Linux-Advocacy Digest #681, Volume #29 Sun, 15 Oct 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux Sucks ("James E. Freedle II")
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me (Gary Hallock)
Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web! ("James E. Freedle II")
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Neil W Rickert)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("JS/PL")
Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech (unicat)
Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech (unicat)
75E48FC8 Visio for Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me (sfcybear)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "James E. Freedle II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:59:41 -0400
Yeah, I installed Linux and was impressed with the speed of the command
prompt. Of course then there was the problem that I could not do anything on
my computer. The installer left me wondering what in the hell I installed,
and more importantly not even the manual told me what I could do with Linux.
I am not geek here and I have more important things to do than mess with
trying to figure out how to use an ancient OS. Linux has it's uses, I am
sure that people can study the soures, but what they will get out of them, I
will never know. As far as the stability of Linux is concerned, it is easy
to have a stable system, just install an operating system with no useful
applications (Linux), and useful applications I mean applications that
normal everyday users will use) and have it sit there, then it will be
stable.
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 15:49:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 15 Oct 2000 15:22:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
> >Porter) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Of course Linux stands on it's own, and there is certainly a
> >>>contingent of Linux supporters that want to keep it that way and to
> >>>not try and compete with home use desktop Windows.
> >>Hahahahah, only Wintroll "Linux users" like you "Steve".
> >
> >Read /. some day.
> I do all the time:)
>
> >
> >The "leave Linux to the geek" contingent far outnumbers the "compete
> >with Win desktop" contingent.
> ???
> >
> >You need to get out more.
> Thanks for the advice :)
>
> >
> >
> >>Linux strengths are widespread, in both server, and desktop areas, do I
really
> >>need to give you the list again, (for the 1000 time) "Steve" ?
> >
> >How about some home user desktop strengths, excepting cost?
> You know them well enough "Steve".
>
> >Remember we are talking average Jane here, not some geek running
> >Emacs.
> I've never used Emacs.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>> but Linux
> >>>>>is not taking any market share away from the Windows desktop.
> >>>>Linux took my Windows95 market share off my pc in 1997.
> >>>
> >>>So we have been told, about a 1000 times already.
> >>Some people need a lot of repetition "Steve", and your one of them.
> >
> >Typical for the Linonuts, like you, to compare an ancient version of
> >Windows to a current version of Linux.
> ????????????
> In 1997 when I switched to Linux full time, I had the "current" Windows on
my
> pc, I replaced it with the then "current" Linux version, its *still* on my
pc.
> Yes ..... "Steve", I'm still hassling you 3 years later, with the *same*
Linux
> version I installed in 1997, same hard disk, same everything.
>
> You in the mean time have "upgraded" how many times ???
>
> My total cost has been $6.50, for the origonal Cheapbytes Linux CD.
>
>
> >At least I am running a current version of Linux.
> >Mandrake 7.1, soon to be 7.2 if you will.
> Well I'm sure you're proud of your new toy, does it fool any long time
Linux
> users like me tho ???
>
>
> >
> >And in fact I am running an older version of Windows 98 SE and it
> >still blows the doors off of Linux.
> Hahahah, well it couldnt blow of the Windows, now could it ??? ;-)
>
> >
> >
> >>>>Bull, Ive had a lady friend using Linux the last 3 weeks, before that
she had
> >>>>*never* seen Linux. She loves it, uses Xchat to IRC and is amazed how
much
> >>>>easier it is than mIRC under Windows98. In fact she rues the day that
she
> >>>>upgraded from Win95 to Win98.
> >>>
> >>>If she did a migrate instead of a fresh install, she should. That was
> >>>a nightmare.
> >>Who said anything about a install ???
> >>She didnt install, migrate, or fly south for the winter ;-)
> >
> >An upgrade implies an install somewhere along the line. Unless she got
> >a new machine pre loaded.
> Nope wrong again, and I had such high hopes for your insight once ....
>
> >
> >I liked Linux as well when I first started using it but the novelty
> >wore off as soon as I took a look at how much extra work I had to do
> >just to perform simple tasks.
> Hahahah, you bitched like a looser, "wahhhhh, my printer wont work,
> Linux is a POS", but then in 1997, we all thought you were bonafide,
before
> we found out that even your name is phony.
>
> >
> >Reading news offline is one of them.
> ?? No problem to the rest of the world ...
>
> >Printing was another. And don't bother to tell me about your boat
> >anchor IBM printer you bought at some flea market. We have heard it
> >all before.
> Well it's still relevant "Steve", its a IBM 4029, does 600*600dpi, at 10
pages
> per minute, works of most OS's, speaks PS,PCL,HPGL, and text, cost $70
second
> hand, and the toner and drum pack (good for 7000-9000 pages) cost $140
(recond).
>
> Its a dream, and the PS cababiliy makes it a breeze to use with Linux. Oh
btw
> "Steve" were you aware that the Mac has always used PS as a printer
language ?
>
> Steve is still pissed of the $90 Cannon "special" he bought has problems
> with Linux. Ah well, we live and learn dont we "Steve" ?
>
>
> >
> >
> >>Shes a user, plain and simple, its using Win98 she hates!
> >
> >I'll bet if you put her in front of 2 machines one running Win95 and
> >the other running Win98 she wouldn't even know the difference.
> Ill get back to you on thet one, Wintroll.
>
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>If she's happy, that's great.
> >>>Does she run DVD's?
> >>Nope, and shes back home using her Windows98 box again, it was my Linux
> >>pc she used for 4 weeks. All I did was create a account for her, and let
her
> >>choose from one of 4 window managers on my system (she chose XFWM),
after that
> >>she used the system easily.
> >
> >I think you are FOS... just by the fact that you say she chose XFWM..
> >What were the other 3 choices?
> Opps I meant Xfce
>
> 2/Windowmaker
> 3/Blackbox
> 4/flwm
>
> Just for your interest, Xfce ,Blackbox and flwm have had new versions
> released since then :)
>
> >
> >
> >>Yes I do, Linux is an excellent desltop system imho.
> >
> >Maybe for you..
> Definetly for me!
>
> >
> >>>
> >
> >>A meaningless statement, from the Wintroll "Steve".
> >
> >So what have you said so far?
> The same old stuff, like you :)
>
> >
> >A summary:
> >
> >I had a lady friend stay with me for four weeks and since I didn't
> >have a Windows PC available for her to use, she was forced to use my
> >Linux PC. And of course she loved it beyond her wildest imaginations.
> >Now she is home and back with her miserable Win98 pc..Booo hooo!
> Hahahahah, thats more like it "Steve", your humour is cool when you try!
>
> >
> >>>just as quickly because it requires more effort to do less than what
> >>>they can do under Windows.
> >>Please "Steve" at least put a *little* effort into this ??
> >
> >>* More effort to do less of what ?
> >
> >Browsing for one.
> hahahahahahah!!!!
> If Windows users tried Lynx, theyd be blown away by the speed as compared
to
> Exploders sluglish bloated performance.
>
> >Plug ins that websites require that don't work with Netscape for
> What type of plug ins, mortage calculators, pornview ?
>
> >Linux.
> >Waiting until someone out of the goodness of their heart writes a
> >driver for your hardware.
> Or you can use the brain in your head (im assuming you have one) and avail
> yourself with all the FREE Linux tools, and write your own ?
>
> Or you can pay someone to do it (you did anyway when you bought that pile
> of Cannon junk).
>
> Or you can use the Linux drivers thhat exist for most hardware that isnt
> *closed* and *bleeding edge*, ie too new to reverse engineer.
>
> >Etc..
> >>Hahahahah, how much effort was required to earn the money to purchase
Windows,
> >>and pay for the never ending "upgrade" path ?
> >
> >Time is money.
> Yawn, then what are you still doing here ?
>
> >
> >
> >>How much effort was required to upgrade the hardware to run "new"
versions
> >>of Windows ?
> >
> >I don't run a new version.
> Still using Win3.1 ???
>
>
> >
> >>How much effort was required to pay for the software they needed, which
is
> >>probably available (equivalent or better) under Linux for *free* ?
> >
> >Ahh but it isn't available.
> Hmm look harder, it wont come to you.
>
> >
> >How about groupware?
> Dont you mean "Bloatware" ?
>
> >
> >>How much effort was required to reload Windows, when the registery
became
> >>corrupted, or a virus totaled their sustem ?
> >
> >Never had a problem.
> Lucky you.
>
> >And when fsk takes hours to not fix your hard drive?
> Try the Reiser file system then ? Linux has it:)
> BTW, my EXT2 FS, 1.2 gig takes only a couple mins to FSK, no longer than
> the Windows FAT or VFAT took to check with scandisk.
>
> >>How much effort was required to discover someone using their Windows pc,
via
> >>Netbus or similar ?
> >
> >ZoneAlarm.
> Non MS ?
> Does it come with Windows ?
>
> >Free.
> >
> >And how many hours did you spend reading How-To's to set up your
> >firewall?
> None.
>
> >>
> >>
> >>"Steve" you havent improved your techniques since I was last reading
this
> >>group, perhaps its time for a holiday, I hear the English countryside is
good
> >>for that kind of thing ?
> >
> >And you haven't proved one point.
> Yeah but I've had a lot of fun :)
>
> >
> >>Perhaps your owners at IBM will give you a few weeks off ?
> >
> >?????
> >
> >I'm in business for myself.
> Yeah, the Wintroll business.
>
> >
> >Claire
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>claire
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Kind Regards
> >>Terry
> >
>
>
> --
> Kind Regards
> Terry
> --
> **** ****
> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
> up 13 hours 22 minutes
> ** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 22:00:17 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The truth sometimes hurts.
Yep, you are right. You should get use to it.
>
> Get used to it, because it isn't going away.
>
Right, again. Linux is not going away.
>
> And neither am I.
>
That's simply because you were gone ages ago.
>
> I intend to be Linux's worst enemy.
Ah, yes. The truth comes out. All that talk about how good Linux is (for
servers) and now we know you were just pulling our leg.
>
>
> and judging by the responses here I am succeeding quite well.
You have failed miserably. And what is worse - you don't even realize it.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "James E. Freedle II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web!
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 22:07:41 -0400
You know I think that it is kind of funny that Windows NT Administrators get
paid more than UNIX Administrators :)
Also it is completely false that Windows (Any Version) is harder to
administer that UNIX. Actually it is the other way around. Of course that
all depends on who you ask. If somebody has been trained in administering
UNIX, they will resist with tooth and nail to learning to administer
Windows.
"Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:QBrG5.27341$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Dave Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:1LmG5.2924$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :
> : I don't buy that "easy to use" stuff for technical types. If you
factor
> in
> : how much effort that goes into keeping "MS-Windows" going, and compare
it
> to
> : learning a real OS, they are about the same. But the payback comes two
> : ways, first - you have time to move your business ahead instead of doing
> : "reboot", "patch" and "security" while loops and second: you can use
Linux
> : knowledge on HP-UX, Sun, UnixWare, SCO, Iris, AIX, and a host of others.
> : From a career perspective, it is vendor independent knowledge and pays
> : better. McWindows, like McDonalds burgers, are quick but you get less.
>
> Wether you buy the "easy to use" stuff or not, it does not change the
facts.
> I can't comment on the "McWindows", never heard of such an OS. However, to
> build up and learn a Linux system does take considerable amount of time,
not
> to mention the software installation routines on Linux.
> OS does not move businesses forward, it can however aid that direction,
but
> it won't do it by itself. Not to mention the fact that some of the OSs
don't
> support business programs. That in itself limits the choices. There are
> times when people only need a McDonalds burger, they could probably get
more
> at the next door in a fancy restaurant, but they elect to get the burger.
Go
> figure...
>
> :
> : I would rather spend my time learning and moving the business ahead
than
> : fixing and futzing. From an end user perspective, there are far less
> : problems with stable versions of Linux than with McWindows. As the
> techi's
> : crunch out better and better software for Linux, more and more end users
> : will use it.
>
> You are not saying that there is some "not so stable version of Linux",
are
> you :)?
>
> :
> : It is inevitable as the industry matures to shift to a xNIX as the real
> : professionals will learn more... and our clients will like the
reliability
> : and stability. The only thing that keeps NT afloat is that where else
do
> : you know you can flip burgers on Tuesday and be a NT admin on Friday.
As
> : the market matures, this will occur less often.
>
> The industry started out with Unix and along came NT beating the crap out
of
> the "xNIX". When the 64-bit version of NT becomes available sometimes in
the
> next year, it'll be lights out for the "xNIX". All of the "real
> professionals" will be flipping burgers somewhere and they can keep
> wondering about what hit them.
>
> Otto
>
>
------------------------------
From: Neil W Rickert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: 15 Oct 2000 21:20:08 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Linux world that will 100 percent
>emulate MSOffice. Nothing at all.
That is exactly why one should *refuse* to accept MSOffice
documents. It is a Faustian bargain. Use it, and you sell your
soul to the Microsoft devil.
Demand *open* public standards for any document format you use.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 22:26:49 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:D8sG5.41960$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > [...]
> > > >There was never a requirement to sign a per processor license
> agreement.
> > Get
> > > >your facts straight. [...]
> > >
> > > Perhaps you misread the facts presented, which was that there was a
> > > requirement to agree to ppl, or MS would make Win/DOS too expensive
for
> > > the OEM to remain competitive for those large number of customers that
> > > currently use Windows (not realizing how crappy a system it is, and
> > > believing MS's hype-machine/marketing).
> >
> > Name the price difference and I'll explain to you the significance of
your
> > ignorance.
> > Ohh...whats that? You don't have a clue what the prices were, let alone
> the
> > differences?
>
> "Opus agreement has finally been signed by Redmond. Another DRI prospect
> bites the dust with a per processor DOS agreement."
> -- Microsoft OEM Status Report, October 1990
>
> Just to set the tone, JS. There has never been any question as to what
the
> per processor agreements were all about. It was to destroy competition.
>
> As for prices...
>
> In a contract Microsoft got Commodore Business Machines to sign in 1990,
the
> price structure for a per processor license was as follows:
>
> 8086 - $6
> 80286 - $10
> 80386 - $16
> 80486 - $16
>
> This came out to a weighted average of $8.22. At the time, Commodore was
> paying $11, so this was a nice break for them. However, Microsoft then
> informed them that without the per processor agreement, they would be
> charged a flat $30 per copy, regardless of processor.
>
> Naturally, Commodore signed.
$30.00 on a $2500.00 PC isn't exactly what I'd call a make or break amount.
If what you say is true a $19.00 hike in what they were paying wouldn't be a
burden of any consequence (8/10ths of a percent of the cost of a typical
system).
>
> This scenario was repeated over and over with the large OEMs of the time.
> It's all there in publically available court documents. A lot of it is
> online.
> > If there ever were a "requirement" to purchase the per processor
license,
> > wouldn't MS have been selling it to ALL (100%) OEM's instead of 0-40%
over
> a
> > three year period?
>
> The didn't target the little guys back then. It wasn't worth it. They
went
> after the big accounts, and most especially the big accounts that had
begun
> selling DR DOS systems.
>
> > Proof shall set you free, liar.
> >
>
> How do you find the energy to go on in the face of all this evidence? I
> hope someone is paying you well.
>
> On the other hand, your behavior tends to paint Windows advocates with an
> ugly brush, so you're actually doing a tiny amount of harm to Microsoft in
> terms of PR.
<paste>
Microsoft began offering per processor licenses at some point in the late
1980s at the request of OEMs who wanted to simplify the administration of
their per system licenses. (Kempin FTC Testimony (Exh. 9) at 96-97; Hosogi
Dep. (Exh. 8) at 27-28; Lum Dep. (Exh. 6) at 82; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at
103-07.) Because OEMs generally change microprocessors much less frequently
than they change other components of their systems, a per processor license
decreased the number of contract amendments that had been necessary under a
per system license due to system changes. (Kempin FTC Testimony (Exh. 9) at
96-97; Hosogi Dep. (Exh. 8) at 27-28; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 103-06.)
Another reason that Microsoft offered per processor licenses was to reduce
piracy. (Gates 10/27/97 Dep. (Exh. 2) at 46-48; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 175.)
Per processor licenses reduced piracy at the OEM level by allowing Microsoft
to monitor the number of computers shipped by the OEM rather than monitoring
the various system designations created by the OEM. (See Gates 10/27/97 Dep.
(Exh. 2) at 50-51.) Per processor licenses further reduced piracy at the
end-user level by discouraging the shipment of "naked" machines, which
encouraged the installation of a counterfeit operating system. (See Gates
10/27/97 Dep. (Exh. 2) at 46-50; Hosogi Dep. (Exh. 8) at 33-35.)
Although per processor licenses generally obligated the OEM to pay a royalty
on every machine shipped containing a particular processor, Microsoft
negotiated exceptions with at least twenty-seven OEMs to allow those OEMs to
ship up to ten percent of their machines containing particular processor
types without paying royalties on those machines. (See Kempin FTC Testimony
(Exh. 9) at 104-05; Lum Dep. (Exh. 6) at 92; Apple Dep. (Exh. 10) at 23-24;
Microsoft's Second Response to Department of Justice Civil Investigative
Demand No. 10300 (excerpts attached as Exh. 21) at C001309-11.) Other OEMs
with no such exception in their per processor licenses nonetheless offered
non-Microsoft operating systems with their computers during the term of
their per processor licenses. (See, e.g., Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 111-13;
Roberts DOJ Decl. (Exh. 11) at C005864; Lieven Dep. (Exh. 12) at 187.)
OEMs could avoid whatever "restriction" was purportedly inherent in a per
processor license simply by opting for a per system license and designating
a unique model for machines to be shipped with an operating system other
than MS-DOS. (Kempin FTC Testimony (Exh. 9) at 94-95, 212-13.) Moreover,
OEMs could license competing operating systems for new models or processor
lines as the OEM introduced them. (Kempin FTC Testimony (Exh. 9) at 81,
85-87.)
The relatively minor suggested price differentials in Microsoft's internal
price guidelines between per system and per processor licenses varied over
time. [REDACTED]
</paste>
>
> If you really are one of the handful of people Microsoft pays to
anonymously
> advocate for them, I expect you'll be getting a pink slip pretty soon.
Think about it. It's much more likely that MS competitors pay people to post
anti-ms FUD on usenet. Do you get paid per post?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 22:32:46 -0400
From: unicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech
Why stop there, why not throw in a 21" monitor, and you could almost reach the
price of
Windoze+Orifice 2000.
Nigel Feltham wrote:
> >Also - www.tigerdirect.com is selling AT form factor motherboards with
> >300Mhz
> >Pent II's installed for $79.99 - why in the world are you p*ssing and
> >moaning
> >about difficulties with a 133Mhz system when upgrading the hardware
> >costs less than a box of MS Windows???
> >
>
> Plus the cost of new memory (P133's used 72pin simms, PII 300's use 168pin
> simms).
> Plus the optional cost of a new display card (to upgrade from PCI to AGP).
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 22:30:38 -0400
From: unicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech
Two other things:
1) On Windoze systems, reformatting the hard drive is often easier than trying
to hunt down
all the errors that have crept into a bad Win-install.
2) Who cares anyway, this isn't the point of either the origianl question or the
original answer.
It was about installing RH 6.2. Any references to windoze were just color
commentary.
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "unicat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I'm not sure that this is the answer to your query, but when MS went from
> > Win95 to Win98, they changed the spec for the PnP protocol.
> >
> > About 10% of machines that ran Win95 would lock up and die when Win 98
> > was installed. To the point that you had to boot DOS 6 from a floppy and
> > reformat the hard drive to recover.
>
> Two things.
>
> 1) You *NEVER* have to reformat the hard drive to recover unless you're
> entire file system has been mangled. You need only boot from your recover
> disk (which was dos in and of itself). Installing windows doesn't do
> anything mythical that you must reformat your hard drive to recover from it.
>
> 2) What you're talking about is not the PnP spec, nor was it something MS
> changed. What you're talking about is ACPI. Many motherboards had faulty
> ACPI bioses that claimed they were ACPI but weren't fully compliant. Since
> Win95 didn't support ACPI, it never saw any problems. Win98 did support ACPI
> though, and would lock up the system when it tried to use the faulty ACPI
> bios.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 75E48FC8 Visio for Linux
Date: Sun,15 Oct 2000 21:52:18+2000
Announcing complete new universal drafting program for Linux, FreeBSD, and Sun
Solaris.
LinuxCAD release for FreeBSD, a native FreeBSD build , not an emulation !!!
the details to be found on
WWW.LINUXCAD.COM
Now version 2.26 that has many added features is ready to ship and download.
Useful for preparing any kind of visual diagramming presentation
for any industry or knowledge field, creation of illustrations for books
and reports.
LinuxCAD is more Visual Language for Business then Microsoft Visio ever was !!!
Initially introduced in 1995 LinuxCAD today is very powerful and rock stable
application program for Linux.
The software comes with more than 1500
symbols that allows to use L i n u x C A D as a replacement for such diagramming
tool as Microsoft Visio. That is absolutely right LinuxCAD is more convenient then
Visio
and can be used to replace Microsoft Power Point as well.
LinuxCAD provides features of such programs as AutoCAD, Visio, Power Point
and Corel Draw in a single program for Linux.
linux cad can be used in:
organizational charts ,
business process diagramms,
information network and computer system diagrams,
--> software development flowcharting ,
--> entity relationship diagramming,
network planning,
system administration diagramming and you actually can start
your sysadmin tasks from inside linux cad,
--> mechanical engineering drafting,
pcb and schematic design ( easily integrated with routing programs ),
geographicsl information systems,
any kind of drafting where integration with database is important,
floor plans for buildings and facilities,
--> architectural drafting,
front end for programmable rendering systems like opengl,
--> front end for any software that may require graphics editor functions,
can be used to replace acad in every application later is used !!!
can be used to replace visio diagramming tool in every application later is
used !!!
This message posted in single instance and it is not a spam.
Software Forge Inc.
( developers of the most advanced application software for Linux OS ).
847 891 5971
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 02:45:20 GMT
Becuase a data entry clerk does not know S*HT about the workins of the
working of a compurter. Wo, you've been a dataentry clerk for years.
>From what Iv'e seen you don't know much about computers or getting along
with people. Come in here ad insult everyone in the group and then wine
when every one inslult wou back.
c'ya later data clerk.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Why not?
>
> I used to hand all of my PL/1 programs on punched cards to a priest
> who fed them into a 3505 IBM card reader.
>
> That's more than most of the yo-yo's in this group can claim.
>
> claire
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:29:24 GMT, sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 19:02:18 -0500, "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >You really are a silly person. I'd wager that 99% of the people
> >reading
> >> >this newsgroup have more experience with Dos/Windows than you. It
> >really
> >> >is kind of dumb for you to blather on about how great "Windows" is
to
> >> >them.
> >>
> >> I doubt it. I go back well before DOS was a dollar sign in BG's
eyes.
> >
> >Hey, being a card puncher hardly qualifys.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >They have also learned to use Unix/Linux and find that it
> >> >meets their needs better than the afore mentioned operating
system.
> >>
> >> If I were running a server I would agree.
> >> >You however, cannot make an intelligent assessment of what the
pros
> >and
> >> >cons of each are because you know nothing of Unix/Linux.
> >>
> >> I know plenty about Linux. Having used Corel, Caldera, RedHat,
> >> Mandrake TurboLinux and Slackware, All current versions I feel I am
> >> qualified to comment.
> >>
> >> >I wonder where you got the idea that Linux is for everyone. It
isn't.
> >If
> >> >you cannot or will not read, Linux is most definately not for you.
> >>
> >> Where did I get that idea?
> >>
> >> Check the COLA archives for that info. You have some nuts here that
> >> think Linux IS for everyone.
> >>
> >> >If you can read and don't mind doing so, you might find even with
its
> >> >shortcomings, Linux is far preferable to Dos/Windows.
> >>
> >> If you look from an applications point of view you will see
otherwise.
> >>
> >> >Windows has its place and has enabled the lowest comon denominator
in
> >our
> >> >society to run powerful applications run on sophisticated
computers.
> >Does
> >> >that mean it is a superior operating system? No.
> >>
> >> The fact that 90 percent or more of the desktop world is running it
> >> says something.
> >> Where is Linux on the desktop?
> >>
> >> >Learn to use Linux and use it exclusively for a year or two.
> >>
> >> I don't like torture.
> >>
> >> I couldn't even if I wanted to. It doesn't have the applications I
> >> need to run my business. No surprise.
> >>
> >> claire
> >> >Then your judgements, opinions, and comparisons between Windows
and
> >Linux
> >> >will have more weight.
> >>
> >> I have been dual booting for years and still Linux sucks.
> >> >Until then you go into the killfile with the rest of the kooks.
> >>
> >> Whatever.
> >> claire
> >>
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
