Linux-Advocacy Digest #150, Volume #27 Sat, 17 Jun 00 20:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...) ("Marc Schlensog")
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Gary Hallock)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Jacques Guy)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Gary Hallock)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Gary Hallock)
Re: Processing data is bad!
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Gary Hallock)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Gary Hallock)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Sam Morris")
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Gary Hallock)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Gary Hallock)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Gary Hallock)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Gary Hallock)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Gary Hallock)
Re: Server list for the bored ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (void)
Re: vote on MS split-up (void)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (void)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before you do .......
(Terry Porter)
Re: One problem with Linux (Jacques Guy)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Gary Hallock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...)
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:21:14 +0200
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
8he4bt$24g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Snip]
> Thank you for asking nicely. :-) Will do. Sorry about that. I often
> forget that there are a lot of you folks who don't use GUIfied client, and
> scrolling though lots of text can be annoying, and in your case,
> expensive.
Thank you for a pretty sophisticated and objective answer.
BTW: Itīs not only reading time, but also downloading time,
that counts.
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:47:44 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Doesn't matter, S/390, 9672, 3090 MVS/XA, ESA, VM all things that
> Linux may run with/on/under but things that the desktop people could
> care less about.
>
> Linux in the back room or in some geeks wet dream yes.
>
> Linux on the desktop in mass?
>
> Forget it.
>
> .3 percent speaks for itself.
>
I take it that you have never heard of a P390.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 22:53:42 -0700
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
TimL wrote:
> In fact this person [Tim Palmer] seems to be quite
> fearful of the command-line
I'd be scared of command lines too if I spelt like him!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:04:40 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
I still waiting, Tim
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 18:59:56 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>
> But "-d" has nothing to do with scanning an immage.
Gee, Tim, you think maybe, just maybe -d lets you specify the scanner device? Naw,
it couldn't be that
simple. could it?
I'm still waiting for your retraction on your statements about Linux 390.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: 17 Jun 2000 19:00:37 -0400
On 17 Jun 2000 13:48:57 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> 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
>>
>> Sounds like par for the course.
>
>Of course Windows can't even do this.....
DOS 6.22 had a "mode" command that allowed you to have an 80x50
screen, but I don't know if that command still exists on the
Windows 98 version of DOS. Some programs, however, didn't like
the 80x50 mode, and others would change the screen back to 80x25
mode before executing.
>
>--
>The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
>Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:05:07 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
And waiting ...
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:03:18 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Tim Palmer wrote:
> Whear do you get "-vh"? The "-" gose in front of the U not infront of the "vh".
>
You really should learn some basics about Unix if you are going to criticize it.
This is standard for options on Unix commands:
-Uvh is the same as
-U -v -h
I'm still waiting for a retraction on your comments about Linux for S/390.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:04:04 +0100
> > My real question is why do we Windows users have to put up with the old,
> > outdated, kludgey and quite honestly crap system of identifying volumes
by
> > drive letter that Windows STILL uses? Legacy apps be damned, the longer
> it's
> > left the way it is, the harder it will be to switch to a vaguely more
> modern
> > system.
>
> Because when you move up to NT or Win2k and can set the drive letters
> yourself, it becomes just like the Mac system, albeit with only one letter
> volume names.
Hardly. I am still unable to read multiple partitions on removable drives.
Whenever I try to install a driver using the Hardware Wizard the default
setting is still for the floppy on A: and, since I didn't want to waste a
tenner on an FDD, I still have to wait thirty seconds for Windows to realise
that the floppy it tries to read from doesn't exist. And unless I
specifically spread all the drives out amongst the letters of the alphabet
before I install anything then adding a new drive will still screw all my
shortcuts and programs up. (Just out of interest, what do you do under
Windows if you need access to more than 26 drives? Unlikely I know, but
anyway?)
And worst of all, I still have to deal with the feeling that all the icons
in My Computer with C: or whatever written underneath are snickering behind
my back, saying, 'Go back to the MacOS and stay away from Windows! My
constant crashes and shortcomings are signs that you are not wanted here...'
:)
--
Sam Morris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...7/6/00: 3rd installation of Windows since March took 6h30m, and that's
without a working modem...
...you can have my Mac when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers...
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:07:28 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> They don't want to tipe stuped DOS command they'd rather click an Icon that's why
>Windows is
> still #1.
>
Why don't you use an OS with a decent spell checker?
I'm still waiting for a retraction from you on your comments about Linux for S/390
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:10:14 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>
> No its' the stuppid UNIX-run usenet thats doing it.
Still can't get that spell checker to work, hue Tim?
I am still waiting for a retraction from you on your comments about Linux for
S/390.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:12:35 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Gary Hallock wrote:
> Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > No its' the stuppid UNIX-run usenet thats doing it.
>
> Still can't get that spell checker to work, hue Tim?
>
> I am still waiting for a retraction from you on your comments about Linux for
> S/390.
>
> Gary
I clicked too early on that. I do have a spell checker. "hue" should be "hu"
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:18:45 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:27:19 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >> find / grep -v '^/dev/.*' | xargs file | grep -c text
> >
> >Ummmm, you forgot to count the output lines:
> >
> >find / grep -v '^/dev/.*' | xargs file | grep -c text | wc
>
> Wow! that's so much easier than just naming your extensive collection
> of text files *.txt and using Start - Find - *.txt
I think you don't understand the meaning of the term "text file". Most
text files do not (and should not) have an extension of .txt. A text
file contains human readable text. It could be README, c, html, etc.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:20:12 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Tim Palmer wrote:
> 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.
More stupid ignorant comments.
I am still waiting, Tim
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Server list for the bored
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:24:28 GMT
In article <8ibkor$bn3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (WhyteWolf) wrote:
> www.linuxsucks.com ... Linux
Probably for proof that it sucks; i.e. whenever the site is down, they
can just blame it on Linux.
> Amazon ... Compaq Tru64 UNIX
Actually, they've just announced a major switch to HP, but I'm sure you
don't follow the news. Not Linux anyways.
> Ebay ... Solaris
Blatantly false. The main web server runs on Windows. Check netcraft
for crying out loud. The back end database, which crashes every ten
minutes and cost eBay $2,000,000,000.00 in market capitalization last
summer, is indeed running Solaris, and is one of Unix's most notorious
failures of all time.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: 17 Jun 2000 23:21:57 GMT
On 17 Jun 2000 01:38:46 +0100, Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dave Vandervies wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
>>(Either that or hack up
>>a shell that recognizes some unshifted character as a path separator,
>>but that could get ugly.)
>>
>It doesn't have to be that bad, a slight tweak of the keymap would suffice.
You folks should look into the meaning of the "IFS" environment
variable.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: vote on MS split-up
Date: 17 Jun 2000 23:33:04 GMT
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 01:40:54 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The court must weigh the interests of the majority (Microsoft users)
>against the interests of the minority (Linux users).
I don't agree. I think that users of MS software suffer from MS'
malfeasance as much as anyone else does. Though they don't always know
it, due to lack of exposure to alternatives.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: 17 Jun 2000 23:37:14 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:10:58 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>There's also Emacs, a LISP interpreter masquerading as a text editor. :-)
I thought it was an operating system?
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:40:50 -0400
On 17 Jun 2000 17:36:13 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1. It scails down
>
>Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of RAM. Windows
>runs on todays
>computer's, and the fact that it doesn't run on some obsoleat piece-of-shit computer
>from 1991
>doessn't mean shit.
Agreed. The lie here is that if you run KDE and Netscape on that 386
and you're not gonna have much fun.
>2. It's multi-user
>
>Linux ganes NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user. All that meens to me is that I
>have to
>remember a password just to be able to get into my own computer. Users want to get
>their work
>done, not waist time "logging in" screwing around with usernames and passwords that
>can't
>even be disaballed, and having to remember the "root password" every time somethign
>goes
>wrong. Those "other users" that UNIX is dessined to support through VT100 terminals
>can get
>the're own computer, and the "administrative identities" aka daemon, nobody, mail,
>news, bin,
>sys, and uucp, can all go to hell. It's not the '70s anymore.
Agreed although it can be useful for an average user. Of course, who
doesn't own more than one computer these days? Would have been a
useful feature for home users 5 years ago maybe.
>3. It's "flexibbal" (in other words you can turn off the GUI)
>
>And noboddy cares. Linux is just as useless without its GUI as Windows is. There is
>NO REASON
>to turn off the GUI, and NO REASON to turn off the desktop, and NO REASON to turn off
>the
>Window manager. These are all useless feetures, and Linux gains NOTHING over Widnos
>for halvign
>them. Yet Linux isn't flexibble enough to allow you to turn off the multi-user
>"feature". Now
>THAT would be a somewhat usefull feature.
Linux is more flexibbal than Windows but most people hardly ever learn
how to use all of Windows so they're never going to care about
removing parts they don't use or adding other things.
>4. You can logg in remotely
>
> ...creating the nead for the whole username-and-pasword system. And since it's a
>feature that
>only geeks need, the only "beneffit" for normal users is that they need a password
>(see #2)
>to keep hackers out, where they don't need one if they run Windows.
This is actually very useful to anyone. Of course, Windows does it as
well. I remotely administrate my server and when I'm at work I can
logon to my home system using PCANYWHERE or other free tools.
Note, Whistler, aka Windows 2000 Consumer includes remote login using
a scaled down version of Terminal Server.
>5. "X" Windows works over a network.
>
>Another faeture that nobody ever uses. This doesn't make "X" Windows more usefull to
>most
>users. Windows still wins.
Same as above.
>6. The CLI can multitask and network.
>
> ...which still doesn't make it any more usefull than DOS. Multitasking is only
>usefull to normal
>people in a GUI, which is why DOS doesn't do it.
or you could open two cmd.exe windows and do the exact same thing.
Wiin32 console apps provide network support for command line based
tools.
>7. It gives you "choice"
>
> ...betwean one crappy program and 50 others just like it. Most people's "choice" is
>MS Windows
>and the fine MS software that goes together with it. They would never give up all
>that just to
>run Linux and its shitty little beta-test apps except if they were tricked into it.
I've never felt that I didn't have choice. With Windows 3.1 you could
happily run DOS if you didn't like Windows. With Windows 95 you could
happily run OS/2 or even still DOS. Before you could always buy an
Amiga or ST.
Now there is still choice. There is the BeOS. Linux could be a choice
but not to average users. You could always buy a Mac if you wanted to.
>8. It's "free"
>
> ...but it costs lots and lots of time, a little time at first durring the
>installation, and
>then more and more time after the installation as one thing after annother goes wrong.
I love computers but I have SO many better things to do than read man
pages for hours to achive what I can with a nice little UI in 15
seconds.
I really do wonder if most Linx users are 13-19 years old with lots of
spare time. Thats the point in my life that I would happily spend
HOURS setting up something for the fun of it. That's when I couldn't
afford anything other than freeware tools and I had to suffer with
their poor quality.
>9. It's Open-Source
>
> ...but nobody want's to waste time fixing all the bugs it has when they can just run
>Windos
>like they've been doing and have world-class sofrware.
>
>10. It's been ported to 16,000 different hardware plattforms that alreaddy shipped
>with UNIX
>to beagen with.
>
>Yawn.
Exactly.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before you do
.......
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 18 Jun 2000 07:53:51 +0800
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:37:43 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Please note that this newsgroup is intended for arguments FOR and AGAINST
^^^^^^^
>Linux.
WRONG !!!
Please learn the meaning of ADVOCACY ????
> Steve often identifies real (as opposed to imaginary) shortcomings
>of Linux. Yes, perhaps he does have too many aliases, and perhaps he is
^^^^^^^
WRONG: They are not aliases, they are FALSE identities, to escape from kill
files.
>wrong from time to time.
WRONG: Theis person is a Troll 100% of the time.
> But this newsgroup will be very boring if everyone
>just praises Linux.
Why ?
Theres a lot to praise, unlike the OS *your* using right now.
> IMHO Linux has established itself as a server OS, but
>has many miles to go before it qualifies as a decent Desktop.
Only in your opinion, ive been using Linux AS a desktop since 1997.
> Critics, like
^^^^^^^
WRONG: Steve is not a critic, he is a Wintroll. People need to know the
**difference**.
>Steve, are there to point out these shortcomings.
>It is all about democracy - and calling a spade a spade!
Gardening department next building on the left, have a good day.
>James
>
>
>"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Would you take advice from a Ford salesman, trying to convince you
>> that Honda's were crap ?
>>
>> What if he didn't actually know anything about cars anyway ?
>>
>> How about if he was so ashamed of his real identity, being
>> a total liar and bs artist, that every time you went to that
>> particular car yard, he had changed his name ?
>>
>> This is simon777, otherwise known as "Steve/Heather/Amy/Keys88" etc.
>>
>> He has been posting here for 2 years, and its always the same Wintroll
>> stuff, clever but untrue.
>>
>> Do yourself a favor if you're a lurker or a undecided Linux user :-
>>
>> ** kill file him **!
>>
>> If you do, you'll have a LOT less stuff to read, and will be able to get
>down
>> to the nitty gritty, of good old Linux advocacy, without the lies.
>>
>>
>> Is your time worth more than reading his lies ?
>>
>>
>> Kind Regards
>> Terry
>> --
>> **** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
>> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
>> up 1 day 15 hours 53 minutes
>> ** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 4 days 12 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:56:37 -0700
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: One problem with Linux
Steven Smolinski wrote:
> It's quite hard to find a SAMS book worth a damn
You learn the hard way, alas. My first exposure to
the SAMS series was positive (not *great*, but quite
reasonable) so I assumed... you guess the rest.
> and the
> "for Dummies" series really are for dummies; and dummies
> never get anything done properly.
Once again, flicking through the manual, it looked
reasonable. Of course my money is not completed
wasted. I know enough to install the software I want,
but imagine the frustration of a real "dummy," that is,
a complete newbie!
> When you think computer books, think O'Reilly. There's
> hardly a stinker in the bunch.
I know the series. I have "Running Linux" from a few years
back (four?). But, once again, you see, the problem with
Linux *today* is that perhaps 90% of it is out of the
user-in-the-street's interest. I don't want to run a server,
to connect umpteen computers, etc. I use my PC as a glorified
programmable pocket calculator, really, so I got conned,
yes "conned" is the word--this Linux for Dummies and this
SAMS Teach Yourself are con jobs-- I got conned into buying
them. Mind you, I had had a very bad experience with another
book... let me try to find it... got it! "A Practical Guide
to Linux" by Mark Sobell. Nothing practical about it. Here
is what someone wrote about it at amazon:
Reviewer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (see more about me) from
Browntown,Canada
Although "A Practical Guide to Linux" is comprehensive,it isn't focused
or organized.I can't use it as a reference for that reason-it's too much
of
a bother to gather all the bits and pieces of information scattered
about
the book.I instead reach for O'Reilly's "Running Linux",which i would
recommend you do also.
Having spent a great deal of money on that book (there was a hefty
mark-up
on US books back then, at least 50%), I was fuming, and I took the
trouble to vent my frustation on Amazon. Here is my review:
September 6, 1997
Reviewer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (see more about me) from Melbourne,
Australia
This hefty paperback consists of two parts, four appendices, a
glossary and an index, 1013 pages in all. The preface opens : "This
book is *practical* because.... It is a *guide* [author's emphasis]
because it takes you from logging on your system (Chapter
2)...through... and administrating a system (Chapter 15)...it assumes
some experience with a PC or a Mac". The back cover quotes a
reviewer: "In a book primarily and successfully aimed at new users...".
On the strength of those statements, having just installed Caldera
OpenLinux on a 500M partition of my hard disk, and deeming myself a
new Linux user but with some 16 years of PC experience, I bought it.
Had I not become briefly acquainted with Unix ten years ago, I would
still be looking for a way of accessing my floppy drive. "Floppy
diskette" in the index refers you to p.603, in the last chapter, System
Administration, where you learn that "If you have a one gigabyte disk
on your system, you would need more than 600 floppy diskettes to do
a full backup". Period. I could find only one fleeting reference p.625:
"For example, if you have inserted a floppy disk that holds a DOS
filesystem... you can use that filesystem using the command
# mount -t msdos /dev/fd0 /mnt
No amount of searching through the contents or the index will take
you to that page, and if it did, what sense would a new user make of
that?
The first chapter, 17 pages long, is a historical presentation of Linux.
Skip it for the second chapter "Getting Started", where you are told,
p.20, "Before you get started, you should know the answers to most
of the following questions", and refers you to pp.929-930. Page 929,
in answer to "What Is My Login Name?" refers you to p.582, "The
System Administrator and Superuser", chapter 15, the very last
chapter to which this "Practical Guide" was supposed to lead you by
the hand.
Chapter 6, "What Is a GUI?" deals with X-Windows after 7 pages of
jargon-laden, barely comprehensible introduction, including almost a
whole page on... how to use a mouse! This for an audience with "as a
minimum... some experience with a PC or a Mac" (you are even
treated to a picture of a keyboard, p.929, in case you had never seen
one before).
This book, by its title, by the unfulfilled promises in its preface,
falls
barely short of fraudulent. The foreword by Linus Torvalds,
announced on the front cover, does nothing to dispel this impression.
It is not a foreword to "A Practical Guide to Linux" at all; it is a
mercifully jargon-free history of how Linux was conceived and
developed. Lacking a zero rating, I give it 1 for the cute penguin on
the
cover.
======================
Well, following this, I was surprised to find in my e-mail a message
from
a very well-known technical author, the gist of which was: "how right
you are, the proof was sent to me and I said it had to be rewritten from
scratch. However, I have received a letter from the publisher, asking
me to upload a positive review to Amazon--and other colleagues have-- so
as to "swamp" your negative review. Needless to say I ignored it, but
ignoring it is the most I can do, as I am working on a book to be
published
by them. I trust you will keep this to yourself."
And sure enough when, today, almost three years later, when I went back
looking
for it at Amazon, it was swamped by sycophantic reviews.
Take a look at them if you can be bothered:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/book-customer-reviews/-/0201895498/11/102-3377652-0208149
What can one do in the face of such practices? That is fraudulent.
And it is little wonder that anyone wishing to switch to Linux, and
trusting
what such publishers and their hacks say, gives up in disgust, after
having
been parted with some $43 on what amounts to misrepresentation.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:57:41 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> When the file utility you mentioned comes standard in the distribution
> I will try it, until then I compare what comes out of the box as
> current as I have tried and Mandrake 7.1 is pretty current.
>
So, use gmc. You say you've tried it, but I don't believe you. It is very
fast in bringing up /dev
Gary
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
