Linux-Advocacy Digest #555, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 00:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Where did all my windows go? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right? (Jacques Guy)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Gary Hallock)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k ("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Perry Pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 01:15:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 20:04:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Nothing new said! Still can not justify calling ALL of linux bad
because
> >of ONE application exiting without an error message!
>
> I never asserted such a thing. After reading more of this discussion,
> I feel that Peter overreaches somewhat and indeed mistakenly claims
that
> Linux really is behind Windows ( not just in terms of desktop
usability ).
>
which was the original claim that peter made an you started to defend!
> >Any claim that KDE is critical to Linux having a GUI and thus it's OK
to
> >claim that KDE is part of Linux is just plain silly. Linux and Unix
have
> >a variatiy of desktops to choose from. If a *desktop* is not stable,
> >CHANGE IT! (you can do this without changing the kernel).
>
> Yeah, but "change it to what" ? No one has time to test all of them.
> By the way, if there's nothing substantially better than KDE ( and if
> "better' means "easy for new users", I believe this assertion to be
> correct ), then changing them is not going to help.
Better meaning Meeting the NEEDS of a user! There are MANY users with
MANY different needs. This one size fits all attitued is just hooowy.
>
> Another problem I have with this attitude is that it's a too-easy way
> to deny responsibility for anything. Use "How do I use (X) ?" Support:
> "Sorry, we don't support your distribution. Install distro (Y) and
> get back to us" Users are not going to be satisfied with "foo isn't
> part of Linux". They want a complete package. They need a distributor
> who can actually stand behind the product rather than ducking for
cover.
> I'm glad you're not a distributor.
Ahh, but I am! And my customers LIKE the fact that I come to the table
with a CHOICE! I say, hey, if that desktop does not fit your needs there
are several others! They are WOWed....I find that most users DO NOT
change from what they started with (what ever that may be), BUT they
Like the fact that they have the choice!!
>
> It is stupid and irresponsible to put new users on a merry-go-round,
> especially if the advice offered is zealot talk as opposed to good
> advice.
I disagree! The "one size fit's all" talk I here is much more "Zealot"
talk! With new users, I would say, try KDE for a while, if you like it,
fine. If not, let me know and I'll show you some other options! Hardly
zealot talk!
>
> The real problem is that
> there's no single desktop that everyone agrees is usable. Personally,
I'd
> stand 100% behind KDE and say that it's a perfectly good desktop, but
> that its file manager really is a file manager and not a drop-in IE
> replacement.
Now, THAT sounds like zealot talk!
>
> I wouldn't run for cover and try to pretend that a problem in the best
> available desktop for Linux is not a problem for Linux's usability.
>
> --
I have stated a couple of times that KFM is a file manager, but peter
did not get it! then you came to his aid! THe fact is, I like KDE, I use
KDE, I support KDE and I advocate KDE! BUT, I still say that there are
choices out there! Not Everyone likes what I (or you) like. Not everyone
organizes things the way I (or you) do! Not everyone wants the same look
and feel that I (or you) do!
I find that users react much better to choice than to tell them you MUST
use this or that!
Just WHO ARE YOU to run around and tell everyone what's BEST for
THEM????
> Donovan
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 01:53:35 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right?
Cihl wrote:
> Did you try installing BeOS?
No, because the BeOS distribution I have installs from Win95 only,
and there is no way I will install Win95 unless under the
threat of a cocked gun.
> I wouldn't set Windows as a goal for installation
> ease. That's too easily achieved.
That's not the opinion of the Chinese fellow who runs
the computer shop in Glen Waverley (Melbourne, Australia).
He bitches about hardware incompatibilities when trying
to install Win98.
> Yes, Linux is very user-friendly once the installation is complete and
> all the hardware works. It could, however, still be much easier. And
> that's what we have to work towards. I think it's coming along quite
> nicely, don't you think?
I remember the Linux of only a few years ago, without a GUI.
And that was only a very few years ago. I remember, when was it,
three years ago? Trying to install Red Hat 5 (or was it 4?) on
my PC at work. I had to ask help from a Unix man. Another
colleague, who had never seen Linux, was watching, commenting
"Hey, that's a *REAL* operating system!"
> I think it's
> really cool that the newer installations come up in full high-color
> SVGA. It gives newbies a good first impression.
I was a bit miffed at not being given a choice of resolutions.
> All this install needs now is better installation of scanners
Ah... if I could find, and install, a driver for my HP ScanJet 5p,
I could *almost* kiss Windows good-bye for good. "Almost" because
my laser printer is a Panasonic KX-P6100... ho gia lasciato ogni
speranza.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 01:47:42 GMT
I have a Voodoo3 3000 running on redhat 6.2 - is there any way to get
the 2D performance to be a little snappier? I'm running X windows 3.3.6-
20 currently. I'm sure it's not using the 2D hardware on there
well...Thanks - John
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 22:10:02 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> My complaints revolve around my simple premise "Linux lags behind Windows"
> or "Linux is playing catchup".
>
Well, that is your basic problem. Your premise is that "Linux lags behind
Windows". So you admit that you started out biased. Just to refresh your
memory, a premise is:
A statement assumed to be true and used to draw a conclusion.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 02:13:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Calling the GPL 'free' is a lie. Almost everyone who is calling the
> > GPL free, also give exceptions to show how it isn't free. The lie
> > is obvious.
>
> Free but with restrictions is true for every "free" license but public
> domain. Yet you seem to reserve your animosity for the GPL. Why?
>
My isp server is down, and Deja has been letting me down also
(technical problems and other issues.) It'll probably be in
the morning before I can comfortably reply -- in fact a very
long, detailed proof got mis-posted. It'd be nice if the UI
allowed easy posting of a file -- luckily I keep copies of everything,
which allow for easy back references since news-servers often
forget things after a week or less :-(. I suspect that is the
reason why the previous two proofs (one my me, and the other
by the linguist guy) have been missed by those who have misattributed
my comments about dishonesty to themselves.
I have NO animosity against GPL, and haven't since I realized it
isn't a sucky free license, because it just isn't a free license.
The relative limitations between free vs. non-free-GPL are more
than minimally significant. If the UI on Deja, the bugs in Netscape
and in XFree didn't keep cut n' paste from working correctly on my
newly configured contraption -- I could post it right away.
In fact, GPL has situations where code isn't redistributable AT
ALL, even if a person isn't a software developer adding on code.
Can you guess the situation? (There are alot of problems, that
are very situational, and best analyized on a case-by-case basis.)
Don't have time or interest in playing with software bugs where
it takes my programming time and interest, and I am not getting
any return on my time investment. The server will likely be up
in the morning.
John
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 22:30:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting void from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 9 Jul 2000 21:36:01 GMT
>On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 14:04:03 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>[...] I imagine the realization that it is only a matter of time now before
>>that groups (alt.destroy.microsoft) putative "goal" is accomplished, as
>>Windows inability to properly function, its user's general inability to
>>accurately troubleshoot, and Microsoft's inability to defend themselves
>>from the criminal charges for which they've been convicted seem to be
>>on-track for allowing the world to embrace the superior and free alternative
>>that now stands before us.
>
>Don't equate Windows with Microsoft. In particular, don't assume that
>their botching of Windows technology means they'll be unable to capture
>new markets. They've always understood software market dynamics better
>than they've understood technology.
I disagree, but only trivially. I think they understand technology
about as well as any other vendor (which is to say often clueless but
they get the job done), their pathetic real-world results are due to
their intentional defense of a monopoly in contradiction to technical
development. I'm quite sure they are thoroughly incapable of
"capturing", let alone mastering, new markets without the Windows
monopoly and the Office gold mine. Bill Gates did know software market
dynamics, you betcha, but that doesn't make him any good at
participating in software markets, as he's never done so. Bill Gates
got where he is, and Microsoft as well, along with Windows, because of
cheating, and the use of one particular conceptual glitch that Gates
recognized could make him a billionaire because they wouldn't see it
coming. His, and Microsoft's, ability is predicated on the market they
captured, but they have no ability to capture any other market but that
one, IMHO.
Assuming, of course, that anti-trust laws are enforced to any reasonable
degree.
This is not meant to say that Microsoft is not capable of *competing*,
and they may continue to produce software, both Apps and OS, for some
time to come, even possibly growing and branching out into real business
lines (as opposed to extending a monopoly, which isn't the same thing).
I didn't really mean that Microsoft would be destroyed, literally, by
the removal of the Windows monopoly.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 23:42:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 09 Jul 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 05 Jul 2000
>> [...]
>> >Basically, for corporate work.....the desktop PC is DEVOLVING into
>> >an appliance which is
>> >
>> >a) a Word Processor / Spreadsheet / Presentation Tool manager
>> > (i.e. glorified typewriter) PLUS
>> >b) small custom input/output front-ends for servers.
>>
>> I certainly agree of your general characterization of the business
>> desktop's role and purpose. What I disagree with is the on-going
>> fallacy that this is "devolving". The fact is, that has always been the
>> purpose and use of the PC, and since the PC began fulfilling that role,
>> there have been frequent and insistent claims that this role is somehow
>> served best by a special purpose device rather than a general purpose
>> microcomputer. Yet all actual attempts to migrate away from general
>
>Oh..make no mistake. A general purpose microcomputer fits
>the bill the best... it's just that the actual processing
>for any tasks more trivial that generating spreadsheets,
>short documents, and slide shows is best done on something
>centralized, with the desktop machine merely serving as a
>highly configurable front-end I/O device.
I disagree, most heartily. The 'actual processing' ought to be split as
efficiently and flexibly as possible between host and desktop in
whatever ways any individual one of the various clients and servers
which are running are capable of benefitting from. The "merely serving
as I/O" is quite the opposite of using a PC instead of an Xterminal. A
great number of the capabilities that people are expecting but not
receiving from modern technology is because software engineers can't
seem to get their brains around smart clients WITH smart servers as the
proper method of distribution. Almost every system concentrates on a
smart server with a dumb client, or a dumb server with a smart client.
For this very reason, the network bottleneck is an excessive burden.
Ironically, it is because the network is a bottleneck that developers
avoid designing systems which allow a greater level of information to be
processed at either or both ends, and tend to keep it at one or the
other, because of the inherent problems of performance and reliability
in moving that greater amount of information back and forth. Yet the
reason the network *is* a bottleneck is because such systems, which know
how to handle data which is *either* local, *or* remote, instead of
assuming its local (smart client) or assuming its remote (dumb client),
aren't developed!
>> purpose microcomputers as "wordprocessing and web browsing" front ends
>> have failed. I believe this is for the simple fact that an appliance
>> capable of doing these things in a modern business environment requires
>> the flexibility of a general purpose microcomputer, despite the
>> recurring fantasies that special purpose devices would somehow be more
>> effective or feasible. I suspect this effect will continue, and they
>
>You're correct that those fantasies will never be fulfilled.
>Remember Sun's experiment with "diskless" workstations?
>AAAAAAARGH!
One of my earliest experiences was actually pretty unusual (AFAIK, based
on later observations.) PCs which had 10 Meg hard drives, and no
floppy. The drives didn't have an OS on them, though, the PCs booted
off of a Novell file server using boot PROMS on the Ethernet cards.
This was used as a replacement for a Unix host system running a word
processing application (the Novell server used Word Perfect). It was a
dumb implementation in almost every way; the thought was that they were
upgrading to a better wordprocessor (the Unix think used in-line control
codes with *no* WISIWYG, didn't support any simple page layout, etc.).
But they didn't need a word processor; they needed a document management
system. Not only didn't they get one, but there weren't any decent DOS
or Novell based ones at the time that could hold a candle to the Unix
system they were replacing.
[...]
>> That "idiotic desktop anarchy" was called "the PC revolution", and it
>> was predicated on the fact that end users are perfectly capable of both
>> administering and operating a computer. Programming tools should be
>
>Operating: yes
>Administrating: very few.
Only in that your idiom expression of "administrating" goes beyond the
requirements of administrating from the end-user's perspective. Part of
that extension is appropriate, but part is not.
[...]
>> That is one way of putting it. But I never thought that at the time,
>> and see no evidence for it in retrospect, either. To me, it appears
>> that the IBM PC became a business tool to an extent that the hobbyist
>> computers that preceded it did not because of an accident of history. It
>> has been attributed to any number of causes, but the fact is that the
>> IBM PC was the first truly open computer platform. IBM did not own the
>
>Apple ][ and ][ was just as OPEN. Peripherals proliferated.
>And an Apple with 64k of mem was significantly cheaper than
>a PC with 32k of mem.
Peripherals aren't the issue. Clones are the issue. Publishing your
spec is one kind of open. Not owning the spec is a different kind of
open entirely.
[...]
>Yes, I am well aware of this. I had initially believed that
>Unix was pretty much supported only on DEC equipment. Then I
>picked up "The C Programmer's Reference Manual/Guide/Book"
>(can't remember precisely) by Ivan Boesky (Prentice Hall)
>wirebound, yellow cover. And it listed standard data sizes
>for int, char, etc. on several machines. I was surprised
>to see IBM 370 and Interdata (some number) listed.
Everyone was surprised; the idea that software is independent of the
computer is a paradigm shift of great portent. We might with hindsight
consider all sorts of metaphor and analogies, but that's just an
accommodation of our natural expectations. The concept of software is
*not* an intuitive one, no matter how familiar we may be with its
affects.
>> The potential independence of the components, and the lack of ownership
>> of the specification of the PC revolutionized the way computers are
>> considered and used. Yes, anybody could own a computer before then, and
>
>When IBM discovered that they had lost control of the platform due
>to cloning...they invented MicroChannel architecture. I was
>glad to see *that* die, even though, technologically it was better,
>it was also an attempt to bring back a proprietary standard.
Yes, you see what I mean. And the market soundly rejected it for the
most part (except for a bunch of suckers in true blue shops). Simply
because it was a proprietary standard.
Yet Microsoft's code is the same kind of proprietary standard, but
nobody batted an eye no matter how many insane things MS did, because
software is not an intuitive concept, even when you're familiar with it.
>The marketplace wisely ignored it (the installed ISA base was so
>huge that it made no sense to develop an MCA card before the ISA
>equivalent...thus adding more momentum to ISA)
"Ignored" would be too strong a term. There were quite a number of MCA
cards.
>> there was nothing preventing them from learning how to program or doing
>> so. Nor does the PC inherently make that capability more evident.
>> Still, the reason the open architecture of the PC had such a profound
>> impact was that while anyone could learn to program a system prior to
>> that point, they were learning a proprietary system over which they had
>> no control. The non-proprietary nature of the PC platform, on the other
>> hand, allows an end user/consumer to control their system completely, at
>> least through the mechanism of market competition if not their own
>> technical freedom to contribute to that market without the need for
>> "permission" or proprietary knowledge of the developer of the system.
>
>Not quite. MS-DOS was proprietary.
>It just ran on non-proprietary hardware.
My comments have nothing to do with MS-DOS; as we've both mentioned, it
is proprietary. But so was/is WordPerfect, and SoundBlaster. The PC
was non-proprietary. It just accommodated proprietary components.
[...]
>> This is an obvious flaw in the implementation of business computers.
>> The correction, however, is not help desk tyranny. It is, instead, to
>
>For example, at Kmart, there's a whole group of 15 people who do
>nothing but test different software for Windows stability issues.
>Due to the continuing DLL fiasco, some combinations of installed
>software will lead to desktop crashes.
>
>To avoid this, they and others have implemented a "no unauthorized
>software on *OUR* PCs" rule.
>
>However, iF everyone was running SCO Unix, I doubt that this ever would
>have become an issue.
Yes, but partially because you wouldn't need to implement a rule, since
nobody would want to or be capable of installing their own software.
This is a digressive response to Window's shortcomings, not to "cubical
anarchy". If they all used Unix systems, they would be data-entry
people, not computer operators.
[...]
>> Each of these, rather than being a devolution to anarchy, is an
>> overthrow of tyranny, in its own way. Linux, of course, merges the
>> three together in a unique way that re-enforces each. It will be a
>> golden age of end-user computer, most certainly, once people are willing
>> to step up to the plate and admit they need to learn how computers work
>> in order to benefit from computers.
>
>That's the big problem. Most Americans not only are too lazy to
>progress from ignorance...they justify it by becoming PROUD of
>their ignorance.
I'm not terribly pleased to have such a potent and noble statement
followed by a crass and insulting disavowal of your personal
contribution to the problem. All humans act this way, even those who
criticize others for doing so, so its disturbing to hear emotional
admonishments in this matter.
[...]
>I have often thought that it is quite ironic....the
>business communities tolerance of more and more bloated MS-ware
>has driven down the price of ridiculously high-powered equipment.
Yay, Microsoft?
[...]
>The Unix vendors can all justify their price for one reason:
> THEIR SHIT WORKS!
I was very distraught, last year, to find a Sun workstation (Ultra 10, I
believe) delivered with a *completely failed* hard drive. "This shit
isn't supposed to happen," I thought, "its as bad as a PC!"
One might remark that I expected, as you've indicated, that such
failures wouldn't occur on a system that costs several times what a
nominally equivalent PC workstation would, because it is generally true.
But it is happening with greater and greater frequency, and is in no way
limited to any particular issue, that the Unix world is being "infected"
with "PCisms" in this regard. Which is, by the way, a good thing. Unix
vendors are pie-in-the-sky arrogant elitist dweebs, generally clueless
about the real power of personal computers, and they need to realize
that not every computer is "mission critical" (and if the people
implementing the computer have a clue, no computer ever is), and we'd
rather not pay four to ten times the price so that it "never fails",
when any failures which do occur are not cataclysmic or frequent.
It is the commercial Unix world which has done the majority of
profiteering off of the technology industry, aside from Microsoft (who
is orders of magnitude out of their league in this regard). Yes,
they're moving more towards open software themselves, and there is
reason and value in proprietary computer hardware platforms (despite my
trumpeting of the open PC standard as a revolution). But this is
*UNIX*; none of them developed the stuff to begin with. I doubt there's
any *real* reasons why HP-UX is binary incompatible with much of Sun,
and everything else is trivial to make easily changeable from one mode
to another (command lines, other general attributes, for those who like
the way one or the other does something). But have any of these vendors
moved to promote competition by any conscious developments to enhance
the customers ability to easily integrate or migrate between them? No,
not to speak of.
If they're in the business of selling bullet-proof hardware, then they
should compete on how bullet-proof their hardware is, and not whether
the Unix admins are "Sun guys" or "HP guys".
[...]
>> Spoken like someone who isn't familiar with the nightmare of trying to
>> run X-terminals. Its more efficient to allow anarchy, and clean up the
>
>Actually, I have. When I first worked at the GM tech center,[...]
I meant in a non-glass house environment. I had assumed from your
earlier comment that you had some experience with the technology. But I
will reiterate that, based on what you said, you aren't "familiar with
the nightmare", having not experienced it in the implementation you
dealt with. Remember, I only hear about the stuff that doesn't work so
good; if Xterms were never a nightmare, I wouldn't know anything about
how Xterms work. ;-)
>> messes when they occur, despite the fact that it causes much more
>> grousing about "clueless users" from the desktop support people. An
>> X-terminal, only a little smarter, is exactly what a PC is. Except it
>> is a lot smarter, and for good reason.
>
>I'm saying the current usage is moving TOWARDS the X-terminal model.
>but, instead of having the central computer drive the display with
>commands to an X server on the desktop hardware, the desktop machine
>has it's own "intelligent" interface.
It makes more sense to adopt the ASP model (which you will think of as
"just the X-terminal model"), but that uses a web browser instead of an
X server. Not as demanding on the desktop, and much easier for the
software developers.
It sucks worse then X-terms, yes. But X-terms suck worse than PCs with
real client/server software.
In any portion of the industry, you will see signs of moving towards or
away from the dumb client model (the dumb server model, represented by
file and print services, tends to remain more consistently implemented
because of its "bedrock" nature in providing shared resources to PCs) in
wonderfully ineffective cycles. People think they want simple and easy,
but they really want flexible and unlimited. Until they get it, and
then they long for simple and easy. Until they see how inflexible and
limited it is.... Ad infinitum.
>> I see your comments as little more than the last echoes of the "glass
>> house mentality", though I don't mean to discount them by saying so. I
>> think the recursive "terminal/diskless workstation/network PC/desktop
>> appliance/everythings-a-web-page" issue is quite fascinating, and
>> consider the counterpoint very important in recognizing the true value
>> and importance of the "personal computer".
>
>The big problem is, most corporate end-users know just enough
>to fiddle around and completely screw up their system.
>
>On Unix systems, it's no problem, because they don't have
>admin privileges. On the M$ boxes..it's a severe problem.
That's the fault of the gurus in between, the admins, who are supposed
to be cooperating with the computer operators, not trying to control
data entry personnel. I guess they don't teach systems people in
college that part of their job is going to be teaching some of that
stuff to the end users out in the real world. We trashed the glass
house years ago: wake up and smell the coffee.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 07:58:19 +0400
Five years from now, WinNT5 aka. Win2K would be proclaimed
as 20 times less reliable than WinNT6 aka. Win2005.
As usual, Bill Gates would be laughing himself to the bank.
Observe the Wintrolls statements nowadays, Win2k is much
better than NT4, NT4 is less realible than NT5 etc. ,etc.
A year back, they would die for NT4 no matter what.
Singing a different tune now eh!
Ferdinand
James wrote:
> Check out the MS advert in the June 6 edition of PC Magazine, where MS
> endorses the study by National Software Testing Labs which states that
> Windows 98 is 13 times less reliable than Win2k. I am no linvocate, but I
> find it incredible that a company can make this admission and then still
> push this (Win98/WinMe) onto the market.
> Shame on you MS!!!
>
> James
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 03:47:52 GMT
On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 22:10:02 -0400,
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>>
>> My complaints revolve around my simple premise "Linux lags behind Windows"
>> or "Linux is playing catchup".
>>
>
>Well, that is your basic problem. Your premise is that "Linux lags behind
>Windows". So you admit that you started out biased. Just to refresh your
>memory, a premise is:
>
>A statement assumed to be true and used to draw a conclusion.
>
Yeah, and in this case Peter's premise is his conclusion. In other
words, he assumes the statement is true and that proves it's true. How
elegant.
Perry
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
