Linux-Advocacy Digest #128, Volume #27 Fri, 16 Jun 00 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Number of Linux Users ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux app spec... (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Software (Cihl)
Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before you do
....... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux app spec... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Linux is awesome! ("Matthew McCleary")
Re: Drestin is not worthy! (abraxas)
Re: Linux app spec... (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Jim)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [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 21:42:03 GMT
Personally, I think embedded Linux is a great idea. It is low cost,
low overhead runs on cheap hardware, and if the UI is kept away from
the user, it will work out fine.
Sounds like a match made in heaven to me.
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:12:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>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]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:42:26 GMT
.3 percent.........
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:47:21 -0700, Salvador Peralta
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Linux is taking marketshare from everyone, including win32, as an ftp,
>mail, http, dns, proxy server, firewall, and database.
>
>What will happen longterm on the clientside remains to be seen. I
>suspect that the class of users isn't as dumb as micros~1 believes they
>are, and that windows will become a niche player as better informed,
>more literate users continue to come up the pipe.
>
>Drestin Black 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 what if the portion of the marketshare that Linux "takes over" is that
>> share that once belonged to other Unixes and the Mac and "Others" - it's
>> definately not taking over any of the NT share.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux app spec...
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:41:10 -0500
Simon????????????
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.
>
> 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?
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Software
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:44:53 GMT
David Cancio wrote:
>
> 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.
Yeah, well, it would be easy for Microsoft to keep Windows on the
desktop-market, if they really wanted to. Linux, on the other hand,
doesn't quite work that way. It's a community effort, you see. As long
as there are still people around who want to have Linux on the
desktops, then the development of these desktop solutions will go on
indefinitely.
The more people there are who want to see it on the desktop, the
faster that part will develop. It seems to stand at a *very* high
priority right now. If something more important comes up in the
future, development will probably move there instead.
Linux follows the trends of the public directly, because it is made by
the public.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before
you do .......
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:47:35 GMT
Good in theory and warm fuzzies but exactly the reason why Linux is
not generating any real interest.
1. People don't know how to take charge of their computers.
Sure IT people do, but the average blue collar worker doesn't. He
slugs a brewski, slaps a CD of the latest game in and he is fat, drunk
and happy.
He is not interested in playing Tetris or some 10 year old slot
machine game.
2. Windows satisfies their needs. Linux does absolutely nothing better
as far as they are concerned and in fact does many things worse.
Hardware support and crappy looking fonts are just the tip of the
iceberg.
3. There is no valid reason, other than cost (and at .3 percent of
market share that doesn't seem to be a big one) for JoeSixpack Windows
user to go to Linux.
Not one valid reason at all.
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:28:21 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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: Linux app spec...
Date: 16 Jun 2000 21:48:26 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:40:33 GMT, Mingus wrote:
>experience with it makes me think there should be application
>standards.
Yes, but -- the emphasis should be on "standards". Dont force everyone
to do everything "the one true way".
>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.
No, I don't. Besides the fact that MS Outlook is a great platform for
virus writers.
Pine has its advantages -- you can run it remotely.
OTOH, if you want consitency, use either KDE or GNOME, and use the KDE
( or GNOME ) apps when possible.
>Now, lets say someone else enjoys spending "quality" time with a pine
>man page.
One doesn't need to look at the "pine manpage". It's menu based, so the
"pine manpage" is about as essential as the "outlook manpage".
>Linux 1.0
>--------------
>-GUI installer
(a) A GUI does *NOT* make installation easier. I'd take a well designed
curses interface over a badly designed point and click any day.
>-Standard keyboard short cuts (ALT + X for menus, etc)
Problem -- older toolkits tend to use motif style bindings. KDE and
GNOME both do things Windows-style. Linux is in a transitional period
in this sense -- and when users are running a mix of motif-style
apps and GNOME/KDE apps, they notice inconsistencies.
>-Standard print/save/open dialogs.
There already are. Read the documentation for QPrinter. Or the GNOME
equivalent.
>-Add/remove program option
RPM, or "gnorpm" if you like that sort of thing.
>-Shell menu entries
Huh ?
>-Automatic update
Already implemented in some distributions.
>-Decent UI
KDE
>-Easy to read dialog boxes
Huh ? KDE already supports internationalisations. As long as you're
literate, you should be fine (-;
>-Non-cryptic error messages
Huh ?
>-At least 70% UI configurable.
Huh ?
>-Cut and paste that works
It already does work -- but it works differently. Select with the left
button, paste with the middle button.
>-Mouse Wheel support
Already there, I believe.
>-Drag and drop
Can you be more precise ? KDE already has d&d, as does GNOME.
>-Standard help system
See KDE. Or GNOME. Both have their own ( very similar ) help systems.
I don't see any reason to force anyone to use KDE even though I think that
GNME is a POS. Hell, I don't see any reason why those who are feeling
nostalgic shouldn't use twm, fvwm and/or XFCE. But I wouldn't use them.
>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?
Clue time -- Linux is not and does not aim to be a clone of Windows. If
you really like Windows that much, then use it. Don't use Linux and then
complain about how it is not like Windows. That's a feature !
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:45:43 -0500
I love it when this dumbass jumps up and down on one offhand comment
that is negative, completely ignoring all the positive things said
previously. Goddamned idiot.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Sounds like par for the course.
>
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:35:09 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Cihl wrote:
> >>
> >> Try the CLI at the highest resolution your monitor can handle. It
> >> looks really cool.
> >
> >Unfortunately, I can't get SVGATextMode to give me anything better than
> >80x50, all I get are fuzzy streaky unsynced lines all over the place.
> >
> >Oh, well
> >
> >-Ed
------------------------------
From: "Matthew McCleary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:56:46 -0600
I just thought I'd share my latest experience with GNU/Linux, namely Red Hat
6.2.
Last night I upgraded my machine with an Abit BP6 motherboard, second
Celeron-500 processor (I have two now with the same stepping, amazingly),
and a SoundBlaster AudioPCI 128 card.
I decided to do a fresh install of Red Hat 6.2 since I didn't really have
anything that mattered on the machine anyway (I don't run Windows).
After booting off the CD-ROM (slick) and partitioning my hard disk, Red Hat
took about 20 minutes to install. After *one* reboot I discovered that the
installer had detected I was running on an SMP machine and installed the
2.2.14-smp kernel automatically. Red Hat detected and started using both
CPU's immediately upon bootup. No recompile required.
It also detected my sound card on boot, configured it, and it works out of
the box. No drivers required.
I have installed Windows 98 and Windows 2000 on several occasions, and never
have I had *every* component in the system work perfectly, out of the box,
using only drivers supplied with the OS. Although my motherboard, video card
and sound card all came with driver CD's, I never needed to put any of them
in the drive. None of that "insert Windows 98 SE disc ... insert video
driver disc ... insert Windows 98 disc again ... insert video driver disc
again..." stuff. To my way of thinking, this signals that GNU/Linux finally
has Microsoft beat.
>From now on I am running GNU/Linux and only GNU/Linux. I'm never looking
back.
Matthew McCleary
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Drestin is not worthy!
Date: 16 Jun 2000 21:58:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16 Jun 2000 18:49:48 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On 16 Jun 2000 16:05:48 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "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.
>>>>
>>>>When realplayer dies on my linux machine, nothing at *all* happens
>>>>to the operating system or any other process.
>>
>>> Whatabout freeing up any device nodes?
>>
>>Are you asking whether realplayer dying affects the freeing up of any
>>device nodes, or are you asking of freeing up any device nodes has
>>an effect on the rest of the system or other processes?
> ...whether or not realplayer always gets cleaned up
> after itself wrt device nodes...
Ahh...
If realplayer dumps itself, no. It leaves a mess, but its trivial
to clean up-and my system is none the worse for wear, even with the
mess hanging around.
I really do wish theyd come up with a freebsd version though.
Linux binary emulation re: realplayer is whack.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux app spec...
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:52:44 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 20:12:44 GMT, Mingus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Exactly. Ignore usability. Ignore the users. Ignore the consumer.
>You've proved my point.
Ignore trolls who can't be bothered to try the product they are
criticizing.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
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 18:09:05 EDT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> 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.)
LOL! Now that's what you _could_ call "stimulated thought!
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
