Linux-Advocacy Digest #169, Volume #27 Sun, 18 Jun 00 13:13:12 EDT
Contents:
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Processing data is bad! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: What's wrong with StarOffice (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[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 09:23:28 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> As for X windowing and Motif windows being separate things, do you
> really understand X?
Yes, I do understand X.. My referece to Motif and X appearing sepperate are
based on the wording of a magazine interview that was some of the
prepublicity for NT while it was still in development. X is a one of the
results of Project Athena. Motif is a Widget set, a set of libraries, a
windows manager, and a set of programs which are all dependent on X. When
they made the reference to X, I interpreted it as a user interface for NT
that would be based on the standard X from MIT. On the other had the Motif
interface was not as free as the standard X for them Microsoft to use.
Motif is not free and would have required a lincensing agreement and maybe
the payment of royalities by Microsoft for access to Motif. Today, we have
a free Motif workalike called Lesstif, but at that time it was not
available, since it had not yet been developed. Since, they discussed Motif
and X as sepperate entitiies, I suspect that Microsoft was going to
implement them as sepperate interfaces.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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 16:31:33 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:30:32 +1200, Lawrence DčOliveiro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:10:20 +1200, Lawrence D1Oliveiro
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>There is also nothing stopping you from using /cdrom and /cdrw.
>
>That proves my point: on Windows and UNIX systems, there is no stable
>form of reference that you can use that works the same from one system
>to another, or even one drive to another. On the Mac, the pathname "My
>Photos:Fred the Cat" is still valid whether you put the CD in the CD-ROM
>drive or in the CD writer.
Which is fine so long as none else decides to name their cat Fred.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:33:00 GMT
On 17 Jun 2000 07:22:44 GMT, Darren Winsper
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:36:22 GMT, Mingus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> As long as they don't need to open the case. Users want to install
>> printers, scanners and any USB devices (as if Linux supports them)
>
>And what will you say when the 2.4 kernel comes out?
Mandrake 7.1 is already out and has USB support.
[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.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:36:05 GMT
On 17 Jun 2000 17:36:33 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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]
>>>>>>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.
No, that's PCs in general: avoid quite a bit of stuff merely because
it's CRAP who's production was motivated primarily by cutting costs
(winmodem).
[deletia]
>>>> 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!
You don't know well enough to comment. It's moot either way
due to the relative lack of space they take up. Plus, it's
not like Win2000 where if you have too many files in a directory
it will explode.
[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.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:37:02 GMT
On 17 Jun 2000 17:38:14 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 16 Jun 2000 09:31:56 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:12:59 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[deletia]
>>>>>
>>>>> ...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.
>>
>> ...or BeOS or MacOS.
>
> ...all which suck almost as much as Linsux.
...the shill showing his true colors.
[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.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:43:02 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:08:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>There is a reason why the rest of the world has moved mostly to GUI.
Yeah, Microsoft makes mediocre crap. So, their CLI was more
painful than anyone else's making a GUI on a DOS box much
more of a necessity than a luxury.
>
>
>
>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.....
>
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: What's wrong with StarOffice
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:47:51 GMT
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:20:45 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If a person prefers WordPerfect Office 2000 that could be a partial solution
>to the problem at hand; but what about the remaining X apps and the non X
>apps that need or could benefit from Postscript and/or TrueType fonts? What
>is more, why should someone have to change the software they are using just
>to get support for these fonts when the support for PostScript fonts is
>already on their host but possibly not activated, the situation could be the
>same for the TrueType fonts.
>
>It was Barbara's lamentation about the lack of support for these fonts by
The real question is whether or not your authoring needs can be
served by a discrete set of font sizes and the fonts that are
available as PS Type 1.
[deletia]
The notion that they are necessarily uglier on screen is just
a persistent myth.
Although, SO5 seems to use default fonts that are jaggy as hell
under Linux. OTOH, the Type 1 fonts I use for Netscrape can go
head to head with WinDOS in terms of smoothness.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:51:44 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:35:08 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 07:35:06 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The only people who seem to dislike X, are those that don't know X. Yes,
>>it is not as fast as it could be, but it is pretty fast. Accelerated
>>versions of X are quite fast.
>>
>>What is X?
>
>I'm going to forward a copy of this message to my grandmother and see
>what she thinks of X. The amount of the market that actually cares
>about such things is very small. My grandmother (and her friends) make
>up the other 90% Which market do you want?
>
>People hate X becuase it's ugly and slow. They don't care why it's
>ugly and slow, they just know it is.
This is just your own fantasy.
X can be quite fast, and more responsive than WinDOS due to the
fact that all windows are managed by a central executive (don't
you just hate it when IE5 hangs and clutters your desktop) and
there is more than enough eye candy and good fonts for X.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:52:29 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:04:59 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 01:06:48 -0400, "Colin R. Day"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Jeff Szarka wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 07:35:06 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>>> People hate X becuase it's ugly and slow. They don't care why it's
>>> ugly and slow, they just know it is.
>>
>>X isn't ugly, as you don't get to see X. KDE, Gnome. Afterstep can
>>be beautiful or ugly.
>
>KDE is ugly too. Seriously... the fonts look better on a 15 year old
>Mac.
Care to offer any real comparisons, rather than just your own FUD?
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:55:32 GMT
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 21:26:09 GMT, Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"Illya Vaes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> >I am not aware of any case where MS stuck with decades old
>> >Unix technology without at least trying to make *some* improvements.
>>
>> So, when are you going to give up on sticking with century-old round
>wheels on
>> your car?
>> If it ain't broke, don't fix it (even if it's from obviously
>dreaded-by-you
>> Unix and/or 'old'). Or are you one of those people that can only stay
>employed
>> if they keep reimplementing the same stuff over and over again?
>
>Heck, who needs those new-fangled *cars*? Horse-and-buggy was good
>enough for my great-grandpappy, and gosh-darn-it, it's good enough for me!
There are some enviroments where your car will just become
lots of useless scrap metal and a horse would actually be
the most appropriate tool.
OTHO, why are you bothering with such OLD technology as
automobiles? We're talking about 100 year old tech here.
You should really be moving on to something more "progressive"
if you are true to your own rhetoric.
>
>But seriously, folks, Unix security is kinda weak. It's a smidge of
>identification
>and a bit of filesystem security, but not too much of either. When you are
>doing a server, you really want security that an application can tie into
>effectively.
>
>It's also nice to have a bit more subtlety than the Unix
>owner/group/world/superuser
>system.
>
>These aren't insurmountable problems in Unix, but there *is* a case to be
>made
>for doing a better job rather than kludging Unix some more.
Unix was built to be "kludged". So Kludging it some more is really
not an issue. It just serves to be ammuntion for those with the
corresponding agenda.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:57:53 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:49:40 GMT, whistler@ <blahblah> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, No-Spam wrote:
>>I've just returned from Perth, where I stopped to examine the increase in Linux
>>books at Dymocks Technical Bookshop, one of the better equiped bookstores in
>>Perth Western Australia.
>>
>>Whilst looking thru the entire bookshelf now devoted to Linux (and Unix)
>>I noticed a huge set of boxed books marked "The Windows2000 Server Resource
>>Kit" priced at $299!
>>
>>Thats right Two Hundred and Ninety Nine dollars for the things Linux does for
>>free, for **ZERO** dollars!
>>
>
>Really, you can get printed, specifically bound into a hard or soft covered
>book, copies of Linux manuals for free, from where? The same printed Linux
>manuals could be cheaper, or they could be more expensive in the aggregate.
Being bound into a physical book is an artificial constraint.
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
