Linux-Advocacy Digest #159, Volume #27 Sun, 18 Jun 00 02:13:14 EDT
Contents:
Software ("David Cancio")
Re: iMacs With iTitude (JEDIDIAH)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux Mandrake Update: DOH! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Number of Linux Users ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux app spec... (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
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)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (TholenBotPro)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(John Wiltshire)
Re: Processing data is bad! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
("Quantum Leaper")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:06:17 -0400
From: "David Cancio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Software
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.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:52:36 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: iMacs With iTitude
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:10:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 13 Jun 2000 21:27:07 GMT,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:10:20 +1200, Lawrence DčOliveiro
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> This is what I mean. UNIX has been around so long that people have given
>>> up trying to even think about fixing its fundamental flaws. And they
>>> wonder why new users are so put off by it all, and why Linux is
>>> completely failing to make any headway on the desktop...
>>
>>That's complete bullshit. Linux is gaining market share at an
>>increadible rate.
>
>On the desktop?
>
>Prove it!!!!
try www.idc.com
>
>>> Under UNIX, the mount point is part of the file path, remember. Consider
>>> a CD-ROM called "My Photos", with a file on it called "Fred the Cat". On
>>> a UNIX system, you might or might not be able to use the pathname
>>> "/cdrom/Fred the Cat". And what if you have both a CD-ROM and a
>>> CD-writer drive attached (as I do), and you put the CD in the latter?
>>
>>/mnt/cdrw and /mnt/cdrom. At least that's how it would work on this
>>guy's system. Oh, and it would likely be /mnt/cdrom/Fred\ The\ Cat.
>
>
>Yawn..under Windows you need not concern yourself with such tripe.
Only because WinDOS is braindead and underfeatured.
>
>And what happens when this mounted CDROM is needed by one of the Linux
>WinAmp Clones (terrible and cheap as they are)?
WinAmp is the cheap one. Why would a shill such as yourself be
boosting one of the posterboys for the UI hall of shame and
UI inconsitency?
As far as needing a disk, one could always ask to it by name.
This is something that WinDOS is incapable of doing. It also
doesn't bother to lock the CD tray when in action so you can
really give that 'gem' winamp fits. Of course WinDOS doesn't
deal very gracefully with this error condition at the system
level either.
...a classic case of the interns in Redmond not quite
thinking ahead well enough.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:07:32 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:52:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:42:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:14:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:35:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:30:14 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:47:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 13 Jun 2000 14:02:55 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:57:13 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>Tiberious wrote:
>>>>>>>> [CUT the entire crap]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The fun part of you guys posts is that lately you're atacking Linux on its
>>>>>>>>lack of support for "home devices". This must mean that the server side of
>>>>>>>>things is allready won by Linux - i can only agree on that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Regarding end-user PC's its very simple... simply just aquire devices that
>>>>>>>>are supported by Linux..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And you still cant get the hardwair to work together. Instead of being abal to
>scan something
>>>>>>>and have it go strate to the printer or FAX, you half to save it to fial and
>cibvert it to
>>>>>>>postscrit, and thats' just to print. FAX modems just don't work on UNIX.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure they do. My Phoebe works just fine. As far as treating several
>>>>>> peripherals as if they were one virtual dedicated device, that's also
>>>>>> trivial.
>>>>>
>>>>>So why doesn't Linux?
>>>>
>>>> Repeating lies won't make them any more true, regardless of
>>>> how many times you repeat the lies.
>>>
>>>
>>>But you still haven't answered the original question.
>>>
>>>So why doesn't Linux......?
>>>>>It can barely put an icon in a menu when you install a commercial program like
>>>>>Wordperfect.
>>>>
>>>> Neither can Windows, if you didn't manage to hire a reasonably
>>>> intellegent student intern this quarter.
>>>
>>>Every Windows program that I have installed has put an icon either on
>>>the desktop or in the Starup->program menu and that includes the
>>>README and other information.
>>
>> That must get pretty cluttered after awhile.
>You can easily erase or move them unlike Linux....
>
>>>
>>>Please provide me with an example of a current Windows program that
>>>does not?
>>
>> Crystal Reports.
>
>
>Never heard of it.
>
>Some sort of Physic program or something?
>>[deletia]
>>>>>
>>>>>So if it is so easy, again why does not Linux do it?
>>>>
>>>> scanimage -d /dev/scanner | lpr
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh that's certainly something Joe Sixpack will remember..
>>
>> Then someone can encapsulate it in a button, menu or
>> an entire pointless little shiny little applet.
>
>
>No that's a demonstration of the ease of Windows and the archaicness
>of Linux.
As arcana goes, it's actually not bad.
"scanimage" ...oooh, whatever could that be.
"/dev/scanner" ...now that's a non-descript name if there ever
was one.
>>>
>>>You prove my point all the time....
>>>
>>>I prefer clicking on the icon that says "Scan image"
>>
>> That usually the way I do it as well. The expert interface
>> does not negate the existence of the "morons-only" interface.
>
>
>If both are indeed provided.
If? That sounds suspiciously like an ignoramus caught in his ignorance.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> There are even some shiny happy gui tools that do the "scanner as fax
>>>>>> machine or copier trick".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Sane is a bare bones abortion.
>>>>
>>>> How do the Windows variants "best it" exactly?
>>>
>>>
>>>Try them and you will see. I have used both Linux deviants and Windows
>>
>> In other words: you have no idea.
>
>
>No... I have used both SANE and Winfax and there is absolutely no
>comparison.
>Not even close.
Then start making some real comparisons, instead of making it
apparent to everyone that you've never used any of this stuff
even under windows and that you're just talking out your ass.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:59:03 -0400
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Update: DOH!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
[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
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:42:26 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
.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.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:40:17 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
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?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:41:10 -0400
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux app spec...
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?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:38:18 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
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
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:47:35 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before
you do .......
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]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:48:26 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux app spec...
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
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 17:45:43 -0400
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
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
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:23:58 -0400
From: TholenBotPro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
In article <TLj15.34964$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Chris Pott writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm not falling into another tholenesque spiral this week,
>
> >>>>>>>>>> What alleged "tholenesque spiral"?
>
> >>>>>>>>> The tholenesque spiral in which we find ourselves at this very
> >>>>>>>>> moment.
>
> >>>>>>>> Incorrect; that would be a "tinmanesque" spiral, given that you
> >>>>>>>> started it.
>
> >>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that the characteristics of said spiral are not
> >>>>>>> dependent on whom initiated it.
>
> >>>>>> Illogical, given that the said spiral was given a name.
>
> >>>>> Incorrect,
>
> >>>> Balderdash.
>
> >>> I see that lacking a logical response,
>
> >> Did you bother to read my response, Chris?
>
> > Yes.
>
> Then how did you manage to miss my logical response?
Because I don't see things that aren't there. Seeing things that aren't there again,
Dave?
> >>> you're resorting to Tholenesque context butchering again.
>
> >> What alleged "context butchering", Chris?
>
> > See above.
>
> The above does not contain any "context butchering" on my part, Chris.
Open your eyes, Dave.
> >>> How typical.
>
> >> Typical
>
> > What's "typical" about it, Dave?
>
> "See above."
Illogical.
> >> pontification on your part.
>
> > What alleged "pontification", Dave?
>
> CP] How typical.
What alleged "]", Dave?
--
"]"
-- Dave Tholen
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 20:53:24 -0400
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:02:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>>
>>So how about showing us how Linux is taking over the 90 plus percent
>>desktop market that Windows already owns?
>
> I would describe it more as a war of attrition.
>
>[deletia]
>
> Linux isn't going anywhere and Microsoft has to keep funding itself.
>
>--
>
> |||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
Exactly!
If there ever were an apocolypse, there would be Cockroaches, Linux and Cher.
Charlie
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:25:03 -0400
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:22:35 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I also meant to say (but forgot) that the lifespan of other consumer
>products is longer thasn 8 years. TVs, fridges etc can have lifespand
>over 20 years. Technology may have improged, but they have become no
>worse. Software is not different
You don't expect to be able to drop a '00 Taurus engine into a '57
Mustang do you? Why should you expect to be able to run a program
designed for the Windows 1.x engine on Windows 2000?
Does your fridge run on kerosene? How about your TV remote - will it
work on your old 1960 black and white?
Remember the product itself still works - you can still run that old
Windows 1.x software on the Windows 1.x machine you still have. Just
don't expect it to run on a different machine. You never expect that
of your consumer appliances. Why should software be different?
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:27:19 -0400
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2:1 wrote:
>
> Mingus wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 16:32:20 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >As for me, I'll stick with my arcane 1970s, useless, uncool, not shiny
> > >commandline, and spend all day `shuffalling text fials'.
> >
> > That's terribly exciting... just how many text files do you have?
>
> lots.
>
> In fact tonight, I'll remember to do a
>
> find / grep -v '^/dev/.*' | xargs file | grep -c text
Ummmm, you forgot to count the output lines:
find / grep -v '^/dev/.*' | xargs file | grep -c text | wc
>
> and tell you exactly hoe many text files I have. Now can anyone tell me
> how to do that under Windows?
There's one...
oh, that's another.
um.. no..oops...uh
uh..there's two....
...
...
...284...
...
...
oh darn..I lost count...
...one....two...
>
> -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.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:20:15 -0400
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:35:00 -0700, Stephen Edwards
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
<8ic211$htb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >
> >>There are things that I have seen mentioned in these three news groups
by
> >>the supporters of the Microsoft Windows environment that I can not
reconcile
> >>with what I have experienced in reality, I would like to discuss one of
> >>them. Please note that I did not say the Windows operating system,
since
> >>there is no such beast. Windows, in all of its incarnations is nothing
more
> >>than a graphical environment that runs on an actual operating system.
>
> This isn't quite correct.
>
> Unix is an actual operating system and X is a graphical shell
> that runs on top of it. However WinDOS is a different sort of
> beast. The "whole OS" does not exist in DOS. Most of the OS is
> embedded into the GUI shell making the boundary between system
> components murky and DOS itself crippled.
>
> They aren't quite comparable... Unix/X vs. DOS/Win.
>
If so much is imbedded in the GUI shell, why can I change that shell?
LiteStep and the other available GUI replacements for Window 9x or NT 4.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
