Linux-Advocacy Digest #629, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 20:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why use Linux? (Perry Pip)
Re: Why use Linux? (Perry Pip)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Jim Broughton)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Russ Allbery)
## NEW ## MULTITOOL for Linux (CyberSurfer)
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Ciaran)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Aaron Ginn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:42:32 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:43:50 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mig) wrote in <8kikb2$ndo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>This is incorrect... everybody knows that Windows cant stay up for more
>>than a few days... even the screensaver makes Windows crash.
>
>Then how come my file server/web server is still up since 17th May?
Becuase it isn't doing shit.
>>And if you start installing an deinstalling programs you know very well
>>that the registry gets corruptet (not to speek of dll-hell). A usable
>>Windows installation lasts 3-4 months before a reformat and new
>>installtion is due.
>
>I've had machines that have lasted a year so far.
>
Installing an deinstalling programs?? NOT.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:43:25 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:42:31 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Please explain why the leading desktop OS is Windows?
Read the judges finding of fact.
>> Aye? Aye Mr. Troll? I hope
>>you sleep well under your bridge at night 'cos you don't seem to be
>>winning friends and influencing people here.
>
>Oh but I am, if you read peoples replies carefully.
ROFLOL!!!
>Like I said, I'm reporting *facts* not marketing BS.
No, you are give us your ARROGANT OPINION and making it out to be
fact. And your ARROGANT OPINION is based on IGNORANCE as you lack
sufficient knowledge of Linux to compare it to Windows.
>As for producing code for the community, will this pay my bills? Will this
>help me with my mortgage? Can I buy a car off the proceeds of any software
>I give away for free? Hmmm???
Agian you are TOTALLY ARROGANT. If you don't want to produce code for
the community that's fine. But then DON'T WHINE AND BITCH ABOUT THE
CODE OTHERS DO PRODUCE FOR THE COMMUNITY!!!
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:52:28 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8kiii4$1vi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Please read the finding in the DOJ vs Microsoft case.
>
> Oh I know some of the details of that case.
>
> However... people don't buy OS's if they're _that_ bad. Could it be that
> Microsoft actually got some it _right_?
>
> I would have preferred if they weren't so aggressive, or so determined to
> make sure they win, but without that, do you really think they were
> creating something so terrible?
>
> Pete
Was that before or after they put DRI and DrDos out of business
by making sure that win3.1 would NOT run on it no matter what.
Encrypted code and all.
JIM
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:51:24 GMT
In article <8kic9g$sqj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> --- I mean really,, what a bunch of retards! You all spent so much
> time geeking that you never acquired spelling and grammar skills?
> Well.. rest my case, the real world will ever take Linux seriously.
All trolling aside, documentation is actually one of the biggest
problems that I've had with Linux as well. Both Mandrake distributions
that I bought had documentation that was pretty amateurishly written
(english was obviously not their first language), including
instructions on how to mount devices that didn't work with an out-of-
the-box install. The Red Hat Unleashed book that came with 6.0 had a
typo in its Hello World listing, which is pretty glaring. Installation
of any free open-source software is usually documented with a readme
file that the person typed themselves (and there aren't many Writing
majors pumping out open-source software these days). And as long as
people keep singing the merits of man pages to newbies, criticism of
their writing style can't be discounted.
Some of this probably has to do with the fact that Linux as a
commercial OS is still just catching on, and the quality of books and
documentation available for newbies is indicative of this...
-ws
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:02:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Greg Yantz from alt.destroy.microsoft; 12 Jul 2000 15:00:42
[...]
>I have seen similar things. So? Noone here is saying "careful administration
>will make Windows reliable" or even "careful administration will always
>improve the reliability of Windows".
I disagree. Both points have been presented, typically with a major
assumption of validity, and anger and resentment at any suggestion to
the contrary.
>> Thus I believe your impression is wrong, and am asking you to reconsider
>> it in light of these considerations.
>
>I still am convinced you are more interested in hearing yourself talk
>than in reading what is written.
It would be difficult for me to convince you otherwise, for obvious
reasons. But I must point out that reading what is written by others
gets very boring when it is the same old assumptions and lack of free
inquiry as it has always been.
[...]
>2 basic concepts:
>
>1) Install only the bare minimum of applications that you know you
>will use (to reduce possibility of dll problems)
We'll need a list, or you're begging the question. It is far too easy
to dance around a bit and then declare that whatever caused Windows to
be unstable wasn't the bare minimum. Sorry; Windows with *no* apps
installs still crashes, and routinely on some systems.
>2) Keep your drivers up to date, or use only known stable versions
I have had more than one problem with the newer driver being the one
that screwed things up. I've also had it happen that the damage is
unrecoverable, and a complete re-install is necessary to entirely
eradicate the instability. (I've also had cases where re-installing did
*not* eradicate the instability.) These are not incredibly weird or
bizarre cases, I figure, because I have never implemented any incredibly
weird or bizarre systems.
>> "In some cases it is
>> possible" is only a useful concept if you can know in advance which
>> cases these are. Taking each system that crashes, and finding a fault
>> you can attribute to "improper administration" or other concerns is not,
>> I'm afraid, a valid approach to learning how to avoid crashes, as it is
>> a troubleshooting technique which can *appear* successful to large
>> degree, without actually benefiting from any empirical validity.
>
>You are assuming way too much. I certainly make no claims about
>troubleshooting problems in Windows. It is my opinion that such is
>at best difficult, at worst a pointless waste of time.
I make no assumptions, let alone too many, when I can help it. What
concepts I have presented here are based on my years of experience and
pointed observation designed to identify this issue, not on any
assumption that things work as I think they do. I concur with your
opinion about troubleshooting Windows, but that does not, unfortunately,
remove the need to do it on a routine basis.
>> No, you are assuming way too much. You know, if you change something,
>> and the problem goes away, so you say "that fixed it", you're setting
>> yourself up for what we call "voodoo troubleshooting".
>
>You once again seem to be a write-only system.
And once, can I help it if nobody can meet my challenge to provide
something more accurate, consistent, or practical given the facts
available to us?
>> Once again, not because I'm an asshole, but just because I want to be
>> clear:
>
>> The statement "in some cases it is possible to set it up so it doesn't
>> crash *a lot*" is, indeed, logically controvertible. There are some
>> cases where it is not possible to set it up so that you know in advance
>> that it won't crash a lot.
>
>We all know this, unfortunately.
Nathan seemed to disagree, and stated 3 supposedly specific conditions
which will reliably produce the result of non-crashing Windows systems
with a high degree of confidence. I'm merely pointing out that he is
over-stating the case, and using it as an illustration of the dangers of
voodoo troubleshooting.
>> Since you cannot know in advance which cases
>> these are going to turn out to be, maintaining that the original
>> statement is either useful or factually correct is, in my opinion, the
>> equivalent of stating that *any* (not all) Windows crashes can be
>> avoided by competence.
>
>Finally! Yes, that is indeed another way of expressing what I was
>saying. In my observation, Windows is non-deterministic. Under the
>exact (as closely as I can determine, anyway) same conditions,
>performing the same action twice often produces differing results.
We all know this, unfortunately. ;-)
>This does not make for a reliable system where troubleshooting skills
>get you anything at all. However, by following some simple principles
>that serve to avoid situations that are *known* to cause crashes (listed
>above), then hell yes *some* Windows crashes can be avoided by
>competence.
Now, do you understand what I call it "voodoo troubleshooting"? Because
you follow these "principles" (which are nice and vaguely defined, and
easy to apply in retrospect but impossible or at least difficult to
enumerate in advance), and the system may still crash with surprising
frequency. So how do you know that when you followed the "principles",
it wasn't just "lucking out" to begin with, or that applying the
principles in retrospect isn't merely predicting the future by examining
the entrails of the dead chicken?
>> Competence is NOT sufficient to stop Windows
>> from crashing! (Though competence and luck is certainly a better bet
>> than luck alone.)
>
>Competence is enough to remove the situations where Windows will
>*always* crash, leaving only the (normal, unavoidable) state of affairs
>where Windows sometimes crashes. Is that clear enough for you?
It is self-evident and meaningless to me. All of the rules for "being a
good little Windows user" have exceptions. The newest hardware,
drivers, or software is often more problematic than the old, so why is
keeping everything to the newest rev one of the principles? The "don't
add lots of applications" is counter-manded by the purpose of the PC to
begin with; avoiding that isn't "being smart", it is making concessions
in order to hand-wave the issue. Competence can make troubles
disappear, sure. But then again, so can waving a dead chicken. And
being professionally involved in troubleshooting systems, I would have
to say that my objective (believe it or not) and considered (and
competent) opinion is that there is more voodoo going on these days than
"proper administration".
>> Now do you understand what I mean, and why I couldn't just let you guys
>> go on basing your troubleshooting on invalid assumptions?
>
>I see what you mean, and where you are failing to understand what is
>being presented to you, yes.
I didn't fail to understand it. I refused to take it as an assumption,
and while exploring the issue for your benefit, I disagreed with it.
[...more of the same...]
--
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: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 16:01:16 -0700
In gnu.misc.discuss, T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Quoting Russ Allbery from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 09 Jul 2000 23:45:01
>> This is one interpretation that apparently the FSF's lawyer holds; I'd
>> personally really like to see a court put this to rest and say that if
>> all you're using of the other code is its API, it's not a derivative
>> work, and the process of combining an executable with a dynamic library
>> on the system is not the formation of a derivative work but rather the
>> execution of two independent sets of instructions, one of which calls
>> the other.
> You mischaracterize the issue, inadvertently. Having this be tested in
> a court would not "put the matter to rest".
See Lee's followup. Depending on how the argument was presented, it very
well may, and that's what I was talking about.
> The reason FSF's lawyers hold such an interpretation is that they plan
> to sue for copyright infringement any software which can only work when
> linked to a GPL library as a derivative work of GPL software.
You're jumping to all sorts of conclusions here that I don't believe are
necessarily correct. It's possible for a lawyer to have an opinion on a
topic as a matter of law regardless of whether they intend to act on that
opinion or not. I don't believe that the FSF legal counsel is scummy
enough to claim to believe something just so that he can sue on those
grounds; if he says he thinks that linking to a GPL library makes the code
a derivative work, I think that's his honest legal opinion on the basis of
existing laws and cases.
> FSF's lawyers have a valid legal justification for doing so, based on
> the reasoning that this would indicate that the software was, in fact,
> "based on", and is, both legally and "realistically", a derivative work.
That's your opinion and you're not a lawyer. No offense, but I'll look
to a lawyer to decide whether something has a valid legal justification.
> If your code will only work with a GPL library, then it is all but
> proven that you used the GPL library to develop your work, not just the
> API,
What does it matter what library you used to develop your work if your
program only interacted via its API? Calling the API of a library is
precisely the "necessary steps" required to make use of that software,
which you have a legitimate copy of. It is not copyright infringement to
make use of software that you own.
> If you can "prove" that you merely linked to the GPL library during
> development, and thus only used its API, not its source code, in order
> to develop your software, then legally, and realistically, your code is
> not a derivative work.
No, I'm sorry, that's not how the burden of proof works in the United
States legal system.
> But you lost the benefit of that doubt when you closed your source;
> the law is not above assuming that when something is being hidden, it is
> because someone has a reason to hide it.
Please indicate the portion of the US Code or the legal precedent that
states this. I highly doubt the accuracy of this claim; rather to the
contrary, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that people have
an inherent right to privacy, which implies precisely the opposite.
> Just because the lawyers think you can sue somebody for linking to your
> library doesn't mean they have a valid case.
Again, you're jumping to conclusions about the FSF legal counsel that I
don't believe are justified.
> The easiest way to defend against such cases, in case you're worried, is
> to open your source. Whether under GPL or not, it will enable the FSF
> lawyers to read the source code to determine if you have created a
> derivative work, in their opinion, instead of relying on the indirect
> library issue.
This is a red herring that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
I'm not discussing how to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit; I'm
discussing what the law actually requires. There's a significant
difference.
>> After listening to a lot of the arguments about this, I don't see any
>> real sense to the idea that, say, optionally using GNU readline to
>> handle terminal input makes GhostScript as a whole a derivative work of
>> GNU readline.
> If it is optional, and you could use some other library besides GNU's
> readline, then this is true. But if the only library GhostScript can
> use, if the API is available from non-GPL libraries, when the optional
> use of a readline function is used, then this is not true, and it is
> reasonable to believe that the developers of GhostScript have derived
> their software from GNU's readline, and not just 'a' readline.
So what?
They have a copy of GNU readline; it's their right under copyright law to
make use of that software, which in the case of a library implies their
right to call its provided functions via the library API.
> Hopefully I've helped clarify the issue.
No, I'm sorry, you haven't.
My strong impression after reading this message is that you don't have a
very good understanding of copyright law or the issues involved with the
GPL, you've not investigated past debates on this topic, and you're rather
too willing to state opinions that you've formed from partial information
as factual. In order to continue discussing this with you, I'd have to
keep correcting the conclusions you're jumping to, which is tedious and
not particularly productive.
> If I've got things straight (I'm still new to the issue, but it seems to
> make sense to me), linking to a library which is GNU while developing is
> not enough to make your software a derivative work. Unless you happen
> to get unlucky enough to end up with software which is "bug compatible"
> with only that GNU library.
See, none of that makes any sense at all. There's no logical foundation
behind that sort of copyright system, and I can't find any support for it
in the actual US federal statutes.
The US law is fairly clear. If you own a copy of a software package, you
are permitted to make any additional copies which are "necessary steps" in
making use of that software package in the manner in which it was intended
to be used. For a library, that involves calling its public interfaces.
Given that, I fail to see how a program that links with a dynamic library
is covered by the license on the dynamic library, *regardless of what that
license is*, because all contact with that library is through its public
interfaces and all copies made of that library fall within the "necessary
steps" provision.
A static library is another matter entirely; linking with a static library
is probably okay, but distributing the resulting binary probably puts you
under the influence of the license of the static library, given that
you're making a copy of portions of that library for a purpose that isn't
a necessary step in making use of your copy of the library.
A software package which contains calls to the public API of GNU readline
but contains absolutely no readline code is not copying readline. I
cannot find any justification for calling it a derivative work of
readline; it is, at most, a derivative work of readline's *API*, but an
API is *not* a software package, and it seems apparent that an API (sans
supporting implementation) is not a creative work in the sense covered by
copyright law. "Function named readline taking a char * for a prompt and
returning a line of input as a char *" is a description of an idea and a
function, and as such would not seem to me to qualify as a creative work.
Furthermore, it's questionable if such a package is even a derivative work
of an API, even assuming you can copyright the API, given that it's not
modifying the API or recasting the API in some different form. It's just
*using* it. Arguing that using an API makes your software package a
derivative work of the package implementing that API is like arguing that
reading a book makes your mind a derivative work of the book.
> No open source license requires you to provide anything free of charge.
> That isn't the same as being able to charge for it. Red Hat doesn't get
> paid for the code, as you've indicated. It gets paid for the
> distribution of the code, which isn't the same thing in this context.
> The license is free, the delivery may cost money.
You're dancing angels on the head of a pin.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
------------------------------
From: CyberSurfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux.sucks,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.best,alt.os.linux.dailup,alt.os.linux.mandrake,be.comp.os.linux
Subject: ## NEW ## MULTITOOL for Linux
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 01:11:00 +0200
The one and only Multitool for Linux.
Download here....
http://www.euronet.nl/users/next/tuxlife
-
CyberSurfer / Singularity
In a dark room full of windows the Tux said: "E=mc˛", and there was light
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
From: Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:12:33 -0700
You may also consider that some of the documentation is written
by people for whom english is not their first language. Linux is
an international effort after all. You may want to cut them some
slack.
You may also want to spend some time reading the Win32 platform
SDK documentation... hardy a paragon of literary excellence IMHO.
Cheers,
Ciaran
===========================================================
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 19:17:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Nathaniel Jay Lee from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
[...]
>These last two paragraphs are really starting to get under my skin.
>What is the deal here. You seem to have yourself convinced that I said
>you can totally eliminate Windows crashing altogether if you are
>competent. I said you can make it so it doesn't crash *a lot*. At no
>point did I say you can keep Windows perfect. I too have seen Windows
>destroy itself for no apparent reason. I am not disputing that fact at
>all. I am just saying (again) that it is possible to minimize some of
>this through competence.
Keep backing of the way you are, and you'll eventually feel comfortable
agreeing with me, I think. ;-)
No, I did not say or imply that you said you could stop all crashing.
But the obviously ill-defined "a lot" didn't seem to need a lot of
interpretation, regardless. Still, it might be worth exploring.
Did you meant "a lot" as in "that one system won't crash over and over?"
Did you mean "from an arbitrary sample of systems fewer will ever
crash?" Did you mean "from a sample, fewer will crash repeatedly"? You
see, you weren't very clear. Perhaps that's why you think I
misinterpreted you.
Because to be honest, it doesn't matter which definition you choose, I
will still say that it is not a valid point. The only way it is
deterministically possible to minimize Windows crashing is to minimize
your use of Windows. And that includes some of your 'principles of good
system implementation', as well as the utter avoidance of MS code. You
might take this opportunity to remind us yet again how you abstain from
using Windows code to begin with. Is that because you could never
really pin down these mythical principles, which you have always
*assumed* is deterministically responsible for *reducing* the number of
Windows crashes, unaware that it seems more predicated on luck of the
draw? I think that may be the case.
[...]
>You have come at this from every possible direction.
I try. Thanks for noticing.
>You have even made
>things up to attack just to make me look like a bigger idiot.
I'm sorry if you think this is true. I don't believe it is; I neither
think you are a big idiot, or have done anything to specifically try to
make you look like a big, or bigger, idiot, I think. Aside from respond
to your comments. Sometimes I get carried away; please forgive any
offense, as it was not meant to be personally insulting to you, even if
it was intentional.
[...]
>God dude, I don't even know what to think about this.
Take deep breaths. Try to calm down. I'm sorry if I've upset you, but
I think it may just be frightening to see how many details so often go
unquestioned in daily life, and among computer 'experts'. Since I
literally have neurological difficulty making assumptions (three cheers
for ADD; its ruined my life, but it makes me a killer in straight
intellectual debate), I often get ahead of myself, and several steps
ahead of those trying to refute me, because I have already had to go
over the same ground to begin with. It doesn't do much for my social
graces, either, but this is Usenet, after all.
And, of course, anyone with a little experience can tell you that making
assumptions is the first problem you have to overcome in anything but
the most trivial troubleshooting.
Assume nothing. Think harder. And take your meds.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 15:48:12 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Oh yeah, your Voodoo 5 is now supported. Get XFree86 4.0.1.
>
> Yes I know.
>
> I also got the Windows 2000 drivers. I installed it, it worked.
>
> I installed XFree86 4.0.1 and, it took a while to get working. Using the
> config program generated a duff XF86Config file, I had to make some small
> changes to make it work.
>
> With Windows 2000, dead easy.
>
> With Linux, a little effort to get working beta quality software.
>
> Hmm...
>
> ...this means...
>
> ...Linux lags behind Windows (for the Voodoo 5 driver!).
>
> >What's wrong with minimalist desktops? :)
>
> They're a bit lacking.
>
> Pete
Pete,
It's becoming a little tiresome listening to this same tune over and
over. Why exactly do you think that Linux lags behind Windows on the
desktop. What are some of the specific areas where you feel this
way. Is it simply because Linux doesn't support every piece of PC
hardware on the planet? Is it because you don't have Word/Excel? I
want specifics, not hand-waving dismissals.
I'll give you specific reasons why I feel that Linux is a better
desktop for me than Windows, and why I feel that Windows lags behind
Linux on the desktop. They are:
1) Stability - I don't think there's any dispute here, even from you.
2) Security - Multi-user OSes keep me from doing nasty things to the
system, not to mention give me a measure of security from viruses
that is lacking on Win9x.
3) Choice - You seem to feel that choice in desktops is a bad thing.
I, OTOH, feel it allows the user to express himself and craft his
machine to fit his needs. If resources are limited, I can run a
minimalist desktop like fvwm which you berate as 'lacking'. If I
have unlimited RAM and a 1 GHz Athlon, and I want to dazzle my
friends, I can run a pig like E. I can lop the GUI altogether if I
want. There's nothing 'lacking' here.
4) Free - This is a big one. I don't have to rely on one company for
everything. Linux is affordable and I can take a single CD and
give it to as many of my friends as I want without fear of being
called a pirate.
I could give you a lot of specifics as well, including better
devlopment tools/environment, the aforementioned virtual desktops,
integration with Solaris which I use at work, and so on. These are
things that are important to me, no one else. Linux gives me these,
Windows doesn't. Linux is a superior desktop to Windows, for _me_.
Why don't you just say what you mean: Linux doesn't have the things
_you_ want in a desktop right now. Everyone here will agree with you
and say "Cool. Wait a while." When you continue to throw out
duragatory terms like 'lacking' or 'lagging' or 'inferior', you just
piss people off. Most people use and develop for Linux because they
_want_ to, not because they want to make a buck, although some do.
When you disparage a labor of love, people take offense.
Just my $0.02,
Aaron
--
Aaron J. Ginn Motorola SPS
Phone: (480) 814-4463 SemiCustom Solutions
Fax: (480) 814-4058 1300 N. Alma School Rd.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chandler, AZ 85226
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
