Linux-Advocacy Digest #525, Volume #29 Sun, 8 Oct 00 18:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? (Gardiner Family)
Re: To all you WinTrolls (T. Max Devlin)
Hotmail been down most of the day ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? (Gardiner Family)
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? (Gardiner Family)
Re: Hotmail been down most of the day (JoeX1029)
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? (Gardiner Family)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
("MacArthur")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (John Lockwood)
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? (Gardiner Family)
Re: Win2K (Gardiner Family)
Re: Win2K (Gardiner Family)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Matt Kennel)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Matt Kennel)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Mike")
You Linux folks Just Don't Get It.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 09:56:17 +1300
calm down claire, maybe I was a little rude in my response. However, the thing
I keep hearing is, "Windows is not stable", my response, "change OS's", there
response "why should I?", with the attitude, "Why should I?", windows will never
improve until customers start telling Microsoft with their purchasing power that
they want improved stability, un-bloated software and reliabilty.
Matt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 11:04:54 +1300, Gardiner Family
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> Professional level Digital Audio recording and restoration done under
> >> Win98se which despite all it's technical on paper design flaws (most
> >> of which are real), has been absolutley flawless for me. Each version
> >> has improved the stability and features, at least for what I use.
> >
> >you can do this on an old atari, amiga, mac any plaform, why windows?
>
> An Atari/Amiga can stream 48 tracks of digital audio at 44.1k?
>
> As for Mac, I should have bought one years ago, but I didn't.
>
> Why Windows?
>
> Applications that's why...
>
> >>
> >>
> >> I would use Win2k or better still Linux (I could save a fortune using
> >> Open Source) but the programs are not there for Linux, and the Win
> >> NT/2k programs are actually not as good as their Win98 versions.
> >>
> >
> >What a load of rot, there is tonnes of applications such as StarOffice,
> >Netscape, the 1,000s of GNU applications being/have developed, and games
> >for Linux, Simcity 3000, Quake, Doom and other verious titles. I think that
> >the old wives tale that there is not enough apps or games for linux has run
> >its course!
>
> Did I mention any of the above?
>
> The original person asked what I use MY desktop for. I told him what I
> use MY desktop for. I made no mention of the applications YOU did. I
> was speaking of lack of applications for what "I" do.
>
> Learn to read before you rant.....
>
> >Matt
> >
> >
> >>
> >> claire
> >>
> >> On 06 Oct 2000 10:19:44 -0700, Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Okay, here's an opportunity for some real advocacy. The debates about
> >> >how Linux or NT/W2K provide a better desktop than the other are
> >> >neverending in COLA (I don't read COMNA, so I can't comment there). I
> >> >want to hear what you all use your desktop OS of choice for and why it
> >> >is a better solution for you than the alternatives. I'll start...
> >> >
> >> >I do IC CAD design on Solaris at Motorola. Linux provides me with a
> >> >free OS and networking tools to allow me to work from home on a cheap
> >> >Pentium II. I have a real X-Windows implementation in XFree86 instead
> >> >of a slow emulator like Exceed on NT, and I have all the tools at my
> >> >disposal to allow me to run and monitor jobs remotely just as I would
> >> >if I was in front of my terminal at work. All these tools were
> >> >available to me for the cost of the bandwidth used to download my
> >> >distro of choice, which is actually nothing since my employer pays
> >> >for my cable modem. No Microsoft OS of any variety offers me anything
> >> >of similar functionality in terms of ease of use or cost.
> >> >
> >> >Not that I don't use Windows at all; I have a dual-boot Win98 box. I
> >> >actually do most of my browsing under Windows. Linux, OTOH, is what I
> >> >use for real work, not play.
> >> >
> >> >Now it's your turn. What do you use your desktop for, and why does
> >> >you OS do the job better than the alternatives?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 17:03:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said MH in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> Try troubleshooting PCMCIA modem/NIC settings on NT. Christ; I've
>> wasted hours trying to make sense of the six different sets of
>> configurations, none of which relate to each other.... You have to
>> reboot to *remove* a NIC card! And then to re-install it, of course,
>> and then again after the port configuration.... Hours I've spent, in
>> the last week, waiting for the goddamn thing to reboot!
>- 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
>Then you don't know what you're doing, do you?
No, I know what I'm doing as well as any Microsoft expert I've ever met.
I know a great deal more than the vast majority of them, and can
generally troubleshoot most problems much more quickly than anyone else
I've worked with. But there's not a lot you can do with such a crappy
system.
>Look people, it's simple, really. Research your hardware choices. It's very
>simple to find hardware that has been tested by folks who do it for a
>living. [...]
Yea, that's good advice. Buy your hardware to suit the software. After
all, we know how much harder it is to change the software after you've
already invested in buying a computer.
Look people, its simple, really. Microsoft lies a lot, and gets other
people to lie, through ignorance if nothing else (but generally simply
to maintain their market) in order to maintain outrageously high
software prices, using their control of a copyrighted product wrapped in
a trade secret license which uses churn in order to prevent competition
on the public API they supposedly (dishonestly) produced. They're a
criminal organization, and you cannot under-estimate the amount of
damage they've done to the computer industry, in dollars and lack of
innovation.
Research your software choices. Its not all that hard to find a vendor
that doesn't premise their business on lock-in, but supports
interoperability in order to increase their market opportunity, and
expects to provide value for service to maintain their profits, rather
than extortion.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Hotmail been down most of the day
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 21:07:02 GMT
I just thought I would pass that along.....
claire
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 10:15:46 +1300
Chad, calm down, take a deep breath.
Although there are lots of different text editors, cd burners and such, Linux
caters for my needs quite well. Although StarOffice is not the greatest suite
ever designed, there is also Wordperfect Suite 2000 and other Suites are on there
way. Right now, Linux is not fully catering for everypersons needs due to the
linux-phobea many companys have. Also, there are many technical limitations, such
as the appauling quality of how fonts are displayed via X-Server. Here is what
needs to happen b4 joe bloggs adopts Linux:
1. Highly Intergrated Graphic User Interface, not based on X-Server.
2. Greater Hardware Support by Hardware venders.
3. More home/family/education orientated applications written for it.
4. Consolidation of GNU Applications, there are 4 CD-Burning applications for
Linux, combine the four into one, powerfull application.
5. Marketing needs to be improved. Advertise via web, tv, and
magazines/newspapers
Matt
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Professional level Digital Audio recording and restoration done under
> > > Win98se which despite all it's technical on paper design flaws (most
> > > of which are real), has been absolutley flawless for me. Each version
> > > has improved the stability and features, at least for what I use.
> >
> > you can do this on an old atari, amiga, mac any plaform, why windows?
>
> Because he'd rather use his computer for other things as well, rather than
> buying an aformentioned computer for that sole purpose. The computers you
> mentioned would have little or no value except for DA recording to this
> person.
>
> > > I would use Win2k or better still Linux (I could save a fortune using
> > > Open Source) but the programs are not there for Linux, and the Win
> > > NT/2k programs are actually not as good as their Win98 versions.
> > >
> >
> > What a load of rot, there is tonnes of applications such as
> > StarOffice,
>
> Trash. Most everyone admits this is a horrible attempt to copy MS Office.
>
> > Netscape,
>
> Also trash. Even the most dihard MS hater will still tell you that
> Netscape is a flaming pile of dung.
>
> > the 1,000s of GNU applications being/have developed,
>
> Like 3,652 compilers, 9,522 text editors, 4,517 shells and many
> other duplicated applications which don't really amount to much.
>
> Unless you're developing C programs for Unix or Linux itself, there
> is very little, if any productivity from Linux as a desktop.
>
> > and games
> > for Linux, Simcity 3000, Quake, Doom and other verious titles.
>
> Quake and Doom! Great! If I want 3+ year old games, I'll go get a
> Super Nintendo for a couple bucks off Ebay.
>
> > I think that > the old wives tale that there is not enough apps or games for
> > linux has run its course!
>
> There are many apps, just none of them worth while. There is no
> "killer app" on Linux.
>
> -Chad
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 10:21:13 +1300
Pete, do you own every game? would you want to own every game?
The games I play are Simcity 3000 and Civilisation. These are the only two
games I have as I am only interest in these two, so, yes, for me Linux does
meet by gaming craves.
matt
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What a load of rot, there is tonnes of applications such as
> StarOffice,
> > Netscape, the 1,000s of GNU applications being/have developed, and
> games
> > for Linux, Simcity 3000, Quake, Doom and other verious titles. I think
> that
> > the old wives tale that there is not enough apps or games for linux
> has run
> > its course!
>
> Can you get every game for Windows on Linux? No you can't.
>
> It's not an old wives tale, its the truth!
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
> Coming soon: Kylix!
> (I do not need the destruction of Microsoft to succeed).
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Date: 08 Oct 2000 21:21:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Hotmail been down most of the day
O come now, dont be too suprised. After all, it DOES run Win2K.
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 10:24:00 +1300
Also, it depends what you consider a killer app. For me, a killer app would be
the special 3d modelling program used on extremely high end SGI workstations.
However, a killer app for you may be a Office Suite, depending on what you use you
computer for, a deffinition of a killer app may be different for each user.
matt
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Professional level Digital Audio recording and restoration done under
> > > Win98se which despite all it's technical on paper design flaws (most
> > > of which are real), has been absolutley flawless for me. Each version
> > > has improved the stability and features, at least for what I use.
> >
> > you can do this on an old atari, amiga, mac any plaform, why windows?
>
> Because he'd rather use his computer for other things as well, rather than
> buying an aformentioned computer for that sole purpose. The computers you
> mentioned would have little or no value except for DA recording to this
> person.
>
> > > I would use Win2k or better still Linux (I could save a fortune using
> > > Open Source) but the programs are not there for Linux, and the Win
> > > NT/2k programs are actually not as good as their Win98 versions.
> > >
> >
> > What a load of rot, there is tonnes of applications such as
> > StarOffice,
>
> Trash. Most everyone admits this is a horrible attempt to copy MS Office.
>
> > Netscape,
>
> Also trash. Even the most dihard MS hater will still tell you that
> Netscape is a flaming pile of dung.
>
> > the 1,000s of GNU applications being/have developed,
>
> Like 3,652 compilers, 9,522 text editors, 4,517 shells and many
> other duplicated applications which don't really amount to much.
>
> Unless you're developing C programs for Unix or Linux itself, there
> is very little, if any productivity from Linux as a desktop.
>
> > and games
> > for Linux, Simcity 3000, Quake, Doom and other verious titles.
>
> Quake and Doom! Great! If I want 3+ year old games, I'll go get a
> Super Nintendo for a couple bucks off Ebay.
>
> > I think that > the old wives tale that there is not enough apps or games for
> > linux has run its course!
>
> There are many apps, just none of them worth while. There is no
> "killer app" on Linux.
>
> -Chad
------------------------------
From: "MacArthur" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 18:46:04 -0230
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> John Garrison wrote:
> >
> > Bear in mind too (I'm no fan of M$ but....) that Windows, on one cdrom,
has
> Were one to argue that Windows has accomplished some amazing feat, one
> could easily look at the likes of Linux and FreeBSD. With little, if
> any, OEM participation, these operating systems operate with fewer
> problems with common hardware than does Windows.
What is the empirical data on this assertion?
------------------------------
From: John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 14:32:52 -0700
On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 15:41:16 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Ha. Hardly. Win32 is just a piece of crap, is what you mean, where
>even competent programmers can't get anything to work because of
>Microsoft's obfuscation, churn, and counter-productive
>(anti-competitive) design methods. Wake up and smell the coffee.
On the contrary, Win32 is easy enough for even a fairly junior
programmer to master after a reading of Petzold. I know because I
started my career programming in Win16, and Win32. For that matter
the latter simplified things a great deal.
>It is their way of doing business, not anyone's inability to program on
>more than one platform, which makes Win32 appear to be a "totally
>unworkable API."
I don't get how either one makes Win32 an unworkable API. Win32 is an
API for programming Windows, that either works in that environment or
doesn't. For the most part, it does, although granted there are many
annoying differences between NT and Win98 despite the common monicker
"Win32".
If Microsoft is a lousy, anticompetitive company, or if Win32 doesn't
work on other platforms -- neither one of those makes the API
unworkable.
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 10:31:54 +1300
W2K Terminal Services, that is just a rehash of what UNIX has had for the last
15 to 20 years (anyone remember X-Dumb Clients?). It is also amazing how
several years prior to its release Microsoft was running around the country
side declaring "Central Process" as a return to propriety, time sharing model
of the 1960s (Found in the webpage at Microsoft under "dot truth"). At this
time the SUN Ray network appliance was released, based on centralised
processing. There was also the network appliance released by Oracle's
subsidery based on the same principles. W2K TS is nothing new, at all,
period.
Matt
Chad Myers wrote:
> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Aaron Ginn wrote:
> >
> > > I have a real X-Windows implementation in XFree86 instead
> > > of a slow emulator like Exceed on NT,
> >
> > Point of pedantry, Exceed is not an X emulation, it is an implementation
> > of X, though it is a bit slow.
>
> Either way, Win2K Terminal Services beat them both.
>
> -Chad
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2K
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 10:38:46 +1300
the account by nathan was a litle over the top, however, Windows 2000 is stable,
however, I find that it is very bloated (Even on a Machine with 128MB RAM,
Pentium III 550E Mhz). If Windows was smaller, and faster (like QNX RTP) I
would definitely use it all the time, however, until that day comes I am
sticking to good old SuSE Linux 6.4 with ReiserFS.
Matt
Adam Warner wrote:
> Dear Nathan,
>
> Please post to the newsgroup. I will see your posts if you reply here.
>
> You are very misguided if you think Win2k can only multitask as badly as
> Windows 3.1.
>
> Also, "And if an application DOES crash, it may not hang your machine, but
> it does bring down EXPLORER (the lovely Win interface)" is not equivalent to
> saying that a specific application, MS InterDev, will bring down explorer if
> it crashes.
>
> I any sorry to hear of your experiences. If you are looking for specific
> Windows 2000 application support you might like to try the Microsoft
> newsgroups.
>
> Regards,
> Adam
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2K
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 10:40:37 +1300
Have you tried QNX RTP, now thats a lovely GUI!
matt
Nathan Crause wrote:
> I didn't actually post to this group for support (I have more than enough
> support at work) but to mention my own personal bad experience with an OS
> which I was led to believe would be more stable for me to program under.
>
> And I'm sorry, but I simply have to stand by my statement that it multitasks
> VERY poorly. Access something on the network (yes, using Win2K servers) and
> EVERYTHING halts DEAD until that single process finally completes. This is
> NOT good multitasking. I could understand if I was working with multiple
> applications all accessing the network, but this is not so. I could even
> understand this if I was running sub-standard hardware, but a Pentium III
> 550MHz with 160MB RAM should be more than enough
>
> As I stated before, my experience extends to several machines, installed by
> several DIFFERENT people, most of which are "trained" in that sort of thing,
> so the issue of a faulty installation is no longer an issue. Perhaps I am
> just too demanding on the machine (I don't just use it for word processing
> and spread-sheets), but this then still leaves me wanting an OS which can
> deal with the obvious pressures I place on the PC.
>
> Now, it's very important that you understand that I'm not a "Bill-hater". I
> actually rather prefer IE to Netscape (since Navigator seems to have a
> memory leak as soon as you start using more than one Window, and IE supports
> more tags and JavaScript than Navigator). I'm just not crazy about MS
> promising things and coming up well short.
>
> Oh, and my comment about the lovely Win interface was serious. On Linux, KDE
> comes close to being a nice GUI, but they still have a long way to go to get
> to the pure simple functionality of Win. I mean, try a cut and paste between
> Linux apps - no such support. Small issue, but valuable non-the-less.
>
> I think I've rambled enough.
>
> "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8pntuc$rdu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Dear Nathan,
> >
> > Please post to the newsgroup. I will see your posts if you reply here.
> >
> > You are very misguided if you think Win2k can only multitask as badly as
> > Windows 3.1.
> >
> > Also, "And if an application DOES crash, it may not hang your machine, but
> > it does bring down EXPLORER (the lovely Win interface)" is not equivalent
> to
> > saying that a specific application, MS InterDev, will bring down explorer
> if
> > it crashes.
> >
> > I any sorry to hear of your experiences. If you are looking for specific
> > Windows 2000 application support you might like to try the Microsoft
> > newsgroups.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adam
> >
> >
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Kennel)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.c,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 21:41:59 +0000 (UTC)
Reply-To: mbkennel@<REMOVE THE BAD DOMAIN>yahoo.spam-B-gone.com
On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 02:45:44 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:XML, as a broader standard which also implements SGML, would naturally
:encompass HTML, a more specific implementation of SGML, wouldn't it?
:Microsoft's bogus .NET 'platform' involves ensuring, according to
:unicat, who's opinion I'd trust more than yours because I've never read
:anything he wrote, that XML is going to be used predatoraly by Microsoft
:to replace the more widely supported HTML presentation of Internet
:documents.
XML is syntax. Semantics come extra.
HTML is syntax and some semantics.
:T. Max Devlin
--
* Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
*
* "To chill, or to pop a cap in my dome, whoomp! there it is."
* Hamlet, Fresh Prince of Denmark.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Kennel)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.c,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 21:49:41 +0000 (UTC)
Reply-To: mbkennel@<REMOVE THE BAD DOMAIN>yahoo.spam-B-gone.com
On Sun, 08 Oct 2000 02:53:29 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:Said Matt Kennel in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
:>On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 09:54:00 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>:
:>:IBM's GREATEST MISTAKE was making a machine which anybody could
:>:copy in his garage.
:>
:>As I remember the story, they published all the hardware specification
:>and BIOS disassembly assuming that if anybody tried to make a 100% copy
:>that IBM could easily sue them out of business.
:>
:>Compaq did make a copy and IBM was shocked to lose the suit, and
:>the market thereafter.
:>
:>:It TOTALLY blew the "IBM Mystique" when clones with BETTER SPECS
:>:started appearing on the market at less than 1/2 the price.
:>:
:>:Up until then, IBM had a near total-lock on the computer market,
:>:because NOBODY ever questioned whether all that money going to
:>:IBM was actually a good performance/price ratio.
:>:
:>:With the introduction of clone PCs, everybody quickly realized
:>:that IBM had been overcharging for dumbed-down products for years.
:>
:>Well, before that, there were cloned IBM mainframes that had a similar
:>dynamic (and similar lawsuits and antitrust issues), but the PC did
:>expose this to a much wider group of people.
:
:I'm archiving this message. A very interesting position; quite
:consistent, and practical.
IBM eventually lost much of its monopoly power because in hardware
manufacturing, there are significant unit costs for production and
even IBM couldn't sustain losses trying to push its more expensive to
produce line of proprietary hardware over less expensive CMOS.
What happens to the economics when software had near zero duplication
costs, and very large capital costs, and enormous complex surfaces
of interface? And one dominant company with an order of magnitude more
cash than the rest?
--
* Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
*
* "To chill, or to pop a cap in my dome, whoomp! there it is."
* Hamlet, Fresh Prince of Denmark.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 22:03:44 GMT
"mike burrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:y%MD5.31474$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.lang.c Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Wine runs Office? Wow, what a claim.
>
> > A quick trip to the wine database shows that there isn't much that
really
> > runs under Wine. The highest rating for Office 97 is 3. This rating is
> > described as "3 -- Sufficient functionality for noncritical work.
Occasional
> > crashes okay, as are weird setup problems, required patches, or missing
> > major functionality. Alpha quality." Other reviews gave it even lower
marks.
> > The highest review given to Word 2000 is 1: "1 -- Loads without
crashing.
> > Good enough for a screenshot." And the highest review of Office 2000
rates
> > it 0: "0 -- Totally nonfunctional. Crashes on load."
>
> you have, of course, conveniently ignored that the most recent review of
> Microsoft Word is from six months ago with a comment saying "maybe in 3
> months it works".
>
> of course everybody knows that Wine doesn't run Office well, but lying
> (albeit by omission) doesn't help anybody.
There is no intent to lie or deceive on my part, in any way shape or form.
But a comment like, "maybe in 3 months it works," doesn't qualify as
anything except conjecture - and it certainly doesn't imply that in three
months it did work. Nor is there any more recent review that says it did, or
that it does work today.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: You Linux folks Just Don't Get It....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 22:09:04 GMT
We don't want compilers.
We don't need 200 different text editors.
We don't need all kinds of freeware libraries and fragmented programs
that do specific functions, most of which are useless to all but other
programmers..
We don't need 90 percent of the software on Freshmeat.
We don't want to return to the 1980's playing with config files.
We have gone through Config.sys and Autoexec.bat files ad nauseam with
Qemm and Qualatis, playing with Himem.sys to gain that extra 5k of
free memory.
This is 1980's stuff and it is gone, goodbye. We don't want to
resurrect playing around with text files.
We don't want half assed implementations of Windows software either.
If you choose to clone it but can't clone it completely, including all
ease of use features, don't bother at all. it will only make you look
silly. The current crop of mp3 players are a good example. Damm things
can't even remember the song directory.
We are willing to pay for quality software that works out of the box.
And Windows has plenty of it.
Example: Norton Internet Firewall, BlackIce, Zonealarm (free BTW).
Compare this to trying to set up a firewall under Linux using
IpChains, ipforwarding and such....What a waste of time, as well as a
potential security risk for those setting it up that don't know what
they are doing.
Sorry but my data is worth $30.00 or so, to have a professionally
designed program that works out of the box and is easily customized.
Also I don't have to scour the net for config scripts that may
actually compromise security. The products I use, and pay for, are
used by corporations everywhere, and if a flaw should arise, and they
do, a fix is released....
Browsers?
Netscape, says it all. Even Windows users think Netscape sucks.
Email?
Anything like Eudora yet?
Sorry but I don't feel like configuring sendmail today, or any day for
that matter.
Linux still lags far, far, far, far, behind Windows and this is
evident by the number of sales of Windows ME.... Why would people pay
for what really amounts to a minimal upgrade instead of getting Linux
for free?
They are not interested in Linux, that is why.
Linux has had it's day in the press, let's do every desktop user a
favor and put it out of it's misery once and for all :)
I along with everybody else in the world would LOVE free applicaitons,
but not at the price that running Linux involves.
claire
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
