Linux-Advocacy Digest #33, Volume #28 Thu, 27 Jul 00 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (Steve)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Loren Petrich)
Re: Why use Linux? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("Yannick")
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came... (Loren Petrich)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Chris Wenham)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Jay Maynard)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Chris Wenham)
Re: Why use Linux? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: God damm Microsoft (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Gnome or KDE (OSguy)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Leslie Mikesell)
Speaking of Basic.... (OSguy)
Re: Why use Linux? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Re: Gnome or KDE
Re: Why use Linux? ("John W. Stevens")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:17:11 GMT
Not at all Nathanial.
There is a difference between dis-agreeing and making off the wall
accusations. You and I disagree quite a bit, and sometimes we agree.
Jedi and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum, and despite some
heated exchanges at times, I don't remember ever kill filing him, in
fact the only things I have filtered are those TholenBot messages and
that's by message not author. It's an advocacy group and these things
happen.
If a person can't take disagreement, they don't belong in any advocacy
group.
I have a very thick skin and if I felt I had insulted that person, I
would have apologized. But I have done nothing wrong and refuse to
waste any more time with it.
Steve
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:50:59 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Steve wrote:
>> You're wasting my time...
>>
>> ******PLONK****************
>>
>> Welcome to Agent's somewhat limited, but effective killefile.
>> You won't have anyone to talk to though because you are the only one
>> in it.
>>
>> >
>
>You'd just as well add me in there too. After all, you're plonking
>someone because they disagreed with something you said, and were
>offended by it. I think that pretty much means everyone in cola should
>be in your killfile. Hmm, of course, it would be tougher to annoy
>people if you ignored all of us.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: 27 Jul 2000 19:17:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally, I'd rather package managers be moot and applications
> be capable of being treated as a single atomic entity capable of
> being more or less completely non-dependent on system files.
Actually, most MacOS apps work something like that -- they are
either single files or they are folders containing the executable and
various data files. NeXTStep had a standardized way of doing the latter
sort of setup, and something like it is being carried over into MacOS X.
It's a departure from the usual Unix file-organization
conventions, but it approaches Jedi's ideal *very* closely.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:17:37 -0600
Spud wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Answer: you fault the people who delivered the OS - Microsoft.
>
> No, I fault the people who configured it; HP.
We have very little control over how Windows gets configured.
> Had it come *without* a
> preconfigured mess, just with a clean Win98 CD, I wouldn't have had
> that problem in the first place. So, let's see... what MS gives me
> works, what HP gives me doesn't... so I blame MS. Yeah, that's the
> ticket. Makes perfect sense.
Yes, it does, because in *BOTH* cases, you get what MS gives you.
We have very little control over how Windows gets configured.
> > HP doesn't write, maintain or in any way control Windows.
>
> They just deliver completely mangled installs of it.
We have very little control over how Windows gets installed and
configured.
> > > Not in the slightest; I've suggested it _may_ be HP's fault
> >
> > . . . that Windows, a product we do not in any control, is broken?
> Now,
> > how do you figure that?
>
> If you'd paid attention instead of falling asleep at the keyboard,
> you'd know. Wake up, lad.
It's you who needs to wake up: WE HAVE VERY LITTLE CONTROL OVER HOW
WINDOWS GETS INSTALLED OR CONFIGURED.
It's a Microsoft product, not an HP product. If you have a problem with
the hardware, let us know. If you have a problem with your software,
let us know. We'll do what we can, but WE DO NOT CONTROL WINDOWS.
Sorry. That's what you get with a third party OS.
You want to see how our stuff works when we *DO* have control over it?
Buy one of our workstations running HPUX.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: 27 Jul 2000 14:17:33 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>
>> > Okay. So where are some examples of real originality expressed on the
>> > Linux platform? Those ideas had to come from /somewhere/.
>>
>> Did you even bother reading what I wrote?
>
> Yes, actually I did. You're saying that everything is copied. Okay,
> then I guess everything implemented on Linux/Unix is just a copy of
> something that someone else has already done.
No, it isn't true that way either. As a simple example, unix
was the first to use the setuid bit, as the most trivial
research would have shown. You are almost right conceptually,
though. Most computer science ideas were developed back in the
70's and since then it has been a matter of making the implementations
small enough for personal computers and a question of which
version is the cheapest. Microsoft made their impact on the
market by being the cheapest for a while. Now they aren't.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:18:16 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Said Yannick in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >
> > Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >> >WindowsNT 1 FAILURE/Didn't work as advertised
> >> >WindowsNT 2 FAILURE/Didn't work as advertised
> >> >WindowsNT 3 Written by a team from DEC
> >
> >As far as I remember, Windows NT 1 and 2 never existed,
> >rather 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5
> >
> >But I may be wrong...
>
> No, you're right. NT 3.2 was the first version, because Microsoft was
> touting at the time that it was the successor to Windows 3.1. Ha.
>
At least here they were kinda honest : if they had succeeded in making
a working NT 3.2 for reasonably small computers, then NT 3.2
would have been the successor to 3.1, and we would not need to
bother with 95.
Yannick.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:18:55 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 18:42:18 GMT, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>
>> Try having a look around gimp.org or one of the websites
>> that use gimp as a server side rendering engine.
>
> Okay, I see how it can be done.
>
>
>
>
> Now how do I do the same for AbiWord, StarOffice, Gnumeric, Netscape,
AbiWord and Gnumeric are both wide open in terms of their
components and the latest version of Netscape takes this
to the extreme allowing for entites like the gnome team to
bolt on a new front end much like one might do for sox or
mpg123.
> Evolution, Sketch and GNOME?
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came...
Date: 27 Jul 2000 19:18:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> Dream on. A lot of big business leaders are willing to contribute
>> to the Democratic Party, if only to insure that both likely alternatives
>> are thoroughly bought.
>So, you admit that the Democrats are a bunch of whores.
Just like the Republicans?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:22:09 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> Most computer science ideas were developed back in the
> 70's...
What about user interface ideas?
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: 27 Jul 2000 19:22:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:34:03 GMT, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 27 Jul 2000, Jay Maynard wrote:
>> I've never understood the disdain some folks have for package management.
>> What's wrong with letting the computer do things the computer's good at,
>> like record-keeping?
>Lack of real-world, enterprise class, computing experiance would be by bet.
Amen. I did MVS systems long before I'd even heard of Unix, and while I
cussed SMP up one side and down the other, I also have a great appreciation
for just what it actually does. Without it, it's be impossible to have a
reliable, maintainable environment.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 27 Jul 2000 14:23:05 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Anybody who works in a multi-platform environment needs to be aware
>of the big/little-endian issue.
>
>> Platform-endian to neutral conversions and back, however, are very
>> handy things. Example: I have to send data from a big-endian box to a
>> middle-endian box; what use is a big-to-little endian here? None at
>> all. However, a halfway well written snippet of C code with a defined
>> neutral format doesn't care what the endianness of the platform it's
>> compiled on is, it just works. :)
>
>Try dumping a jpeg from a big-endian platform onto tape, and then
>loading it up onto a little-endian platform, and get back to me.
Where's the problem? Jpegs have a platform-neutral representation.
A tar tape copy would load and display on any machine.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:25:37 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
> AbiWord and Gnumeric are both wide open in terms of their
> components and the latest version of Netscape takes this
> to the extreme allowing for entites like the gnome team to
> bolt on a new front end much like one might do for sox or
> mpg123.
So what we're seing is that there isn't a standard way for a /user/
to change the interface of a program. A programmer may be able to,
and the new user interface would be chosen by the programmer instead
of the user.
Some programs come with secondary user interfaces (GIMP has a script
console) but these are chosen by the programmer. For those that don't
have socendary user interfaces, it would take programming knowledge
to add one.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:26:25 -0600
Arthur Frain wrote:
>
> Dross, hmmm? And I have to remove it, 'cause
> Windows can't? That seems to be what your
> saying.
The end user can do some things that a reseller cannot do. The EULA,
for example, is not the same document as the contracts signed by a
reseller.
Dell, Compaq, IBM . . . they all complain about the same thing. We
pretty much get to do a few (VERY few) cosmetic tweaks (which are almost
all limited to changing a few graphic files, and some theme stuff), and
some very simple configurations chosen off a list that MS allows, and
very little else.
Believe me, we'd *LOVE* to get more control over how Windows runs on our
hardware . . . we're in the business of selling quality products, and
having users such as SPUD complain about stuff that we, for the most
part, cannot change is just galling. I hear about this kind of stuff,
and I get a nervous twitch about not being able to fix it . . .
Still, remember why MS wants this: they want to have a know starting
point for their technical support staff to work from, and to a certain
extent, it is better to be working on an install that is configured or
installed in a known-broken-way, than to be starting totally in the
dark.
Obviously, MS doesn't want to sell you problems, either, but the simple
fact of the matter is that with a separation between hardware and
software manufacturers, discrepancies occur that cannot be fixed easily
due to inflexible business agreements.
> So tell me:
>
> 1. What specifically is this dross?
Me, too. I want to know details, if you have any.
> 2. How do I locate it and identify it?
> 3. How do I remove it?
>
> It must be really easy, because this is
> an "ease of use" OS - should be something
> the average user could do, but maybe
> it requires superior knowledge like yours.
And if it can legally be fixed, believe me, I'll do everything I can to
make sure that the right people find out and fix it.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: God damm Microsoft
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:30:52 -0400
On 27 Jul 2000 16:43:12 GMT, Jeff Silverman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Because I have to reboot the PCs, I can't do this remotely.
I hope you're not serious.
Where'd you "learn" your NT administration skills from?
ntfaq.com
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Gnome or KDE
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:36:45 -0500
Pig wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> I am a newbie of Linux and using the SUSE linux 6.3.
> I've tried different GUIs.
> I think the Gnome and KDE are the best.
> So, which one is better? Pls. suggest.
Do you know that you can have 2 accounts, 1 running Gnome, and the other
running KDE? (I run Gnome on 1 account, Motif on another account, KDE
on a 3rd account, and Afterstep on a 4th account....because I can.) Set
the accounts up, try both Desktops, and decide which you like.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: 27 Jul 2000 14:33:29 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>
>> Most computer science ideas were developed back in the
>> 70's...
>
> What about user interface ideas?
The 80's, although certain companies investing massive
amounts of money to brainwash (err.. re-educate) our
youth by putting their products in schools may have
actually changed the way the users think by now.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Speaking of Basic....
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:40:21 -0500
Anyone know where I can find the original Dartmouth Basic Specs? <and please
don't tell me to look in the MS stuff....Dartmouth Basic existed before MS had
an operating system>.
John Sanders wrote:
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > Writing directly to memory? What BASIC class did YOU take? Not the way I
> > learned it. I NEVER wrote directly to memory from BASIC. GOTOs - what's
> > wrong with properly used GOTOs - do you never use a JMP in assembly? Does
> > this make assembly bad? Original old old basic was not structured or object
> > oriented, You should review VB6 and rethink your comments.
>
> Doesn't: "Let i = 5" write to memeory? Where else does it go?
> --
> John W. Sanders
> ---------------
> "there" in or at a place.
> "their" of or relating to them.
> "they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:33:06 -0600
Spud wrote:
>
> "Chiefy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Not acceptable.
> > Ten years ago, maybe, but not now. Linux doesn't crash.
>
> Balls; I can crash Mandrake, consistently, every damned time, just
> trying to set up the sound card on this box. You were saying?
. . . that "setup" is an administrative task, and that Linux crashes
*AFTER* warning you that the operation you are about to perform may
cause a crash.
Get real . . . these are two totally different scenarios. He was
complaining about crashes induced by running *APPLICATIONS*, not
*CONFIGURATION* operations, and he was complaining about performing
operations that are *SUPPOSED* to be safe, while doing hardware scans is
not only not supposed to be safe, but in fact, you are explicitly warned
before performing them that they are not safe.
You have poorly chosen hardware . . . Linux cannot do much about that.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:37:05 GMT
On 27 Jul 2000 19:17:29 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Personally, I'd rather package managers be moot and applications
>> be capable of being treated as a single atomic entity capable of
>> being more or less completely non-dependent on system files.
>
> Actually, most MacOS apps work something like that -- they are
>either single files or they are folders containing the executable and
>various data files. NeXTStep had a standardized way of doing the latter
>sort of setup, and something like it is being carried over into MacOS X.
>
> It's a departure from the usual Unix file-organization
>conventions, but it approaches Jedi's ideal *very* closely.
It doesn't depart from Unix too much. The Unix design is more
suited to a situation where there is a dedicated human admin
I think. Something like this is the sort of extension that
Unix needs to deal with user owned and installed packages.
While it's nice to think that everyone can su to install software,
it's somewhat cumbersome in general. Microsoft tried to approach
this problem by allowing everyone and their brother to pollute the
system. This approach has been proven faulty in practice.
I think we should go to the other extreme such that we can pretty
much treat the core OS as if it were burned onto a ROM. We could
mind security by giving loaded libraries a user identity and only
allow trusted accounts (namely root) to own libraries that will
be loaded by other users.
The filesystem level facility is already there: /opt.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:33:43 -0500
Chris Wenham wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Chris Wenham wrote:
> > > So tell me what new software for Linux has come out that doesn't copy
> > > another program in one way or another?
> >
> > I've done this before, but allow me to jump in. ThreeDSIA:
> >
> > http://threedsia.sourceforge.net
> >
> >
> > Now, tell me where that one is copied from?
>
> I've never seen this applied to shells before (except maybe in the
> movies :-)
>
> It looks like the first good example so far, even if I'm dubious of
> its practical value (which isn't applicable to this argument anyway,
> I just don't see myself using /that particular program/). Thank you.
No problem. In actuality, I see this as a major accomplishment, and a
huge step forward. At the moment I don't think anyone would use this
new 'shell' as their daily workhorse (because of a lack of useful
apps). But I would say that it is the start of the innovation that you
are asking about. That's why I feel it is applicable to this argument.
You want *innovation*, I say this new shell is the start of it. You
start with the shell, and build programs that effectively use that
shell. Like I said, you asked for what in the Linux world is
innovative, well here's one place the innovation is started. Now, if
your argument is that you want innovative, yet still familiar interfaces
on programs, then we are talking about totally different things. I feel
that things like threedsia are the first step towards a totally new UI
on computers. Hopefully time will prove me right.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:38:26 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:22:09 GMT, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>
>> Most computer science ideas were developed back in the
>> 70's...
>
> What about user interface ideas?
80's.
[deletia]
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:41:10 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:25:37 GMT, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>
>> AbiWord and Gnumeric are both wide open in terms of their
>> components and the latest version of Netscape takes this
>> to the extreme allowing for entites like the gnome team to
>> bolt on a new front end much like one might do for sox or
>> mpg123.
>
> So what we're seing is that there isn't a standard way for a /user/
> to change the interface of a program. A programmer may be able to,
There isn't a 'standard' way of /using/ an application either.
The computer isn't just one tool but a collection of them.
Although, a 'standard hook' system for script languages for GNOME
would be nice assuming it's not in place already.
> and the new user interface would be chosen by the programmer instead
> of the user.
>
> Some programs come with secondary user interfaces (GIMP has a script
> console) but these are chosen by the programmer. For those that don't
> have socendary user interfaces, it would take programming knowledge
> to add one.
It's all 'programming' to some degree in the end, even VBA.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Gnome or KDE
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 19:42:48 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:36:45 -0500, OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pig wrote:
>
>> Hi All:
>>
>> I am a newbie of Linux and using the SUSE linux 6.3.
>> I've tried different GUIs.
>> I think the Gnome and KDE are the best.
>> So, which one is better? Pls. suggest.
>
>Do you know that you can have 2 accounts, 1 running Gnome, and the other
>running KDE? (I run Gnome on 1 account, Motif on another account, KDE
Depending on how Suse is setup, you might have the option of
choosing which enviroment you want to run everytime you log in.
This gave a colleague of mine great relief under Redhat, for he
didn't take to GNOME.
>on a 3rd account, and Afterstep on a 4th account....because I can.) Set
>the accounts up, try both Desktops, and decide which you like.
>
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:41:42 -0600
Spud wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >We also have a Win2K box. Guess which box we run the heavy server
> off, the
> > >server that actually makes us some money? Guess which box we use
> to
> > >maintain >1Gb of web content?
> >
> > Guess which server costs hundreds of dollars more and provides
> thousands
> > of times less reliability than Linux?
>
> Well, since I got my copy of Win2K Server free (and yes, legitimately,
> and no, you can't), it didn't cost me anything; how do you get
> "hundreds of dollars more"?
Wow. I'm in awe of just how much deliberate mis-understanding, false
logic and silliness you can pack into a single sentence. . . . <clap>
<clap> <clap> . . . I applaud you.
> As to "thousands of times less reliably", I have no idea where you get
> that figure. I'm sure you have the actual research data from a
> reputable firm to back that up, but I don't see it included.
MS'es own admission re: Windows 98's service percentages, vs. the
measured service percentages of Linux. The difference isn't quite 100
times, but it is pretty big.
Mind you, NT and Windows 2000 are red herrings in this discussion (as
neither is a home PC OS), but at least you are true to form re: the
standard Windows advocate reponse cycle.
> "Work" is a relative thing. You want something stable enough to
> survive an application crash? It's there; if that's what you wanted,
> why didn't you pick it?
Linux. It survives an application crash.
> Don't whine at me because you're too stupid
> to pick the platform that actually meets your needs.
MS itself denies that NT/W2K are home-PC OS'en. . .
> Excuse? Windows is a crappy games system? Well, perhaps... it simply
> has the widest availability of games. Perhaps "good game system" is
> the one that only has three games, but runs them stably.
Is: "I was playing, and the OS crashed" a good game platform?
> Once again, in order to avoid actually admitting that your own
> comments defeat your own argument, you switch topics. Hardly honest.
Neither is throwing NT/W2K into a conversation re: home PC OS'en . . .
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
