Linux-Advocacy Digest #167, Volume #27 Sun, 18 Jun 00 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Marc Schlensog")
Re: Just Installed Win 2K and it ROCKS!!!!!!! ("Marc Schlensog")
Re: Innovation ("Marc Schlensog")
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Marc Schlensog")
DOS Floppy
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (mlw)
Re: DOS Floppy (mlw)
Re: DOS Floppy (Terry Porter)
Re: Licenses (DeAnn Iwan)
Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs?
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Roger)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Secretly Cruel)
Re: iMacs With iTitude ("Sam Morris")
Re: Licenses (John Dyson)
Re: Number of Linux Users (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
("Marc Schlensog")
Re: The Tholenbot (was: Microsoft invites Canada south) (tinman)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 12:09:12 +0200
Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > : Crashes less.
> >
> > The above does mean that it crashes....
>
> Duh! There is no such thing as an OS that cannot crash. There isn't
> even such a thing as a *program* that cannot crash.
> There is only one stable program that i can think of. You make it
> yourself. Here it goes:
>
> % touch newprog
> % chmod 777 newprog
>
> There's your crash-proof application! Good luck with it!
Well, we didnīt talk about programs, that donīt crash, but about
OSen. IMHO, it is unaccaptable for an OS to crash, just bcoz a
proggy died.
My $.02
Marc
------------------------------
From: "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just Installed Win 2K and it ROCKS!!!!!!!
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 12:56:03 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Linux has been assimilated, resistance is futile.
First of all: you posted to the wrong NG.
>
> God, after using Linux for the last few months and now installing
> Windows 2k it is like jumping in a time machine and going 10 years
> into the future.
Yeah, nice. Psychedelic colors and clicky clicky.
>
> Win 2k installed so easily while Linux is asking me questions about
> Monitor refresh rates and giving me a list of 1985 variety printers to
> choose from.
Thatīs why I can run 1152x864@85Hz on a NoName 17" under Linux
but not under Win[9x|NT|2K].
>
> Does anyone really use an HP LaserJet 500 anymore?
Thereīs never been a LaserJet 500, IIRC. Donīt confuse it
with a DeskJet.
>
> How about Sound Blaster Live support?
What about it?
>
> Linux had the jump on Windows 2k, yet Windows 2k has Livewire support
> and Linux does not.
na na na na naaaaaaa na.... you behave like a 6yr old.
Never heard of LiveWire. Smthg you have to have? I donīt have it,
I donīt miss it, I donīt need it.
>
> Why is that?
W2K didnīt install Glide for my Banshee. Why is that?
>
> Maybe Creative knows the future and is applying it's resources
> appropriately.
>
> Sorry, but Linux is a bunch of promises and Windows 2k delivers right
> now on the spot.
Delivers what?
>
> Linux will die shortly and WIndows will live on and on and on and
> on......
You are so full of it, you and your brain were probably seperated at birth,
is that possible? How is Linux going to die, when there are so and so
many people, who believe in it? Donīt confuse it with free market
techniques.
There isnīt a company standing behind Linux but a whole bunch of volunteers.
>
>
Marc
P.S. Fuck off!
------------------------------
From: "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Innovation
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 12:43:57 +0200
Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Pedro Coto wrote:
> >
> > I think that GNU/Linux existence itself has renovated Unix
> > world, and in fact, GNU/Linux window managers and
> > desktop environments are some kind of innovation and of
> > course have renewed the Unix desktop conception. Just
> > opinion.
>
> All opinion is valued, of course. Although it's true what you say,
> wouldn't it be about time for something completely new? Basic
> computing practices haven't changed in about ten to fifteen years.
I donīt think, thatīs a software- but rather a hardware-problem.
It is true, that computing practices havenīt changed for that long,
but what kind of input devices are we having since then? Itīs
pretty much limited to a mouse and a keyboard. Itīs still 2D-output
via monitor. I think, if they donīt change the human-machine-interface,
nothingīs gonna change.
Marc
P.S. For some sort of nifty interfaces read "Neuromancer" by William Gibson.
------------------------------
From: "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 12:14:23 +0200
Stephen Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
8ich7k$r6v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Snip]
> Considering that this is *.advocacy, I'm suprised
> that someone who vehemently disagrees with you
> has not spelling-flamed you yet. :-)
> --
Well, he would have had only 6 minutes to do so....
Marc
[.sigsnip]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: DOS Floppy
Date: 18 Jun 2000 12:32:35 GMT
Does anyone know how you would mount a 1.44M drive with a dos
floppy disk in it on Linux? (Using Slackware btw a very old version
of the kernal 1.1.56 I think).
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:42:51 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
> >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.
You are the last person who should criticize anyone for spelling.
>
> >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?'
This is, of course, a lie. Linux does not handle 2 NICs as well as NT,
but this does not imply "crawl." I actuality, Linux does other things
much better than NT: Process scheduling for one. A better process
scheduler impacts the performance of the entire system, not just one
aspect of it. So yes, two netcards are better handled in NT, but
multiple processes feeding this netcards will run better in Linux. The
ONLY way NT was able to take advantage of those two netcards in the
Mindcraft test was to use cached static pages. This, as everyone knows,
is not how a real web server runs.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >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.
Try opening the C:\Winnt\system32 folder. Have fun.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >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?
If this was something you needed to do, you'd care. That is the point.
Seemingly trivial things are often time consuming repetitive work under
Windows. Under Linux, (UNIX) they are not.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DOS Floppy
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:46:52 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Does anyone know how you would mount a 1.44M drive with a dos
> floppy disk in it on Linux? (Using Slackware btw a very old version
> of the kernal 1.1.56 I think).
>
> Thanks.
I don't remember anything about the 1.x kernels. However, as long as it
has a dos file system driver, you should be able to mount -t msdos /mnt
(try fat if msdos does not work)
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: DOS Floppy
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 18 Jun 2000 20:55:47 +0800
On 18 Jun 2000 12:32:35 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Does anyone know how you would mount a 1.44M drive with a dos
>floppy disk in it on Linux? (Using Slackware btw a very old version
>of the kernal 1.1.56 I think).
>
>Thanks.
>
mount -t msdos /dev/fd0 /mnt/floppy
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 5 days 2 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DeAnn Iwan)
Subject: Re: Licenses
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:21:13 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:21:39 -0500, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>One thing to be careful of is to consider that Microsoft gains
>a lot less by the BSD license (in a relative sense) than a small
>company who is needing 'seed code.' Arguments such as 'Microsoft
>can steal BSDed code' might be carefully re-considered, since
>Microsoft can easily rewrite any medium complexity code from
>scratch (and with almost no effect on it's bottom line.) BSD
>code helps Microsoft a lot less than the small, start-up company
>who cannot afford to rewrite code...
>
True. But the small companies can use GNU license stuff,
too. For the user, having small company stuff available for all time
(getting source code) can be a big plus. The small company can still
make money SUPPORTING its program. McAffee gave away its initial
virus detection and made its money on the update service, for example.
They would not have been economically "hurt" by people distributing it
on the side--since that was part of their business model. And, of
course, all the linux vendors are proof that one CAN make money giving
away software.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs?
Date: 18 Jun 2000 09:58:08 -0400
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:42:18 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>SECURITY
>-------
>Prevent anyone displaying on X remotely (man xauth)
No man page or xauth required:
xhost -
will do.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:07:34 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 02:40:38 GMT, someone claiming to be Joe Ragosta
wrote:
>> > Then how do you explain the fact that Mac users have such dramatically
>> > higher productivity level?
>> I don't even try to. Then again I never experienced first hand a
>> _dramatically_ higher productivity level.
>Perhaps you haven't. But every published study says it's real. Too bad
>your little theory isn't consistent with that fact.
And too bad Joe neglects to mention that none of these studies
compares Mac OS with a * current * version of Windows.
Wonder why that is?
------------------------------
From: Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:10:46 -0400
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.
[snip]
Surely this is a troll..... no one could misspell this badly unless it
was done on purpose. :-)
--+==]Secretly Cruel[==+--
(Antispam measure is obvious in email address)
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: iMacs With iTitude
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:53:01 +0100
> What if the Mac has two "My Photos" CDs/hard disks etc?
If they're not mounted at the same time then opening something on "My
Photos" B while "My Photos" A is mounted will result in a dialog requesting
that you mount "My Photos" B, ejecting "My Photos" A if necessary, and
giving you the option to cancel the operation. If they are mounted
concurrently then the MacOS will access the correct file. I have no idea how
it does it in the most basic level - I only know that the MacOS doesn't use
filenames for tracking files, since they can change, and thus links can be
broken.
--
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...
------------------------------
From: John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Licenses
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 09:57:36 -0500
DeAnn Iwan wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:21:39 -0500, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >One thing to be careful of is to consider that Microsoft gains
> >a lot less by the BSD license (in a relative sense) than a small
> >company who is needing 'seed code.' Arguments such as 'Microsoft
> >can steal BSDed code' might be carefully re-considered, since
> >Microsoft can easily rewrite any medium complexity code from
> >scratch (and with almost no effect on it's bottom line.) BSD
> >code helps Microsoft a lot less than the small, start-up company
> >who cannot afford to rewrite code...
> >
> True. But the small companies can use GNU license stuff,
> too. For the user, having small company stuff available for all time
> (getting source code) can be a big plus.
>
There are a lot of reasonable business models, where using GPLed
original code stifles innovation (it is expensive to innovate,
and not necessarily just code.) It is more economical for small
businesses to re-invent GPLed code (which is often, in itself
reinvention), rather than to use the GPLed works, IF (and that
is sometimes a big if) the add-on developer is innovating, and
that innovation costs alot of time and money.
In these situations, source code is often negotiated as part of
the deal (I have been involved in such situations), and the good
thing for the developer is that the customer cannot destroy the
competitiveness of that add-on (innovative) developer by gratuitiously
giving away the hard-earned source code.
If the add-on developer is just practicing reinvention, just like
the original GPLed works often are, then there is little lost by
using GPLed seed code.
> The small company can still
> make money SUPPORTING its program. McAffee gave away its initial
> virus detection and made its money on the update service, for example.
> They would not have been economically "hurt" by people distributing it
> on the side--since that was part of their business model. And, of
> course, all the linux vendors are proof that one CAN make money giving
> away software.
More correctly, Linux vendors are proof that one CAN make money by
IPOing and getting money from stockholders. So far, the Linux
vendors haven't shown the ability to make a net profit (and provide
any reasonable EPS for it's stockholders.) Cygnus is an example
of a successful 'support' company, but their prices are quite
high. Companies that I have worked at have avoided Cygnus,
and just 'rented' the talent directly...
John
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:22:06 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Otto wrote:
> : >1.) I challenge you to quantify "superior". Superior _how_, exactly?
> :
> : Crashes less.
>
> The above does mean that it crashes....
Perhaps. I have several servers in production running apache, ftp,
telnet, sendmail, one of them has dns. Not one has crashed yet. Can't
say the same about the 1 iis server that I'm responsible for. That one
goes down nearly every week and has a much smaller load than the
apache's and is running on better hardware.
I'll add a few others:
1. Runs on more hardware platforms
2. Better support for scripting languages
3. Supports more services
4. Does not require reboot on config changes
5. Less hardware and memory overhead
6. Lower price point
7. Scales better than nt
8. More customizable than nt.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:32:16 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
8igu95$tb2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Say what ? Please quote the relevant parts of whatever EULAS you're
> talking
> > about that says this.
>
> On a piece of paper that came in the "shrink wrap" software envelope in an
> upgrade package for a Microsoft product was this passage:
>
> What is a software upgrade?
>
> A software upgrade is a modification converting your installed software
into
> a new and better version. It is like remodeling a house, when you have
> finnish the remodeling, it is a new and better version of the house. You
> still have only one house any you can nolonger use you original house.
The
> same is true for a software upgrade, you have a new and better version of
> the software and you may no longer use the original software.
But *what* if I decided to keep my house and instead of remodeling it Iīd
rather improve it? What, if weīd take the Win3.x code and make it stable
and nicer and faster and whatever? Wouldnīt one still get along with it?
Why do we need an entirely new OS every so many years? Iīm not a
programmer, so I wouldnīt know, but: When I introduce a new OS, doesnīt
that mean, that I have to learn whole new methods of programming? New
function, that were added, old functions, that were removed? Wouldnīt
it be better, just to keep the old code and improve, where necessary?
>
> In the license agreement of a Microsoft product upgrade from around the
same
> time there was this:
>
> ...The lincense you were granted by Microsoft for the prior version of the
> SOFTWARE is null and void. ...
>
> > What would be the point ? Is there really any significant number of
> people
> > running Windows 1.x and 2.x apps ?
>
> What is a significant number? Lets say there are only two remaining, one
> who has a need for Windows 1.x and another who has a need for Windows 2.x.
> Who are you or anyone to say that their needs don't matter.
Anyoneīs needs matter. The question is, is it cost-effective.
> The question is not should Microsoft do it, it is why shouldn't Microsoft
> offer them free of charge to anyone who would like them. Microsoft has no
> continuing financial interest in these packages and doing so would
generate
> some good will amoung users and potiential users. It could also have
other
> good effects for the company, for one this would be news. Wouldn't you
> imagine that the employees and shareholders would like to see Microsoft
> honetly mentioned in a favorable light in the news? If they are afraid of
> legal entanglement because of incompatibility with some current hardware,
> they could release the as is and without warrenty. And don't say that
> Microsoft could not afford to do it, many companies with less wealth and
> resources have done this with their "obsolete" products. And the results
> for them have been favorable, it has even generated sales of their latter
> products.
>
> Microsoft has nothing too loose and everything to gain by doing this.
>
Right. Why donīt they release the sources to anyone, who cares?
Should they, who still have 286 or 386 or even 486 get the chance for
an improved state of the art (?) OS or whatever.
Marc
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Tholenbot (was: Microsoft invites Canada south)
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:43:47 -0400
In article <8ii15j$kb6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Johnathan D. Hogue
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>
>
> What is all this crap?
>
Don't you know? ('
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
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 17:43:42 +0200
Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was the Fri, 16 Jun 2000 18:11:04 +0200...
> ...and Lars Träger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Don't you have filename-completion?
> > >
> > > It's still easier to type
> > > /u<tab>/lo<tab>/bi<tab>
> > > than
> > > :Lo<tab>:Bin<tab>
> > > because it doesn't require shifted characters or path separators.
> >
> > It does on a german keyboard ;-)
>
> Don't tell me you actually type slashes in your shell! In 9 of 10
> cases hitting <tab> throws in the slash if needed.
But it wouldn't do the same for the colon?
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 09:54:59 -0500
Tim Palmer 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.
It's kind of convenient when you want to make thousands/millions of copies of
something that will
run on a processor that costs a few dollars each.
> 2. It's multi-user
>
> Linux ganes NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user. All that meens to me ...
"Me me me me me." Some of us find it convenient/necessary to share resources.
> 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.
Guess that's why MS is promising the ability to run headless servers "real soon now".
(There they
go innovating again.)
For servers, number crunching systems, and embedded applications, it's really nice to
free up the
memory and CPU resources that a GUI gobbles up. You were aware that computers are
used for things
other than office suites, weren't you?
> 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
Geeks, power users, and system administrators.
> 5. "X" Windows works over a network.
>
> Another faeture that nobody ever uses.
I use it regularly. It's really convenient when you use more than one computer.
> This doesn't make "X" Windows more usefull to most
> users. Windows still wins.
Again, you show the ingrained single-user mentality that permeates the Windows world.
If you
actually tried it, you would realize how useful it can be.
You're also showing that bizarre "Windows is better even when it's worse" attitude
that permeates
the Windows world.
> 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.
Again, you assume that anything you don't know how to take advantage of is useless. I
used
multitasking and networking to good advantage on the VAX well before the PC even
existed.
And no, DOS doesn't do it because it's just a cheap imitation of an operating system.
> 7. It gives you "choice"
>
> ...betwean one crappy program and 50 others just like it.
Just my thoughts... when I walked down the software aisle at CompUSA a couple of weeks
back.
> 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.
For Windows, the whole darn system is beta quality.
> 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.
You seem to be talking about Windows. At least you've been forced to admit that the
first
installation only costs "a little time", contrary to the traditional FUD. And if you
actually used
it, you would discover that post-installation maintenance is both minimal and easy.
> 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.
Yep. Lots of people would rather keep running something with known exploits than to
take a little
trouble to fix it.
> 10. It's been ported to 16,000 different hardware plattforms that alreaddy shipped
>with UNIX
> to beagen with.
Yep. Now you can simplify maintenance and training by running the same OS on all your
systems.
How lame. Of your 10 "useless features", I use 9 regularly. Your trolling is as lame
as your
spelling. Tell the truth -- are you a Linux fan trying to make astroturfers look bad?
Bobby Bryant
Ausitn, Texas
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
