Linux-Advocacy Digest #388, Volume #27 Thu, 29 Jun 00 01:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Competition and Open Source (Osugi Sakae)
Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1) (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Gary Hallock)
Re: How fast is your text? (Ciaran)
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Re: Why linux sucks and why linux is best
Re: If Linux is desktop ready ... ("Rich C")
Re: If Linux is desktop ready ... ("Rich C")
Re: Linux is junk
Re: Why linux sucks and why linux is best (David M. Cook)
Re: Why linux sucks and why linux is best ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Competition and Open Source
From: Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 19:51:09 -0700
Warning: personal opinions and observations ahead. If you can't
deal with that, you shouldn't be here.
Most readers of COLA are used to Winvocates and general anti-
linux types attacking linux because it can't do (whatever) or
doesn't support (whatever). Sometimes they have valid points,
othertimes they are FUDing, often with facts that _used_ to be
true.
I have been using Linux now for about a year. I started with
Caldera OpenLinux 2.2, upgraded to 2.3 a few months later. For
various reasons (among them, Quake3), I switched to SuSE 6.4 -
no data loss (/home is a separate partition), no change in GUI,
no problems (couldn't get Quake running, but the video card
worked fine otherwise). Because my wife needs to send Japanese
email occasionally, and because I didn't like yast, I recently
switched to Mandrake 7.1. I get to keep the same GUI, all the
same programs, etc.
A year ago, I couldn't get my sound card working, and my laptop
pcmcia cards were a bitch and a half. Now, not only is sound set
up no problem, but the laptop is too. SuSe set up the 3D card
just fine - better than windows in fact. Mandrake might have, I
haven't checked yet. IIRC, COL 2.2 didn't support usb. One year
later, all the ones I've seen do. Getting true type fonts also
used to required some work. Now, a true type font server is a
standard part of the install. Mandrake even set up my cd burner.
All of the various installs worked without any hitches, and most
were considerably easier than windows installs.
Point of all this is that, the various distros have progressed
more in one year than MS Windows has in 5 years. MS puts out a
new version of windows what, every two or three years? I cannot
see any difference between Win98 and Win98SE. The differences
between Win95 and Win98 didn't impress me. Win ME's big selling
point seems to be that the media player is part of the os and
that video editing software has been included. Of course, it
will include drivers for all of the software that was released
in the last 2 or three years (since the last windows release).
What would Windows be like if it faced real competition? The
various Linux distros do have competition, and it shows. Of
course, much of the thanks also has to go to the open source
programmers who are working on things like USB support and video
drivers and the such. Also, you can argue that Linux is playing
catch-up in many areas (which is usually easier than leading).
Even so, Linux has already overtaken windows on hardware that is
supported.
Those people who complained a year ago about sound cards not
working now have to intentionally choose exotic or bleeding edge
cards to complain about (like "why can't linux do 4D digital
stereo surround sound with 18 speakers"). Same with video cards.
Instead of blasting Linux for not having USB support, they have
to bitch about their USB _scanner_ not being _well_ supported.
Instead of lamenting the lack of true type fonts, they complain
because many people "borrow" their fonts from windows.
You get the idea.
MS should be shitting their pants. It has been said before -
companies just can't compete with the speed and quality of open
source development. Watching and experiencing the developments
of the last year, I can now understand that. In a few months,
if I have reason to, I might upgrade or switch to another
distro.
--
Osugi Sakae
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1)
Date: 28 Jun 2000 21:50:23 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Darren Winsper wrote:
>
>> Flat rate access is finally arriving in the UK. I've had it since late
>> last year evenings and weekends, and it's now 24 hours for me. I pay
>> 15UKP per month but that includes line rental. The performance isn't
>> as good as Easynet's, and the news server is crap, but it has saved me
>> a fortune.
>
>Now you just need to damand DSL and/or Cable modems. :)
>
>Man, I'm glad AT&T was broken up when I was a kid...
And it didn't seem to kill them - they are just now installing
cablemodems on TCI's old cable plant in my area.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 23:03:54 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Some of the Xfree versions & hardware combos around the time of
> Redhat 4.0 were prone to crashing (by Unix standards, not by
> WinDOS standards).
>
> He is quite likely just recycling old FUD based on old and moldy
> bug reports.
>
>
Yep. That's one of the problems with some of these Windows zealots. They live in
the past not realizing or caring that Linux has improved a lot over time.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 23:11:15 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Arthur Frain wrote:
>
> I just dragged a subdirectory from kfm to an xterm -
> it asked me if I wanted to paste it or change to
> that directory. I chose paste and it dropped the
> name at the prompt, and since Linux actually has
> command line editing (unlike some inferior OS's),
> I could add further stuff around it to build a
> command.
>
> Seems reasonable to me.
>
> Arthur
Neat. I had tried kvt which will just paste the file name. But I just tried
kconsole and it indeed does prompt for paste or cd.
Gary
------------------------------
Subject: Re: How fast is your text?
From: Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 20:05:08 -0700
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:10:55 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
>Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
>>This makes NT look sick -- an over 50x speedup. To be fair, of
>>course, I should run NT in text mode for this benchmark. That
is,
>>if there is one.
>
>
>As I said in my other message benchmarks like this are totally
invalid
>since there are far to many uncontrollaible varibles but if you
want
>to make it somewhat more fair make sure you are using cmd.com
and not
>command.com.
Call me clinically insane, but I *think* that was his point...
why else would he say
"I'm sure everyone knows this already, but here's Yet Another
Contrived BenchMark That Shows Linux Is Faster Than Windows. :-)"
in his original post. I think s/he was trying to point out how
Pete whathisname was post stupid and invalid comparisons.
Cheers,
Ciaran
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 03:24:43 GMT
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 20:48:29 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
[deletia]
>> Corel's decision to impliment WPO2K on Linux with the Wine emulation
>> layer is, in my opinion, a mistake. They could have switched to one of
>> the "modern" widget sets on Linux without ditching actual native code.
>> I realize it would have taken a lot of time, but porting win32 to Linux
>> is a bad thing IMHO. I don't see how putting all the Windows garbage on
>> Linux is going to help Linux. Yes, you can run Windows applications on
>> Linux, but I seriously want Linux applications.
>
>As do we all. But do you expect Davidson to port Reader Rabbit to Linux?
Actually, quite a bit of this stuff constitutes the sort of
apps where the most likely bottleneck is going to be the user
even if that app is coded in java and no JIT is available.
Some things have compelling reason to be coded in a platform
centric API, many others do not. Relieve yourself of that
burden and Linux isn't the only market you can easily exploit.
>Or Mindscape to port Mavis Beacon Teaches Typing?
>Or Romtech to port Universe Explorer? Or Living Language Multimedia
>to port Triple Play Japanese? Or Microsoft to port Encarta or Office?
>Getting applications and users is a chicken-or-egg problem, and
>Wine is one way to attack it.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why linux sucks and why linux is best
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 03:31:47 GMT
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 01:13:23 GMT, Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 16:27:13 -0400, Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Interesting. I have an ancient sb16 in one machine and I don't need to
>>
>>There's the key right there: "ancient." If your SB16 is "ancient, then it
>>probably has jumpers, no?
>
>Yes, it does. So the "improved" it, did they? Oh well, isapnp works
>for other pnp cards I have.
Bughat makes attempts to deal with PNP soundcards.
Dunno about ISAPNP though, as that is something I have alwasy
taken pains to avoid...
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: If Linux is desktop ready ...
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 23:41:42 -0400
"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:BHT55.221970$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Rich C would say:
> >"Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:KtL55.238$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> ... then tell me why the Hell a home user should to care about
compiling
> >> sources ? If he/she gets binaries, what the Hell open source is useful
to
> >?
> >> If he/she learns the ./configure;make;make install procedure, why the
Hell
> >> should he/she know that awk 1.0.4 prevents gtk from compiling correctly
?
> >
> >a) You don't always get binaries
> >
> >b) doing a ./configure; make; make install can work on your system (if
you
> >meet the requirements of the configure script) when a pre-compiled binary
> >might not
> >
> >c) It exposes your kids to the guts of what makes software work
> >
> >d) It exposes YOU to the guts of what makes software work
> >
> >e) You can help the author beta test his program, and debug his scripts.
You
> >can also help with documentation. In short, you become part of the
solution.
> >And the theory is if you're part of the solution, then you CAN'T be part
of
> >the problem.
>
> I have been "exposed" to all of the above, am reasonably comfortable
> with all of the above, and, all the same, have to say...
>
> _Hogwash_.
>
> It may be a reasonable idea to have _some larger population_ of people
> that are exposed to the things you suggest.
>
> But to consider that _everyone_ be expected to be involved with this
> seems quite unlikely to me to be feasible.
I never said "everyone."
Mr. Iglesias said, "... then tell me why the Hell a home user should to care
about compiling sources ? If he/she gets binaries, what the Hell open source
is useful to?"
I simply said that you don't always get binaries, so compiling a desired
program might be necessary. Whether _some larger population_ will be able to
accomplish this is irrelevant. The option is there, unlike with other
systems. If a user wants a program badly enough, and there are no binaries,
(s)he can compile it. It's really not that hard. Anyone who can follow
directions can do it.
>
> -> We don't all learn how to do maintenance on our refrigerators,
> stoves, and televisions, which are rather _simpler_ than our
> computers.
Not really. The computer is highly modular, so parts can be easily replaced
and upgraded. I do ALL my own computer maintenance, and I would NEVER
consider touching my TV or my refrigerator. However, getting the source is
like getting all the schematics and a parts list for your TV. If you wanted
to, you COULD repair it.
>
> -> Knowing how to cope with any problems that come up if anything goes
> wrong when running "./configure; make all; make install" requires
> _some_ degree of "education" in some _rather_ technical matters.
So you get an error message. So what? What do you do when a binary
installation bombs? You give up or go to the program author and look for an
update. In this case, you could try to decipher the message yourself, which
usually amounts to a library being out of date or in the wrong place. You
_could_ email the author and tell him/her of your woes (just like you might
email a Windows software company.) And guess what? Lo and behold, you'd be
helping this person debug their program, just like I stated in e.)
>
> If you suggested that it might be a slick idea for there to be some
> portions of the configuration of applications that was exposed via
> scripting language, so that users could do a bit of "light"
> customization via modifying (say) Python scripts, I might go along
> with it.
When you get sources and have to configure/compile/install it is automatic.
>
> In contrast, it seems to me to be an _atrociously_ bad idea to
> expect that anyone not Rather Interested In Programming do:
> "cd /usr/local/src/mozilla; make install"
Oh, so it's people like you who are the reason that there are no good
scripting languages for Windows (any more) and why there is no more QBasic.
Anyone who is afraid to do that should simply do without the program or wait
until an RPM or similar binary is available. (BTW, how much simpler is it to
find and update all the RPM dependencies for a program than it is to compile
it?)
>
> When few people are up to the task of doing maintenance work on the
> computerized embedded systems in their automobiles, or, quite frankly,
> doing much more than filling fluid reservoirs when lights come on, I
> hardly think it sensible to expect "Joe Sixpack" to recompile Gnumeric
> "just for grins."
I don't EXPECT anyone to do anything. This is where everyone seems to lose
it. Just because you get sources doesn't mean you HAVE to compile it. If Joe
Sixpack is too stupid to follow some simple directions to compile a program,
then he can skip the program and look for one that comes in a convenient
.rpm package.
>
> There are enough times that people I'd consider _reasonably_
> intelligent at work provide _worse-than-useless_ diagnostic
> information when things break that I would have to call the notion of
> there being _much_ likelihood of _useful_ feedback in "beta testing"
> Just Plain Nonsense.
>
So I guess all _your_ programs will be available in binary format? And when
they break and I tell you about it, you won't listen, because any feedback I
might provide would be _useless_?
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: If Linux is desktop ready ...
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 23:57:09 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>c) It exposes your kids to the guts of what makes software work
> >>
> >>d) It exposes YOU to the guts of what makes software work
>
> ...I wouldn't go quit that far.
At least you can _read_ a configure script and a makefile. You can't read
an installshield file. Heck, you can't even tell what it's doing to your
system most of the time. Once you take a look at these files, you begin to
see everything that is involved with setting the environment for a program
and compiling it. You might, if you're interested, start reading some of the
header files and .c files, or do a "man gcc" to figure out what all those
options are. Are we that far yet?
[crapsnip]
> Then defer to the experts. Claiming that one NEEDS to be able to
> cope with the error messages that come out of a makefile is just
> as assinine as claiming the novice end user needs to be able to
> debug an installshield script when it breaks.
No, but if you have _any_ familiarity with your computer at all, you are
much more likely to find the problem with the former.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux is junk
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 03:27:49 GMT
On 28 Jun 2000 19:21:47 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > Linux is a stinkin', steamin' pile of shit as far as I am concerned.
>> >
>> > I wasted $40 on Corel Office and wish I could get my hard earned money
>> > back!
>>
>> Another happy Corel Linux user. And they wonder why people in the Linux
>> community don't like the Corel offerings to the Linux world?
>
>Yes, Corel Linux *1*.0 is bad -- but is it any worse than other 1.0
>releases?
>
>Although, I'd *never* reccomend it to a new user, it does have promise
>(maybe version 3 will be better? Hopefully Corel can stay in business
>long enough to turn it out...)
They weren't exactly trailblazing either.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David M. Cook)
Subject: Re: Why linux sucks and why linux is best
Date: 29 Jun 2000 04:15:55 GMT
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 11:43:27 +0200, farraway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why doesn't Linux support USB and plug and play?
"Linux", i.e. kernel 2.4pre-whatever, does support USB and plug and play.
As you note, the demand for Linux is mostly in the server arena. USB and
ISA aren't used very much in servers.
As to why USB is so late, as far as I understand this was a screw up. Linus
had to step in a rewrite the code from scratch. Yes, screw ups happen with
open source, too.
Dave Cook
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why linux sucks and why linux is best
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 04:20:27 GMT
"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Interesting. I have an ancient sb16 in one machine and I don't need to
>There's the key right there: "ancient." If your SB16 is "ancient, then it
>probably has jumpers, no?
>It's the jumperless ISA cards that are the problem (though not really if you
>read the ISAPNP tools docs.)
And it helps if your cards are actually doing what they claim to do.
A while ago I tried to get a cheap ESS1868 card *and* a cheap CS4232
card to work in the same machine. Took half an hour or so of ISAPnP
fudging and module loading/unloading until I finally found a configuration
that worked. The main problem was that the CS4232 card listed a number
of possible IRQs, but then would completely ignore about half of them
(instead sticking with what it was set to previously).
No, I haven't tried putting Windows on the same machine. I shudder at the
thought --- it also has two SCSI controllers, two MJPEG capture cards, a
cheap-as-shit network card, a give-me-the-cheapest-you-got video card, and
a BT848 TV capture card.
Bernie
--
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety
Isaac Asimov
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
