Linux-Advocacy Digest #118, Volume #27 Fri, 16 Jun 00 11:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(Matthias Warkus)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Coherency (Matthias Warkus)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Mingus)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Just Installed Win 2K and it ROCKS!!!!!!! (Mingus)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality (Salvador
Peralta)
Re: 10 Months of my time wasted on Linux. Back to Microsoft for me! (Mingus)
Re: Drestin is not worthy! ("Chad Myers")
Re: OT Aboriginal Lifespans was Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (billy ball)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Grant Fischer)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Jim)
Re: how do i change the system date? (Paul Oliver)
Linux app spec... (Mingus)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:21:51 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:35:00 -0700...
...and Stephen Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >by Windows 3.1, most of them were non-functional, by Windows 95, none that I
> >have tried would run at all anymore. Only some of the Windows 3.x software
> >would run on Windows 95, i can only imagine what would happen if I tried to
> >run them on Windows 98 or 2000.
>
>
> Well, it's silly to think that you should be able to run every
> single piece of legacy software out there on each progressive
> new version of an OS. If your software is that old, then it's
> simply time for you to upgrade it. That is the nature of
> computing. If you don't keep up, you simply get left behind.
This is at least partially nonsense. "Never change a running
system"... The upgrade treadmill is just a device to milk the cash cow
more effectively. It's like the periodical, superficial faceliftings
that General Motors did in the 40s and 50s, accompanied with
aggressive marketing that tried to make the customer believe that he'd
be completely down, out, uncool and unfashionable if he ran last
year's model instead of this year's.
Flashy featurism only cranks the treadmill, it doesn't get the
customers anything. Do you know anyone who actually prefers Office
2000 over Office 97? *I* don't.
> I honestly see no reason for you to have a beef with
> Microsoft, when it seems that it is you who is unwilling
> to upgrade your applications properly for the OS you are
> running.
So everything is the fault of the customer for lack of want to get
into the treadmill?
You seem to be forgetting, Stephen, that a company is to serve its
customers, not the other way around.
mawa
--
I know a lot less ... than many of the readers ..., so I'm probably
wrong and you shouldn't have read this message at all. Just because
I'm trying to be helpful doesn't mean I know what I'm talking about.
-- Jonathan Kamens
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:11:45 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:43:51 GMT...
...and The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [*] Note that W actually does come from two U's, or perhaps two V's.
> I have heard "www" pronounced "dub-dub-dub" or "web-web-web",
> though. (I'm still getting used to pronouncing "URL" as "earl"
> as well... :-) )
I used to think that "WWW" is pronounced "triple-double-U". :)
mawa
--
Gnome with Enlightenment... isn't that Yoda?
-- mawa
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:24:06 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:01:09 -0400...
...and Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Linofreaks don't run games. All they run is text fillters and C compialer. Real
>"powerful" stuff.
> >
>
> And how would you know this? I've wasted many a CPU cycle on Eric's Ultimate
>Solitaire.
I used to play Nethack and the CivIII demo a lot...
mawa
--
Level 6 - Presentation Layer
User asks on newsgroups "what is the best distro". User has tried with
varying success to install Linux. User experiencing a steep learning
curve. User is usually happier with Win95/98. -- Cliff Pratt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Coherency
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:22:38 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:25:20 +0100...
...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Having one icon format is absurd? That's probably why KDE is so bloted.
> > It has to be abal to read every immage format out thear (except the
> > pollitically incorrect once like GIF).
>
> That need not cause bloat. Linux already has the capability to let
> almost any app read almost any image file. The pnm utils.
Dead slow if you need to read an entire menufull of icons.
mawa
--
Level 6 - Presentation Layer
User asks on newsgroups "what is the best distro". User has tried with
varying success to install Linux. User experiencing a steep learning
curve. User is usually happier with Win95/98. -- Cliff Pratt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mingus)
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:36:22 GMT
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:05:16 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>>..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...
As long as they don't need to open the case. Users want to install
printers, scanners and any USB devices (as if Linux supports them)
<- Snip ->
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:57:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sam
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15 Jun 2000 18:14:23 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <8i949d$mvf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >John Bode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>> It's all in how much time you're willing to spend learning the OS
> >>> of your computer. Unix requires time.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Which is Linux's biggest weakness as far as conquering the desktop is
> >>concerned. Don't get me wrong, I've worked in a Unix environment for
> >>most of my career, and we've installed Linux on a box at home, and it's
> >>fun to have and play around with. But for a *large* portion of the
> >>consumer market, it will require more time to learn than people are
> >>willing to commit. Is it worth spending all that time if all you want
> >>to do is play games, surf the 'net, and write the occasional newsletter?
> >
> >If Windows is so easy, why do schools have classes teaching people
> >how to use it? Why do so many brochures about expensive seminars
> >about every little detail appear in my inbox all the time?
> >
> >Is there some official estimate of how much time or money a year
> >goes into Windows-related training?
>
> What are you talking about ?
>
> Where I work, a few people go to a Windows basics course of one or two
> days duration, but most of the training is on applications like Excel,
> Word or Access. They (as you should know) are quite complicated and
> powerful programs.
>
That's assuming, of course, that you don't count the zillions of hours
lost to futzing while trying to learn the clunky OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mingus)
Subject: Re: Just Installed Win 2K and it ROCKS!!!!!!!
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:40:13 GMT
On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 00:52:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>>Does anyone really use an HP LaserJet 500 anymore?
>
> ...actually, some of the cheaper HP's are just rebadged versions
> of printers that sold 4 or 6 years ago for 2-4 times the price.
>
>[deletia]
And 1/4 the size.
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 07:04:24 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are currently 130 class action lawsuits against micros~1. This
is only 1/4th of the total number of lawsuits currently pending against
the company. In several cases, those lawsuits are due to micros~1
breaking contractual agreement by CREATING incompatibilities between
core components of the os and the product of a "partner" or competitor
thereby forcing obsolescence. Forcing them to end this practise as a
matter of business was one was one of the key rulings by Jackson. It's
one of the reasons that Jackson believed they should be split up.
As for product lifespan...
There is an economic motive for the entire commercial software industry
to force a very narrow product lifespan. But some well-designed open
source projects will have a long lifespan both because they are great
products, and because they are so important to major infrastructures.
Sendmail's lifecycle will probably be about 50-60 years. Apache may
last even longer than that.
> Microsoft doesn't necessarily make software go obsolete (though
> they do have quite a bit of control over its lifespan). Some
> software just literally loses popularity, because of a lacking
> in features, and functionality. This happens on every OS.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mingus)
Subject: Re: 10 Months of my time wasted on Linux. Back to Microsoft for me!
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:53:47 GMT
On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:01:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>[deletia]
>>explained the lack of anti-aliased fonts to me and that was the end of
>>that. A person who has to look at a screen for 8 hours a day with jagged
>>fonts is an OSHA lawsuit in the making.
>
> This, I think, is the clincher. While I'll agree that there
> may be certain subjective aesthetic considerations to consider,
> this strikes me as much the same as certain OS advocates that
> look down on cheap 19" monitors for no other reason then that
> they are cheap.
I have a cheap 19" monitor. I value high price / performence. One of
my friends has a sony 19" and I can hardly tell the difference.
(except of course his has a line accross the middle. Thanks Sony)
The simple truth is... Linux looks fucking horrible on both.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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 09:18:40 -0500
"Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8id9i5$iv0$17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> BTW, is it normal for OE to crash, when shutting down RealPlayer?
When SuckPlayer..er... RealPlayer is involved, nothing is sacred.
You're lucky it hasn't destroyed your whole system from the inside
out.
-Chad
------------------------------
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: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:30:46 GMT
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:47:53 -0700, Bob Lyday
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>billy ball wrote:
>>
>> 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...
>
>Ring-knockers = ????????????
two officers of equal grade and time in service: one is a Mustang or OCS,
and the other is an Academy twit... the twit will 'knock' his ring on the
table to indicate seniority..
>--
>Bob
>Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and then
>beat you with experience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Fischer)
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: 16 Jun 2000 14:34:03 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:25:32 GMT, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Grant Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:15:29 GMT, Daniel Johnson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snip]
>> >MS thinks layers too, but they have different layers. MS's security
>> >support providers were not designed to work with Kerberos. They
>> >expect to get more information about the user in question that
>> >just his identity.
>>
>> We're talking about the people who just redesigned their whole
>> security structure, and chose to design Kerberos into it.
>
>No, they didn't.
>
>The didn't need to because their original design was flexible
>enough to permit them to put Kerberos in with only a small
>addition to Kerberos.
It is funny to see you say that it is flexible enough, but
then say it couldn't simply use the existing Kerberos design
for authentication. Which is it?
>
>That's why APIs and plug-ins are better than wire protocols- they
>lets you cope with change far more easily.
I prefer to have both. API's for programming, and wire protocols
for designing API's on other platforms. The essence of
interoperability.
>
>> You're saying that they had to extend it because it was limited;
>> I pointed out that there were other, more complete frameworks.
>> Now you're saying it didn't fit right; that's a funny thing
>> to say about their design choices.
>
>I don't think DCE would have fit *better* in this area.
Why not? DCE implementations for NT exist. You say the NT
framework was flexible. There you go.
>> >This could be kludged on as a separate protocol, but this would
>> >do nothing for interoperability, it would be slower, and it would
>> >open up new opportunities for spoofing the security system.
>>
>> What the heck are you talking about? Kerberos takes care of
>> the identity of both the users and the services they talk to.
>> That's what it does.
>
>Sure, provided you understand identity as a user name,
>as Unix does. NT needs a little more.
That's what identity is, in a security scheme. The rest
is authorization. MS may have blended them together for
convenience, but Kerberos didn't. It was intended that
authorization be handled by an upper layer, possibly
using some PAC information.
>> Interoperability would take care of itself if MS made it an
>> open protocol -- publish the complete data specs rather than
>> API's.
>
>MS is not obliged to implement things the way Unix does.
No, but it would be nice if they documented their wire
protocols so that other people could implement things
the way UNIX does. Don't bother to talk up interoperability
without at least that.
>> I agree that it will be slower to implement authorization in
>> a second service; however it would remain to be seen whether
>> it would be noticeably slower. If so, there might be other ways
>> to mitigate that.
>
>True. But there do not seem to be any advantages to doing it
>that way; you don't gain any interoperability. NT clients need
>a server with that extra protocol, that's all.
I would argue that you do; you can flexibly choose to put
authentication on a different platform than your NT server.
The authentication server will securely introduce the user
to whatever service the user needs, all using the same password,
from wherever they are on the network.
>> >Kerberos was designed to fit into Unix's structure. It didn't quite
>> >fit NT.
>>
>> It actually has no concept of what OS it is running on; it uses
>> simple principal names to name users and services. You're thinking of the
>> implementation of the kerberized UNIX login services; they by
>> definition were designed to fit into UNIX's structure, and are
>> quite irrelevent to how NT could use Kerberos.
>
>"Simple principle names" are the problem. NT's principles are not so
>simple.
>
>NT security ids contain a list of user ids, groups, and other attributes
>that can be compared against ACLs. Some are dynamically
>generated, but others must be sent over the wire at *some* point.
By combining NT authorization information into the principal,
they screw up the idea that a Kerberos principal identies
a user, no matter what system they're going to attach to.
A Kerberized application running on a mainframe would have no
use for the NT authorization info; it is a waste of time
to even try to look it up.
--
Grant Fischer (gfischer at the domain hub.org)
------------------------------
From: Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: 16 Jun 2000 10:50:44 EDT
In article <8ic9il$e65$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well I must say that I think that's a silly definition to use :). Like I
> said before, where would a voice control system fit into this ?
>
> How about keyboard alternatives ?
I think Rich (correct me, please, if I'm overstepping) would like us to
be more specific, though to what purpose, I'm still unclear. Perhaps the
following suggested list will stimulate thought:
KUI keyboard
CLI command line
GUI graphics
EUI eyeball
VUI verbal
NUI neural
HUI handshake (literally, for wearable computer )
Perhaps some of these could be "pure" interfaces (HUI, NUI?). Most of
them would wind up being combined with others in a functional system.
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:57:46 -0500
From: Paul Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how do i change the system date?
mlw wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I want to change the system date of my linux machine.
> > how do i do that?
> >
> is you got RedHat, use "timetool" it is easy.
Or you could do it in your BIOS.
--
_______________________________________________________________________
P A U L O L I V E R
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________________________________
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mingus)
Subject: Linux app spec...
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:40:33 GMT
I don't use Linux and I don't know anyone who does. My limited
experience with it makes me think there should be application
standards. For example, home users want a GUI installer, shortcuts and
menu items, standard keyboard shortcut keys, standard save/open/print
dialogs, etc. A program could be certified a Linux 1.0 application
that would need to support these features. A home user could then
easily choose which software to use instead of randomly trying to sort
though cryptically named programs that are close to impossible to
properly setup.
Lets say they wanted a mail client. Pine offers none of the above as
far as I know yet something like MS Outlook does. Obviously MS Outlook
does not yet exist for Linux but you see my point.
Now, lets say someone else enjoys spending "quality" time with a pine
man page. He can skip directly to a mail client like pine without
being bothered with those "windoze" like apps. He can retain his
elitness and save some time. (So he can get back to his man pages)
Anyway, here are my thoughts on the standards:
Linux 1.0
==============
-GUI installer
-Standard keyboard short cuts (ALT + X for menus, etc)
-Standard print/save/open dialogs.
-Add/remove program option
-Shell menu entries
-Automatic update
-Decent UI
-Easy to read dialog boxes
-Non-cryptic error messages
-At least 70% UI configurable.
-Cut and paste that works
-Mouse Wheel support
-Drag and drop
-Standard help system
Microsoft has done a similar thing with the Windows logo program.
They've added many requirements over the years. Isn't it about time
Linux tried to clone it?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
