Linux-Advocacy Digest #117, Volume #27 Fri, 16 Jun 00 10:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Drestin is not worthy! ("Marc Schlensog")
Re: Cost to Operate MICROSOFT OS! ("Marc Schlensog")
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Brian Langenberger)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Tim Palmer)
Re: Thinking of running Linux? Read this first before you try............. (Tim
Palmer)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Tim Palmer)
Re: Linux Tast Test (aflinsch)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Illya Vaes)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Mingus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Drestin is not worthy!
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:20:13 +0200
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
IzC_4.18310$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
[Snip (since weīve all read it)]
> > Just read comna. Your general attitude isnīt pro-W2K, but anti-anti-M$.
>
> you should have written:
> "Your general attitude isn't ONLY pro-W2K, but STRONLY anti-anti-MS"
> and i would have agreed and records of my posts would be my own proof.
I apologize. Can you forgive me one more time? How could I dare
being inaccurate? (What is "STRONLY"?????????)
>
> To the rest, I can only reply, in the very short time you've posted
replies
> to me I can already deduce you are not worthy as a debator and only
seeking
> to insult so I bid you a see-ya-later-boyo and refuse to waste my time on
> you and your lameness.
Well, Dres, in this very short time, I have posted replies to you, Iīve
probably said more, than you ever will.
Oh, Iīm posting very irregular, because I have access to this very computer
only every 2nd weekend. The rest of the time, I seem to have something
like a life (and a job, S.S.E. II!).
>
>
> <snip anal crap>
>
"Anal crap"? Donīt confuse this with the contents of your scull!
>
The way I see the things, I can call you a weenie w/out being
punished, since you were not able to discuss the whole thing
and prove me wrong (at least not totally). I still have the
opinion, that you got a weak self-conscience, run out of
arguments way too early, are inable to spell (sometimes, not always)
and canīt stand any competition.
BTW, is it normal for OE to crash, when shutting down RealPlayer?
------------------------------
From: "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Cost to Operate MICROSOFT OS!
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:55:12 +0200
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
8hh1r2$cu8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Snippy]
> You'll find that Charlie's posts have nothing to do with anything. He's
> just another Linux twink spewing evangelical nonsense.
I donīt think, heīs "just another Linux twink" but rather a *BSD evangelist.
At least he believes in something different from the big church of M$,
right?
Marc
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 16 Jun 2000 13:31:10 GMT
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<crap snipped>
: The funny thing about you UNIX people is that you alwais say that UNIX
: is "easy" and then you come
: back and say you half to type some cryptic-as-hell command to do
: something simpal. My favarite is:
: rpm -Uvh
Funny thing about rabid Windows bigots like yourself is the continued
mistaking of "ease of use" for "ease of learning". Typing:
"rpm -Uvh <file>" on the command line is much easier to accomplish
than trying to find that file in some sort of file browser, clicking
on it and clicking a couple more times to do something with it.
The only difference is that the latter is easier to learn, but is
harder to do repeatedly.
So tell me which you'd prefer: spending an hour to learn how to
use rpm from the command line and then 5 seconds to use it each
time, or spending 10 minutes to learn how to use a GUI tool and
20 seconds to use it each time? Which do you think is more
economical over 100 or 1000 uses?
There's nothing preventing GUIs and CLIs from working together,
but spare me the "CLI is harder to use" shit, because I'm
getting sick of hearing that old worn-out misconception.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: 16 Jun 2000 09:31:56 -0500
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:12:59 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>Yes, it is an argument which is pointless.
>
>>
>> >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.
>
>Normal users, (Statistically speaking) bring the machine back to the
>store for such additions.
And the store will laugh at them when they bring there Linsux box to the store to have
a SB
Live installed.
>>
>> >
>> >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..
>
>Actually, generally speaking, Linux does a better job at scaling than
>does NT. The one thing that NT does better is to assign processor
>affinity to devices. Other than that, Linux handles process scheduling
>and memory management much better.
NT can handall 2 network card. All Linsux fools have to say about that is "one network
card
ought to be enough for anybody!"
>
>>
>> >
>> >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.
>
>One can name the modem anything they want. Most distributions create the
>symlink "modem" to ttySn.
And then you half to drop to Linux's version of DOS in order to correct the shortcut.
>I have yet to use a Postscript printer under Linux, I have not idea what
>you're smoking.
>Actually these 10K one function programs build one hell of a lot of
>functionality. This is a different, and arguably better, method of doing
>things than the Windows way.
Yeah, if you like wrighting a shell script everytime you nead the computer to do
something that
would be simpal under Windows.
>BTW it isn't just text, multimedia,
>networking, etc. lots of things that one could only dream of being able
>to do under Windows.
>>
>> >
>> >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.
>
>Hey, I don't know what OS you are using, but if this is what you say
>about Linux. You are either lying, or using something other than Linux.
Oh realy? Then what ealse does Linsux do becides shuffal text and suck in genneral?
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >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.
>
>Gimp has an abysmal UI IMHO.
Nuff said.
>However, it is feature complete, and some
>people really like it. I use Applix myself and gimp or ee for bitmap
>graphics. I never liked photoshop on Windows anyway. I am waiting for
>"psp" to come to Linux.
>
>>
>> >
>> >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.
>
>What part of X is bloated when compared to something like the GUI
>components in NT?
Its 6 compleatly different "visuals" and the need to write 6 different versions of
every drawing
function in order to be compatibbal with all of them. Most of this blote ends up in
the libearies
like KDE or even GTK. For this reason, the programs that only use Xlib are usually use
monochrome.
>
>> >Microsoft's terminal server is a resource hog.
>>
>> X is a resource hog.
>
>Perhaps, and I disagree, comparatively speaking, however for the sake of
>argument, there is an important distinction. The X Server, whose purpose
>is analogous to Windows NT miniport and display driver,
The purpoe of the X server is analogous to the WIN.COM of the Win3.11 days. It gets
you from
"DOS mode" to "Windows mode".
>only loads the
>machine on which it is running.
Nice observation.
>It does not load the machine on which
>the client program is running (unless it is the same machine, of
>course).
Which it usually is, so you gane nothing.
>What this means is that terminal server loads the machine
>acting as the program server AND the Windows GUI loads the machine
>acting as the client. That's a very bad design.
>
>X, on the other hand, is a display paradigm. Very lightweight on the
>program side, and moderately heavy on the display side. It is a MUCH
>better design by any rational standard. An X server need not be running,
>or even installed, on a machine which executes X applications as an
>applications server.
>
>>
>> >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).
>
>Yes, but it does not need to crash your important web servers.
But if it crashes your console its' just as uesless as if it crashed the kernal so you
mite as
weal reboot.
>And a
>good X server, link any other display device driver, is can be stable,
>but it is good to have the choice.
>
>
>--
>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: Thinking of running Linux? Read this first before you try.............
Date: 16 Jun 2000 09:32:07 -0500
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:00:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Ok so you have had it with Microsoft and all the semi-legal tactics
>they have employed over the years.
>
>We all feel the same way and in fact there are more Microsoft
>supporters that want to see Microsoft split up than most would
>believe.
>
>Putting all the legal jargon aside, we reach the question "so what
>about Linux?"
What about it? It just sucks.
>
>Most of you have read about Linux and how it is a "free" alternative
>operating system that will compete with the likes of Windows and the
>monolith of Microsoft.
>
>To the Napster generation this sounds as good as free beer did to the
>1967 anti-establishment generation.
>
>Unfortunately the reality is that nothing is really free.
>
>Is your time worth something to you?
>
>If so, you will be spending a lot of it reading contradicting How-To's
>and convoluted Linux documentation.
>
>How about hardware support and applications support?
>
>Take a casual walk through CompUSA and see how many Linux packages you
>find.
>Ask a sales rep about Linux and see what kind of answer you get. Ask
>your friends about Linux and see how many are running it.
>
>Ask your future college what laptop they want you to buy. Ask your
>future company what email system and what corporate platform they use.
>
>Windows is about standards. Linux is the wannabee on the block. Sure
>you get 500 applications included with your Linux CD. Do you really
>need 10 different editors? Five different compilers? 20 different
>utilities to enable your printer to print?
>10 different dialup programs?
...and 460 different text filters.
>
>Take an honest look and make a decision.
>
>How about data that won't work with anyone but another Linux user?
>
>Sure basic Excel and Word documents work, but do the sophisticated
>ones work?
Nothing "sophisticated" works on Linux and there excuse is it's politicaly inncorrect.
>
>Nope, and I speak from experience.
>
>Linux is truly not an option for most people.
>
>It is a joke of a system.
>Don't believe it? Try it for yourself at http://www.cheapbytes.com
>
>For $1.99 you can try any distro you wish and draw your own
>conclusions.
For $1.99 is't not even worth it. You end up spending all day trying to get the thign
to work
only find out that it's still in it's earley testing phazes.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: 16 Jun 2000 09:32:16 -0500
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:05:16 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 15 Jun 2000 10:58:51 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[deletia]
>>>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.
>
> At which time they will need the local guru to hold their
> hand through the entire process anyways...
Even a local guru cant' make hardwaire work on Linux if there arent any drivers.
>
>
>[deletia]
>>>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..
>
> That's why NT has no representatives on the 500 top supercomputers
> list (even before the OS/390 port) and Linux does. Besides, it doesn't
> matter HOW Linux scales past NT if it does.
Linux DOESN'T scale past NT. MVS does. MVS is just emmulating a PC for Linux, and
Linux has
to have a small "virtual" PC to run on. If Linux actually had to run that much
hardware all by
itself, it would be screwed. Just try to give one Linux instance _all_ the resources
of the S/390
and see what it does. It doesn't support a filesystem that big, it can't address that
much RAM,
it doesn't know what to do with that many network interfaces, and it can't scale to
that many
processors. The only reason Lonix _appears_ to scale is because MVS is doing the
scaling for it.
You could run VMWARE on Linux on MVS and say "look! NT runs on the S/390 too!" if your
argument
were vallid.
>
>>
>>>
>>>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
>
> It can be anything you want actually, including:
>
> "SomeLemmingsSimplyTalkOutTheirAss".
>
>>better by a PostScript printer), and about 10,000 one-function programs so you can
>shuffal text
>
> No matter how much you repeat that lie, it won't become any more true.
Just look in the /bin, /usr/bin, and /usr/local/bin foldars of any UNIX system. There
is an
endless list of useless, one-function programs like "awk", "grep", "sed", "troff",
"diff",
"printenv", "cut", the list goes on for mials, and all the programs do is shuffle text
around.
Linux is just one, big text filter, and it souldn't even be an OS it's really just an
app that
takes over your hole computer.
>
>>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.
>>
>
> And frames of motion picture film.
> And large matrix computations (weather).
>
>>>
>>>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.
>
> You better be able to do better than whining about GIMP without
> so much as a clue or a detail.
>
>[deletia]
>>>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).
>
> ...that hasn't been likely on Linux for quite some time.
>
>[deletia]
>
>--
>
> |||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Tast Test
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:26:48 -0500
Cihl wrote:
>
> David Steinberg wrote:
> >
> > aflinsch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > : > Does this go for new versions, too? Or only older versions, like
> > : > RH5.2, or something.
> >
> > : It goes for whatever they have in stock, in fact some of the older
> > : distros might be yours for the cost of shipping.
> >
> > And they pretty much always have the current release of every distribution
> > in stock.
> >
> > If you thought you actually have to pay more than $5 to get the most
> > up-to-date version of a Free operating system, I guess this news is a
> > pleasant surprise! :)
> >
> > (On the other hand, there are still obvious benefits to buying a distro
> > with a manual and support.)
> >
> > --
> > David Steinberg -o)
> > Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
>
> Nah.. I was just curious. I have a cable modem so i just download and
> try them all. My ISP (bART) is very happy with Linux-users, so they
> don't care how many gigs of it i download. They are even willing to
> set up BSMTP for you for a small fee.
Wish I had that, cable & dsl don't quite make it out as far as I live.
Directions to my house usually include the line "turn right when you
run out of houses on the left"
------------------------------
From: Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:37:07 +0200
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>I am not aware of any case where MS stuck with decades old
>Unix technology without at least trying to make *some* improvements.
So, when are you going to give up on sticking with century-old round wheels on
your car?
If it ain't broke, don't fix it (even if it's from obviously dreaded-by-you
Unix and/or 'old'). Or are you one of those people that can only stay employed
if they keep reimplementing the same stuff over and over again?
--
Illya Vaes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385 Not speaking for anyone but myself
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mingus)
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:33:33 GMT
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:29:36 -0400, 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.
That's not even true. Windows 2000 only needs to reboot when
installing certain types of hardware. There is no sense in talking
about Windows 9x since the future of consumer Windows is NT.
>The argument that Linux sucks because it can't install on XYZ computer
>is nothing but a wasted argument. 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.
I think the main argument is that Linux setup in general is stupid.
Software, hardware, etc. Most people complain about the main install
since many never get past it. They have no clue how hard it can be to
setup other things.
>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!
And you really expect a new user to request Linux over Windows?
>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.
Why would a user who logs into a NT system at work and uses a CE
system on the road care? Windows = Windows.
>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.
Of course most users will never figure out how to cut and paste in
Windows much less how to automate tasks using shell scripts or by
using the command line.
You can argue *your* ideal computing environment all you want but at
some point you have to deal with reality. Microsoft and Apple both
have. They make software for the type of people who use computers not
the types who build them.
>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.
Again, it really comes down to no one expect computer nerds caring
about such things. Do you think my parents care they can install Linux
without Netscape? Sure, I like the fact I can make a very clean
install with Linux but even I would rather install it all and save
some time.
>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.
Anytime you need to reboot NT because of strange behavior you better
get to the bottom of it or you'll need to repeat the process a few
months later.
>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.
I bet everyone in my office thinks I'm crazy. When I read this I not
only laughed out loud but I had to mention it to as many people as
possible because each time it kept getting funnier. Star Office is
sure better than MS Office huh? KDE isn't just a pathetic clone of
Windows? Again, wake up. Consumer level Linux software is dreadful.
>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. Microsoft's terminal server 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.
Features no one cares about. They want it to work, work fast and look
good. It doesn't. It's like people who like music simply because of
the mathematics behind it. Go get yourself a calculator and some hand
cream. Consumers want tangible features.
I'm not sure about the NT4 version of TS but the NT5 version is very
good. I use it to remotely administrate my firewall/NAT on a low end
system with 64MB and it works fine. TS is fine, it's the Windows
applicatoins that hog memory.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
