Linux-Advocacy Digest #214, Volume #27 Tue, 20 Jun 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager (Charlie Ebert)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is awesome! (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Bart Oldeman)
It's all about the microsurfs ("Charlie Root")
Re: The Linux Challenge (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux is awesome! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is awesome! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
The MEDIA this year! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Boring ("Colin R. Day")
Re: MacOS X sceptic (Craig Kelley)
Re: I had a reality check today :( (Craig Kelley)
Re: slashdot is down -again- (Steven Smolinski)
Re: slashdot is down -again- (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:11:02 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Typical LinoNut semantic argument designed to take the focus off the
> original point that KDE sucks compared to Windows as far as the
> consistancy and speed of the gui is concerned.
>
> The point is like I said above. Who cares what the cause is?
You idiot. The KDE is several clock cycles ahead of Windows anything.
You can also have more sessions open.
You know nothing about X or KDE or Gnome.
And you know damn little about OS's like NT.
Charlie
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:07:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher
> Browne) wrote:
>
> >Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jeff Szarka would say:
> >>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:58:07 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>wrote:
> >>>> The UI IS the OS for desktop users. Command line or GUI, it doesn't
> >>>> matter. An ugly mess of a UI makes the OS an ugly mess to use. Sums up
> >>>> Linux as a consumer grade OS almost perfectly.
> >>>
> >>>Simple. If you don't like KDE use something else. The chioce is yours,
> >>>no on is forcing KDE on to you...
> >>
> >>The sad part is... KDE is the best window manger for Linux.
> >
> >The sad part is... Clueless idiots that think KDE _is_ a window
> >manager, despite _vast_ quantities of evidence to the contrary.
> >
> >How many times do you need to be told that KDE is not a window manager
> >until it will penetrate deep enough into your pea brain to take
> >sufficient hold that you might feebly wonder: "Is KDE a window
> >manager? Maybe not..."
> >
> >KDE is _NOT_ a window manager.
> >
> >When you state that it is, you simply make evident your ignorance, so
> >as to demonstrate that what you say is based on ignorance and
> >apparently complete apathy to educate yourself.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:13:02 GMT
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Sorry but I don't believe you at all.
> >
> > I have a Pentium 450mhz with 256mb and some of the fastest UltraDma
> > and SCSI hard drives you can buy and on my system the little sprocket
> > in the kfm window spins longer than it should after clicking on the
> > /dev directory.
> >
> > Try scrolling while kfm is still churning..
>
> I don't know about KDE, but gmc from gnome 1.2 takes about 2 seconds
> to show the /dev directory on my Celron 400/SCSI-2 system.
It's about the same. I will admit I believe the Gnome to be slightly
faster.
But scrolling thru a directory is hardly a problem.
>
> [snip steve's waste-o-bandwidth]
>
> --
> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:14:10 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> UNIX/OpenVMS was for the _big_ machines. Now we have PC's that would
> >> wipe the floor of those big machines, and UNIX has come in the form of
> >> Linux, bringing with it some of those old fashioned ideas that ought
> >> to have been retired or replaced.
> >
> >Unix is the first "object oriented" operating system.
> >
> >Replace the word "file" with "object" in any reading of Unix-related
> >material, and see what I mean.
>
> Bit of a loose association there. Objects have more properties and methods
> than a filing system, even more than those files in /dev for example.
>
> >> Basically, I was never a fan of UNIX, and I'm not much of a fan on
> >> Linux. I worked on MOTIF before Windows walked all over it and history
> >> left it high and dry.
> >
> >Obviously, you never really learned UNIX then.
>
> No of course not. I only worked on it for about 3 years. Obviously I never
> learnt UNIX.
>
I'd see if I could get my money back on that course also Pete.
Think they ripped you off.
> NOT!
>
> Pete
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[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
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:22:10 GMT
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
>
> > I do not fear open source. I fear the zealots who insist that
> > something which does not match their definition of open source is
> > somehow evil or worthy of contempt. If you read my original post I
> > acknowledge that open source software has a very valid place in the
> > industry, but closed source software also has its place. To deny
> > either is unreasonable closed mindedness.
> >
> > Beware of zealots who call your mind closed. They are often too
> > binded by their own beliefs to see the truth.
> >
> > John Wiltshire
>
> OK, tell me exactly where I said that closed source is a bad thing. I
> was just pointing out that open source has possiblities. Although I
> realize that it is fashionable to jump all over someone that is
> pro-open-source at the moment, as I am, that does not mean that I am
> completely anti-closed-source. The two are not necissarily mutually
> exclusive. In a software only company there is definitely good reason
> to allow people a shot at closed source (for the revenue alone). At
> least there is a valid argument for it. But, when it comes to hardware,
> I say let the best hardware win. Maybe opening up the driver would push
> hardware vendors to actually come up with something new in hardware to
> trump the competitor. I think a hardware vendor should focus on the
> hardware. They usually don't hire the most brilliant software
> developers (I said usually, there are exceptions) for drivers. While in
> some aspects of the industry I understand the reason for closed source
> programs, I don't think drivers fall into this category.
The difference between open and closed source.
Quite frankly, you wouldn't drive your car blindfolded would you?
Then you wouldn't blindfold your face to CLOSE your eyes to what's going
on.
People who do this often get hurt, yet it's the major mode of
transportation
on the internet today.
There are people using Microsoft on the internet everyday. It's akin
to talking a walk thru the public park with your head rammed up your
ass.
>
> Let's just say we agree to disagree on this point. If that makes me a
> zealot (god damn I hate that word) then so be it. Every time I try to
> point out that open source may be a good idea some idiot comes out to
> tell me what a freak I am. Kind of reminds me of high school.
> "OOOoooh. This guy doesn't agree with the popular people, he must be a
> freak." Yeah, that's me. Whatever.
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You don't have to work for a commercial developer or use their product
to obtain brilliance.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: 21 Jun 2000 00:24:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ha ha....
>
>If you only knew...
>
>Ever hear of an IBM 2821?
>IBM 3330?
>IBM 3340?
>IBM 3033?
>
>Look them up and that will give you a slight clue as to how long I
>have been in this (the computer) business.
>
>You most likely weren't even born yet...
>
>On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:32:56 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>pac4854 wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't feed the trolls.
>>>
>>> Once his acne goes into remission, and he graduates from high
>>> school, and he finally gets laid, he'll go away.
They have to be answered. Otherwise people reading this
newsgroup to find out about Linux may believe the lies
posted by the anti-Linux spammers like Steve/Mike/...
>>Yeah, I know. I was having a really bad day yesterday and venting on
>>dumbass seemed the best way to relieve some tension. I quite honestly
>>think that this guy has got to be getting paid for some of this shit.
>>Have you seen that amount of time he spends posting stuff under his
>>various names? He has got to either have a full time job in M$ doing
>>exactly this, or he is a drop out that absolutely refuses to leave the
>>house and spends all his time on the computer, hoping mommy can afford
>>to buy his food for him. Of course, I could be wrong, but I have a
>>feeling I'm not far off. One of those two has to be right. More than
>>likely the M$ is paying him theory is the correct one. Why else would
>>he be so incredibly pissed off at the mere existance of something other
>>than M$?
>>
>>Nathaniel Jay Lee
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Looks like there's a third option -- senile dementia!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: Bart Oldeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:41:20 GMT
On 20 Jun 2000, Craig Kelley wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Kooy) writes:
>
> > What if you are being obtuse and name it Z - how does it handle any
> > other partitions then - does it cycle back to C:/?
>
> By default, it uses the first alphabetical letter below B that isn't
> in use.
Just as a curiosity,
DOS 2.x actually has 63 drive "letters",
A-Z and then just continue the ASCII table : [\]^_`ab...z{|}~ DEL
Bart
------------------------------
From: "Charlie Root" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:32:08 GMT
You know, if the supreme court turns Microsoft down, they'd better be sure
to release the opinion AFTER 5:00 p.m. Not because of the stock market or
anything stupid.. but because massive numbers of computer geeks would
likely set fire to their systems and party like there was no tomorrow out in
the streets. You thought the Lakers rioting was bad.. wait until you see
8000 angry penguins in time square! :D
--
original by Colin Winters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: The Linux Challenge
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 21 Jun 2000 08:39:17 +0800
On 20 Jun 2000 17:34:41 GMT,
David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>I had never heard that before. In fact, I've never before heard of
>hardware sales INCREASING because a major software product stops
>supporting it!
>
>Although I can't figure out the logic behind it, apparently it's true: the
>market sees the alpha as a more viable platform without NT than with it.
>
>How delightful.
Perhaps the DOJ and the Sherman Act knew something after all ;-)
>
>--
>David Steinberg -o)
>Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 13 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:40:56 GMT
The point is, which you have missed, is that I have seen more come and
go in my lifetime than you have.
Linux will fade just like the 2821 and it's attached 1403 and 3525
card punch.
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:08:44 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > Ha ha....
>> >
>> > If you only knew...
>> >
>> > Ever hear of an IBM 2821?
>> > IBM 3330?
>> > IBM 3340?
>> > IBM 3033?
>> >
>> > Look them up and that will give you a slight clue as to how long I
>> > have been in this (the computer) business.
>> >
>> > You most likely weren't even born yet...
>> >
>>
>> OK, is this supposed to be proof of how technically superior your
>> intelligence is. I can make all the references I want to old obsolete
>> machines, but that doesn't prove that I know what I'm talking about
>> now. However, when you are paid to troll, I guess you can make any
>> connections you want to. After all, your arguments don't have to make
>> sense, they just have to be pro-MS, anti-Linux and full of rage.
>>
>> Rock on dumbass.
>
>
>Let me help here.
>
>If this guy really knew these machines and he supported NT or anything
>from
>Microsoft, then he really is some kind of dumbass.
>
>You don't go from machines WITH operating systems to machines WITHOUT
>operating system and like it unless you were the keypunch operator.
>
>Charlie
>
>
>>
>> > On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:32:56 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >pac4854 wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Don't feed the trolls.
>> > >>
>> > >> Once his acne goes into remission, and he graduates from high
>> > >> school, and he finally gets laid, he'll go away.
>> > >>
>> > >> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
>> > >> Up to 100 minutes free!
>> > >> http://www.keen.com
>> > >
>> > >Yeah, I know. I was having a really bad day yesterday and venting on
>> > >dumbass seemed the best way to relieve some tension. I quite honestly
>> > >think that this guy has got to be getting paid for some of this shit.
>> > >Have you seen that amount of time he spends posting stuff under his
>> > >various names? He has got to either have a full time job in M$ doing
>> > >exactly this, or he is a drop out that absolutely refuses to leave the
>> > >house and spends all his time on the computer, hoping mommy can afford
>> > >to buy his food for him. Of course, I could be wrong, but I have a
>> > >feeling I'm not far off. One of those two has to be right. More than
>> > >likely the M$ is paying him theory is the correct one. Why else would
>> > >he be so incredibly pissed off at the mere existance of something other
>> > >than M$?
>> > >
>> > >Nathaniel Jay Lee
>> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:44:03 GMT
On 21 Jun 2000 00:24:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Ha ha....
>>
>>If you only knew...
>>
>>Ever hear of an IBM 2821?
>>IBM 3330?
>>IBM 3340?
>>IBM 3033?
>>
>>Look them up and that will give you a slight clue as to how long I
>>have been in this (the computer) business.
>>
>>You most likely weren't even born yet...
>>
>>On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 08:32:56 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>pac4854 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Don't feed the trolls.
>>>>
>>>> Once his acne goes into remission, and he graduates from high
>>>> school, and he finally gets laid, he'll go away.
>
>They have to be answered. Otherwise people reading this
>newsgroup to find out about Linux may believe the lies
>posted by the anti-Linux spammers like Steve/Mike/...
Linux sucks Mark and you know it. The only reason you support it is
because it fits into the cult like left wing, screw the establishment
ala "Pacifica Radio" which you seem to believe in and support.
You are entitled to your opinion as I am, but if you look at Linux vs
just about any OS out there you will see that it is a work in prgress
and in need of a lot of help. If you are willing to settle for second
rate hardware support and second rate applications than Linux may be
just the ticket to your left wing dreams.
Think about it...
>>>Yeah, I know. I was having a really bad day yesterday and venting on
>>>dumbass seemed the best way to relieve some tension. I quite honestly
>>>think that this guy has got to be getting paid for some of this shit.
>>>Have you seen that amount of time he spends posting stuff under his
>>>various names? He has got to either have a full time job in M$ doing
>>>exactly this, or he is a drop out that absolutely refuses to leave the
>>>house and spends all his time on the computer, hoping mommy can afford
>>>to buy his food for him. Of course, I could be wrong, but I have a
>>>feeling I'm not far off. One of those two has to be right. More than
>>>likely the M$ is paying him theory is the correct one. Why else would
>>>he be so incredibly pissed off at the mere existance of something other
>>>than M$?
>>>
>>>Nathaniel Jay Lee
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Looks like there's a third option -- senile dementia!
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:44:48 GMT
Open /dev via kfm and time how long it takes for the gear to stop
spinning.......
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:11:02 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Typical LinoNut semantic argument designed to take the focus off the
>> original point that KDE sucks compared to Windows as far as the
>> consistancy and speed of the gui is concerned.
>>
>> The point is like I said above. Who cares what the cause is?
>
>
>You idiot. The KDE is several clock cycles ahead of Windows anything.
>You can also have more sessions open.
>
>You know nothing about X or KDE or Gnome.
>And you know damn little about OS's like NT.
>
>Charlie
>
>
>>
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:07:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher
>> Browne) wrote:
>>
>> >Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jeff Szarka would say:
>> >>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:58:07 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >>wrote:
>> >>>> The UI IS the OS for desktop users. Command line or GUI, it doesn't
>> >>>> matter. An ugly mess of a UI makes the OS an ugly mess to use. Sums up
>> >>>> Linux as a consumer grade OS almost perfectly.
>> >>>
>> >>>Simple. If you don't like KDE use something else. The chioce is yours,
>> >>>no on is forcing KDE on to you...
>> >>
>> >>The sad part is... KDE is the best window manger for Linux.
>> >
>> >The sad part is... Clueless idiots that think KDE _is_ a window
>> >manager, despite _vast_ quantities of evidence to the contrary.
>> >
>> >How many times do you need to be told that KDE is not a window manager
>> >until it will penetrate deep enough into your pea brain to take
>> >sufficient hold that you might feebly wonder: "Is KDE a window
>> >manager? Maybe not..."
>> >
>> >KDE is _NOT_ a window manager.
>> >
>> >When you state that it is, you simply make evident your ignorance, so
>> >as to demonstrate that what you say is based on ignorance and
>> >apparently complete apathy to educate yourself.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The MEDIA this year!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:45:15 GMT
I have to write this.
I've never seen so many big name magazines having editorials
about Linux before! We must have 6 times the media coverage
Windows has in the editorials this year. Magazine after
Magazine, some editor is prodding your company to consider
the Linux jump this year.
They are taking polls.
They are toughting the benefits.
They are drawing networking diagrams of how they did it.
They are showing the benefits of doing it.
They are ENCOURAGING it THIS YEAR!
I wonder what next year's magazines will be like.
I mean I've NEVER seen the kind of media coverage
for Linux that I've seen in the first 6 months of this year!
They are pointing out the few advantages of Windows 2000 and
their merits as opposed to Linux and saying this year is
the year to move to Linux in the office.
In polls, I've seen 10 reports showing something like 35% of
business's polled said they would be starting a Linux movement
within 2 years. Another 30% said they are considering it within
the next 5 years. These are polls from corporate America.
The balance say's they are not sure or won't.
Those are some pretty serious figures. With those kinds of figures
it seems that 60% of corporate America will be under the Linux umbrella
by 2005.
Some of the magazines have multiple editorials and even profile stories
about Linux in the office place.
I see these magazines at my office and the offices of others.
They are targeted at commerical users. They have ad's for
Windows Back office server, and mini-computers, ATM networks,
high powered copier/printers, so on and so forth. Not residential
magazines.
But now that we are on the subject of Computers in the residential
section, took a trip to the grocery store to view some of the stories
in the magzines on the shelf. It was a virutal replay of the same
story.
Appearently here, you see the big write-ups about Mandrake 7.1.
About Suse 6.4, Redhat 6.2 all the majors were in there in stories.
The typical residential magazine is quickly becomming a linux variety
magazine.
There WERE some windows stories in there, about 1/2 of the magazine was
filled with Windows stories.
But Linux is rapidly taking over the media's attention.
And there is apparently some kind of massive effort on the Media's part
to have Linux moved in everywhere this YEAR.
My question is WHY this year after all these years?
Has Kernel 2.2.15 with Gnome 1.2 or Kde 1.0 finally convinced them
it's ready for everybody's desktop.
Are the media experts finally in alignment with what I've been
saying for 3 years now?
I'm not against the push. I just wonder why so much right now after
all this time.
I remember Microsoft's birth in the 80's and I don't remember hardly
the press pushing then as it's pushing now. The emphasis back then
was towards touting Apple's and Mac's capabilties. Microsoft was
mentioned as a back door player at best then.
Something large is happening THIS year I hadn't expected.
There is some critical mass mandate from the people I hadn't
forseen going on right now.
Linux is rapidly breaking out and gaining new ground.
And the media blitz is extraordinary. I've never seen this
much endorsement for any one OS.
I'm pleased and I wonder why all now...
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:45:48 GMT
open /dev and time how long kfm's little gear takes before it stops
spinning.
Fresh boot, no cache involved. First thing you do after rebooting.
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:13:02 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Craig Kelley wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> > Sorry but I don't believe you at all.
>> >
>> > I have a Pentium 450mhz with 256mb and some of the fastest UltraDma
>> > and SCSI hard drives you can buy and on my system the little sprocket
>> > in the kfm window spins longer than it should after clicking on the
>> > /dev directory.
>> >
>> > Try scrolling while kfm is still churning..
>>
>> I don't know about KDE, but gmc from gnome 1.2 takes about 2 seconds
>> to show the /dev directory on my Celron 400/SCSI-2 system.
>
>It's about the same. I will admit I believe the Gnome to be slightly
>faster.
>But scrolling thru a directory is hardly a problem.
>
>>
>> [snip steve's waste-o-bandwidth]
>>
>> --
>> The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
>> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:46:09 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
> >
> >Thank goodness, I like having a stable OS.
>
> You cant make a easy-to-use OS on top of UNIX. Thatts the point. No matter what you
>do, you
> can't get rid of the eccentrictys of UNIX accept by getting rid of UNIX alltoggether.
>
It's easy to use for me. And what eccentricities?
> >
> >What sort of limitations? No GPF's or BSOD's?
>
> No surround sound. No coppy-protected DVD. No SBLive support. Limmited video support
>
Hasn't Creative announced that it is putting hardware DVD decryption in
some of its cards?
> >> Just face it: UNIX is the PAST. Leave it in the 1970s whear it belongs.
> >>
> >
> >It's also the future.
>
> It cant evan play DVDs. You call that the _future_?
>
It can't play them yet. Of course, I don't even have DVD-ROM on
my computer.
> >>
> >> Yeah, and you accuse Windwos of making peopal upgrade.
> >>
> >
> >But Linux companies don't charge as much, and one can upgrade
> >a few packages at a time?
>
> You can do that on Windos too.
>
You can upgrade part of the core OS? It is as simple as installing
new rpm's?
Colin Day
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: MacOS X sceptic
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 20 Jun 2000 18:45:47 -0600
Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Kooy) writes:
> >
> > [snip about MacOS X using UNIX]
> >
> > > Also, the fact that it is a Unix won't be obvious to users, unless they
> > > particularly want to use horrid things like a command line.
> >
> > A command line is great! People speak with language as well as
> > pictures.
>
> Human scandle with mislepings, malapwopisms, and aDoleSCent
> carpalizatian. Stough that in your cumin line.
>
> I used to deal regularly with command-line interfaces (TOPS-10, Vax,
> RT-11, CP/M, DOS) and I always had to keep a friggin manual or
> cheat-sheet around to help me remember commands and their formats. I was
> disdainful of the Mac's icons and windows until I used one for a week
> ... it was so easy to learn compared to those other systems that I never
> wanted to go back.
Then why do we have AppleScript?
As horrible as the syntax is, AppleScript is there to *attempt* to
fill a very necessary void on the Macintosh. It fails in many
respects -- but at least it was a novel approach to a scripting
language.
> The main principle behind the Mac, which Windows never got and Linux
> needs to learn, is that commands should be consistently discoverable;
> the UI should work for different people's styles of interacting with
> computers.
Agreed, but that does not obviate a written tounge. You can do many
things with glyphs, and you can do many things with a language. Most
people prefer the best of both worlds (hence the WWW). Some would
argue that written language consists of glyphs. MacOS X may be the
first system to have the best of both worlds.
> Command lines are great for those with strong verbal skills, but they
> pretty much suck for everybody else.
Most everyone, barring disability, has strong verbal skills.
> > > MacOSX client will be a good thing, once they get a few of the HI things
> > > sorted, just like NextStep was. Trust me.
> >
> > NextStep as a very good initial release; MacOS X will be a
> > much-better polished version.
>
> I look forward to it ... even if it means adding yet another hard drive
> to my G3.
Me too.
(although I doubt it will run on my PowerBase 180 -- I may have to get
a new computer; the wife will love that...)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 20 Jun 2000 18:49:36 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snippage]
> The iMac is starting to look better all the time :)
Especially since it'll run Linux just fine (and it can run MacOS
as a guest OS).
Of course, MacOS X should be the nirvana of both worlds.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven Smolinski)
Subject: Re: slashdot is down -again-
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:55:21 GMT
Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Of all the sites I frequent, Slashdot is the only one that is regularly down.
>
>Why is that?
It gets regularly DDoS'ed lately.
Steve
------------------------------
Subject: Re: slashdot is down -again-
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 20 Jun 2000 18:51:10 -0600
"Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of all the sites I frequent, Slashdot is the only one that is regularly down.
>
> Why is that?
I haven't noticed it being down since they stabilized after the upgrade.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
