Linux-Advocacy Digest #163, Volume #29 Sun, 17 Sep 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) ("Nigel
Feltham")
Re: Hardware supported list? ("David Dorward")
Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux (Roberto Alsina)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("Chad Myers")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (C Lund)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (C Lund)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (C Lund)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (C Lund)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (OSguy)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (OSguy)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Gary Hallock)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("JS/PL")
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux ("Quantum Leaper")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 23:09:22 +0100
For your information, I am not a programmer.
I work for a software company who produce image storage software
for windows but I am not one of the programming team. I am in the
quality control testing department. I have written a few small utilities
for my own use occasionally in DOS ( using either C or hand assembled
with msdos debug program) but I would not really consider myself to
be a programmer.
I am just a normal user and also hate some of the things users have
to put up with but feel that programmers become too familiar with the system
and don't think of things to help users just because they don't have a need
for
these features. Perhaps someone - maybe yourself - could start a linux
suggestions
newsgroup where users can post things they want added or changed as features
can
only be added when the programmers know that users want those features.
We sometimes get user suggestions for our software and think 'great idea,
wish we had
thought of that' and sometimes it does take not being too familiar with
something to see
what is wrong with it - spend all day working on something from design to
release and you
can easily miss seemingly obvious features because you know your way around
the system
too well.
In the course of performing software testing under all current versions of
windows
I have to reboot 5 to 10 times per day, mostly due to windows falling over
and dying
but also sometimes due to switching versions (I try to minimise this by
using 2 PC's)
or due to our software taking windows down ( obviously when our software is
at fault it
will be fixed long before it gets to release).
As a software tester I do agree that it can be useful to restore the system
to a state it was
at last week (in my case to see if problems were also in last week's build)
and then return to
current state (to carry on testing current build).
The reason I compare linux with windows is that under windows you are stuck
using a system
the way a large corporation wants you to use it, whereas under linux things
like you have
suggested can be added with a lot lower possibility of breaking things -
maybe even the
thread that spawned this email will lead to your suggested features being
incorporated
by someone - the beauty of linux is that you can suggest things like your
orthogonal persistance
and the programmers directly connected with the operating sytem will at
least know it has been
suggested, unlike most, if not all closed source systems.
You are also correct about logging out being the wrong way to close
applications - unfortunately
I don't directly know any other linux users but I have often seen windows
users (and programmers)
logout (or usually reboot) when opening too many things slows the machine
down (I do it myself
under windows too - I do use kill, xkill or a task list program under
linux - pity win95 taskman only
shows apps and not processes and so cannot close some hidden apps). This is
the trouble with
most linux users coming from the poor windows user interface.
One good (at least temporary) solution to the rm problem would be to make
the command run a
script file instead which just moves files to another directory, keeping all
relative paths intact and
only physically removing those files after a set time period - any mistakes
are then rectified by moving
files back to original locations (easy as no paths are lost).
------------------------------
From: "David Dorward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hardware supported list?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:54:42 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, nf
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a list somewhere of what hardware is supported by Linux?
>
> I'm looking to see if my USB Scanner and USB Printer are supported.
>
> Thanks.
http://www.linuxdocs.org/
Look at the HARDWARE-HOWTO
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: "Real Unix" Vs Linux
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 19:12:02 -0300
El dom, 17 sep 2000, Rev. Don Kool escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>Rev. Don Kool had the patience to explain:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> Rev. Don Kool explained:
>> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> >> Rev. Don Kool pointed out:
>> >> >> >Gary Hallock wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
>
>> > [...snip...]
>
>> >> >> That proves Linux has not passed.
>
>> >> > Indeed it does. It also proves that LINUX is not a UNIX system.
>
>> >> No. It would do so if it had been submitted and failed.
>> >> For example, you probably have never had a DNA exam to prove you
>> >> are your father's son. By your logic, you are not your father's son.
>
>> > Without the facts you make the rather large assumption that LINUX
>> >would pass. I prefer to withold judgement until someone has enough
>> >faith in the system to submit it for testing.
>
>> Wrong, and you get a F in logic. I have not said Linux would pass.
>
> Good move on your part as LINUX will obviously will never pass
>certification as a UNIX systems.
Prove it. Or at least give a little evidence. Since it is "obvious", it should
be a piece of cake.
>> You said Linux would not pass. You are the one making judgement
>> without facts, I am the one witholding judgement.
>
> You are the one confusing a kernel with an OS Bob.
Oh, sorry, I meant "Conectiva Linux 5.0" which I have in my desk right
here. Linux for short.
>> >> >> You said Linux can not pass.
>
>> >> > I certainly did state that fact, Bob.
>
>> >> My name is not Bob, if you don't mind. And if you say that's a fact,
>> >> again, you should provide *some* proof.
>
>> > Submit it and watch it fail. You'll have all the proof you want,
>> > Bob.
>
>> That F in logic I gave you is starting to look like a gift!
>>
>> As I said: "you should provide *some* proof". Notice that when I say "you"
>> It means Rev. Don Kool, not Roberto Alsina. I am not saying it would pass,
>> (or not) so I need not prove anything.
>
> You choose to erroneously call a PC kernel a UNIX system. You are
>the one with plenty to prove, my child.
I have made no statements of fact regarding Linux in this thread, so I have
nothing to prove, my logically impaired reverend.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:00:55 -0400
Yannick wrote:
>
> Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:15:31 GMT, Yannick wrote:
> > >> > and also that possibility to advertise optional
> > >> >functionality with on-demand installation ? And the package
> > >transformations,
> > >> >allowing multiple package customizations while reducing HD space ?
> > >>
> > >> I don't know what you mean by the above.
> > >Since I don't know which one you refer to, I'll detail both :
> > >- on-demand installation lets you install some menu options, shortcuts,
> > >etc... referring to elements that are not really installed until you
> invoke
> > >them.
> >
> > I see. IN LInux, you'd acheieve this goal by having multiple packages.
> >
> No. Here the packages are absent in a transparent manner : if you click on
> an
> uninstalled feature, the installation of that feature is automatic (just as
> if
> it had already been installed, only it takes some time the first time).
>
> > >you're the sysadmin. You want to decide what elements are needed for each
> > >category of users, and perform an automatic installation of those
> packages.
> > >For each category of users, you build a transformation of the MSI package
> > >describing the actual setup options. This transformation is not a new
> > >package, it really is the definition of the transformation : when you
> > >install with the transformation, it uses the original MSI package. Thus,
> if
> > >you have ten different categories of users with different needs, you'll
> only
> > >have one big MSI file and ten much smaller files describing the
> > >tranformations.
> >
> > Are you saying you install the software once for each user ? I'm confused.
> Sorry, this comes from the habit of having one user per workstation. In fact
> I suppose you can find relevant cases where this is a sensible thing to do
> on a per-user basis, but nevertheless this is probably possible for a set of
> machines (those machines being used for different purposes and thus
> requiring different software configs).
>
> > >Now you set up everything so that the install starts when your users log
> off
> > >on friday evening and shutdown their machines after completion.
> >
> > If you want to set certain times for installs, you can do this with
> > cron.
> It's not about times. Times are very well if your machines are on all time
> (in which case you can do everything at night, so as not to be annoying to
> people working late or early), but this is a waste of energy. Events, in
> particular "on machine shutdown", is better because you are 95% sure that no
> one bothers the software being installed when the machine should be off
> anyway.
> But this is surely possible in Unix too.\
Sure...just put it in a shutdown script.
But...with unix..the utility of shutting down machines is nil.
>
> Yannick.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
their behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:07:49 GMT
"Loren Petrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8q3c2q$gel$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8q35sb$1kne$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"C Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> And since you and dc *still* haven't managed to provide any specifics,
> >> I'll just assume the difference is just minor stuff, like a new version of
> >> the paperclip, 1000 more options for that already useless "recycling bin",
> >> some new icons, 63,000 new bugs, and so on.
>
> >Win2K is full 32 bit OS, whereas Win98 is still a 16/32 bit hybrid. Win2K
> >has a security model, is multiuser, has full memory protection, a faster
> >multitasking scheme, is scalable to enterprise level, has SMP, no GDI
> >resources limitations, better memory management, etc, etc...
>
> Actually, Win2K is simply WinNT 5 -- same kernel, save overall
> features, the works.
Not the same kernel. Based on the same kernel, much of the same
code, but there have been many enhancements. More features,
more works.
Perhaps you should stick to what you know most about: nothing.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:24:28 +0100
In article <8q35sb$1kne$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Paul 'Z' Ewande©"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And since you and dc *still* haven't managed to provide any specifics,
> > I'll just assume the difference is just minor stuff, like a new version of
> > the paperclip, 1000 more options for that already useless "recycling bin",
> > some new icons, 63,000 new bugs, and so on.
> Some quick pointers of the top of my head:
> Win2K is full 32 bit OS, whereas Win98 is still a 16/32 bit hybrid. Win2K
> has a security model, is multiuser, has full memory protection, a faster
> multitasking scheme, is scalable to enterprise level, has SMP, no GDI
> resources limitations, better memory management, etc, etc...
Finally some information. Why did it take so long to extract this?
> They are not the same beast at all, even if they share the same UI and API.
Sounds like the difference between W2K and W98 are all "beneath the hood".
WHich means the Win GUI still sucks the bowel movements of a flyblown
carcass.
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:25:30 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Irby
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There was a Microsoft Developers Conference a while back, and when they
> asked their developers what major change Microsoft should make in their
> software, the number one answer was "kill off that damned paperclip."
So W2K is W98 minus the paperclip? ;)
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:27:33 +0100
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >And since you and dc *still* haven't managed to provide any specifics,
> >I'll just assume the difference is just minor stuff, like a new version of
> >the paperclip, 1000 more options for that already useless "recycling bin",
> >some new icons, 63,000 new bugs, and so on.
> Your lack of knowledge is apalling.
So is yours. You're using the damned thing and *still* don't know what's
new in W2K. Go read Paul 'Z' Ewande's reply to my post and maybe you'll
learn a thing or two yourself. One might think you didn't know any more
than I do on W2K.
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 00:28:44 +0100
In article <8q2ts5$jbq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "James Stutts"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I mean - you guys haven't managed to tell me about *one* single new thing
> > in W2K.
> Active Directory? Game support combined with SMP? Why don't you look it up
> yourself?
Why should I? I'm never going to use that OS anyway.
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 17 Sep 2000 22:31:26 GMT
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 21:26:06 GMT, Richard wrote:
>Users have legitimate /universal/ grievances against the system.
>The problem is that;
> 1) users aren't able to verbalize their grievances, and
Completely false. What do you think the kde-user mailing list is
for ?
> 2) programmers are used to ignoring, defending and even
> accepting whenever the system /they/ created misbehaves.
I disagree with this. If programmers "ignore" problems, it's more out
of laziness than malice.
>> I like to write programs, primarily for myself, and although I'm
>> English, I don't go in for *that* much self-loathing :-) Seriously,
>> though, if the (esp. free software) programmmers loathed users so much,
>> they wouldn't give the users the programs.
>
>Because this is a side-effect of sharing software among fellow
> programmers?
I doubt it. Most of the software for Linux is not primarily aimed at
programmers.
>Because deep down they hate users and inflicting horrible
> software on them is a good way to express that hatred? (**)
What do you mean by "inflict" ? The user can always choose not to
use their software in the first place. I don't see how voluntarily
making software available is "inflicting" anything.
>A lot fewer than most people believe. Programmers are just used
>to rationalizing their failure to meet all the goals by claiming that
>they are mutually exclusive. They never actually provide proof of
>that claim and they don't go to a lot of effort to try to achieve all
>their goals.
They could go to more effort, sure. The end result is something that
would cost more. Almost all projects impose some kind of time constraint
as one of the requirements. In free software, it's imposed indirectly
by the fact that the programmer has a day job. In commercial software,
it's because more time == more money.
Let's restate this to make it clear -- time constraints are imposed by
the *users*.
And no, I don't think that programmers are substantially lazier than
people in other professions ( in fact they are considerably more hard
working than some of the users ... )
>If you like the status quo then you have a twisted definition of what
>"harder" means. The status quo is not easy for *anyone*. Those who
>don't believe this just haven't been exposed to good alternatives.
Again, "status quo" is often a requirement imposed by users, and not
developers. Users are resistant to change.
On the other hand, "good design" which you are so keen on is great for
programmers who don't have to compromise in design, but the users want
compatibility and familiarity.
>sentiment if I phrased it "no one is too heartbroken when users run
>away screaming into the night?" Maybe it's a little harder to understand
>why programmers /should/ care about the users that run away screaming.
>Possibly because programmers are so used to rejection that they've
>grown insensitive to it, which causes them to write bad software which
>causes users to reject their software, and so on in a vicious cycle.
Nonsense. Programmers obviously want users to use their software- if it's
free, it's an ego boost when users use it. If it's commercial, then it means
more $$$. Pissing off users is not in anyone's interest.
>Exactly! I want there to be no fundamental distinction between users
>and programmers.
I'd argue that there is very little distinction in the Linux world, at
least the gap has been bridged. I have almost no formal training in
programming and have been able to become a half decent programmer in my
own time.
>> Programmers talk the language that is natural to them. They should be
>> permitted to do that, just like you would let a chinaman talk Chinese.
>
>C++ and Unix are not natural. They are artificial constructs. And judging
>by the number of people who find them difficult, burdensome and are
>generally revolted by them, they certainly aren't a good fit for the human
>mind.
C++ and UNIX are both excellent examples of where compatibility was an
important design choice. Obviously, both are burdened somewhat by
compatiblity requirements, but you can not ignore the advantages of
compatiblity.
>the effort of getting out of it. And then they (#) hypocritically
>bash users for not making the effort to join the dark side of the
>force. Programmers complain about "Back in my days ..." and
>make users want to scream "Choke and die old timer."
Programmers do not bash users who ignore or don't use their software. Thew
user has to make themself visible ( usually by flaming or being obnoxious )
before the programmer "bashes" them.
>status quo. Any effort to make a half-assed solution /better/ (eg,
>improving Linux in any way) is anti-social and destructive in the
>extreme (##). Unix's time has come and gone.
Again, compatibility is an issue. You can make the most aesthetically
beautiful system, but the *users* will just not dig it if it's not
compatible with what they are familiar with.
>I guess it's deep seated resentment.
You guess wrongly. Users want compatibility, and programmers meet those
demands at the expense of other things.
> Here I am taking the moral
>and ethical high ground by choosing Smalltalk and working on
>a revolutionary OS and other people work hard at deliberately
>undermining me (or even worse, they *casually* undermine me).
Whatever. How portable are your smalltalk programs ? My C++ programs
are a snap to install.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy,comp.ms.windows-nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:32:06 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> You seem to be confused on what "fully compatible with Win95 and Win98"
> means. It doesn't mean fully compatible with DOS.
Then why is Windows ME using a DOS only install? Why doesn't it just boot up
into its own system, then install itself? The Linux distros do this. Less
surprise for the installer to install this way.
> It means fully
> compatible with Win95 and Win98 applications.
So now you're trying to tell me that my CD being compatible with DOS may not be
compatible with Win98 or WinME? What a crock! Hardware is hardware (AFAIK
there aren't any WinCDs out there.). I don't care if it has legacy code or
not, WinME should have the drivers to run it just like Win98 did. Actually
WinMe, it turns out does have the drivers, but WinME doesn't understand
additional IDE ports. I think it is really strange that WinME Install disk
does have the drivers to understand a 3rd ide port (It says something is wrong
if the underlying DOS system -- which MS is trying to hide -- has drivers that
aren't implemented for the WinME System). Linux has no trouble with 3 or 4 ide
ports, but I'm sure you'll now tell me that Linux is still behind in the
Hardware support.
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.ms.windows.advocacy,comp.ms.windows-nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:33:41 -0500
PoD wrote:
> I just had to laugh when I booted my computer off a W98 CD and then it
> couldn't find the CD drive it just booted from.
You know what I'm talking about then. :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 17 Sep 2000 22:34:44 GMT
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:14:04 GMT, Richard wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>Except that this is a *horrible* kludge. Trash is a failure of #1, it makes
Whatever. Good luck with your new OS, and good luck getting anyone to use
it -- this will be difficult unless you have some compatibility or unless
you are prepared to write all the applications yourself.
I'm not trying to bash you -- a well designed OS is a perfectly good thing
to want to have, but the good design you speak of will come at the expense
of applications that currently exist, and this makes life a tad difficult.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:41:46 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Richard wrote:
> Because this is a side-effect of sharing software among fellow
> programmers?
> Because this is a way of promoting the education of new
> programmers? (*)
> Because they got it into their head that this is what they're
> Supposed To Do but they still don't understand why?
> Because deep down they hate users and inflicting horrible
> software on them is a good way to express that hatred? (**)
Gee, do some programmer beat you as a child? Where does all this hatred for
programmers come from?
Gary
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 18:44:35 -0400
"Loren Petrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8q3c2q$gel$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8q35sb$1kne$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"C Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message
news:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> And since you and dc *still* haven't managed to provide any specifics,
> >> I'll just assume the difference is just minor stuff, like a new version
of
> >> the paperclip, 1000 more options for that already useless "recycling
bin",
> >> some new icons, 63,000 new bugs, and so on.
>
> >Win2K is full 32 bit OS, whereas Win98 is still a 16/32 bit hybrid. Win2K
> >has a security model, is multiuser, has full memory protection, a faster
> >multitasking scheme, is scalable to enterprise level, has SMP, no GDI
> >resources limitations, better memory management, etc, etc...
>
> Actually, Win2K is simply WinNT 5 -- same kernel, save overall
> features, the works.
Not only isn't it the same kernel, but the overall features have been
enhanced with some new features added. But before you can debate the new
features you have to specify which version of Win2k your talking about. You
have Pro, Server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server to choose from.
The differnce isn't just "minor stuff" as that "imaginative" Mac Advocate
puts it.
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:52:59 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 18:40:25 GMT, Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:8pua6q$hp6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> > : On 15 Sep 2000 03:16:33 GMT, Steve Mading
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > :>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> > :>: On 5 Sep 2000 22:17:14 GMT, Steve Mading
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > :>:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> > :>:>
> >> > :>:>: Person 7 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > :>:>: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > :>:>:> On Fri, 26 May 2000 03:16:59 GMT, in
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,
> >> > :>:>:> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine))
> [deletia]
> >> > : I shudder to think what you would have done in the 1200 bps era.
> >> >
> >> > The 1200 bps era? I certainly wasn't sitting around thinking, "gee,
> >> > I sure wish I could download a Linux distro - too bad it's only 1990
> >> > and it doesn't exist yet."
> >>
> >> But if the Mandrake distro (1gb) HAD existed.... it would have taken
about
> >> 100 days of solid downloading to get.
> >> I guess thats still faster than transcribing it from a printout.
> >>
> >
> >The problem is in 1990, I sure there were 2400 bps, and I thought 9600
bps
> >modems had been out already. Either way it still way too much for a
> >regular modem to handle even today, unless you a few days to spare.
> >
> >
>
> You twits really don't have any clue do you. What makes you think
> that just because someone has a DS3 that any particular large download
> will necessarily buzz by at 160MegaBYTES a second. The real internet
> doesn't necessarily work that way.
>
The only twit I see is you, how long does it take to download a CD on a
56K? I started out with a 300 baud modem in 1985. I have had just about
every speed inbetween, except a 56K modem. I did have a 56K modem but my
house phone lines had to much noise. So don't tell me how long a download
take with modem, I know, DAYS.
> Ironically enough, right now I am downloading the two CD's of the
> latest Mandrake beta at serial modem speeds. There's nothing "tedious"
> about it. I just put the damn download in the background.
>
I guess if you don't want the rest of the internet slow to a crawl, then it
not tedious. I have downloaded 'CD' size amout of data in one sitting it
took me a couple days at 28.8K.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
