Linux-Advocacy Digest #695, Volume #29 Mon, 16 Oct 00 21:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Re: Hotmail been down most of the day (sfcybear)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Carl Fink)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
Re: Anybody want to test a widget? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (lyttlec)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (lyttlec)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (lyttlec)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 20:31:55 -0400
hahaha, oh man that's funny! ;-p
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 01:10:41 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> What happens if you redirect to a printer?
> >>
> >> claire
> >
> >LOL!
> >
> >Time to wheel out the 3000rpm drum printer to proove linux is faster.
>
> Nah. Time to wheel out the windoze printer struggling w/ a ghz processor
> because although the designer thought to use the CPU to save costs, said
> designer failed to realize that windoze can't walk and chew gum at the
same
> time.
>
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hotmail been down most of the day
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:20:27 GMT
But she seems to want to be in the ugly windows fact twister camp.
In article <8s34sh$crg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : That is exactly whom I am addressing.
>
> Then it would be only honest and polite to phrase it that way,
> instead of making a sweeping generalization that amounts to
> slander.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carl Fink)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: 16 Oct 2000 23:03:25 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 12:58:44 GMT Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Or, you can use Executor on an x86 box: http://www.ardi.com/.
Our original poster is a Mac owner, though. Also Executor is very
limited compared to, e.g., VMWare, in that it doesn't support
networking.
--
Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I-Con's Science and Technology Programming
<http://www.iconsf.org/>
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 19:32:11 -0500
JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
Wait a minute. You've been jumping up and down about how the price
difference between a per processor agreement and a normal per copy agreement
couldn't have been very much, otherwise more than 40% of OEMs would have
gone for it. One of your buddies even claimed the difference was almost
always less than 20%. You've been demanding numbers, using phrases like
"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?"
"Sounds like avoidance on your part. What was the price difference? It's
your claim not mine. What was it liar?"
So I posted some real numbers. I could have posted a lot more, all of them
equally shocking, but I figured one set would be enough to show you where
you were mistaken.
Here. Here they are again.
Per processor prices.
8086 - $6
80286 - $10
80386 - $16
80486 - $16
Weighted average: $8.22
Prices without a per processor agreement
$30/copy, regardless of processor
This is more than a 350% difference.
When you saw these numbers, you backpedaled instantly and took on a new
tack.
> $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).
I'll allow you to pull the $2500 figure out of your hat, since it's
immaterial. So what you're saying is that $19 per PC sold is no big deal.
How many do you think this company sold? Three? Forty two? 50,000?
2,000,000? Do you think that $19 might start adding up a wee bit after
paying it 10,000 times? 30,000 times?
Like Mr. Howell says, a million here, a million there, pretty soon you're
talking real money.
And finally, you posted the official Microsoft spin:
> <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>
Virtually every word in this testimony has been ripped to shreds by real
life evidence, JS. But don't bother asking me to "Prove it, liar."
Anything I post will be ignored by all the MS groupies in here, and everyone
else already knows the truth.
If you, Mike, Drestin, claire, and the other MS trolls in this newsgroup had
an ounce of integrity, you would have apologized and shut up long ago. But
with the possible exception of claire, not one of you has an ethical bone in
his body.
jwb
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Anybody want to test a widget?
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:33:04 GMT
In article <8s57k5$3rd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I coded a GTK+ help browser widget last night. It's not full-featured
> yet and it hasn't been proven to work on any machine but mine, but if
> you've got nothing to do and a recent distro of Gnome on your machine,
> maybe you'd like to help out? It's tarballed and gzipped and takes up
> about 6.3 KB...
Update: takes up 9K now.
So far, one satisfied customer and counting. Any more takers?
wrinkledshirt(at)hotmail(dot)com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:41:03 GMT
Weevil wrote:
>
> Ermine Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:uMYhzwzNAHA.198@cpmsnbbsa07...
> > Bogus ... when pressed to actually demonstrate anything that could
> validate
> > this claim, no one single shred of evidence was able to be presented. The
> > facts remain that the price difference was almost always less than 20%
>
> Where do you get this stuff? From the Official Microsoft Propaganda Site?
> You say that the price difference was almost always less than 20%, and that
> no single shred of evidence was able to be presented that suggested
> otherwise (or something or other -- you weren't very clear).
>
> I gave one example where the price difference was 350%. There are many more
> examples, and they're all far more than 20% (did Microsoft trot that number
> out?). The evidence for this whole issue was: Bill Gates' sworn testimony,
> Steve Ballmer's sworn testimony, the sworn testimony of a whole bunch of
> senior Microsoft executives, Microsoft's internal emails that were
> subpoenaed for the trial, Microsoft's internal memos that were subpoenaed
> for the trial, Microsoft's OEM reports that were subpoenaed for the trial,
> and the sworn testimony of CEOs and Presidents of the companies Microsoft
> did this to.
>
> The only thing they didn't have was a time machine to go back and actually
> witness it in person.
>
> But you say there was not a single shred of evidence.
>
> Why?
>
> jwb
One important point is that even if it were only 20% different, that is
enought to make a slightly profitable line un-profitable. The margins on
commodity computers is very slim.
Plus MS has no marginal costs, whereas the OEM has large marginal costs.
How much does it cost MS to produce another copy of 98? How much does
the OEM loose if the computer doesn't sell before MS makes the OS
obsolete?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:44:31 GMT
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:16:53 +0100, Garry Knight
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Dustin
>Puryear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Another possibility is to use HTML for true portability, but most
>> publishing houses will not support that.
>
>Most of the word processors I've come across can import and export RTF
>pretty well.
One thing I've noticed is that there seems to be disagreement on how to
handle graphics in rtf. Word 97 puts out one big rtf file with the
graphics embedded in it. StarOffice 5.2 puts out a much smaller rtf
file plus the graphics files as jpg (iirc). The text then has links to
the graphic files. Which means that you lose the graphics when going
between these two products.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:48:35 +1300
a decent mail client would be one that is a mail client and usenet
client, that is small, fast and feature rich (such as spell checkers).
Matt
D. Spider wrote:
> It appears that on Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:25:32 -0000, in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>
>>> 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.
>
>
> It seems, for this particular poster, "decent" means working like
> Outhouse does. A very different criteria than I use, obviously. But
> there are several Outhouse clones available for X, so apparently
> someone else agrees with him.
>
>
> #####################################################
> My email address is posted for purposes of private
> correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
> to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
> kind.
> #####################################################
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:51:49 GMT
I would love to have a little helper like outlook has. To pass time I
click on the animation function, which is pretty addictive stuff :)
Some characters that would be good to include:
Garfield
Snoopy
Tux (Linux Penguin)
Duke (the java mascot)
matt
Todd 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...
>
>
>> Whilst I'd be happy with Imap, this
>> does mean that I can do 90% of my 'day work' on linux, with maybe only 10%
>> requiring the Win98 machine - the joy of a stable platform.
>
>
> Well, I guess if you are comparing Linux to 98, Linux would be very stable
> :) Personally, I don't know how you can even stand 98. I am using Windows
> 2000 and it is about a bazillion times more stable than 98 or ME. I
> completely erased 98 and ME once I got Windows 2000. All of my hardware is
> supported on 2000 (why does it support more hardware than ME?? ), and even
> games run on it in some cases better than the 'ol 9x platform.
>
>
>> I can see that
>> if you were really stuck with Outlook then NT ought to be a better bet.
>
>
> Nah, 2000 is a lot better than NT.
>
>
>> It's interesting how my 'work' requirements are now starting to go through
>> what my 'home' requirements went through a couple of years ago. I dumped
>> the windows partition off my home machine at that time because I hadn't
>> booted it for about 4 months and wanted the space (I had originally and
>> very foolishly assigned 1G to windows and 600M to linux the previous year.
>> I was a newbie - I didn't know :)
>
>
> Wow... you are worried about disk space? I just bought two IBM deskstar
> 46.1 MB drives... no more space worries. They are so cheap, fast and
> reliable. Amazing how drive space technology is surpassing MS' ability to
> give us more software :)
>
>
>> I think the interesting measure will be how long it takes for me to come
>> to the point where I no longer need to boot Windows for work, either.
>> There seems to be a kind of race between viable linux based desktops and
>> the 'network appliances' offering alternative approaches (such as web-
>> based front-ends to served apps).
>
>
> Hmmm... I haven't found any 'network' appliances that make my email easier
> yet or anything else I do on the computer for that matter. Most of my work
> is development (SQL server + ASP pages + a little C++ when you need fast COM
> objects), and of course Office 2000 and blah blah blah. I am however,
> looking forward to the HP Journada 720 -- check out the stats. on that
> PDA... 2D hardware resolution on a palmtop! hehe... it *would* be cool to
> get a linux port on that if possible :)
>
> -Todd
>
>
>> --
>> Mark - remove any ham to reply.
>> (Killed (sigserv (This sig is reserved by another user)))
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:59:57 GMT
jazz wrote:
>
> In article <qEqG5.3541$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jan
> Schaumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, then you probably want to take a look at
> > -abiword
> > -StarOffice (BLOATware)
> > -ApplixWare (payware)
> >
> > Or you can just distribute your documents as pdf's...
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -Jan
>
> Please tell me more. For example, I just wrote a paper with someone in LA.
> I'm in New Jersey. I wrote a draft, emailed it to them, they revised it,
> resent it to me, I revised and made additions, sent it back, he revised,
> and I sent some additional parts, he put it all together, and sent it out
> to all the other authors, as a word attachment they all can read and make
> changes to.
>
> So these would have to import/export files in word-readible format.
>
> Can they do that? I doubt Bill would put up with that, and would instruct
> his minions to make a couple of tweaks in Word for insurance.
>
> Thanks
> Jim
I just did the same thing using LaTex and CVS. Only we didn't have to do
the e-mail bit. It was nice being able to merge 3 separate edits at one
time. End result was a camera ready copy. Once up the learning curve,
LaTex is easier to use than Word. It does what you want, not what some
burnt out programmer decided you want to do.
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 01:02:41 GMT
Jan Schaumann wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > You have to be kidding?
> >
> > Latex?
> >
> > barrrrrrrrrrrrrrffffffffffffffffffffffffffff!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
>
> why?
>
> The OP said he needed a powerful word-processor. I don't know anything
> more powerful with respect to word-processing...
>
> Cheers,
> -Jan
>
> --
> Jan Schaumann <http://www.netmeister.org>
>
> Please add smileys where appropriate.
More properly LaTex is typesetting, not word processing. But you can go
directly to press from LaTex. You can only do that with Word if you
don't care what people think of your work.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
