Linux-Advocacy Digest #400, Volume #29 Mon, 2 Oct 00 14:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: The real issue (Kolbjørn S. Brønnick)
Re: The real issue
Slackware (Coconut Ming)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Re: Why I hate Windows...
Re: Why I hate Windows...
Re: Why I hate Windows...
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
RE: Can Win9x and NT be considered in the same family? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Re: Win2K
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: The real issue
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kolbjørn S. Brønnick)
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:01:16 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 11:30:02 GMT, Kolbjørn S. Brønnick
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Hi all!
>>
>>I just wanted to say that I am a bit fed up with some of the advocacy
>>for Linux that I have seen here. People who say that Netscape haven't
>>crashed at all, people who claim Linux is a good desktop OS, compared
>>to W2K.
>>
>>These are not the important issues. It's obvious to me that Windows has
>>the best desktop environment, the best applications and so-on.
>
> Bullshit. It's not obvious at all.
>
> There are other systems much more deserving of the "best desktop
> enviroment" title.
Perhaps, but probably not anything based on Linux.
>
> You've just been brainwashed by decades of MS marketing and the
> MS lemming FUD brigade.
I don't think so. I'm not pro Microsoft at all.
--
Kolbjørn S. Brønnick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The real issue
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:18:27 -0000
On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 15:13:33 +0200, Bartek Kostrzewa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Kolbjørn S. Brønnick" wrote:
>>
>> Hi all!
>>
>> I just wanted to say that I am a bit fed up with some of the advocacy for
>> Linux that I have seen here. People who say that Netscape haven't crashed
>> at all, people who claim Linux is a good desktop OS, compared to W2K.
>
>People who say that Netscape doesn't crash are idiots. But Linux as a
Very few people actually claim that. However, the instability of
Netscape is vastly overstated. Compared to the usual competition,
it's not so bad.
Also, it's not as if those of us that stick up for netscape or the
Linux desktops don't have daily experience with the various
competitors.
>Desktop OS is a great thing, with Helixcode doing the EASIEST way to
>upgrade, maintain and patch your (btw, great looking) desktop, this part
>of Linux is already far superior to Windows. Then again, I miss a lot of
>games and apps, that's true.
>
>>
>> These are not the important issues. It's obvious to me that Windows has the
>> best desktop environment, the best applications and so-on.
>
>The first, no.
>The second, partly. There are better apps for Linux in some cases, and
>there are better apps for Windows in other cases, but this will soon
Then there is the whole issue of just who fits in what case.
[deletia]
Plus, you have the whole problem of users that aren't really
suited by a PC of any kind and are actually quite victimized
by the dominance of WinDOS and the PC itself.
--
Weiler's Law:
Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself.
"Elves and Dragons!" I says to him. "Cabbages and potatoes are better
for you and me."
-- J. R. R. Tolkien
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 01:44:37 +0800
From: Coconut Ming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Slackware
hhee
stupid question
anyway
Who can define slackware in proper form for me?
thanks....
from
kok ming
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:21:36 -0000
On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 00:56:20 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Today, we live in a world where Windows occupied around 1.2 billion
>> computers world wide.
>> Linux occupies only 200 million or so computers world wide.
>
>200 million? That's a stretch. Where do you get your numbers from?
>
>> Yet, despite these figures there have been a number of Wintroll idiots
>> constantly jabbing
>> away at Linux advocates as if they were trying to save their lives.
>> I ask the question, once again, WHY BOTHER!
>
>I can't speak for anyone else, but, if for nothing else, to put you
>guys in your place. Most of you (Penguinistas) are militant, ready to
>lie and to decieve and go on the attack. You constantly spread lies
>and half truths to further your cause. You constantly insult Windows
By your own admission, all of this is irrelevant.
[deletia]
Besides, it's not like it exactly costs people anything to
find out the truth on their own. In the worst case, people
will find out things by themselves (should they buy into
this anti-MS FUD you are alluding to). If, however, OTOH
they buy into the FUD spread by the likes of you they
continue to narrow their experiences and miss possible
opportunties to find something more suitable to them.
--
Someday we'll look back on this moment and plow into a parked car.
-- Evan Davis
The difference between this place and yogurt is that yogurt has a live culture.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:23:37 -0000
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 11:13:58 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Chris Sherlock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>> James Stutts wrote:
>> >
>> > "D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [snip]
>>
>> > > And the DOS (renamed "Win9x" then renamed "WinME") line is less
>> > > commercial than the NT line?
>> >
>> > Sure it is. It costs quite a bit less than NT. You do get what you pay
>> > for.
>>
>> I pay hardly anything for Linux and I have an *extremely* stable O/S! I
>> guess that *I* got what I paid for.
>
>I used to think that way too until I realized that 'time really is money'.
>At my age, 31, time goes by way to fast, and I don't want to muck around
>with an OS for hours to try to get it do a simple task. Windows 2000 solves
>this for me.
>
>Paying $300 for an OS is nothing to me if it saves me time and frustration.
That's precisely how I view Linux (relative to WinDOS or NT).
Except I didn't have to pay $300 for it.
[deletia]
--
I request a weekend in Havana with Phil Silvers!
Why you say you no bunny rabbit when you have little powder-puff tail?
-- The Tasmanian Devil
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:25:32 -0000
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 10:57:49 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8qj4rv$ric$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James Stutts wrote:
>> >
>> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> Spoken like a true astroturfer, not a user. Because win98se is so
>> >unstable,
>> >> it is necessary to save files every minute or two (particularly for
>those
>> >
>> >Actually, the better approach is to not use a home operating system
>(Win98)
>> >in
>> >a corporate environment. NT was designed for this. While not perfect,
>it
>> >is
>> >far more stable than Win98.
>> >
>>
>> Very true. We've now got a web front-end for the exchange server so that
>> I don't have to use Outlook any more.
>
>Ugh... I hate web front ends to email... such as hotmail. Makes everything
>so difficult to use and slow.
>
>Outlook 2000 is an awesome mail client... hell, I even like the new
>assistants (the kitty cat comes to mind). I know it sounds trivial, but I
>actually am growing attached to it. :)
>
>Anyway, I guess if using Linux is more important that having a decent email
>package...
...which is not how I would characterize Outlook.
Outlook actually gave me a new found appreciation for ccmail.
[deletia]
Nevermind there was no actual specification of what "decent" is
and why none of the Linux mail clients achieve this definition.
--
Whistler's Law:
You never know who is right, but you always know who is in charge.
It is Fortune, not Wisdom, that rules man's life.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:30:00 -0000
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 11:05:48 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Selbach Teixeira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>>>> "James" == James Stutts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> James> Sure it is. It costs quite a bit less than NT. You do get
>> James> what you pay for.
>>
>>
>> Oh, my god! Do you, really? I think Win98 is *way* too expensive for
>> what it offers, which is basically nothing.
>
>One of the most expensive parts of 98 is that it needs to run on a myriad of
>hardware systems... and install flawlessly with plug and play ability.
Except, in some circumstances, the cheap Linux does that better.
Besides, it's not Microsoft that ensures that 3rd party hardware
does this. So it's not Microsoft that's paying for this really.
So, this aspect of Win98 should have no effect whatsoever on the
development costs of Win98.
>
>If you didn't have to worry about this (the hardware was known), then the
>price would be far lower.
>
>Linux is a good example of this. The base OS may be OK, but it has lousy
>hardware support, horrible installation and setup, it is non-intuitive in
>almost every step of the installation process, and very user-unfriendly.
Bullshit.
It's been quite robust for awhile. Add in those quarterly driver
updates and it becomes EASIER to deal with than a WinDOS install.
Although, given Microsoft's original consent decree from the DOJ,
such metrics are red herring anyways.
>Now I'm not saying that Linux sucks, but merely that it is very hard to get
>it set up and working. 98 is vastly superior in this regard.
Howso exactly?
>
>So, you may not think that is anything special, but it costs a hell of a lot
>of money in development costs and coordination to make sure 98 is flawless
>in this regard. It is perhaps more important to MS than stability -- if the
>common consumer can't install it, then stability means nothing at all.
>
>> Think about it, what do
>> you do with a computer with only windows on it?
>
>1) Do my development work on the best dev. tools available (InterDev and
>Visual)
>2) Do my office work on the best productivity platform (Office 2000)
Why, EXACTLY, is it the best?
>3) Play the best games available (MS Allegiance, Diablo 2, AOK, StarLancer,
>and soon Tribes2 !! -- yah)
This is purely subjective.
>4) Surf the internet with the best browser out their (IE 5.5)
That is quite disputable.
[deletia]
You provide lots of empty rhetoric but no real information.
--
"If Diet Coke did not exist it would have been neccessary to invent it."
-- Karl Lehenbauer
Learning at some schools is like drinking from a firehose.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:35:54 -0000
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 22:02:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There is a lot of hype about Linux. I use it to learn a bit about Unix
>at home. But as a desktop, Win2k is really years ahead and has
>numerous high quality apps. It is also very stable.
>
>I would really like to know why anyone would prefer Linux as a
>desktop? Reasons such as "Win2k is made by the Evil Empire are not
>really valid".
Explorer is somewhat akin to the original version of DOS that
came without subdirectory support. It is haphazard and poorly
organized tending to allow the user to drown themselves in
clutter. Also, the lack of real user home directories in WinDOS
further complicate this by making the shell's desktop the closest
approximation to such a repository. Also, the lack of a gaurantee
that every application will have a separate window management
thread make it far too easy for poorly coded Win32 apps to clutter
what screen real estate is available.
>
>Linux is a promising product, and I suppose it needs its supporters.
>But for the rest of us, we just want to be productive.
That's Funny, that's exactly why I dumped Microsoft.
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
--
"An organization dries up if you don't challenge it with growth."
-- Mark Shepherd, former President and CEO of Texas Instruments
Having children is like having a bowling alley installed in your brain.
-- Martin Mull
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Can Win9x and NT be considered in the same family?
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:30:39 GMT
In article <bJKB5.269$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Raul Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just because 2 things share code doesn't mean they belong in the
same
> > family. I doubt that any of the shared code is anywhere near the
> > kernel. It's all UI stuff. Why should MS rewrite their own GUI for
> > another OS when they can easily port it?
>
> Not so easily when Windows 98 first edition was going to be the
> last Windows 9x; I wonder how many dirty tricks there are in both
> NT and 9x family to be each other compatible ... and dirty tricks
> usually generate stability problems.
>
>
True, however I'd probably point fault at some other things first like
GUI in the kernel, poor drivers, poor memory-protection(9x only) and
lack of true multi-user features(9x only)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:44:04 -0000
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 11:30:41 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:EXtB5.4994$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
>news:8r5nt1$g2e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > There is a lot of hype about Linux. I use it to learn a bit about Unix
>> > at home. But as a desktop, Win2k is really years ahead and has
>> > numerous high quality apps. It is also very stable.
>> >
>> > I would really like to know why anyone would prefer Linux as a
>> > desktop? Reasons such as "Win2k is made by the Evil Empire are not
>> > really valid".
>>
>> 1.win2k is a god damn memory hog, my win2k takes 56 MB just at clean
>bootup,
>> thats a fucking scandal!
>> (my linux install takes 35 MB, SuSE Linux 6.4 gnome OR kde)
>
>This is a common argument by Linux users.
>
>Two points I'd like to make:
>
>1) On initial setup, Windows 2000 enables many of the 'services' that you
>don't really need (especially at home). Disabling these services can free
>up lots of memory. I have a 46MB footprint on Windows 2000 AS ! That's
>right, it's all in the services.
Much like a Unix installation, this is nice and all but who
else but the terminal geeks are going to know to disable
those things and even know how to disable those things?
>
>2) Memory is cheap. In two years, it will be a ton cheaper for more
>memory. Why does the footprint really matter? A HP Calculator has a low
If you don't use some restraint, eventually it won't matter
how cheap RAM is. Besides, those RAM prices flucuate quite a
bit. They might actually go UP again.
>memory footprint... do you want to use that instead of Linux?
Your comparing a hand calculator to a time tested real OS
that had a GUI before your LemmingOS did is just bad rhetoric.
>
>As long as the OS does what you need it to, then memory is irrelevant as
>long as it doesn't exceed your cost constraints.
Well, that's the kicker isn't it. RAM isn't always cheap and
people have varying ideas of what constitutes expensive. Some
people might want their entire computer to cost what 256M of
RAM costs these days.
My first 32bit computer with a graphical OS (when MS was still
pushing only DOS) cost me as much as 256M of quality PC133 SDRAM
will set you back these days.
>
>I have a standard 256MB of memory in all of my machines simply because it
>was so cheap.
>
>Do I really care whether I am at 35MB or a 46MB footprint? Nope.
>
>> 2.linux is even more stable than win2k (no bsod, as i do have had with
>> win2k, 3 times ;))
>
>Hmmm... I have to disagree. I have never had Windows 2000 crash on me
>except due to a hardware configuration problem. (I didn't seat my memory
>properly). However, we all know that hardware problems like that do not
>discriminate about what OS is running on that hardware.
>
>My E-Vectra has been running 2000 since the day I got it, and I've never had
>a OS system crash, ever. I don't know how Linux can be more stable than
>that.
>
>Try running Netscape on RedHat 6.2 and see how stable Linux is then.
Linux is fine under this configuration. Linux has never been
compromised by Netscape being buggy. You lie and recycle bad
3rd party FUD to imply otherwise.
>Sometimes, a crash will bring down all of Linux and you get the famous
>segment dumps.
Bullshit.
You're just recycling some other Lemmings bad information.
[deletia]
>> > Linux is a promising product, and I suppose it needs its supporters.
>> > But for the rest of us, we just want to be productive.
>>
>> productive on linux?
>> well oracle, mysql for databases staroffice or wordperfect 2000 for office
>> work
>
>Try MS SQL server + Office 2000 + ASP + DCOM + blah and more blah
These are superiour how exactly?
>
>> netscape, opera for internet browsing,
>
>IE is better than both, and you can get netscape and opera on Win32 which
>have better versions anyway
How exactly?
>
>> gimp for advanced image editing...
>
>gimp? sheesh... even paint shop pro is better than Gimp, and then there is
How exactly?
>adobe photoshop for serious work. Not to say that Gimp sucks, but it isn't
>as good as PSP or Photoshop.
>
>> and more ...and more
>> (this is just whats come out of my head right now, im sure that there is a
>> lots of folks around to
>> tell you even more about that part)
>
>Face it. Linux apps. are inferior to their Windows counterparts in *most*
>cases. Yes, there are exceptions, but not usually.
All we have to face is a sad pathetic Lemming who doesn't want
to look foolish for possibly having made a bad choice who can't
back up what he states.
[deletia]
--
It has long been known that one horse can run faster than another --
but which one? Differences are crucial.
-- Lazarus Long
Q: What do you call the scratches that you get when a female
sheep bites you?
A: Ewe nicks.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:46:32 -0000
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 21:01:33 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Grega Bremec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> ...and Todd used the keyboard:
[deletia]
>>
>> One word. Regexp. Or how about "scripting the system without having
>> one's files vanish out of pure love"?
>
>Huh? Windows 2000 has scripting host built-in which allows you to use *any*
>COM language as the *native* script. You can call functions built in one
>language from another. You can group scripts together using XML as jobs and
>assign processor priority and usage to these jobs.
>
>This is far more robust than anything *any* UNIX dist. offers for that
>matter.
Then give us some good examples.
[deletia]
Unix scripting has been doing real work, where robustness
matters, for longer than any version of Windows has been
in existence, nevermind the infant that is NT5.
--
Would you people stop playing these stupid games?!?!?!!!!
Don't tell me that worry doesn't do any good. I know better. The things
I worry about don't happen.
-- Watchman Examiner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:51:03 -0000
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 17:21:20 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Mike Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Todd wrote:
>>
>> > My E-Vectra has been running 2000 since the day I got it, and I've never
>had
>> > a OS system crash, ever. I don't know how Linux can be more stable than
>> > that.
>>
>> Well linux never crashes for me unless I specifically do something stupid
>> (like build a custom kernel for some reason, like a new driver patch, and
>> forget a driver for the SCSI card my boot disk is connected to). 2k on
>the
>> other hand has BSOD'd and had issues for me on all of my boxes... the same
>> boxes that linux runs perfectly on.
>>
>> > Try running Netscape on RedHat 6.2 and see how stable Linux is then.
>> > Sometimes, a crash will bring down all of Linux and you get the famous
>> > segment dumps.
>>
>> I've never, _ever_ had a linux box panic due to netscape. In fact,
>netscape
>> has been more stable for me under linux and solaris than even IE is on NT
>> and/or 2k.
>
>Hmmm... maybe RedHat Linux isn't as good as the distribution you are using.
>What are you using?
Redhat 6.2.
I've been using Redhat since 4.1 and have never had Netscape
bring the whole system down on me. Slackware prior to that
also never suffered from mere applications bringing the entire
OS down.
>
>> > Try MS SQL server + Office 2000 + ASP + DCOM + blah and more blah
>>
>> Ka-Ching! Try adding a shitload to the cost of the system.
>
>I wasn't talking about the cost of the system. Even so, Windows 2000 with
>the above software allows me to be so productive that software costs are
>irrelevant compared to the cost of developing a solution. I'll gladly pay
Still in school, eh?
>thousands of dollars if I can save a quarter of a million in system
>development costs.
[deletia]
...except those of us with actual software development anecodotes
seem to end up favoring Unix in this regard rather than Win32.
Besides, nothing you've brought up in that chain addresses the
software development costs.
--
"...Unix, MS-DOS, and Windows NT (also known as the Good, the Bad, and
the Ugly)."
(By Matt Welsh)
[Washington, D.C.] is the home of... taste for the people -- the big,
the bland and the banal.
-- Ada Louise Huxtable
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:52:55 -0000
On 1 Oct 2000 03:52:49 -0700, nospam@nospam <nospam@nospam> wrote:
>In article <8r708s$n8o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Todd" says...
>
>>
>>> > Try MS SQL server + Office 2000 + ASP + DCOM + blah and more blah
>
>>>
>>> Ka-Ching! Try adding a shitload to the cost of the system.
>
>> I'll gladly pay
>>thousands of dollars if I can save a quarter of a million in system
>>development costs.
>
>sure. Who wouldn't.
>
>but you are assuming, somehow, that SQL server+office 2000+ASP+DCOM
>will save you millions of dollars?
Besides, those of us that actually have done this sort of thing
would be less worried about the development costs and more
worried about the cost of maintaining this solution in production.
>
>how did you arrive to this?
>
>is this why apache has 65% of the web server market? is this why
>Java is dominant in the server side application development?
>
>Are all those people somehow do not want to save millions of
>dollars but you do?
>
>for office, you can use star office on unix. it is free and has
>everything your windows office has. (I use latex myself since
>I do not like binary based documents, but that is just me).
>
>as a matter of fact, all the technologies that MS has to offer,
>there are better, more open, better supported and cheaper
>alternatives. So the only reason one will pick an MS solution,
>is that becuase they do not know any better.
>
--
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single
man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what
is the root of money?
-- Ayn Rand
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:55:20 -0000
On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 20:44:33 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8r7aok$gu9ga$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >I wasn't talking about the cost of the system. Even so, Windows 2000
>with
>> >the above software allows me to be so productive that software costs are
>> >irrelevant compared to the cost of developing a solution. I'll gladly
>pay
>> >thousands of dollars if I can save a quarter of a million in system
>> >development costs.
>> >
>>
>>
>> How many home users or small businesses can afford to spend those
>thousands
>> on a system which does the same as applications supplied with a system
>> costing
>> under $50
>
>Sorry, but the above applications are way beyond what is supplied with or
>available for Linux. I've used Linux extensively on my own and also HP-UX
You're still just blowing hot air.
You should get a job as an HVAC system.
>11x and Solaris.
>
>The MS products are some of the best development tools I have ever seen on
>any system (even including multi-million dollar mini-systems).
>
>Linux doesn't even come close to offering the kind of RAD tools and
>development tools that is available for Windows 2000.
Except you've yet to actually mention any RAD tools.
Besides, Linux has some RAD tools of it's own available.
Although, if you are fixated on MS product I could see
how you could miss them since you would even miss the
Win32 versions of such alternatives.
[deletia]
--
Practice is the best of all instructors.
-- Publilius
A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the
seed from which other committees will bloom.
-- Parkinson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:59:16 -0000
On 2 Oct 2000 07:02:45 GMT, David M. Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 22:02:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>There is a lot of hype about Linux. I use it to learn a bit about Unix
>>at home.
>
...no more so than the hype associated with WinDOS, actually...
>That's great, but there are a lot of folks who use it to run the
>infrastructure of their business, or for development, or heavy duty number
>crunching, or embedded systems. And some of use like to run it at home.
>Because you don't have a compelling reason to use it doesn't other people
>don't.
So something ELSE gets some limelight for a change.
What a tragedy...
--
Fortune and love befriend the bold.
-- Ovid
Do not underestimate the value of print statements for debugging.
Don't have aesthetic convulsions when using them, either.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Win2K
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 18:02:39 -0000
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:33:54 +0100, Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"J.Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:OL1C5.7214$tL4.159941@zonnet-reader-1...
>>
>> >
>> > Strange, the Matrox web page lists non-beta 5.03.025 drivers for the
>> > Millenium G400 and G400 MAX.
>> >
>>
>> Oh, you mean those drivers that dont have any functionality in yet? Like
>no
>> dualscreen, almost no hardware acceleration, and no OpenGL support, you
>mean
>> THOSE stable drivers? Might as well run the standard VGA driver then. But
>> the drivers that use all the 'good stuff' of the Matrox, are still in
>beta.
>
>So take it up with Matrox. If they're not providing you with quality
>drivers, vote with your wallet and chose an OEM who does.
Still, despite that shifting of blame: the fact remains that the
whole point bothering to put up with Microsoft is the ability to
"run everything". Don't get that as a part of your deal with the
devil and you've ended up getting the shaft.
If it doesn't "run everything", then why bother with it? One might
as well defect to MacOS 10 (or some other suitably well supported
Unix variant).
--
Don't be humble ... you're not that great.
-- Golda Meir
My Aunt MAUREEN was a military advisor to IKE & TINA TURNER!!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
