Linux-Advocacy Digest #127, Volume #27 Fri, 16 Jun 00 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: how do i change the system date? (Jens =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pr=FCfer?=)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: BSOD in the airport (Cihl)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux Tast Test (Cihl)
Re: Thinking of running Linux? Read this first before you (Cihl)
Re: Good Work Mozilla.. (OSguy)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (tinman)
Re: Thinking of running Linux? Read this first before you (Cihl)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Neil Cerutti)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy (Cihl)
Software ("David Cancio")
Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before you do
....... (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: OT Aboriginal Lifespans was Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Bob Germer)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake Update: DOH! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Pete Goodwin)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? (Michael Vester)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jens =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pr=FCfer?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how do i change the system date?
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 22:02:30 +0200
> > > is you got RedHat, use "timetool" it is easy.
> >
> > Or you could do it in your BIOS.
>
> Can you change your BIOS without rebooting?
Well ... there are reasons for Linux/Unix date setup hassle. I don't
want to go into a discussion about a need for syncronized clocks in
networks and why you should use a timeserver. If you don't want to
reboot and still want to change your date/clock permanently use the
"hwclock" command. See man-page for details.
Cheers
Jens
PS: This is not the right place for technical questions I believe. This
is the place to shred M$ advocates to pieces :-)
--
WYSIWYG is a step backwards. Human labor is used to do that which the
computer
can do better.
Andrew S. Tanenbaum
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:05:11 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:39:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The Linvocates have been spouting for sometime the "huge" number of
>people leaving Windows and downloading/buying (shudder!) Linux
>instead.
>
>So where are all of these folks?
>
>Last count it was .3 percent of the market. WebTV did better. Win2k
>did better. Virtually everyone did better than this great "savior of
>operating systems".
Obviously you didn't know that there are 30,000,000,000 computer users
in the world. Proof: According to Rex Ballard, there are 90 million Linux
users. According to IDC, Linux is 0.3% of the computer market. Therefore,
there are 30,000,000,000 computer users in the world.
Accordingly, only ~1/5 of computer users are human. The other
24,000,000,000 must be animals, minerals, plants, or aliens - I'm not
quite sure actually, but I'm sure Rex Ballard knows. I also wasn't aware
that East Africa and Southeast Asia got fully populated with computers,
either. Perhaps I'm in a time warp?
>So what gives here?
>
>Seems to me the Linux FAD is going the way of the Pet Rock and
>Hoola-Hoop.
Indeed. Even the most zealous Linux supporter, Rex Ballard, noted a
decrease in Linux growth from 2%/week to 1%/week, but now it is back up
at 5%/month. I guess Linux demand is seasonal, much like Christmas
trees and turkeys.
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BSOD in the airport
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:10:09 GMT
Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> It was the Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:57:34 GMT...
> ...and Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yeah, but what was i gonna do? It wasn't my job to maintain that
> > computer. I only had to run the IS-machine. (i still don't know what
> > that abbr. means)
>
> Intermittent Suction?
>
> :))
>
> mawa
> --
> I made my way through the computer controlled monorail, car by car,
> cruising for sentient beings.
> -- Mark Leyner, My Cousin, My Gastroenterologist
Or: Irritating Sound?
Integrated Slowdown?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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 21:12:31 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:47:02 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:42:52 GMT, John Bode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
[deletia]
>>The general purpose desktop box won't go away completely, but I do think
>>that it will be less prominent in many people's lives as dedicated
>>information appliances become more common. People who just want email
>>and Web access and games can now get it without needing a PC.
>>
>>I don't see the PS2 as the future of surfing per se, but I think it
>>represents a major step in the evolution of this kind of appliance.
>>
>>I freely admit that my crystal ball is very hazy, and I may just be
>>misinterpreting some random patterns.
>
>I see the future as thin clients using technology like Microsoft
>Terminal Server. With a fast network (100BT, but soon gigabit
>ethernet will be affordable) it becomes more and more difficult, for
You mean like Unix has been doing with X since the 80's?
[deletia]
--
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 Tast Test
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:14:49 GMT
aflinsch wrote:
>
> 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"
They just installed the whole thing, fibre-optics 'n stuff, just 6
months ago in my home town. I was probably one of the first to get the
connection. In the beginning i was constantly getting around 500 Kb/s.
It's now dropping a little, though.
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thinking of running Linux? Read this first before you
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:18:51 GMT
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> 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.
I have a good spelling checker.
> >
> >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 $1.99 is't not even worth it. You end up spending all day trying to get the
>thign to work
> only find out that it's still in it's earley testing phazes.
No, no, no! YOU would end up spending all day, because you're an
idiot. I bet you can't even install BeOS right!
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Good Work Mozilla..
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:37:57 -0500
Cihl wrote:
> OSguy wrote:
> >
> > Mozilla is going to have a nice product when it is ready.
> > The Speed of the M16 Browser is the fastest I've seen yet,
> > and certainly makes IE look sick.
>
> You know of a changelog from the toppa your head? I don't feel like
> searching today.
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/release-notes/m16.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:20:27 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8ic9il$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.
>
You forgot a few:
FUI Forehead user interface, for when you bang your head on the computer.
(Windows95 is an FUI).
AUI Anal user interface, for systems which come up behind you in
(un)expected ways (Win3.x is an AUI).
PUI (I leave that one to your imagination.)
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thinking of running Linux? Read this first before you
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:20:48 GMT
Oh, and also: I really would LOVE to see you install an old version of
SCO. (if you know what that is)
Let's see how you fare when that install asks you for time, date and
timezone.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: 16 Jun 2000 20:12:59 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Palmer posted:
>UNIX is very good at shuffelling text aroumd. LinoNuts call that
>"powerfull". I call it "pointless".
Hmm.
Every single file on your computer is literally some permutation
of a text file. But don't read that sentence. Big Bill doesn't
want you to know.
--
char NeilCerutti[]= "[EMAIL PROTECTED]";
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:24:17 GMT
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> On 16 Jun 2000 11:39:04 +0300, Karri Kalpio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >...
> >> StarOffice is written in Java, eats a great deal of memory, and
> >...
> >
> >Is not.
>
> Believe it or not, it seems to be even more of a pig under Windows...
>
> --
> 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.
It could be Java, then. Windows really refuses to run Java the right
way, because it works on other platforms, too.
Java in Linux is actually quite fast. From my own experience, you do
have to watch your programming techniques a little. Some people create
ten different classes with AWT, Swing and JBCL to make a dialog that
counts to 10.
------------------------------
From: "David Cancio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Software
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:06:17 GMT
The fact than till non free companies (such as Caldera, SuSE, etc ...)
got
to GNU/Linux market, it was not seen as a desktop user does mean one
thing : desktop market needs a lot of attention and let's say time, that
none
other than a commercial company can achieve (even now, GNU/Linux still
lacks some things as desktop option). On the other side, the Microsoft
server
market attack with its NT Server and Windows 2000 Server, brings to light
the fact that server machines normally are managed by people who does not
mind having to read, work, configure and lack desktop use on the server
(what
for ?) and that does not need the attencion and time desktop users need,
because
sysadms can manage to do it everything by themselves (as opposed to desktop
users - most of them - who just want to insert a DVD and play whatever game,
application, etc ...). So ... is it Windows (all flavors) a desktop OS and
Unix (all flavors) a server one ? In my opinion : yes. How have they behaved
when
entering a let's call it foreign market ? Well, Microsoft servers are
falling in each
of the already Unix known errors, in fact, they are reinventing Unix dressed
on
Windows clothes. On the other side, GNU/Linux has made an anormous (an keeps
on it) to reach desktop usability; it is having errors too, and still not
complete, but
I think, it has behaved better as a desktop OS than Windows has done as a
server
one. Anyway, final words : use Windows as desktop and Unix as server. Have
fun.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before
you do .......
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:28:21 -0500
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 10:41:06 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >James wrote:
> >>
> >> Please note that this newsgroup is intended for arguments FOR and AGAINST
> >> Linux. Steve often identifies real (as opposed to imaginary) shortcomings
> >> of Linux. Yes, perhaps he does have too many aliases, and perhaps he is
> >> wrong from time to time. But this newsgroup will be very boring if everyone
> >> just praises Linux. IMHO Linux has established itself as a server OS, but
> >> has many miles to go before it qualifies as a decent Desktop. Critics, like
> >> Steve, are there to point out these shortcomings.
> >> It is all about democracy - and calling a spade a spade!
> >>
> >> James
> >>
> >
> >I have no problem with someone actually bringing up a real problem with
> >Linux and discussing it rationally. My problem is with the guy (like
> >Simon/Steve/Mike/Whatshisfuckingnametoday) that comes in here screaming
> >at the top of his lungs (figure of speech) that Linux doesn't support
> >anything but Postscript printers or another made up bunch of lies. Then
>
> ...this is the bulk of the anti-Linux posts, with the rest
> being typically made up of people that can't even give any
> details when asked WHY is is that FOO is better than BAR
> (like Gimp vs. Photoshop).
>
> [deletia]
>
> --
> 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.
>
I agree one hundred percent with this statement. I just wish that
Winvocates could see that this isn't always a bad thing (in fact, if you
know something I consider that a good thing).
|||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Stocks and your sanity...
Date: 16 Jun 2000 21:32:38 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:33:51 GMT, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>It indicates how well your machine will respond under heavy load. Dropping
>to 5 or 6 frames a second is a disaster, in that time someone has shot you
>in Unreal Tournament.
FYI, Linux is starting to look quite decent in game performance --
*provided you have a well supported video card*. I recently grabbed
the Heretic 2 demo from loki and it performed quite well ( Diamond
Viper V550 TNT card, XFree86 4.0, latest nVidia drivers )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT Aboriginal Lifespans was Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:31:10 GMT
On 06/16/2000 at 02:30 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball) said:
> 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..
I don't know how it works in the Army or Air Force, but even though I was
commissioned as a Regular Navy Ensign in February, my date of rank for
seniority (not pay purposes) purposes was the day the Academy graduated.
All ROTC regular officers had that date of rank and we were described by
Naval Regulations as ranking "with but behind" the Anapolis graduates. It
still works that way today.
--
==============================================================================================
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
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
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?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 16 Jun 2000 08:12:07 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8ic211$htb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>There is the all too frequent incompatibility between Windows 9x and
>Windows NT software. How hard would it have really have been for
>Microsoft to provide a standard API for the Windows Environment that
>would support real portability across all the varations of Windows? You
>could say that since one varation of Windows runs on one operating
>system and another varation runs on another and the programs need access
>to the features of the operating system which prevent their portability.
> This is not a resonable response considering that a standard Windows
>API could provide wappers for access to the operating system. So that
>reguardless of the varation of Windows that a program was written on it
>would be able to run on any other varation as well. If a given
>operating system has no support for a given feature then the standard
>API of Windows could provide the feature and the API "wrapper" would
>call the "emulation library" rather than the operating system. As long
>as you run a Windows program on a processor that is able to execute the
>machine code of the processor that was used and the target of the
>compiler package the generated the program's executable, it should be
>portable across all varations of Windows.
The idea was that WIN32 would be available on all the platforms, Windows
95, 98 etc and NT and 2000. API's that only worked on Windows NT/2000 would
be present but not work on 95/98. The Service API's come to mind.
Unfortunately, Microsoft's "innovations" led them to introduce API's that
were specific to certain platforms and not available to older ones, so you
have to check to see what you're running on. The new controls added in
COMCTL32 meant initially that you had to have IE5 installed, until they
changed the licensing on that and produced the kit 50comupd.exe.
So whilst the idea of having the API on all the platforms was the starting
point, things have started to diverge as each of the OS's have played
leapfrog with each. Windows NT was supposed to replace the consumer OS
95/98 but still hasn't yet.
>Given all this, how can anyone claim that Microsoft has made support for
>preexisting (old) software or portability a priority in their design of
>Windows?
Most software is portable across the platforms, provided you stay away from
some of the more exotic features of WIN32. Hell, even device drivers have
become portable across OS's with the Windows Driver Model, that works on 98
SE and 2000.
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Update: DOH!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 16 Jun 2000 07:59:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (aflinsch) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Failed connects happen all the time in every OS, depends a lot on the
>lines between you and your ISP. This is not a problem with Linux.
True, except Linux sometimes fails to even talk to the Modem.
>> Clicked on Updated, invited to select local mirror. Selected UK
>> mirror, and waited... and waited... ah mirrors down. How do I get back
>> to select the mirror again... ah I can't. So, close window. Run update
>> again - it goes straight to the same mirror... um...
>
>Downed/busy server is a problem at the server youy tried to connect
>to. Not a problem at your end. As for rerunning update, it went to the
>server you told it to go to.
Yes but...
1) I wasn't given the choice to return to a different
2) Closing the window didn't actually close the application - it simply
hung still waiting
>I have used the Mandrake Update, it always worked for me.
>Most likely you clicked on some button multiple times. Opened a new
>instance each time.
No I restarted it anew, thinking I had just closed it.
>> Tried again, same result, goes to mirror that's down. Killed internet,
>> got a button that said 'select mirror', tried that, reconnected and
>> finally got a mirror that worked.
>
>And downloaded your update(s) and went on your merry way.
I aborted the downloads, there wasn't anything of interest (except maybe
the mouse wheel feature).
>As compared to Windows Update?
Yep. At least Windows update let me know what's going on, rather than the
empty screen I got with update.
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 16 Jun 2000 07:58:55 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I'm not gonna tell you. Nobody here's gonna tell you.
Aw go on! I wanna know!
>We're really
>much more advanced than you think. The distro's are actually about 6
>months behind on the latest tech Linux can offer. We have a 3D-GUI. We
>have eye-movement control, brain contr...(Oops, did i just say too
>much?)
Aliens!
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:35:13 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <qg3lksk0v339qv5bgscqmdbdvfqie0ukca@
4ax.com>:
>Pete the Linux camp did exactly the same thing about 2 months ago when
>someone posted that Windows Find was so much faster than find under
>Linux....
Is the URL still around? Anyone know what it is?
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:38:18 GMT
You are right I haven't. BUT I have tried both the Gnome and KDE file
managers, the ones a new user will use when he tries Linux and they
are both slow as molasses.
FastFind (indexed file finder) is real fast also, as is Norton
Commander.
I'm talking out of the box, brute force (no database).
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:59:05 -0400, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Open up the /dev directory and see for yourself how long kfm takes to
>> post all the icons.....
>
>You obviously haven't tried Konqueror, the replacement for kfm. Not only
>is it much faster than kfm, it is much faster than Windows explorer.
>
>Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:40:17 GMT
Very, very funny...
I'm saving this one!!!
simon
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:05:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>>So where are all of these folks?
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:44:19 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The Linvocates have been spouting for sometime the "huge" number of
> people leaving Windows and downloading/buying (shudder!) Linux
> instead.
>
> So where are all of these folks?
>
> Last count it was .3 percent of the market. WebTV did better. Win2k
> did better. Virtually everyone did better than this great "savior of
> operating systems".
>
> Why is this?
>
This is just one survey. Linux is doing very well in the
server marketplace.
> The figures speak for themselves and again I ask "Where are all of
> these users?"
>
> I know many people who have TRIED Linux, I don't know of ONE who has
> STAYED with Linux. Not a single soul.
I am one, so you now know a single soul. I am a real person
with a real name. Unlike most Windows advocates, I can use my
name because I am not ashamed using Linux.
All my computers run Linux now. One machine is a dual boot
just in case. But it has not booted Windows in months. Looking
forward to XFree86 4.0, KDE 2.0 and 2.4.
>
> Corel just laid off a couple of hundred workers.
> They can't even produce a native Linux Office Suite that doesn't
> depend on Win libraries via WINE.
>
Corel's problems started a long time before they plunged into
Linux.
> TurboLinux (backed by IBM $$$$) did the same.
>
> So what gives here?
>
With any new marketplace, there will be some winners and some
losers. I am sure you will see only losers.
> Seems to me the Linux FAD is going the way of the Pet Rock and
> Hoola-Hoop.
If W2K is so wonderful, why isn't anyone advocating it? There
must be a few happy W2K users out there besides you and
Dresdin. C.O.L.A. gets far more traffic than C.O.M.N.A yet
Microsoft has much more of the marketplace. I guess most
people abide by the principle, "If you can't say anything nice
then don't say anything at all."
There is no need to badmouth Microsoft. Everyone that uses
Microsoft products knows all the shortcomings. It would be
stating the obvious.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
