
> > > > > > > > et>,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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]`a6-3-3P
> > > > > > > > > 9vSW
> > > > > > > > > =`A*
> > > > > > > > > ]T^O
> > > > > > > > > z
> > > > > > > > > uAe!\b#:+G,;/!^*a`/E'4i-0@#nV9#sW\BjGv#dq'ad0=W;kFd6u
> > > > > > > > > X',
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Typical invective.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > More evidence of your lack of X-Face interpretation skills.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Incorrect.
> > > > >
> > > > > Liar.
> > > >
> > > > See what I mean?
> > >
> > > I don't see that which is not there, Eric.
> >
> > Non sequitur.
>
> Balderdash, Eric.
Liar.
> > > > > > > > I wonder how the Borg would react to this
> > > > > > > > information.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Taking posting lessons from Hugh again, Eric?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who?
> > > > >
> > > > > http://liberty.uc.wlu.edu/~madams/3rd.of.5.html
> > > >
> > > > Illogical. A URL is not a person, Chris.
> > >
> > > "A URL"? How rich.
> >
> > Of what relevance is this remark?
>
> Irrelevant.
Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
> > > > > > > Typical erroneous pontification.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Prove it. Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> > > > >
> > > > > How ironic.
> > > >
> > > > See what I mean?
> > >
> > > What you mean is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant.
> >
> > See what I mean?
>
> Evidence, please.
See what I mean?
> > > > > Meanwhile, you have still failed to answer the question.
> > > >
> > > > How ironic.
> > >
> > > See what I mean?
> >
> > How ironic.
>
> What's "ironic" about it, Eric?
Don't you know?
> > > > > > > On the contrary, quite logical.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is "logical" about it?
> > > > >
> > > > > More evidence of your lack of decent logic recognition skills.
> > > >
> > > > I see you didn't answer the question, Chris.
> > >
> > > Incorrect.
> >
> > On the contrary.
>
> Incorrect.
Incorrect.
> > > Just because your lack of decent reading comprehension skills
> > > prevented you from locating my response doesn't mean it wasn't there.
> > >
> >
> > Typical erroneous presupposition of a lack of decent reading
> > comprehension skills.
>
> On the contrary, there was no erroneous presupposition, as proven by your
> failure to locate my logical response.
See what I mean? Meanwhile, you continue to stroll down irrelevancy
lane.
> > > > Taking failure to answer
> > > > question lessons from Dave "Master of Failure to Answer Questions"
> > > > Sutherland again?
> > >
> > > Illogical, as I have neither taken posting lessons, nor have I failed
> > > to
> > > answer questions.
> >
> > See what I mean?
>
> Don't you know?
Taking failure to answer question lessons from Dave "Master of Failure
to Answer Questions" Sutherland again?
--
Prove that it's just a flesh wound, if you think you can.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: OT Aboriginal Lifespans was Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:00:12 GMT
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:54:28 GMT, Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I wonder if the last is because our Navy was built as a mirror of the
>Royal Navy in which Officers were (and are) considered superior beings to
>the enlisted ranks. As Midshipmen, we were taught that we were superior in
>every way to enlisted men and women and were not allowed to fraternize in
>any way. Thankfully, this was not true for the other two branches (the
>Marine Corps is part of the Navy, not a separate branch. Its policies are
>a mixture of Navy and Army).
>
>I was reprimanded and nearly had an entry placed in my jacket for
>fraternizing with an enlisted man while on my Youngster cruise. I was told
>that I was seen leaving with a Machinist Mate 1st Class and spending the
>night in his off-base quarters. It was true. I, however, pointed out that
>the rating's name was Fredrick H. Germer, Jr., that he was my first
>cousin, that I literally shared a bed with him for over two years while
>his father served with MacArthur in the Pacific during World War II and
>his mother was out wenching, whoring, and drinking, and that I was
>godfather to his (at the time) two children. I was then told I should
>acquire and wear civilian clothes when accompanying him off the ship
>despite the fact that we Middies weren't supposed to HAVE civies while on
>cruise!
>
>That attitude is still taught at Anapolis to this day according to my
>grandson who is in the Class of 2001.
yup... can't stand Academy twits... most of 'em can't manage their way out
of a paper bag, and they think the world's their oyster... i put up with
prancing, mincing Academy goose-steppers for 20 years, but never took any
of their sh*t...
ring-knockers are a bastard plague in the services, and their usefulness
(to ensure a faithful core of officers in case of military mutiny) is long
past...
billy "retired CWO3" ball
>
>--
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
>MR/2 Ice 2.19zf Registration Number 67
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: What UNIX is good for.
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Date: 15 Jun 2000 10:56:18 -0500
UNIX is very good at shuffelling text aroumd. LinoNuts call that "powerfull". I call it
"pointless".
However, doing annything else with UNIX is a chalange. It's not fast enough to be any
kind
of server, so if you realy want to shuffel text around and then send it out to Windows
2000
sevrer where it can be axcessed by users, you still nead 20 UNIX boxes just to keep up
with the
servor. You can save the money you would spend on the 20 UNIX boxes (and the days it
would take
just to figure how to make it shuffall text and send it to Windos) just by doing
everyting on
the Windos 2000 server.
You can barely do anything with graffics in UNIX. The Gimp is a joke when you compare
it to Adobe
PhotoShop (by it and see for yourself if your not to chepe), or even a good LOGO
interporator.
And if you do anything with grafix, you can only save a JPEG or PNG (forget GIF's!
their
"pollitacolly incorrect", like everything ealse that doesn't work on UNIX!) and
immbedding or
intergrating anything is a no-no (un-P.C. again), so you halve to have the text in one
file and
the graficks in another fial, or use HTML (another joke excuse for what you can do in
Windows
with Office, or even WordPad, and the text and graffix still half to be in different
fials),
and NO ANIMATIONS OR ANYTHING THAT CANT BE REPARSENTED BY TEXT OR A BITMAP!!
So what is UNIX good four? Prettending its' the 1970s, i gess. Look mommy, I'm the
Sysadmin! You
can be my user. Type "elm" if you wan't to rede your e-mial, e-mails you write get
sent once a
week thru UUCP, and look at this it's real kewl! If you want to chat, with the other
users you
can type "write", but you'll always be the only user logged in anyway. Oh, and the CD
drive,
sound card, scanner, printer, modem, graffics card, and floppy drive arent' working
annymore
like they did when we had Windoas, but thats' only because they were all propietrary
and bad
and stuff. We just half to get new ones, thats' all.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: 15 Jun 2000 10:58:51 -0500
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I see it here so often, and so many Linux advocates get dragged down
>this path. It wastes your personal bandwidth and it is a classic example
>of an argument which can not be won, not because it isn't true, but
>because of the great number of variables in the market place.
>
>99% of the machines sold today are sold with Windows. To argue that
>Windows is not "easier" to install is problematic. Yes you have to
>reboot after you install each and every stupid little plug and play
>device, etc. However, chances are that the hardware will be supported in
>some fashion, because the box shipped with Windows, it only follows that
>the OEM distributor put the work in to their n x 1000 boxes to ship with
>all the correct support.
>
>The argument that Linux sucks because it can't install on XYZ computer
>is nothing but a wasted argument.
I'm glad you aggree with me.
>To attempt to sustain an argument that
>any version Linux is easier to install on a system that probably shipped
>with Windows on it is silly. Because, as good as Linux is, there is
>hardware out there that it does not support, and in such a debate these
>will be introduced. It follows, however, that a computer, shipped with
>Linux from an OEM, will have the correct drivers and kernel modules as
>well. On that machine, this argument is completely, 100%, winnable.
..untill the user decides to get new preriphrael.
>
>Installation is important, but OEM installation is even more important.
>With OEM installation, the user will never be faced with installation
>and it becomes a non issue. Unlike Windows, Linux does not need to be
>"reinstalled" if something goes wrong. It can actually be fixed in
>place. It can actually be upgraded while running normally!
>
>This leaves the real issues, on which the Windows advocates can't touch
>Linux:
>
>Scalibility
>Windows may "scale" by using a vastly different code base for each
>level, CE, DOS, and NT. Linux scales using the same code base.
..with the healp of OS/390 it scales. Otherwise it's pittyful at scaleing and NT blows
it out
of the water..
>
>Usability
>Usability is more than just point and click. It is about reducing the
>amount of repetitive work required to do a task. It is about how easy
>tasks are to automate. While Linux can drag icons around just as well as
>any other GUI machine, but behind it you have one of the most powerful
>OS metaphors available.
Yeah. /dev/ttyS? for the modam (insted of sellectign it by name), lpr to print (and by
god it
better by a PostScript printer), and about 10,000 one-function programs so you can
shuffal text
around in 1,000,000 ways and still not manage to do anything useful.
>
>Flexibility
>You can have your Linux anyway you want, in almost any form you want.
>You can have very few features, or all of them. And you don't have to
>install netscape if you don't want too. You don't even need a hard
>drive.
So it can shuffel text in more ways or less ways, on a whole computer or haff of one.
>
>Reliability
>I will not say that I've never seen Linux crash, or that I haven't
>needed to reboot. But, when I have it has been for an explicit reason,
>that I understood and could take corrective action. It has not been
>because it was working funny and rebooting it would "fix" it.
>
>Applications
>Windows has a few great applications. There can be no argument about
>that. However, a few really great ones tend to out shadow the really
>really bad ones. All in all, IMHO, the applications on Linux tend to be
>better than those on Windows.
You better be abal to do better than The GIMP.
>
>X11
>People try to slam X. It is true that it is not as fast as its more
>limited competitors, but when one looks at X, they must see that it has
>features over a decade old that Microsoft still does not have right.
>A graphical front end that is completely networkable, transparently to
>both applications and OS.
.and bloated as hell.
>Microsoft's terminal server is a resource hog.
X is a resource hog.
>To run an application server means a very expensive service, you would
>not run it on a heavily loaded web server. However, it is perfectly
>reasonable to run "xosview -display admin:0.0" to get a live visual
>update of a UNIX web server.
Until X crashes UNIX (my bad.. untill it crashes the console, which makes it just as
useless).
>
>
>
>
>--
>Mohawk Software
>Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
>Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
>Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
>sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 15 Jun 2000 11:03:03 -0500
[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......?
Go easy on Linux. Your asking for to much from it. You get what you pay for.
>>>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.
>
>Please provide me with an example of a current Windows program that
>does not?
>
>
The Windows port of The LimpGIMP.
>
>
>>>
>>>> Any "necessary intermediate steps" can quite easily me made transparent
>>>> to the end user quite without the necessity of some Win-style developer
>>>> needed to dedicate time to the problem.
>>>
>>>Yawnnn..... A twist on words.
>>>
>>>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..
>
>You prove my point all the time....
>
>I prefer clicking on the icon that says "Scan image"
...from within any program that can handal images. It's stuff like this that makes me
glad I
don't run UNIX, whear, even if you dident half to wright a shell script just to scan
an immage,
the immage scanner would still be a completely separete programe burried deep in the
"K" menu.
There'd be no way to put it in the "Edit" menu of every program that can paste
pictures into. You
would half to scan to a file and then you would half to read the fiel into you'r
program.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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
>versions and it ain't even close in terms of eas use and
>comparability between programs.
>>[deletia]
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[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: 15 Jun 2000 11:07:25 -0500
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:12:58 -0400, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Colin R. Day" wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know the dates?
>>
>>
>
>According to www.x.org the first commercial version of Xwindows was released in 1986.
>
>Gary
The first version of Windows was written in 1983.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
Date: 15 Jun 2000 11:07:35 -0500
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:58:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>Typical jedi "linux is great" by omission statement....
>>
>>The Linonut loves leaving out those important details....
>
> ...so then, what are we missing that you aren't?
Surround sound.
>
>[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
******************************
