Linux-Advocacy Digest #804, Volume #27 Thu, 20 Jul 00 03:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Tim Palmer)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Tim Palmer)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Tim Palmer)
Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway? (Tim Palmer)
Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway? (Tim Palmer)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Tim Palmer)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Tim Palmer)
Re: Quickie Script for "Staircasing" Printers. (Tim Palmer)
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix ("Bob Taylor")
Re: Why use Linux? ("Spud")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 20 Jul 2000 02:41:37 -0500
On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 16:53:27 -0600, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> Being a bit of difficult package to install is hardly a virtue.
>
>As my Dad once said: "If you don't know how to put the darn thing
>together . . . why did you buy the kit!?"
>
>> My point is that I entered something like the following:
>>
>> Monitor "Bloggs"
>>
>> What I did not know was the script gets confused if you enter a " in the
>> parameters - how was I supposed to know that? It did not come back with
>>
>> " is an illegal character
>>
>> it went ahead a generated a script that fails.
>>
>> This has nothing to do with knowing how to type.
>
>Correct. It has everything to do with the all-to-common mistake of
>blaming the package, instead of yourself.
Why should we blaim ourself's? Lienux is just junk, and thats' it.
>
>As my instructor once said: "Don't blame the mountain 'cause you don't
>know how to climb."
>
>Slackware is like a high performance sports car that comes with a manual
>transmission. If you buy such a car without knowing how to drive a
>stick, whose fault is that? Yours, or the cars?
>
>> I am not "following the Apple/MS" party line - I happen to _like_ GUI's. I
>> have become a GUI programmer.
>
>Me too. But a good GUI programmer is aware of the limitations of the
>paradigm. There are things you should not put a GUI on.
>
>> >So I prefer Slackware. It suits my world view.
>>
>> It's a view that is perhaps based in the past.
>
>Nope. That world view will never be obsolete. Knowledgable, trained
>experts will always be in demand.
It was obsoleet when the 70s ended. And by the way, you mispelled "knowladgeibble" you
fucking idiot!
>
>--
>
>If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
>
>John Stevens
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 20 Jul 2000 02:41:48 -0500
On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 16:53:27 -0600, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> Being a bit of difficult package to install is hardly a virtue.
>
>As my Dad once said: "If you don't know how to put the darn thing
>together . . . why did you buy the kit!?"
>
>> My point is that I entered something like the following:
>>
>> Monitor "Bloggs"
>>
>> What I did not know was the script gets confused if you enter a " in the
>> parameters - how was I supposed to know that? It did not come back with
>>
>> " is an illegal character
>>
>> it went ahead a generated a script that fails.
>>
>> This has nothing to do with knowing how to type.
>
>Correct. It has everything to do with the all-to-common mistake of
>blaming the package, instead of yourself.
Why should we blaim ourself's? Lienux is just junk, and thats' it.
>
>As my instructor once said: "Don't blame the mountain 'cause you don't
>know how to climb."
>
>Slackware is like a high performance sports car that comes with a manual
>transmission. If you buy such a car without knowing how to drive a
>stick, whose fault is that? Yours, or the cars?
>
>> I am not "following the Apple/MS" party line - I happen to _like_ GUI's. I
>> have become a GUI programmer.
>
>Me too. But a good GUI programmer is aware of the limitations of the
>paradigm. There are things you should not put a GUI on.
>
>> >So I prefer Slackware. It suits my world view.
>>
>> It's a view that is perhaps based in the past.
>
>Nope. That world view will never be obsolete. Knowledgable, trained
>experts will always be in demand.
It was obsoleet when the 70s ended. And by the way, you mispelled "knowladgeibble" you
fucking idiot!
>
>--
>
>If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
>
>John Stevens
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 20 Jul 2000 02:41:58 -0500
On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 16:53:27 -0600, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> Being a bit of difficult package to install is hardly a virtue.
>
>As my Dad once said: "If you don't know how to put the darn thing
>together . . . why did you buy the kit!?"
>
>> My point is that I entered something like the following:
>>
>> Monitor "Bloggs"
>>
>> What I did not know was the script gets confused if you enter a " in the
>> parameters - how was I supposed to know that? It did not come back with
>>
>> " is an illegal character
>>
>> it went ahead a generated a script that fails.
>>
>> This has nothing to do with knowing how to type.
>
>Correct. It has everything to do with the all-to-common mistake of
>blaming the package, instead of yourself.
Why should we blaim ourself's? Lienux is just junk, and thats' it.
>
>As my instructor once said: "Don't blame the mountain 'cause you don't
>know how to climb."
>
>Slackware is like a high performance sports car that comes with a manual
>transmission. If you buy such a car without knowing how to drive a
>stick, whose fault is that? Yours, or the cars?
>
>> I am not "following the Apple/MS" party line - I happen to _like_ GUI's. I
>> have become a GUI programmer.
>
>Me too. But a good GUI programmer is aware of the limitations of the
>paradigm. There are things you should not put a GUI on.
>
>> >So I prefer Slackware. It suits my world view.
>>
>> It's a view that is perhaps based in the past.
>
>Nope. That world view will never be obsolete. Knowledgable, trained
>experts will always be in demand.
It was obsoleet when the 70s ended. And by the way, you mispelled "knowladgeibble" you
fucking idiot!
>
>--
>
>If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
>
>John Stevens
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway?
Date: 20 Jul 2000 02:42:28 -0500
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000 14:00:13 -0400, Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have been concerned lately about certain attitudes in this newsgroup.
>
>It seems that certain Linux "zealots," when confronted with the issue of a
>useability issue with KDE, Gnome, or whatever, argue that these components
>are NOT part of Linux. However, when confronted with the issue that Windows
>version [whatever] has a nice user interface, they instantly point to KDE or
>Gnome being "just as good." This type of two-headed posturing is not
>constructive.
>
>Well, which is it? Are the KDE/Gnome desktops part of "Linux," or aren't
>they?
That dippends on wheather the Lixnu zealot your asking is trying to show that
Lixnu has a GUI or if the
LIE-nux liar is trying to disclame the crappey Lie-nux GIU's.
>
>All current versions of Windows include a GUI user interface, and for what
>it's worth, it IS easy to use.
>
>Linux is claimed to be "just a kernel" which, in and of itself, is not much
>good. It requires many GNU utilities, at an absolute minimum, and SOME type
>of GUI, to be considered "useable" as a desktop system.
>
>Almost all distributions of "Linux" come with one or more GUI desktop
>environments, and 99% of the people who want to try Linux as an alternative
>to Windows will install one of these desktops. In order to make Linux an
>"equivalent" environment to Windows, you HAVE to say that these GUIs are
>part of the overall operating environment, or "system." If you don't, then
>you leave yourself open to the argument that Linux is just a kernel, and, as
>such, is pretty much useless.
>
>I think it's time we took ownership of the various GUI desktops that ship in
>GNU/Linux distributions, even if it means acknowledging certain flaws in
>each. After all, to be really "useable" as a desktop environment, a GUI must
>be installed.
>
>This of course does not mean that one can't argue that the separation of the
>GUI from the kernel adds to the stability of the core OS, and that this
>design is superior to the various flavors of Windows. But then we must
>accept that this separation invites certain problems, such as a lack of
>basic feature integration (cut and paste, drag and drop, etc.)
>
>If this means that we must still be "elitist" in recommending Linux to only
>those people who are willing to sacrifice a certain amount of "useability"
>in favor of increased stability at the core level, then so be it. I, for
>one, am willing to concede that the various GUI desktops are not yet at the
>level of Windows in terms of total integration, because I know that rapid
>progress is being made, and that they will soon reach that level, and even
>surpass it.
>
>I don't yet use Linux for "everything" in my business; as evidenced by the
>fact that I am still using OE to post this. I use Microsoft products to
>generate quotes, invoices, track my repairs, produce reports, and do my
>accounting. I DO use Linux for intranet web servers print servers, CAD
>workstations, and programming. I have more Linux machines in my office than
>Windows machines, and someday, I will probably do the bulk of my work on
>Linux machines. I will probably NEVER rid myself totally of MS products, due
>to the nature of my business. But it doesn't really matter, because I am not
>out to destroy Microsoft. They are doing a pretty good job of that on their
>own.
>
>--
>Rich C.
>"Because light travels faster than sound, many people appear to be
>intelligent, until you hear them speak."
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway?
Date: 20 Jul 2000 02:42:38 -0500
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 18:52:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 5 Jul 2000 13:31:31 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>I have been concerned lately about certain attitudes in this newsgroup.
>>
>>Why? We don't all have to agree.
>>
>>>It seems that certain Linux "zealots," when confronted with the issue of a
>>>useability issue with KDE, Gnome, or whatever, argue that these components
>
> The "usability issue" with GNOME and KDE are pretty much manufactured.
> Most of the percieved problems with either have more to do with them
> not being exact clones of the current Microsoft interface more than
> any particular failing of either desktop.
>
>[deletia]
>
> AS far as neither being required to have a functioning drag & drop
> graphical desktop: that allows more end user freedom to determine
> for themselves what sort of desktop interface would be most suitable
> and it also allows genuine competition between diverse approaches to
> the same problem.
Freedom...you meen moar work!
>
>--
>
> |||
> / | \
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 20 Jul 2000 02:42:48 -0500
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 19:10:48 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2:1) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> I am aware of the distinction that Linux and KDE are two seperate
>>> objects. However, it does not seem unreasonable to me to lump the two
>>> together as KDE is an example of a Windowing system on Linux.
>>
>>X is the windowing system. KDE is a desktop.
>
>Linux I see as a complete system.
Then it's not Lie-nux you see, it's Windows. Nothing on Lie-nux is compleat, ever.
>I lump all of X, KDE and Gnome together.
>In Windows case there is DOS and Windows, but DOS is pretty much ignorable
>(I know it's there) and Windows can be treated as one package. So,
>naturally, I lump Linux together as Linux, X and KDE. I'm looking at it as
>an alternative to Windows.
>
>Pete
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 20 Jul 2000 02:43:09 -0500
On 1 Jul 2000 04:06:11 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Steve Mading wrote:
>
>:>
>:>
>:> Eh??? Control-characters are infinitely more appropriate for a terminal
>:> interface than the special ins/del keys, because ctrl-c and ctrl-v are
>:> ASCII characters, so they have identical codes on all terminals. ins/del
>:> might not even *exist* in some terminal's codes, and even when they do,
>:> they'll be different for different terminals. (Not a problem if you have
>:> a Unix-like termcap or terminfo config, but Windows is not such an animal.)
>:>
>:>
>
>: Except that Ctrl-C has been used for decades to kill a program or process.
>: Does Windows use Ctrl-C for this ? I'd try it but I don't feel like
>: rebooting just to test it.
>
>True, I forgot that some of the things I take for granted in UNIX don't
>exist on Windows, like the ability to map which key will be the interrupt
>key, if you don't like ctrl-c for that.
It work's for terminnals, but it does'nt work with X.
>
>--
>-- ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
> Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Quickie Script for "Staircasing" Printers.
Date: 20 Jul 2000 02:43:20 -0500
On 16 Jul 2000 00:15:55 GMT, Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I finally got off my arse and quickly coded up a quick shell script that
>undoes the "staircase" problem some printers have.
>
>It is:
>
>---begin---
>cat > /tmp/temp
>perl -pi.bak -e 's/\n/\r\n/g' /tmp/temp
>lpr /tmp/temp
>rm /tmp/temp
>---end---
>
>Once chmoded executable, to use you simply type this at the command line:
>
>lprint <file.txt
>
>On my system the script is named "lprint" like DOS. Of course you can name it
>what you like or modify the script and make it part of some config file
>somewhere. But sticking the script in /usr/bin and using its name as the print
>command is the easiest way to use it. Obviously, the "secret" is that command
>line perl line of the script. The rest of the lines simply support the perl
>line and clean up things. That piece of perl can be used for other things too,
>like fixing MIME of incoming email if you still are a Luddite.
>
>--
>DANGER: Charles Darwin is the lifeguard of the gene pool. Swim at own risk.
...Moar proof. Lienux need shell script's to fix plobrems Windo's doesa'nt have.
In Windo's, things just work. Why can't it be that way on Lixnu?
------------------------------
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Bob Taylor")
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:53:39 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Saul Goldblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
>> And "flooding the entire network with packets" requires the user to go out
>> of his/her/its way to screw up.
>
> No it doesn't. All it requires is for them to install Linux with default
> values.
>> [Remaining bullshit sent to /dev/null where bullshit belongs. GoAT.]
I'm an end user. I'm also not a college graduate. Go away little man.
> You should know.....
You run your garbage and I'll run mine. BTW I'll remeber to tell the
next ATT saleman that calls that you are the reason I refuse to use
their service.
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bob Taylor Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
| [Concerning MSFT innovating their way out of a wet paper bag.] |
| "Maybe if it were a very very wet paper bag, but then they'd |
| face the insurmountable barrier of surface tension." |
| -- Geoffrey Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:01:32 -0700
"TNT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 12:08:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete
Goodwin) wrote
> in <8khn39$con$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "1$worth" <"1$worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
wrote:
> >> See, Trolls like Pete avoid the questions. I just don't believe
> >anything
> >> he says.
> >
> >Rubbish! The web server running on the machine indicates it was
started
> >on the 17th May.
>
> Web server on a Win98 machine?!? And almost never crash for the last
one and
> a half year?? That should be a world record!?!
Not in the slightest.
Is Win98 unstable? Depends what you do with it. Running the latest
hardware with drivers that haven't been heavily field-tested? Yes, it
will be unstable. Running poorly-written software (usually games) on
it? Yes, it'll be unstable. Any large application (eg office) is
liable to have some serious bugs somewhere - and let's not pretend
that Linux has solved the problem of non-trivial software having
bugs - so yes, it may be unstable there, too.
Running a comparatively simple application, though, such as a basic
webserver, shouldn't be a big deal, especially not if you're doing it
on proven hardware with proven drivers. If you tried to run the
webserver plus large numbers of dynamically-generated pages coming off
a database, you might again run into troubles, but just a webserver?
Bah.
In any case, I think there's a bit of a blind spot on the part of many
Linvocates regarding Windows. Was Linux initially developed to be a
low-resource[1], user-friendly desktop OS for the masses? Or was it
essentially a networking OS? Ah, networking, which means stability,
security, etc, etc. Windows wasn't intended for that market; it was
intended for the home user and office client, where such issues
weren't so critical - so obviously, it wouldn't have that security
built in, any more than it would be designed to server-capable
stability levels.
However, time goes on, people _did_ want a stable version of Windows,
so they got it; it's called NT. Barring very unusual situations,
usually bad drivers or faulty hardware, NT is reasonably stable;
enough so that many organizations do use it as their primary or even
sole server platform.
Comparing Win9x to Linux is absurd; they weren't designed to the same
criteria, for the same market, or with the same goals. Comparing
NT/2K to Linux is a little more realistic... and I suspect you'll find
that running a web server under 2K works just fine, thanks.
[1] Windows 3.0 would run on a 286 with 4 Mb (even less, IIRC). Can
even early versions of Linux do that? With GUI?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
