Linux-Advocacy Digest #229, Volume #27 Wed, 21 Jun 00 14:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Everything is so *quiet* ("James")
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (2:1)
Re: I had a reality check today :( (Cihl)
Re: DirectX equivalent ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: A Better Wintroll Than Wintrolls (was: Re: Desperately Seeking Intelligent
Windows Advocates...) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: DirectX equivalent ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (Michael Marion)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ("John W. Stevens")
Re: slashdot is down -again- ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: You Should Not Treat Linux Like M$ Windows ("Rich C")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Sam Morris")
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: slashdot is down -again- ("Francis Van Aeken")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Everything is so *quiet*
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:08:05 +0200
How much RAM do you have?
"Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I installed Linux onto my system with Win2K and have noticed how much
> quieter the system is under Linux without the constant disk thrashing.
>
> Just thought I would share that.
>
>
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:10:42 +0100
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2:1) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>>> Why would I want to run more than a dozen processes?
Call up the task manager on an NT box. There are lots of precesses
running. They are there for the same reason as linux processes: system
services.
Also programs in linux tend to do things with processes instead of
threads, so the process count is higher.
>>>Many, many reasons.
>>
>>Name one.
>I run more than a dozen processes all of the time, because I can.
--
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.
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:17:47 GMT
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Actually, there are an incredibly number of places selling Sony VIAO
> >> notebooks with Linux pre-loaded and everything in them works, including
> >> sound, video, network, and modem.
> >
> >Have you seen the TV-commercial from Sony for these notebooks?
>
> No, what is interesting about them?
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've seen it. It shows a scientist watching a bunch of penguins in the
antarctic. After over 200 days of no action, the scientists finally
gets bored and makes a funny report.
The report shows one of the penguins up close, saying:
"Something to report! Dr. Harris has been replaced! Victory is OURS!"
--
¨I live!¨
¨I hunger!¨
¨Run, coward!¨
-- The Sinistar
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DirectX equivalent
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:26:08 -0300
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:39:09 -0300, Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Just wondering, is there a DirectX equivalent in Linux?
> >
> >If so, what component model does it use? CORBA?
>
> Those are orthogonal sorts of things...
DirectX is based on the COM model. One uses DirectX by creating COM
objects and sending messages to them. The advantage is that the interface
is language-independent.
A real equivalent of DirectX should not only allow access to the hardware,
but should follow a component model.
Francis.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Better Wintroll Than Wintrolls (was: Re: Desperately Seeking
Intelligent Windows Advocates...)
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:16:15 GMT
In article <8ims3l$apb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Good luck.
Thanks! I'm going to need it. I'm starting to understand how Diogenes
must've felt!
> Microsoft has very few niches it can adequately fill over the long
> haul.
Oh, so you *do* like Micro$oft! ;^D
> Wintrolls know that, which is why they troll, instead of presenting
> logical arguments based on something at least tangentially related to
> fact.
>
> On the other hand, almost every advocate of
> Linux/Mac/BeOS/BSD/whatever also has some exposure to WinDOS at some
> level and knows better than any Wintroll (most of whom aren't
> computer-literate and some of whom aren't literate in any sense) about
> both the weaknesses and strengths of the WinDOS platform.
No reply. I just left those in because I like the way you said it!
> Hence, any advocate of any real OS could, if he or she so chose, make
> a better "devil's advocate" type of case for WinDOS than the Wintrolls
> themselves can.
Now *that* was a cheap shot! I love it!
> If I had more time I'd try myself just for the heck of it.
It occurs to me that if I were able to remove from my life the time
spent trying to keep Micro$oft products working as advertised, I'd have
time for a lot of things I like to do!
> It would be like trying to get someone to make an intelligent and
> literate case for racism. [snip]
Actually, if you've ever bred animals, you'd know that the arguments for
racism are far more logically sound than any argument for Micro$oft
products. Still evil, still rude when applied to humans, but vastly
more logical.
> I might but only as a devil's advocate. I don't use Windows or any
> Microsoft product by choice, and while I do have to use them at work,
> I'd prefer not to and am constantly trying to find ways to migrate
> away from Microsoft "solutions" and toward open/nonproprietary ones
> wherever possible.
As a counterpoint to that, and to rebut another poster's silly "attempt"
at a cost comparison, let me share some wisdom from a real-world UNIX &
Windows Administrator:
_______________________________ Start
This is an actual study. I run Linux at home and at work, and regularly
use every piece of software I have listed here. I could have named many
others that fill similar roles, but I wanted to keep this "real", to
prove that low to no cost workstations are here, now, and usable.
Hoobajoob said:
> Think of the alternative...
> You purchase your OS: 100
I use Debian GNU/Linux [1]. Total cost: $0
> You purchase your Browser: 30.00
I use Netscape [2] and Mozilla [3]. Total cost: $0
> You purchase your Networking kit
> (including the necessary network software stacks only): 60$
Unix is built around networking: it comes with the OS. Total cost: $0
> You purchase your streming media player: 30.00
I use XMMS [4] and mpg123 [5]. Total cost: $0
> You purchase your CD player: 30.00
I use XMMS for this as well. Total cost: $0
> You purchase your defrgamentation program: 40.00
The ext2 file system is designed not to need defragmentation. But,
should you decide you want one for some reason, use defrag [6]. Total
cost: $0
> Then, for your machine to have some office functionality you purchase
a:
> Word processor: 179.00
I use vim [7] and lyx [8] as a front end to LaTeX [9]. Total cost: $0
> Spreadsheet: 220:00
I use gnumeric [10]. Total cost: $0
> Presentation software: 200.00
By this, I'm assuming PowerPoint or similar. I don't use anything of
this sort, but in a similar vein, I use Dia [11], which is a Visio-like
product. Total cost: $0
> Database: 300.00
I use mySQL [12]. Total cost: $0.
So, let's compare the total costs. We each have fully functional,
networked workstations, with a full suite of office productivity apps:
His way: $1059
My way: $0
Additionally, I can (and at times do) use my box as a web server, file
server, mail server, name server, print server, programming environment,
log server, network monitoring station, and more. Total additional
cost: $0.
I'll leave the cost to do this on Hoobajoob's system as an exercise to
the reader.
The point is: there are legitimate alternatives to Microsoft, at a very
low cost.
[1] http://www.debian.org
[2] http://www.netscape.com
[3] http://www.mozilla.org
[4] http://www.xmms.org
[5] http://www.mpg123.de
[6] ftp://linuxdcs.ed.ac.uk/pub/linux/defrag/
[7] http://www.vim.org
[8] http://www.lyx.org
[9] http://www.latex-project.org
[10] http://www.gnome.org/gnumeric/
[11] http://www.gnome.org/gnome-office/dia.shtml
[12] http://www.mysql.com
_______________________________ End
Now why can't anyone come up with such a well-written case *for* M$
products????
Oh... I know! It *can't* be done! Like proving the existence or
non-existence of God, to prove the value of M$ products requires a leap
of faith. I say we should leave faith to the doxologists, and insist
upon a return to science and Pragmatic Principles of Engineering
regarding computers!!!
I used to yearn for the day when "Network Engineering" would rise to
become a *real* engineering discipline! With Micro$oft in the way, that
day will never come!
> My case in support of Windows would revolve primarily around three
> points.
>
> First, Windows is everywhere, on the desktop at least, and is thus a
> _de facto_ standard. Writing for Windows guarantees by far the
> largest market share, both now and for the foreseeable future. In
> many markets it simply doesn't pay to write cross-platform code,
> especially GUI code (which is notoriously difficult), just in order to
> reach the 5 or 10% of the market that doesn't run Windows at least
> part-time.
Okay, I know you're just trying to help. So don't take this personally.
You have echoed the customary first-order case for Winders, and have
merely reiterated the same lame anti-logic as everyone else who says
this. This fallacy is sometimes called "Ad Populum". It's the
fundamental fallacy of Democracy, too, FYI. Learn more about it here:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
Sorry, no logic :== no joy.
> Second, Windows offers an unparallelled depth, breadth, and variety of
> third-party software that not only has never been matched in the
> history of computing, but is never likely to be again
Uh... I'd have to see that one done as a survey. Not like a CNN opinion
poll, but could somebody go and count? Compare CP/M, Mac, Unix/Linux,
DEC (VAX & PDP), etc., etc. Also, is it a Good Thing to have 5 programs
that do the same thing poorly? I get tired of downloading app X, then
app Y, and so on, just to find one that does what I want, and doesn't
break everything else doing it.
I'd have to rate this as just dogma. Again, no joy.
> (since it is likely that diversity, not another monopoly, will
> be what eventually reduces Windows to a less dominant role).
An interesting statement. The problem I see coming in re: this is, the
appeals court seems to "like" Microsoft (observe their past behavior),
and will probably not support Judge Jackson and the Attorneys General.
I'm betting that the appeals court will toss the whole thing out & M$
will go back to the exact same illegal predatory behavior as before.
Dreams != logic. No joy. Nice dreams, but no joy.
> It may be that Windows is
> not the ideal platform for any single application, but it is clearly
> the best "all purpose" platform viewed from the standpoint of
> available software, in large part because it is the *only* all purpose
> platform from that standpoint.
The Swiss Army knife theory of computing. Ever see those knives they
sell in boy Scout stores? The ones with the fork and spoon on the same
knife? Ever use one? What idiot thought *that* would be a Good Idea???
Ditto for the PC. It may attempt to do a lot of things, but it doesn't
do any of them very well, and the Windows platform is too unstable to
identify whether the failure of a program to perform its job is due to a
limitation of the platform or due to a bug in the OS. Okay, if you just
fool around with stuff like music, graphics, games & such the PC
probably seems "okay". And you allude to that fact yourself. But when
your job requires that you get real work done with a computer, the
cost-benefit analysis always favors a dedicated resource, *NOT* a Swiss
Army Knife. Try it for yourself & see.
> BeOS has little software;
So what? The Sinclair has little software too, but who cares?
> Linux has lots but much of it is not as consistent or user-friendly
> as its Windows counterparts, and it does some kinds of multimedia
> poorly (chiefly due to limitations in X).
"user-friendly" depends on the user. Don't let M$ confuse you.
Graphical does not equal intuitive; a mouse doesn't make it easier to
operate; the list of M$ lies has been well documented elsewhere.
And do you know anyone who will pay an employee to listen to music or
watch movies, or play games on their computer?? I want that job,
because I'm very good at those things!!! Until multimedia is a job
skill, I don't care (and neither do the people who put money in my
company's payroll account!) about that.
> The Mac, while it has some very
> high-quality apps, doesn't have very many of them.
Okay, the Mac has some limitations, chiefly due to the way humans don't
"intuit" the cute little pictures, and because the interface is not what
generates revenue from a computer. Again, if you want a silk purse,
don't start with a sow's ear! But the apps that utilize the Mac's
strengths cannot be duplicated (as of 6/21/00) anywhere else.
> If you want a PC
> to do everything
Then you have been fooled! First tell me *why* you think that's a good
idea, then we'll talk.
> from sound editing to scanning to serving small Web
> sites to creating and editing word processing and desktop database
> documents, Windows is not only your best choice, but pretty much your
> only choice.
(I know you're playing Devil's Advocate here, so don't take any of this
personally, k?)
That is prima facie incorrect. Sound editing? Mac wins. Ask anyone
who does it for a living. I can provide references. WWWeb Server?
Linux (or any other UNIX) wins, Windows is only good at letting newbies
*think* they have a "Personal Web Server". It's great for script
kiddies, though!! Makes a dandy Zombie, from what I hear. A GUI is the
biggest impediment to productivity in a word processing shop since
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome!! Word processors get paid for putting words on
paper, not for fooling with a little mousie and cute pictures. "Desktop
Database" makes little sense in the real world. It's almost an
oxymoron, since there's not much use for a database for one, and if you
can find a Windows installation stable enough to reliably deliver
database access securely to a network, document it & let me know! I
support a boatload of Windows victi... uh... customers who would dearly
love to be able to depend on their data being there when they need it!!
And as to database platforms, I'd put one of my old System/370
mainframes, or a couple of AS/400 minis against all the Wintel PC's in
the world *any* day!! (Like it or not, Wind00dz, there is no substitute
for experience!! Get used to it!)
> Finally, Windows has two things that most other platforms do not: MS
> Office and Internet Explorer.
Ewwwww!! Bugs and security holes are a good thing??? I doubt it!
> Like it or not Office is the _de facto_
> standard [blah, blah, blah]
You're starting to repeat yourself. And repeating the same "Ad Populum"
argument as well.
Sorry, no joy here either.
> Microsoft has a hell of a lot of problems, but it does have some
> strengths.
Only if your paycheck has "Microsoft Corporation" imprinted across the
top.
> If the Wintrolls were worth the money they're being paid,
> they would at least try to understand them. It really must be
> embarrassing to them that I can advocate 'Doze better than they can,
> even though I hate it!
Well, now that is true! Except that a whole lot of these "Wintrolls"
are too young to work in most states. I have greatly enjoyed your
professional, thoughtful argument; and hope we can continue this thread
deeper into the subject matter. Like you, I barely have time to keep my
customers satisfied, now that they've "gone over" to Windoze, but the
rest of the world can benefit from a rational discourse here, so there's
an altruistic aspect to this too.
> I think my arguments are logical and factually correct.
With noted exceptions. At least your arguments are well-formed and
thoughtful, which is vastly superior in quality to the fare spewed here
by the Wind00dz.
> Their biggest
> problem is neither fact nor logic, but what they *omit* - for
> instance, that many of the very advantages I believe Windows
> possesses, it possesses partly or completely for the reason of its
> being a monopoly, which in turn came about because of unlawful and
> dishonest activities on its part; or that both developers and users
> would be far better off if there were sufficient competition that
> writing portable code, portable drivers, open file formats and
> protocols, etc. became the rule rather than the exception.
This is verbal judo at its finest! And quite funny too, since it is
quite likely (based on historical evidence) that the appeals court will
probably give tacit approval to the unlawful dishonest activities, and
we'll never have a chance to get competition started in the Wintel
world.
> Also note
> that I pointed out some real shortcomings in the competing OSen, and
> even acknoweldged some of their strengths (this does wonders for
> credibility - it makes one sound less like an irrational zealot), but
> still managed to paint all of them in a less than positive light.
Yes, but you did so in the fashion of the brainless Wind00dz, using
their same specious claims! What's up with that?? Are you just being
thorough in your assumed "Devil's Advocate" role? If that's it, you're
good!
(So how many readers of this post bothered to explore the site I pasted
above? Here is the main list:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
I recommend that everyone study these, so when Bill Gates, or Bill
Clinton or Bill Newsguy uses one to lie to you, you'll recognize the lie
before you fall for it.)
TTFN.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DirectX equivalent
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:39:05 -0300
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8ip9oj$a0k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just wondering, is there a DirectX equivalent in Linux?
> >
> > If so, what component model does it use? CORBA?
> >
> > Francis.
> >
> XFree86 4.0 is rumored to be adding some DirectX equivalency which could
> be both good and bad. When my company's tech support staff runs
> Norton's CleanSweep/WinDoctor on a hopelessly hosed Windows PC, most of
> the errors it finds and fixes are DirectX-related. If XFree86 4.0 has
> tighter hooks into the Linux kernel to make realtime gaming viable on
> Linux, then this is a "good thing"(tm). If, however, it adds hooks into
> the OS that make it vulnerable to thrashing and crashing like DirectX
> does, then this is a "bad thing".
Using DirectX under Windows98, I can take complete control over the
input and output hardware (keyboard, mouse, screen, etc.). Is this
acceptable under Linux? I guess not. Still, some people do want this
functionality (for a number of reasons). Let's take a non-DirectX
example: access to the parallel port. Under Windows98 I can access
it directly, under WindowsNT/2000 I basically have to write a driver.
Sometimes, security comes with a price that not everybody is willing
to pay...
Francis.
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:36:49 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> If each of these represents one process on Linux, then that's a feature of
> Linux. Windows achieves the same results with one or two processes.
Actually it's the application and how it's written. I have 4 netscape
windows open now and they're all part of one threaded process. My
meeting maker client as well as gmc is the same.
> Well, what Linux does in multiple processes, Windows does in less but using
> threads.
Which has some disadvantages. I can't stand it when I'm copying a huge
file over the network to my windows box and one of my "My Computer"
windows hangs... and kills the copy process which was started by a
completely different window. Explorer dies, so every thread of it
dies. That's just one situation where I wish windows used proceses
more.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:31:25 -0600
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on 15 Jun 2000 17:49:50 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> [snip for brevity]
>
> >The funny thing about you UNIX people is that you alwais say that UNIX
> >is "easy" and then you come back and say you half to type some
> >cryptic-as-hell command to do something simpal.
>
> Unix is not easy. Unix is in fact quite difficult.
>
> That said, Windows is even more so, if one strays from the path.
Unix: Is a long, broad. lush valley, ringed by grass covered, shallow,
sloping hills that supports a large number of micro-ecologies, from
desert to grasslands to swamp to forest.
The ground will change depending on where you are in the valley, and
occasionally you will stumble if you don't keep an eye on your feet.
Finding a particular pool, rock or tree in this valley requires getting
familiar with a very big place. Be prepared to spend a while in the
valley before you get comfortable with its layout.
Windows: Is a narrow, twisty little desert canyon that has a soft, flat,
dusty bottom. It is bounded by steep walls that can, by dint of extreme
effort, be climbed by highly trained technical climbers.
Stay on the path, and the travel is easy, cool and comfortable, if
occasionally a bit dusty.
Travel Advisory: Terrorist activity in the canyon occurs on a regular
basis, and is quite violent. Also, watch out for the occasional falling
rock. You will recognize it by it's distinctive blue color.
MacOS: Is a three foot wide crack in the polar ice cap that has an
absolutely smooth, glassy bottom. Even a baby couldn't hurt himself on
this surface. The walls bounding the crack are nearly frictionless, and
slope in as they go up. Visible through the clear blue ice is a number
of beautiful, soothing forms, and the light and air are clean and pure.
You have no choice but to stay on the path, but the path is so smooth
that if you are tired, or simply don't want to make the effort, you need
do little more than simply sit down and let gravity take you to your
destination.
Travel Advisory: Watch out for the occasional bomb.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: slashdot is down -again-
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:52:37 -0300
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I haven't noticed it being down since they stabilized after the upgrade.
It has been down at least two times after the upgrade / DDoS problems.
Two times is not a lot and the downtime is always short, BUT Slashdot
IS supposed to advocate Linux based hosting. They should be more
careful.
Francis.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: You Should Not Treat Linux Like M$ Windows
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:47:13 -0400
You know, it's funny, because that's exactly how I reacted at first when my
first little Linux box (a 486 print/intranet server) broke. I don't remember
what happened exactly now, but some files got corrupted as a result of a
hardware crash. After I fixed the hardware problem, it it just wasn't on the
network. I tried everything I could think of. Well, one of those things was
to reboot the machine again. Guess what? It was still broken. When Linux
breaks, there is REALLY something wrong, and rebooting usually WON'T fix it.
Finally, I started going through RPM and checking the file integrity of the
pacakges related to networking. I finally discovered a missing file,
reinstalled the package (to replace it) and everything worked fine. (IMHO,
that's one neat thing about installing through RPMs; the package manager
will check the files and tell you what's changed, or what's missing.)
--
Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
P.S. I don't remember WHY I didn't find the problem on the system's error
logs.....could be I wasn't smart enough to look in the right place, or
perhaps I DID see something that led me to believe there was a corupt or
missing file.
Charlie root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The rapid growth of Linux in the server market will no doubt mean that
> people who are primarily familiar with Windows will need to learn how
> to administer Linux servers. Please accept some friendly advice:
> Don't treat Linux like you do Windows.
>
> Most Windows troubleshooting sessions go like this. First, reboot. If
> that doesn't fix the problem, try reinstalling or upgrading one or more
> drivers and then reboot again. If that still doesn't work, reinstall
> or upgrade the application that is giving you trouble and reboot again.
> If that doesn't work, reinstall everything. Start with Windows, add
> the latest Windows fix pack, install the latest drivers, and then
> reinstall all your applications and their fix packs. Configure
> everything again.
>
> More about this article at
> http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/05/15/000515oppetreley.xml.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:46:23 +0100
> That's sounds like you should be complaining to 3DFX. I have a TNT, which
> IIRC should be in the same ballpark speed-wise and Quake3 was quite
playable
> on my machine (I'd throw up some benchmarks, but I don't have it installed
> atm).
It's all going to be irrelevant soon anyway - I'm going to get me one of
them fast Athlon things and a Geforce 2... POWER... :)
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 17:37:24 GMT
In article <8ipf1g$1nok$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[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.
> >
>
> Actually, your mistake in reference to KDE as a "window manager"
> entirely nullifies all of your previous points. To make such a
> collosal mistake as this betrays the true amount of unix knowledge
> you posess, which would be this much:
>
> 0
Although its an easy flame for you, I think that for lusers
like me, its an easy mistake to make. In all the time that
I've used Redhat, I thought KDE was a window manager, and am
only just learning that it isn't. Now, if this does equate
to having a knowledge level of 0, then yes, clearly linux loses
points here, most windows users can get to work immediately,
ie., attain a "knowledge amount" significantly greater than 0,
even if unable to separate the idea of a user interface from the
operating system, if only because in the microsoft world, there
isn't that much separation between the interface and the OS.
So one conclusion to be reached is that unix requires too much
knowledge to be used by the majority of computer users. Score
one for Bill, attaining a knowledge level greater than 0 is
much easier for the windows side of the OS wars.
But now that I'm at least clear on what KDE is, how can I give
KWM a spin without running KDE, so I can get an idea how it (KWM)
ranks as a windows manager? Specifically, I'd like to install
KWM without KDE, because, for me, in a purely subjective manner,
KDE disagrees with me, and from my superficial bit of '0-level
knowledge based investigation', I can't seem to find a KWM tarball.
TIA!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: slashdot is down -again-
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:57:46 -0300
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8ip8td$9hf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Define "down". I frequent Slashdot daily and haven't had a problem in
> weeks.
When I posted the message, and till 10 minutes later, the domains
www.slashdot.com and www.slashdot.org could not be found.
Not a big deal, but still a big deal.
Francis.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
