Linux-Advocacy Digest #147, Volume #27 Sat, 17 Jun 00 18:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Tim Palmer)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Tim Palmer)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Tim Palmer)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Tim Palmer)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Tim Palmer)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Tim Palmer)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Tim Palmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: 17 Jun 2000 17:36:23 -0500
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:12:59 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Tim Palmer wrote:
>> >>
>> >> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >I see it here so often, and so many Linux advocates get dragged down
>> >> >this path. It wastes your personal bandwidth and it is a classic example
>> >> >of an argument which can not be won, not because it isn't true, but
>> >> >because of the great number of variables in the market place.
>> >> >
>> >> >99% of the machines sold today are sold with Windows. To argue that
>> >> >Windows is not "easier" to install is problematic. Yes you have to
>> >> >reboot after you install each and every stupid little plug and play
>> >> >device, etc. However, chances are that the hardware will be supported in
>> >> >some fashion, because the box shipped with Windows, it only follows that
>> >> >the OEM distributor put the work in to their n x 1000 boxes to ship with
>> >> >all the correct support.
>> >> >
>> >> >The argument that Linux sucks because it can't install on XYZ computer
>> >> >is nothing but a wasted argument.
>> >>
>> >> I'm glad you aggree with me.
>> >
>> >Yes, it is an argument which is pointless.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >To attempt to sustain an argument that
>> >> >any version Linux is easier to install on a system that probably shipped
>> >> >with Windows on it is silly. Because, as good as Linux is, there is
>> >> >hardware out there that it does not support, and in such a debate these
>> >> >will be introduced. It follows, however, that a computer, shipped with
>> >> >Linux from an OEM, will have the correct drivers and kernel modules as
>> >> >well. On that machine, this argument is completely, 100%, winnable.
>> >>
>> >> ...untill the user decides to get new preriphrael.
>> >
>> >Normal users, (Statistically speaking) bring the machine back to the
>> >store for such additions.
>>
>> And the store will laugh at them when they bring there Linsux box to the store to
>have a SB
>> Live installed.
>>
>
>Actually the store people will do what they do no matter what you ask
>them. They will stand there scratching thier heads going "DUH" and
>drewling.
Learn to speal "drool", morron.
>Unfortunately, until they hire competent people for customer
>service at computer stores, this will be what happens.
>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Installation is important, but OEM installation is even more important.
>> >> >With OEM installation, the user will never be faced with installation
>> >> >and it becomes a non issue. Unlike Windows, Linux does not need to be
>> >> >"reinstalled" if something goes wrong. It can actually be fixed in
>> >> >place. It can actually be upgraded while running normally!
>> >> >
>> >> >This leaves the real issues, on which the Windows advocates can't touch
>> >> >Linux:
>> >> >
>> >> >Scalibility
>> >> >Windows may "scale" by using a vastly different code base for each
>> >> >level, CE, DOS, and NT. Linux scales using the same code base.
>> >>
>> >> ..with the healp of OS/390 it scales. Otherwise it's pittyful at scaleing and NT
>blows it out
>> >> of the water..
>> >
>> >Actually, generally speaking, Linux does a better job at scaling than
>> >does NT. The one thing that NT does better is to assign processor
>> >affinity to devices. Other than that, Linux handles process scheduling
>> >and memory management much better.
>>
>> NT can handall 2 network card. All Linsux fools have to say about that is "one
>network card
>> ought to be enough for anybody!"
>
>Um, I hate to break this to you, but I have two servers in the room
>right above me that each have four network cards in them. You were
>saying?
Linsux slows down to a crawl when it has to handall more than 1 NIC. NT can run
circels around
Linsux with 2 NICs. Linux loser's only answer to this is 'why would you ever want to
run a server
with 2 NICs?'
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Usability
>> >> >Usability is more than just point and click. It is about reducing the
>> >> >amount of repetitive work required to do a task. It is about how easy
>> >> >tasks are to automate. While Linux can drag icons around just as well as
>> >> >any other GUI machine, but behind it you have one of the most powerful
>> >> >OS metaphors available.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah. /dev/ttyS? for the modam (insted of sellectign it by name), lpr to print
>(and by god it
>> >> better by a PostScript printer), and about 10,000 one-function programs so you
>can shuffal text
>> >> around in 1,000,000 ways and still not manage to do anything useful.
>> >
>> >One can name the modem anything they want. Most distributions create the
>> >symlink "modem" to ttySn.
>>
>> And then you half to drop to Linux's version of DOS in order to correct the
>shortcut.
>
>I don't know of any graphical file manager under Linux that won't allow
>you to create links.
I know of a few that will delay forever and a day when you try to lode a folder as big
as /dev.
>
>>
>> >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.
>
>Um, no, it wouldn't even be possible under Windows most of the time.
What woudlnt evan be possible? A script that takes the second word from every file in
/etc and
prints it all on one line? Who cares?
>You can repeat lies and crap all you want, but until you know what you
>are talking about, you're going to keep sounding like an idiot.
>
>>
>> >BTW it isn't just text, multimedia,
>> >networking, etc. lots of things that one could only dream of being able
>> >to do under Windows.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Flexibility
>> >> >You can have your Linux anyway you want, in almost any form you want.
>> >> >You can have very few features, or all of them. And you don't have to
>> >> >install netscape if you don't want too. You don't even need a hard
>> >> >drive.
>> >>
>> >> So it can shuffel text in more ways or less ways, on a whole computer or haff of
>one.
>> >
>> >Hey, I don't know what OS you are using, but if this is what you say
>> >about Linux. You are either lying, or using something other than Linux.
>>
>> Oh realy? Then what ealse does Linsux do becides shuffal text and suck in genneral?
>
>Let's see, browse the web,
...with Nutscrape. Try IE. You'll never look back.
>watch RealMedia streaming,
...with last year's version of the software...
>use imaging software,
Photoshop? Or are you counting the GIMP as "imaging software"?
>scan papers,
...only with scannars specially designed to be "standard" enough for Linux to
recognize.
>serve files, web servers, ftp servers,
...only as long as you like fucking around with /etc/inetd.conf,
/etc/rc.d/rc.WHATEVER, etc.
>NIS/YP servers,
Only usefull on UNIX, whear you half to have the same numerric user-IDs across the
whoal network.
>play games,
...only crappy, open-sores games.
>and pretty much any other thing you can dream up
>doing with your precious Windows. Granted, I'm a writer as one of my
>hobbies and Linux allows me much more flexibility with my writing, but
>that doesn't mean I can't use it for a million other things. One of my
>favorite Linux boxes is the one I use to rip and compress all of my CDs
>into MP3s and then anytime I want to listen to a song it's just a few
>mouse-clicks away.
Don't you mean a few text commands away? Thears nothing on Linux that even counts as
being
functional to a WinAmp user.
>Hooked up to my stereo it is much more functional
>(for me) then a regular CD player, because I can make up playlists of
>any piece of music I own, rather than just the three to six CDs that you
>can fit in the CD player. Oh yeah, and I almost forgot the TV card that
>lets me watch some tube while I'm working on a program or writing
>something. And I'm sure there are about a million other things I'm
>forgetting at the moment.
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Reliability
>> >> >I will not say that I've never seen Linux crash, or that I haven't
>> >> >needed to reboot. But, when I have it has been for an explicit reason,
>> >> >that I understood and could take corrective action. It has not been
>> >> >because it was working funny and rebooting it would "fix" it.
>> >> >
>> >> >Applications
>> >> >Windows has a few great applications. There can be no argument about
>> >> >that. However, a few really great ones tend to out shadow the really
>> >> >really bad ones. All in all, IMHO, the applications on Linux tend to be
>> >> >better than those on Windows.
>> >>
>> >> You better be abal to do better than The GIMP.
>> >
>> >Gimp has an abysmal UI IMHO.
>>
>> Nuff said.
>>
>> >However, it is feature complete, and some
>> >people really like it. I use Applix myself and gimp or ee for bitmap
>> >graphics. I never liked photoshop on Windows anyway. I am waiting for
>> >"psp" to come to Linux.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >X11
>> >> >People try to slam X. It is true that it is not as fast as its more
>> >> >limited competitors, but when one looks at X, they must see that it has
>> >> >features over a decade old that Microsoft still does not have right.
>> >> >A graphical front end that is completely networkable, transparently to
>> >> >both applications and OS.
>> >>
>> >> ..and bloated as hell.
>> >
>> >What part of X is bloated when compared to something like the GUI
>> >components in NT?
>>
>> Its 6 compleatly different "visuals" and the need to write 6 different versions of
>every drawing
>> function in order to be compatibbal with all of them. Most of this blote ends up in
>the libearies
>> like KDE or even GTK. For this reason, the programs that only use Xlib are usually
>use monochrome.
>>
>
>Perhaps, but at least you have a choice in what you are using.
Choice doessn't matter if all the choices are shit.
>You aren't stuck with someone else's idea of what your computer should
>"feel" like. That is the one thing that I hated about Windows. You had
>to use your computer the way that Bill Gates decided you should use it.
I'd rather have Bill Gates deciding how my computer should feel than having some apps
decide
they want to feel like GTK and other apps decide that they want to feel like KDE, etc,
and
none of them beign compattible with eachother.
>If you wanted to use it some other way, well tough shit, you must be an
>idiot because you don't agree with Bill Gates.
>
>> >
>> >> >Microsoft's terminal server is a resource hog.
>> >>
>> >> X is a resource hog.
>> >
>> >Perhaps, and I disagree, comparatively speaking, however for the sake of
>> >argument, there is an important distinction. The X Server, whose purpose
>> >is analogous to Windows NT miniport and display driver,
>>
>> The purpoe of the X server is analogous to the WIN.COM of the Win3.11 days. It gets
>you from
>> "DOS mode" to "Windows mode".
>
>Yeah, let's see you user applications over the network through WIN.COM.
>And Linux command line is nothing like DOS. The only similarity is the fact
>that there is a CLI interface, that's it.
>
>>
>> >only loads the
>> >machine on which it is running.
>>
>> Nice observation.
>>
>> >It does not load the machine on which
>> >the client program is running (unless it is the same machine, of
>> >course).
>>
>> Which it usually is, so you gane nothing.
>>
>> >What this means is that terminal server loads the machine
>> >acting as the program server AND the Windows GUI loads the machine
>> >acting as the client. That's a very bad design.
>> >
>> >X, on the other hand, is a display paradigm. Very lightweight on the
>> >program side, and moderately heavy on the display side. It is a MUCH
>> >better design by any rational standard. An X server need not be running,
>> >or even installed, on a machine which executes X applications as an
>> >applications server.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >To run an application server means a very expensive service, you would
>> >> >not run it on a heavily loaded web server. However, it is perfectly
>> >> >reasonable to run "xosview -display admin:0.0" to get a live visual
>> >> >update of a UNIX web server.
>> >>
>> >> Until X crashes UNIX (my bad.. untill it crashes the console, which makes it
>just as useless).
>> >
>> >Yes, but it does not need to crash your important web servers.
>>
>> But if it crashes your console its' just as uesless as if it crashed the kernal so
>you mite as
>> weal reboot.
>
>The few times that X does crash you can typically just go to another
>machine, log in through telnet and do a "rcxdm restart" (sorry, using
>SuSE convention here) and be right back in business. Of course, if you
>are on a non-networked machine you have a point. But I will also say
>that the last time that X crashed on me was when I was hacking around in
>a program and forgot some rather important clean-up functions.
>Consequently when I launched the program a second time it kind of
>overrode itself and locked up itself and X with it.
A program doing the same thing on Windos would'nt crash the system.
>Other than a screw up like this, it is pretty difficult to lock X
>through every day use.
You can lock it up with a trojan.
>It doesn't die nearly as often as Windows when I am forced to use
>Windows. But, some people are good at abusing the computer into
>submission when they want to.
>
>>
>> >And a
>> >good X server, link any other display device driver, is can be stable,
>> >but it is good to have the choice.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Mohawk Software
>> >Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
>> >Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
>> >Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
>> >sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: 17 Jun 2000 17:36:33 -0500
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
That's Linux for you. You half to avoid certain hardware because Linux mite barf on it.
>
>
>>>>>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.
But they don't do annything USEFULL!
>
>[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: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: 17 Jun 2000 17:36:43 -0500
WhyteWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>>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.
>
>they will? huh ... I"ve installed a few SBlives in Linux boxes
>sounds like the Tech at your store don't know there heads
>from holes in the ground
>
>
>>>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!"
>
>
>oh wow .. let me go out and buy Nt so I can have a second NIC...
>oh wait ... never mind ... I"ll just through in three more to my
>linux box and let that handle it ... humm ... lets rip out the
>so I have room to put in more NIC's .. let see ... total number of
>NICS ... how ever you can get your bios to suport with out filling up
>all of the IRQ's
But how slow are thoase NIC's compared to how fast they would be on NT?
>
>
>>>One can name the modem anything they want. Most distributions create the
>>>symlink "modem" to ttySn.
>>
>>And then you half to drop to Linux's version of DOS in order to correct the shortcut.
>
>uh ... no ushaly they just click on a nice little gui ap ... I beleave
>that control panel in Red HAt has this feture
Windos does it automatticaly you don't even half to click.
>
>
>>
>>>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.
>
>humm I"ve done countless things and I have yet to even touch a
>shell script ...
You will. Pretty soon you'll run smak into UNIX's lack of feetures and youl half to
write a
shell script to make up for it.
>not that I couldn't just that I have no need
>it all already works ...
>
>
>>Oh realy? Then what ealse does Linsux do becides shuffal text and suck in genneral?
>
>3D rendered graphix ...
>Mpeg/AVI/Quicktime multimedia
>Real Audio Multimedia
>
>
>altho if thats your idea of shuffle text around
>then thats all windows does to is shuffle text around
>and I hafta say that microsoft doesn't even get
>Text shuffling right
>
>>>> >X11
>>>> >People try to slam X. It is true that it is not as fast as its more
>>>> >limited competitors, but when one looks at X, they must see that it has
>>>> >features over a decade old that Microsoft still does not have right.
>>>> >A graphical front end that is completely networkable, transparently to
>>>> >both applications and OS.
>>>>
>>>> ..and bloated as hell.
>>>
>>>What part of X is bloated when compared to something like the GUI
>>>components in NT?
>>
>>Its 6 compleatly different "visuals" and the need to write 6 different versions of
>every drawing
>>function in order to be compatibbal with all of them. Most of this blote ends up in
>the libearies
>>like KDE or even GTK. For this reason, the programs that only use Xlib are usually
>use monochrome.
>
>but the point is you don't need to be compatable with all of them
>in fact ... I"Ve never seen a app that needs all the libs
>that there are out there ... I mean come on ... a QT bridge to GTK?
Every libray out there has support for all six visualls ("TrueColor", "PseudoColor",
etc.),
and this blote ends up taking up even more disk space and memmory than the need for
all these stupid library's already uses up.
>that would end up a bloated peice of work ... but ushaly ya just
>need GTK or QT .. I personal have both but sence all my apps are dynamicaly
>linked with either I don't end up with bloated programs but slick little
>programs that get the job done and done right
>
>
>
>>The purpoe of the X server is analogous to the WIN.COM of the Win3.11 days. It gets
>you from
>>"DOS mode" to "Windows mode".
>
>um ... in case ya havn't figered it out yet ... win.com is still
>there in your system .. and it still does the same thing it
>always has ...
So wat? It works.
>
>
>>
>>>only loads the
>>>machine on which it is running.
>>
>>Nice observation.
>>
>>>It does not load the machine on which
>>>the client program is running (unless it is the same machine, of
>>>course).
>>
>>Which it usually is, so you gane nothing.
>
>ushaly ... but not always ... unlike windows
>in which case it always is ..
>
>>But if it crashes your console its' just as uesless as if it crashed the kernal so
>you mite as
>>weal reboot.
>
>altho you can log into it through telnet and
>just kill the locked prossess
Who the hell's going to go all the way to some other computer, logg into it (Linnux
zealots half to run Linux on all there commputers or the feel they're doing rong),
wait for it to let you open a DOS box, etc? Linux may take a year to reboot, but
this takes even longer, and it's a grate deal more work.
>altho I still have yet to see X Windows lock the console
>
>
>
>--
>-=-=-=-=-
>The scum also rises.
> -- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
>-=-=-=-=-
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 17 Jun 2000 17:36:53 -0500
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:10:02 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>Tim, you've posted several messages twice. Are you doing
>this on purpose?
No its' the stuppid UNIX-run usenet thats doing it.
>
>Colin Day
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 17 Jun 2000 17:37:03 -0500
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:57:36 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:25:46 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote on Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:45:08 GMT
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:43:51 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>wrote on 15 Jun 2000 17:49:50 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>>
>>>>[snip for brevity]
>>>>
>>>>>The funny thing about you UNIX people is that you alwais say that UNIX
>>>>>is "easy" and then you come back and say you half to type some
>>>>>cryptic-as-hell command to do something simpal.
>>>>
>>>>Unix is not easy. Unix is in fact quite difficult.
>>>
>>> The simple is harder, however the complicated is at least possible.
>>
>>Very true; Unix also likes to combine many small tools in various
>>well-defined ways. The tricky part is to know all the small tools. :-)
>
> Nah, the tricky part is figuring out how a particular task
> decomposes into many smaller ones...
In other words "wright it yoursealf".
>
> This is why I don't think a "GUI as powerful as any Unix shell"
> will ever come about except as an oddity thrown together by some
> avid Unix Shell hacker.
>
>--
> 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: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: 17 Jun 2000 17:37:13 -0500
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:32:20 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Trolls have said some pretty funny things, but Tim Palmer has to be the
>best. He keeps slamming UNIX for its (good( ability to process data.
The onley data UNIX can proces is text trying to process anything else would short
cuircit the
VT100 terminall.
>
>Am I really stupid or is this actually a good thing?
>
Your really stupid. Their's really no other ansir.
>He has to be the only troll who picks on a really good aspect of the OS
>he's trollin' about and says it's a bad thing that it has this ability,
>especially as his hallowed OS can't begin to compete on the same ground.
VT100 terminall stupport and text shuffleing is not something Windows custommers care
about.
>
>As for me, I'll stick with my arcane 1970s, useless, uncool, not shiny
>commandline, and spend all day `shuffalling text fials'.
>
>
>
>-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: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 17 Jun 2000 17:37:24 -0500
On 15 Jun 2000 23:35:28 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 15 Jun 2000 17:49:50 -0500, Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>>The funny thing about you UNIX people is that you alwais say that UNIX is
>>"easy" and then you come back and say you half to type some cryptic-as-hell
>>command to do something simpal. My favarite is:
>>
>> rpm -Uvh
>
>There are GUI utilities such as gnorpm so that dumbasses like yourself don't
>have to type anything. Sorry, try again.
There are GUI utilities such as InstallShield that run circals around any slow-as-hell
Linux
GNOME substituit.
>
>
>>The averadge user's favorite environmant is Windos. They don't put up with
>>slow-as-hell substituits for good Windows apps like ShitOfice or PIMP. Force
>>any non-geak uer to put up with GNOME and its endless delay's for even half an
>>hour and they'll DEMAND to halve Windows back and never want to even here the
>>word "Linxu" again.
>
>Learn to post coherently ! If they want a decent Office suite, Applixware is
>the best bet. Star is a POS, but it's also a free POS.
Applixware is a POS also compaired to MSOffice.
>
>BTW, if they don't like GNOME, there's also KDE plus a zillion other choices,
>most of which are faster than GNOME.
None of them is faster than Windos.
>
>-- Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
