Linux-Advocacy Digest #121, Volume #27 Fri, 16 Jun 00 13:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Number of Linux Users ("John Hughes")
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Processing data is bad! (2:1)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Just Installed Win 2K and it ROCKS!!!!!!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How Pete Goodwin Can Fix "The sad Linux story" (John Sanders)
Re: Linux app spec... (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Number of Linux Users (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux app spec... (Cihl)
Re: Number of Linux Users (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Processing data is bad! (Cihl)
Re: how do i change the system date? (Cihl)
Re: Good Work Mozilla.. (Cihl)
Re: The Trolls, oh The Trolls... (Cihl)
Re: Number of Linux Users (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux app spec... (2:1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:19:03 +0100
"Stephen Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ich7k$r6v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Michael Born wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
> >"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> According to Netcraft, if you replaced "Linux" with "Apache",
> I would be able to agree with you. But according to figures
> posted recently by John Hughes (do an author search for the
> thread from your client), Linux's userbase is lower than a
> snake's navel.
>
Unfortunately (for Linux zealots) Apache doesnt mean Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:12:23 GMT
On 16 Jun 2000 09:31:56 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:12:59 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>>
>>> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>>>
>>> ...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.
...or BeOS or MacOS.
They might even laugh at you for bring an NT box in to get
a Live installed...
Then again, you never know where a Linux or BeOS Zealot might
be lurking...
[deletia]
>>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!"
You really should avoid lying about things you know nothing about
when trying to make a point.
[deletia]
>>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.
If one even needs to bother, it certainly is quicker than writing
an entire application or waiting for someone else to. It might even
be quicker than merely looking for a finished Win32 variant.
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
[deletia]
>>> >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
...even this quite often ends up being less resource consuming
than the Windows Bloatware alternative.
[deletia]
Six more appropriately focused tools are still likely to be
more resource friendly than on larger tool with no direction.
--
...However it is easier to dumb down a general
interface than to add generality to a limited set of choices,...
-Leslie Mikes-
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:13:22 +0100
Mingus wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:32:20 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >As for me, I'll stick with my arcane 1970s, useless, uncool, not shiny
> >commandline, and spend all day `shuffalling text fials'.
>
> That's terribly exciting... just how many text files do you have?
lots.
In fact tonight, I'll remember to do a
find / grep -v '^/dev/.*' | xargs file | grep -c text
and tell you exactly hoe many text files I have. Now can anyone tell me
how to do that under Windows?
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:14:51 GMT
On 16 Jun 2000 09:32:16 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
...which ignores the obvious possibility of avoiding that hardware
to begin with. This is a NEW peripheral we are talking about here,
not some random stranger coming to an installfest.
>>>>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",
So? They are still smaller in total than the bloat that fills
a WinDOS system.
[deletia]
...besides... they're all ultimately just Turing Transputers
anyways....
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:11:04 +0200
Dave Vandervies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Dave Vandervies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> -Really awful implementation for people who don't like to point and
> >> click - `Local User Files:Binary and Executable Files' vs.
> >> `/usr/local/bin' - 'nuff said. This can be redone, but why bother when
> >> it's already been done right in the Unix world?
> >
> >Don't you have filename-completion?
>
> It's still easier to type
> /u<tab>/lo<tab>/bi<tab>
> than
> :Lo<tab>:Bin<tab>
> because it doesn't require shifted characters or path separators.
It does on a german keyboard ;-)
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:17:32 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:36:22 GMT, Mingus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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)
It does actually and has for quite awhile. Prepackaged distros
even come with support for USB.
The printer FUD is just an old and tired lie that you shills
insist on repeating over and over as if that is going to make
it any more true.
...and as I said to the other idiot, if this is a NEW peripheral,
the guru can help with the installation as well as ensuring the
device will be compatible with the OS in question.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Just Installed Win 2K and it ROCKS!!!!!!!
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:18:06 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:40:13 GMT, Mingus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
You simply have no clue what you are talking about.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How Pete Goodwin Can Fix "The sad Linux story"
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 11:09:42 -0500
Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> > I thought that OS/390 passed the test. And it's decidedly not
> > a traditional UNIX...
> >
> > --
>
> It did. OS/390 is Unix-branded.
>
> Gary
I guess I go by the Turing test. I move between HPUX, SunOS and Linux
regularly. The only difference I notice is that cc on HPUX has some
bugs. So, passing a test or not, I think Linux can be understood to be
a UNIX variant in any common usage of the term.
Know what I'm sain?
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux app spec...
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:20:12 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:40:33 GMT, Mingus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Outlook is a User interface train wreck. It is nothing that
can be used to bash any other application with.
[deletoa]
BTW, pine can infact be installed into a root menu just like
any other application. It can be associated with an eye candy
or non-eye candy install script just as much as the next random
binary.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:22:46 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:07:31 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Michael Born" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>: If a product has increasing market share each year (which Linux has
>: achieved in the server os market), they are taking over.
>
>And if you look at which platforms were loosing market share during the same
>time periods, then you have the looser platforms. Hint, it's not NT....
It's all relative.
NT wasn't "losing marketshare", but then again it wasn't
gaining any either. For Monopolysoft, and it's shareholders,
this is as bad as having lost marketshare.
Linux is 17% of the market running to PC's but not running to M$.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux app spec...
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:24:41 GMT
Mingus wrote:
>
> 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
- GUI installer, check.
- shortcuts, check.
- menu items, check.
- keyboard shortcuts, check.
- standard dialogs...checking KDE2...aha, check.
> 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.
Names are not cryptical in Linux, often they are acronyms.
> 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.
Pine is covered in dust and cobwebs, only to be used over long
distance telnet-sessions. Try the new KMail. Simple, fast and
flexible. Just the way -i- like it.
[snip]
> 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?
Have you tried Linux at all since version 1.0?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:25:22 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:14:40 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>: On 15 Jun 2000 22:28:56 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>: >Michael Born <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>: >
>: >: Where Linux is superior now (as a server), it is in fact taking over.
>: >
>: >1.) I challenge you to quantify "superior". Superior _how_, exactly?
>:
>: Crashes less.
>
>The above does mean that it crashes....
...just about everything crashes sooner or later, even VMS.
>
>: Less prone to self destruction.
>
>In another word, it does self destruct also. Might not be as many time as
>others, but does....
Actually, Less prone to self destruction could also mean:
'doesn't self destruct'. Zero does infact remain less than
any other positive value.
>
>: Cheaper.
>
>That's a good one.
>
>: Easier & more standard remote admin.
>
>That could prove to be counter productive, one could say it's easier to hack
>using the native tools.
It's also easier to secure with tools available that have had
to stand the test of time in this "ooh, it must be easier to
hack" mentality.
>All in all, you are not saying that Linux is good. Instead, you're saying
>that Linux might be marginally better than the other.
The specification of some ideal was not what was asked for.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:26:04 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:04:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:01:09 -0400, 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.
>
> My current favorite is CivCTP and I am anxiously awaiting SimCity
> 3000 Unlimited. Reel Deal Slots is also kind of cute. I also indulge
> in an occasional Quake III fragfest whenever I feel like being
> viciously humiliated...
I had a slot machine program for the original IBM PC.
Sounds like they might have ported it to Linux....
>[deletia]
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:26:27 GMT
Try the CLI at the highest resolution your monitor can handle. It
looks really cool.
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how do i change the system date?
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:28:37 GMT
Paul Oliver wrote:
>
> 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.
Can you change your BIOS without rebooting?
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Good Work Mozilla..
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:29:24 GMT
OSguy wrote:
>
> Mozilla is going to have a nice product when it is ready.
> The Speed of the M16 Browser is the fastest I've seen yet,
> and certainly makes IE look sick.
You know of a changelog from the toppa your head? I don't feel like
searching today.
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Trolls, oh The Trolls...
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:32:01 GMT
James wrote:
>
> Yes, it is indeed sad. Anyone not seeing Linux as the absolutely best OS in
> the world, a friendly and productive environment, of exceptionally high
> functionality, excellent in all respects, MUST be mentally deranged, or must
> be a TROLL, or must be Steve. Hmmmmmm ..........
Hmm... Did i smell a faint hint of cynism? Or is that just me?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:32:06 GMT
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:46:32 -0700, Stephen Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH wrote in message ...
>
>>On 15 Jun 2000 22:28:56 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>>Michael Born <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
>>>: Where Linux is superior now (as a server), it is in fact taking over.
>>>
>>>1.) I challenge you to quantify "superior". Superior _how_, exactly?
>>
>> Crashes less.
>
>
>Your experience differs from mine.
The experience of my family and friends differs from yours. The
experience of all of my colleagues also differs from yours.
This is why my office runs NT rather than WinDOS by the way. The
IT staff at my company simply wouldn't tolerate WinDOS.
Still, you better make sure your service packs are up to date.
...or else the wrong CD will Blue Screen you.
>
>> Less prone to self destruction.
>
>Hogwash. Any OS can be made to eat itself alive,
>if improper drivers, or faulty hardware are present.
Some OSes are better at dealing with this than others.
That is a simple fact that you simply can't hand wave away.
>
>Are you telling me that you've never had a kernel
>panic? I'd be very inclined to think you were
>fibbing.
A kernel panic is merely a crash.
I've instituted as a matter of ease of use policy, the simple
powering off of my Linux machine when it still had to share
disk with a WinDOS partition.
Do this to WinDOS and your registry will crack up.
>
>> Cheaper.
>
>That is arguable. It depends upon the situation.
>
>> Easier & more standard remote admin.
>
>
>"Easier" and "more standard" really comes down to
>"what you have the most experience with".
Nope. The remote admin tools for Unix are non-proprietary.
You can run them on a VAX, or even under DOS. Reference
implementations are available in source form and the protocols
are fully documented.
This is quite different from the Windows alternatives.
>
>>> Please, don't tell me that it's superior because "Microsoft is
>>> buggy and bloated, because we've heard that tripe far too often
>>> to take it seriously anymore.
>>
>> Bugs do matter, despite your attempt to sweep them under the rug.
>
>
>I'm not sweeping anything anywhere. I'm just stating that claiming
>that Windows is more buggy and/or bloated than Linux is ridiculous,
>considering that X is one of the most well-known resource hogs in
>the more technical circles.
...in comparison to other systems available in 1986, sure.
You are intentionally misrepresenting the situation and what
those criticisms really mean.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux app spec...
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:33:41 +0100
Mingus wrote:
>
> 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.
<cough> If you install linux with a GUI installer, it gets installed.
What more do you want. IIRC you can get it in a rpm as well, for which
there are gui installers.
What the hell is so difficult about using the mouse to click on various
things in pine. The whole thing is like a big dialogue box if you have a
mouse.
And finally, what is so obvious about program names or icons in windows
Name Icon What does it do
excel a large X how is anyone meant to know its a
spreadsheet without being told.
powerpoint wierd how are you meant to know its a
presentation package
corel paradox a rubix cube I have no idea at all. In fact I just
opened it and still have no idea
SPSS a graph Only bu opening it I found out that it
(superficially) looks like a spreadsheet
Quattro Pro calculator handy desk calculator? not a chance...
acrobat twisty thing It it obvious that it opens PDF files?
These are just a few things on the desktop of this computer.
There are more in the start menu.
Like all things, once you _know_ what pagekeeper (or whatever) does,
it's clear what the icon or file name mean, but until then, no chance.
So how you can expect be to beleive you that linux programs are more
crypticaly names than windows ones is beyond me.
> 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)
What's wrong with saving time? After all, Micros~1 might start charging
you for it soon.
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
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
******************************
