Linux-Advocacy Digest #364, Volume #27 Tue, 27 Jun 00 11:13:05 EDT
Contents:
RE: You Should Not Treat Linux Like M$ Windows ("Pedro Iglesias")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Illya Vaes)
RE: OS's ... ("Pedro Iglesias")
Re: Do not like Windows but ... (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
RE: MS Windows WM ("Pedro Iglesias")
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Neil Cerutti)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Christian Smith)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Christian Smith)
Re: OS's ... (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
RE: MS Windows WM ("Pedro Iglesias")
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
(Secretly Cruel)
Re: OS's ... (abraxas)
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause (Secretly Cruel)
Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1) (Darren Winsper)
RE: OS's ... ("Pedro Iglesias")
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(Leslie Mikesell)
Re: OS's ... (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: OS's ... (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: slashdot (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: RE: You Should Not Treat Linux Like M$ Windows
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:40:59 GMT
> Because MicroShit provides no tools to do so.
Because most people do not want or need to work on their
computers, just want to use them as useful tools as the could
do with a TV, video, and the so. If GNU/Linux had the same
market share than Microsoft does, a comparable people number
would never fix bugs themselves.
------------------------------
From: Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:02:18 +0200
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>>Obviously, Daniel's definition of "Unix" is "non-NT, non-MS" or something
>>like that. MS NT is the end-all, be-all and everything else is 'that
>>dreaded Unix'.
>>Needless to say, this gives rise to circularu reasoning and endless
>>'discussions' without resolving anything.
>Oh, no, actually OSes like NetWare and AppleTalk also have different,
>non-Unix protocols.
>That's what I mean about "standards" meaning "Unix"; it's not just
>non-Windows, it's non-everthing-but-the-standard.
>"Standard" just doesn't mean "universal".
Like I said, circular reasoning...
--
Illya Vaes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385 Not speaking for anyone but myself
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:01:33 GMT
> Oh really now? Care to quote representatives from each company, exactly
what
> they said, and exactly when they said it?
I do not say that Jeff is right, but your question sounds as unanswerable as
when
a policeman suddenly asks : where were you 1993 March the 16 at five ?
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do not like Windows but ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:08:51 -0500
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> >
> > Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> > >
> > > Pedro Iglesias wrote:
> > > >
> > > > nowadays :
> > > >
> > > > winamp is better than xmms or whatever on Linux
> > > > word is better than startoffice or whatever on Linux (wordperfect,
> > > > abiword, ...)
> > >
> > > Nobody in their right mind would write a book in Word.
> > >
> >
> > I remember when I started writing a book under word. Above about 50
> > pages it got really *interesting*. I finally bought one of those
> > *Secrets of* books and it said that according to Microsoft you should
> > never have a document exceed 20 pages. Over 20 pages you were supposed
> > to break the document up and then use some sort of jury-rigged
> > hyperlinking that is supposed to seperate *chapters* (I have chapters
> > way over 20 pages) into seperate documents but still allow it to print
> > out all together as one. This was very close to the time I gave up on
> > Windows for my main computing needs.
>
> in comparison to that, nroff + vi rules.
>
Actually, that's about the time I discovered LyX and Latex. Thus, my
conversion was complete. LyX just rules if you want to write a book
without thinking too hard on the formatting.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: MS Windows WM
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:09:10 GMT
> That's not a part of the desktop, strictly speaking. That's
> more of an OS level protocol. GNOME and KDE both support
> such things. Gnome even supports DnD between legacy Motif
> applications.
If it is OS level, GNU/Linux certainky does not include, and if KDE
and GNOME do (I know both do) it is not a OS issue, what's more
if it was a OS issue, KDE 1 and GNOME should have had from the
beginning a compatible drag and drop, shouln't they ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: 27 Jun 2000 13:58:21 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aaron Kulkis posted:
>Jeff Szarka wrote:
>> 1) Sort by sender
>> 2) Click first message... click last message (while holding down
>> shift)
>> 3) Press delete
>> 4) Set rule to do this automatically for this sender in the future.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity... how would one do this with pine?
>
>Put the user's address in a killfilem, and be done with it.
pine can't do any kind of mail filtering, including killfiles.
You have to use procmail or some other mail filter.
Neil C.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Smith)
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:30:19 +0100
In article <8hse0u$2tu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>
>> Now, this test can't be said to be any good kind of benchmark - after
> all
>> I'm testing multiple things: compiler optimisation, disk file access
> etc. I
>> do find it interesting that they all roughly run at the same speed.
>
> If you want to test compiler optimization, it would be much more
> interesting to do it with CPU benchmarks. There is a pretty good suite
> of benchmarks available online (whetstone, fft, queens, and lots of
> others) which you can use to test compilers. Unfortunately, the SPEC
> benchmarks are not open source, as they are the best CPU benchmarks.
>
> I have tested benchmarks on my computers, both Linux vs. VMS on Alpha
> hardware (using DEC's compiler), and Linux vs. Windows on Intel
> hardware (using Microsoft's compiler). In both cases, Linux lost by a
> very wide margin due to its toy compiler - by up to 50% on some of the
> tests. A lot of Linux zelaots may not realize it, but when you use
> Linux, and have compiled your programs with GCC, you are getting much
> less out of your hardware than if you the software you run is built
> with a good compiler.
So you're not testing VMS vs Linux or Windows vs Linux at all. Your testing
GCC against the proprietry compilers, as CPU benchmarks have little OS
involvement.
An OS benchmark would test filesystems, networking, process creation etc.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
/"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN - AGAINST HTML MAIL
X - AGAINST MS ATTACHMENTS
/ \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Smith)
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:59:04 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
> bobh{at}haucks{dot}org (Bob Hauck) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>The fact that one compiler is very portable and can generate code for a
>>huge number of platforms, and the other isn't and can't, _is_ relevant
>>to a fair comparison. Especially since your test is cpu-bound and
>>makes no system calls except to get the time. It is really testing the
>>compiler rather then the OS.
>
> I'm testing on Intel hardware. How is multiple platform support relevant to
> that?
>
> Yes, you're right, I'm testing the compiler. The same compiler that builds
> the OS, right?
>
Try this test.
Find a bubble sort algorithm, and compile it Windows using VCC.
Find a qsort algorithm, use qsort in libc, and compile it using GCC on *nix.
The code produced by VCC would probably be better then equivalent code on
GCC (by your own benchmarks.) But against the qsort compiled with GCC, it
won't stand a chance on a sorting benchmark, even one compiled with the
"inferior" GCC.
The point?
Don't compare OSes based on the compiler used to compile them. Linux is
fundamentally more efficient than Windows (Win9x, certainly) that the slight
drop in compiler speed is more than offset by efficiency in the code (just
like the bubbesort vs quick sort.)
Christian
--
/"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN - AGAINST HTML MAIL
X - AGAINST MS ATTACHMENTS
/ \
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:21:51 -0500
Pedro Iglesias wrote:
>
> > Once again the revisionists history. Word won because if an OEM shipped
> > a copy of WordPerfect MS would hike the hell out of said OEMs licensing
> > costs on the OS, however, if they shipped a pre-bundled version of Word
> > they would get a break on Windows licensing. It certainly wasn't
> > because Word was the superior product.
>
> Word was better for me than any of their rivals.
I wonder how many people/vendors would have agreed if it wasn't for the
licensing deals at that time (the time the licensing deals were
originally made)? I always prefered WordPerfect myself. Once again, a
matter of opinion that could be debated either way, but Word didn't win
because it was superior (whether it is or not) but because of the
licensing deals.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: MS Windows WM
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:13:45 GMT
> <personal opinion> After getting used to KDE, I much prefer it
> to the Windows GUI. I haven't tried W2K, but the thought of my
> menus changing all the time scares me. But then, I don't use
> icons or the start or K menus much.
KDE has better and worse things that Windows. Overall, KDE is
pretty good as a desktop environment. One thing that really desperates
me is the delay that a 256MB RAM machine have to show me
available icons for a desktop item. Windows is much more fast at
this (I know is not a very important thing).
> Also, I don't understand why people go on about consistancy. The
> last thing I want is for my mp3 player to look and feel just
> like my text editor. Each program has different uses and
> different commands, so why should they all have the same buttons
> in the same place?
Which are the reasons against that is possible. Perhaps not all the same
buttons, but a consistent common base would be nice even for a kernel
hacker. Not a matter of knowledge IMHO.
>Once they are
> up to speed, do consistancy or look and feel matter?
Why can't we have two : speed, look and feel ?
------------------------------
From: Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:26:08 -0500
Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> It's all wrong anyway. iirc, winmodems won't even work on anything
> lower than a pentium 233 w/mmx. Just more evidence that tim doesn't
> know wtf he's talking about.
Huh-uh..... my 200 Mhz machine ran fine with a Winmodem installed.
--
======
[Secretly Cruel]
-Antispam measures in my email address are obvious-
...Your motherboard wears combat reboots...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: 27 Jun 2000 14:33:09 GMT
Pedro Iglesias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Oh really now? Care to quote representatives from each company, exactly
> what
>> they said, and exactly when they said it?
>
> I do not say that Jeff is right, but your question sounds as unanswerable as
> when
> a policeman suddenly asks : where were you 1993 March the 16 at five ?
>
Sarkface hasnt been able to back up ANYTHING hes typed on this newsgroup, ever.
I'm simply asking for just a touch of evidence for once.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Secretly Cruel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:32:45 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Loach) posted:
[snip]
> Hi - I've got the same problem along with thousands of others in the
> newsgroups. No one seems to have an answer. Even Corel seems to be
> hiding from it. It's not the video card. I've tried everything I can
> possibly
>
> think of. I have had no problems with RedHat.
It was precisely due to reading things like this that I decided against
buying Corel Linux and going with Redhat (then Mandrake).
======
[Secretly Cruel]
-Antispam measures in my email address are obvious-
...Your motherboard wears combat reboots...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1)
Date: 27 Jun 2000 14:38:51 GMT
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 04:11:17 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:22:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:49:09 GMT, Pedro Iglesias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Best way of upgrading whatever is always backing up, installing
> >>and restoring.
> >
> > The structure of Unix makes such extremism unecessary.
>
> So you're saying on paper it works... This guy is saying it didn't. I
> trend to believe real life (TM) over a stack of papers.
Well, I've never used Mandrake, but I can say that Debian can
painlessly upgrade itself. At least, it seems to work fine when I do
it (Every few days).
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:34:34 GMT
> I wonder how many people/vendors would have agreed if it wasn't for the
> licensing deals at that time (the time the licensing deals were
> originally made)? I always prefered WordPerfect myself. Once again, a
> matter of opinion that could be debated either way, but Word didn't win
> because it was superior (whether it is or not) but because of the
> licensing deals.
I agree that the Microsoft commerial tactics are awful (even when no so far
from any company), but that does not prevent me from seeing good things
in their code. Anyway, this is a very personal taste. If you prefer
Wordperfect
I have nothing to say.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 27 Jun 2000 09:42:42 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>How about about the fact that they are hopelessly tied to the
>>CPU and OS that has the driver to run them, and they have
>>to be discarded to switch to anything else? I've had printers
>>whose lives spanned several computer types and expect it
>>to happen again. Are all those people you claim are happy
>>with their winprinter willing to consider them disposable
>>when they switch computers or OS versions?
>
>That's not a particularly valid question as they have no intentions to
>do either. If they wanted to do this then they would have paid twice
>as much and got a printer that could.
So, if you can foretell the future, they are OK...
>I just don't understand the idea that people are stupid for figuring
>out their requirements (a cheap printer than works with Win9x and CPU
>load is no object) and getting exactly that. I'd call someone who
>overspent on a printer for the same requirement the one who got ripped
>off.
Win9x has a lifespan that should already be over. Maybe the
printer will work with what they want to run tomorrow, maybe
it won't.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:47:58 -0500
Pedro Iglesias wrote:
>
> > M$ has tried and failed to make a good OS. What makes you think that
> > they can put one together?
>
> The respect to Microsoft programmers, that believe or not, have a good
> team (I know at least three of them and are real good ones). And besides,
> hasn't done it Corel ?
I think you mean to say that Corel has made a really good Linux
distribution. I (and I know I am not the only one) think Corel's Linux
distribution sucks completely and totally. They destroy all the
positive points of Linux and re-inforce the negatives of it. Trying to
make a better Windows than Windows is not the way to create a good Linux
distribution. However, I will agree that if MS ever decides to get into
the Linux game they will create a distribution exactly like Corel's.
Pretty to the masses, useless to real Linux gurus, and basically a
functionless, proprietary mess.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:52:58 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Christian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:59:04 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
>> bobh{at}haucks{dot}org (Bob Hauck) wrote in
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>>The fact that one compiler is very portable and can generate code for a
>>>huge number of platforms, and the other isn't and can't, _is_ relevant
>>>to a fair comparison. Especially since your test is cpu-bound and
>>>makes no system calls except to get the time. It is really testing the
>>>compiler rather then the OS.
>>
>> I'm testing on Intel hardware. How is multiple platform support
>> relevant to that?
>>
>> Yes, you're right, I'm testing the compiler. The same compiler
>> that builds the OS, right?
>>
>Try this test.
>Find a bubble sort algorithm, and compile it Windows using VCC.
>Find a qsort algorithm, use qsort in libc, and compile it using
>GCC on *nix.
Pedant point: Quicksort has N^2 performance on already-sorted lists,
and might overflow the stack to boot.
(This is assuming qsort() actually uses quicksort, as opposed to
some other sorting algorithm, like hashsort or AVL treesort.)
Of course, a bubble sort *always* has N^2 performance.
Pedant point #2: Mandrake used to tout that they are using the
Pentium-optimized version of GCC (pgcc?) to compile their tools.
I do not know if these optimizations have made it into egcs
or not as of yet.
[rest snipped, because I agree with it :-) ]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 27 Jun 2000 10:54:04 -0400
Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The massive upsurge of demonstration that we see in the US and many
> European countries, and also the global nature of this, is new, but
> undirected.
The "upsurge", at least in the US, is tiny. It was simply organized
well enough to garner media attention in Seattle, where the
authorities were stupid enough to try violent means of suppression.
It's helped along by organized labor, which is grasping at straws
trying to get protectionism back.
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 27 Jun 2000 10:57:51 -0400
Volker Hetzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For me this (both) is what makes the western-style "freedom of speech"
> such a farce. You are legally permitted to talk, but your power to
> change anything is about as limited as with a stalinist-type gag.
> First you have to rise out of the general signal-to-noise ratio
> and after that, if you want to change the status quo you are much to busy
> defending against demonisation to actually get your point across.
But how else could it be? Should every talker get to change the status
quo every time he wants to? The requirement of rising above the noise
and surviving demonization is exactly what filters out the weak and
loony ideas and lets most people live out their lives in peace, safe
from the revolutionaries who would wreak havoc on society.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 27 Jun 2000 09:59:19 -0500
In article <8ja39n$390$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mike Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> *You* might not be able to run KDE without Linux, but I beleive other
>> people can:
>
>Um, I said KDE _on its own_.
As opposed to your previous post 'lumped together with linux'?
KDE and linux have nothing to do with each other unless
you want them to.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: 27 Jun 2000 09:50:49 -0500
In article <LyW55.147$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
tony roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I always love it when linux users site all the different processors
>supported but when I say different hardware I'm not talking cpu's.
Why not? Sparcs are nice, Alphas are nice. Why limit
your choices with software that has silly byte size and bit
ordering requirements?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: slashdot
Date: 27 Jun 2000 09:54:46 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Like I said... it doesn't matter why it was down. I thought Linux was
>>>great at clustering? If you believe Linux is as great as every says
>>>slashdot.org should be run on a p233 with 32MB of ram and never fail.
>>
>>You didn't really establish that it was down - you just couldn't
>>resolve it's name which is just as likely a problem with your
>>DNS or your ISP. Did you try a traceroute to their nameserver
>>to see why you weren't getting a response to your DNS query?
>>Only a small site would run DNS on the web server and there
>>are always at least two DNS servers. If you can't reach one of
>>them it may not be their fault.
>
>I asked many others... they were having the same problem.
And did any try a traceroute to their nameservers to see where
the problem really was? Everyone on the same ISP as you
would obviously see the same problem since you share the
same local caching nameserver.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:03:38 -0500
Tom Loach wrote:
>
> After reading about the Linux boom and wanting to keep up with trends
> I decided to buy a Linux distribution. After looking around and
> reading some reviews and because of the news of the merger between
> Borland and Corel, I decided on Corel Linux.
> I went out and bought a copy of Partition Magic and set up fee space
> on my drive as per the Corel requirements and looked forward to an
> easy installation. After all I had a Gateway pc, certainly a common
> market band that Corel would have tested for compatability. But no
> sooner than I started the install the process died, dead, nota,
> nothing. Not to worry, because the edition of Corel I bought had
> installation help via email available at no cost, with a two day turn
> around time promised. Well now a week later, no return message. I
> put a note out on Linux.misc and the response I got was this:
>
> Hi - I've got the same problem along with thousands of others in the
> newsgroups. No one seems to have an answer. Even Corel seems to be
> hiding
> from it. It's not the video card. I've tried everything I can possibly
>
> think of. I have had no problems with RedHat.
>
> --
> Posted via CNET Help.com
> http://www.help.com/
>
> So now the merger between Borland and Corel is as dead as my
> installation process. I'm out a couple of bucks, but will probably
> see about buying another linux distribution. That said, Corel is
> doing the cause of linux no good by not properly supporting their
> product. There might be a perfectly simple explanation of what's
> happening, but from Corel's response you'd never know it. I may be
> wrong, but I think if Linux is to make it in the market place, the
> corporations who maket their distributions are going to have to offer
> a simple and reliable product that the novice can easily install.
>
> Regards,
> Tom
God, even a professed newbie sees how damaging Corel's attempt at Linux
is. I think they seriously had the best ideas in mind when they
started, but a corporation built on the ideals of closed source software
just can't figure out how to "make Linux thiers" the way they want to.
It's too bad. I would have liked to have seen Corel really build up on
Linux properly (like an actual Unix/Linux based Word Perfect Suite, not
a Windows based port), but they seem bound and determined to kill
themselves. Selling Netwinder was another bad idea in my opinion. The
Netwinder was a great product, and it would have made a killing given
the proper attention. Rebel.com has some good ideas, but they don't
have the marketing force that Corel has. Overall, Corel is adding
credibility to the people that say Linux is a cheap knockoff of
Windows. They are trying very hard to make it appear as if that is
exactly what it is. Too bad, a lot of people are buying Corel's Linux
packages. If this is thier first experience, a lot of them will assume
that is just the way Linux is and give up on it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
