Linux-Advocacy Digest #709, Volume #29 Tue, 17 Oct 00 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Drestin Black")
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (2:1)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (2:1)
Re: Why I hate Windows...
KDE starting to stress out a little? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: KDE starting to stress out a little? (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 19:11:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Osugi Sakae
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:21:27 +0900
<8sgugi$fa3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>
>> You think desktop users want Linux?
>
>What makes you think they want Windows?
Most likely it's because the perception is that everyone else is
using Windows, Word, Excel, and Outlook Express.
Break that perception, and Linux might get a fairer shake.
Not that it's doing all that badly now. :-)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 17 Oct 2000 14:12:07 -0500
"Chris Sherlock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > Mike Byrns wrote:
> > >
> > > 2:1 wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Actually, it's not. Win2K is way more stable than Linux. FUDsters
like
> > > > > to bash NT for stability and then claim that Linux is stable,
which in
> > > > > and of itself is a joke.
> > > >
> > > > Chad, you're talking horseshit again. Win2K hasn't been around long
> > > > enough to proove if it is more stable than Linux. The longest Linux
> > > > uptimes are longer than the total life of Win2K.
> > >
> > > Where are those numbers? We're not talking peak are we :-) I've had
an NT
> > > 3.51 box running for 3 years. We decommissioned it.
> >
> > By running, do you mean 24x7 with no reboots?
> >
> > When UNIX (Sun, FreeBSD, Linux, HP, etc.) people say "running" they
> > mean, on and up. It has been my experience when NT people say running,
> > them mean with a particular install and periodic service packages and
> > reboots.
>
> This is my experience also. At my last firm, they a) could not afford to
> run Windows NT because of the immense cost of licenses, and b) it truly
> was too unstable and unreliable. These machines needed to run a SQL
> server and DHCP servers. They also had to be the intermediary to the
> outside world (admittedly through a router, but they had to perform NAT
> and IP filtering before it reached the router). It also had to be able
> to do basic snmp trapping, and it had to run a web proxy but that's
> another story.
>
> Could you imagine trying to do this on a Windows NT box?
Why Imagine? I've done it. Am doing it. You describe NOTHING unusual
whatsoever. In fact, you are under utilizing the box if the SQL load isn't
heavy.
>Could you
> imagine trying to remotely monitor AND maintain such computers?
Not only imagine, but actually doing now. Whats the big deal?
> Unfortunately the firm had buggy software which would die or degrade
> very badly. On the Linux box you would simply ssh onto it, kill and
> restart the process.
Kinda like how I remotely kill processes on NT servers?
>Remote upgrades? Sure, you needed to have someone
> on-site in case something weird happened, but then again, so what? On a
> Windows NT computer it would be far too expensive to implement, far too
> unstable and far too slow for the hardware that it was running on. If a
> process did get out of hand, how would you kill it remotely? We are
> talking international monitoring here, btw. How would you restart it?
> Get someone to go to the computer and reboot the computer? This is not a
> very viable option, I am afraid.
If the box is still reachable just send the restart command one of several
ways. What's the big deal? Have you actually ever even seen NT?
>
> In short, Windows NT was not even an option.
It seems you didn't even try.
>
> > I could be wrong, but it seems to me an uptime of three years requires a
> > very good infrastructure with no power glitches. Also, Windows NT 3.51
> > had AFAIR some pretty notable memory leaks which could cause problems if
> > not rebooted.
Holy shit, NT3.51?
> >
> > Seriously, Windows NT (at its core) is a very good OS, it is based on
> > VMS after all. It is the Win32 subsystem and the kernel code required
> > there in, which causes instability. Win32 was not designed to be a
> > secure robust environment, so as a requirement of implementation of it
> > they (MS) had to make compromises in the NT kernel space which makes it
> > unsuitable for many applications.
Actually, it IS designed for just such a thing but I think you are just
making this up as you go along so what would facts matter to you?
> >
> > The first indication that Microsoft was not serious about the enterprise
> > was Windows NT 4.0, when they moved GUI code down into kernel space.
> > Windows 2000 took this trend to new disgusting levels.
Kinda like how Tux had to run in the kernel space in order to produce the
first competition for IIS?
>
> Crap. I was going to point out that you were wrong, but hey, you know
> what? MS really *did* put the GUI back into the kernel area. They even
> say so themselves at
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/winnt/winntas/technote/ntunixvw.asp I
> quote: "(Editor's note: With Windows NT version 4.0, the GUI system was
> put "back" into the kernel for display performance considerations.)"
Fortunately with the GUI as stable as it is now this is no longer any kinda
of problem.
>
> That *really* sucks! I admit that I am no Windows NT fan, but no
> *wonder* people don't use it for mission critical things without needing
> to do advanced load-sharing methods. I can't believe that a GUI would
> play such an important part of a server O/S!
What you can't (or, mostly likely, won't) believe and what is casual fact
are obviously two different things
>
> > I am concerned that Linux is making the same sorts of compromises,
> > however, I am confident that it will always be "optional."
How is that? What makes you think the forking of linux won't continue
unabated?
again, have you even TRIED NT?
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 21:26:40 +0100
Harry Lewis wrote:
>
> Grant Edwards wrote:
> >
> > In article <8seufm$c7d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MH wrote:
> >
> > >Latex is fine. But try to give this to an experienced user of Word and it's
> > >not going to happen in this life time.
> >
> > Wow. Word must be far worse than I had initially thoought if using it
> > causes so much brain damage that it renders the user incapable of learning
> > simple tasks with even a lifetime to do so.
> >
> > Learning to use LaTeX is certainly no more difficult than learning to use
> > Word. Provided with a set of LaTeX templates, I've seen people with no
> > typesetting or programming experience whatsoever producing within a day
> > documents that looked like they were professionally typeset. You can spend
> > the rest of your life plus most of the next one futzing with Word and will
> > never end up with anything that wouldn't make a discerning reader gag.
> >
> > --
> > Grant Edwards grante Yow! My mind is making
> > at ashtrays in Dayton...
> > visi.com
>
> If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
>
> If all you have is a typesetting program, everything looks like a
> typesetting problem.
>
> Problem is, everything isn't a typesetting problem. Typesetting is the
> business of printers. Word processing is what users do.
>
> Harry
You've misunderstood latex. LaTeX allows you to write a document without
worrying about typesetting. You just say, "this is a new section",
"emphasize this", etc etc. LaTeX typesets for you. With word, you have
to do the typesetting yourself, such as 2 spaces after a full stop,
underlining or emboldening titles, and section numbering by hand.
The point about latex is that it does the typesetting for you, not the
other way round (although you can force it to do what you want).
I as a user prefer not to have to worry about typesetting, so I use
LaTeX/TeX. I also prefer the much higher quality output.
So your right, not everything is a typesetting problem, which is why the
task of seting type (what must be done in order to print the thing in
any system) is best left to a computer program.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:41:28 -0300
El mar, 17 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> Your incoherence is mounting. You are the one that said that classes are not
>> necessary in object oriented languages. Yet, you claim that all objects in
>> languages that have classes should belong to a class.
>
>And let me guess: you STILL don't understand that, do you?
I do understan each statement in isolation. However, I don't see them as
compatible.
>Can you show a contradiction?
Sure. Let's take an imaginary language that has syntax for both objects thar
are members of classes and objects that are not. The end.
> Of course you can't but can you at least
>TRY to show one? It might give me enough data points to figure out what
>you're blathering about and explain your own thinking to you.
Whatever.
>> I just repeated things you said. Happily now you understand why I saw what you
>> wrote as nonsensical.
>
>Provide quotes along with explicit transformations of my words into
>your nonsense.
I did provide the quotes. You deleted them. Too bad.
>> >And you claim to understand the incompleteness theorem ??
>>
>> Indeed I do. Care to argue about it?
>
>You don't seem to understand rudimentary logic so why should I engage
>in the masochistic exercise of arguing anything serious with you?
Because you seem to be scared of doing so. Are you afraid you would be shown to
be inadequate? For instance, you could make a coherent argument, starting with
the incompleteness theorem, and reach your silly conclusion about "not properly
defined things". Should be a fun read.
>> If language can have classes as language constructs, and language can not have
>> classes as language constructs, languages possibly can have objects that beong
>
>Great, now you're using two different meanings of "language" in the same
>sentence. Assuming you're making any sense (to yourself, you certainly
>aren't making any sense to anyone else).
By language I mean a computer language, nothing more and nothing else. What two
meanings am I using?
>> to classes and objects that don't. It's just a matter of syntax. It will
>> probably be a sucky language, but it will be a language.
>
>Huh? Are you SERIOUSLY implying that I have argued that C++ does not exist?
No. Please come back from the alternate reality you inhabit.
>What are you blathering on about? My position on the thread can be reduced to:
>
>1) C++/Java dose X, and
>2) X *must not* be done, therefore
>3) C++/Java can't possibly be OO
You have also claimed that languages MUST be introspective, have you not?
>> Check the dates of the two posts, the one I replied to and the one I quoted.
>> Less than two days apart, IIRC.
>
>And I never said that I had changed my position in that article, just
>on the subject.
Mind you, I can't parse that.
> I *did* accuse you of being too stupid to ferret out
>any inconsistencies in my position and to me this *seems* to exclude
>the possibility of your being right in your accusation that I was
>inconsistent between those two articles.
The two articles seem inconsistent.
>> >> You assume the language tries to be completely object oriented. Such is not the
>> >> case with, for example, C++.
>> >
>> >C++ isn't AT ALL Object Oriented.
>>
>> Opinion. Oh, what an easy thing to have.
>
>Isn't it? Now, if the wizard just gave you a brain, maybe you'd have
>what's required to come up with an intelligible one.
Perhaps if you were less opinionated you would be a better human being.
>Hey, if you missed the article where I explain to Donovan exactly why
>Java and C++ are not OO ....
No, I read it. Yet you seem to have used "a OO language" and "a language"
interchangeably all through our latest argument. Tsk, tsk.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 21:32:37 +0100
> PowerPoint? again, forget it.
You're bullshitting here. One of my lecture courses is done in
StarImpress and it looks as good as any PowerPoint presentation.
The best presentation I've seen (in terms of quality) is a LaTeX based
package that renders each frame to an image file and displays them in
netscape. It preduces very good looking results. And you can embed
audio, video, etc, etc.
> Plus, I don't understand the following statement, "SO is as good as MS
> office in that it doesn't crash like MS Office". What the hell does this
> mean? SO doesn't crash? That's pure BS. SO crashes less then MS office?
> That's completely unsupported by any facts you bring to the table. (none).
> OK, let us say the SO does crash less than MS office,would that and that
> alone make it better than MS office? But WE CAN'T say that, can we? Because
> we offer no evidence that that is the case. This is what I DETEST about
> linux advocacy. If I have a complaint about Linux, or a linux application. I
> say why, in no uncertain terms what it is I dislike, and will be happy to
> give particulars to back it up. You, and your cola partners in crime, on the
> other hand, make assertions like the above. You have nothing to back it up
> but the weight of your signature and the ubiquity of your presence on
> usenet. That and 50 cents might buy you a paper. Meanwhile, MILLIONS of
> people are using MS office every minute of every day. And yes, they DO get
> work done! That's the reality of what is facing Linux. That is THE desktop.
> You can dance around it, but if your argument is going to always resemble
> what you proffer above, you're in deep shit people.
You complain here about bull shit despite spouting it forth in great
volumes yourself (see top of message for one example). At least have a
leg to stand on when you try to complain.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:46:56 -0400
On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:51:49 GMT,
Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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
>
Well, if you run xmms to play your mp3 files, go to http://figz.com/gdancer/
That's a plug-in for xmms that's gives you a dancing character on your
desktop...he (or she) changes animation frames based on the music. The
default character is Space Ghost, but a fair number of people have created
other characters. Right now, I've got a funky chicken dancing to the Diablo 2
soundtrack.
My 3-year-old loves it, anyway. <grin>
--
Marc Richter
==================================================
56. My Legions of Terror will be trained in basic marksmanship. Any who
cannot learn to hit a man-sized target at 10 meters will be used for
target practice.
from "Top 100 Things to Do if I Ever Become an Evil Overlord"
The contents of this message express only the sender's opinion.
This message does not necessarily reflect the policy or views of
my employer, Merck & Co., Inc. All responsibility for the statements
made in this Usenet posting resides solely and completely with the
sender.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: KDE starting to stress out a little?
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 20:29:39 GMT
Check this out:
http://dot.kde.org/971680096/
With all of the KDE vs GNome stuff going on, and with all the added
corporate pressures these days, I was starting to wonder if the "Meet
the folks behind KDE" articles that had been going on lately were part
of a PR response (along with GPLing everything, trying to get KOffice
out in time to match OpenOffice, etc.). Is the stress starting to
affect these guys, you think?
Maybe a KDE Foundation is in order to start adding some internal
infrastructure (management, office assistants, etc.) to help the
programmers out a little. Just so long as management doesn't take over
(grin)...
Meanwhile, still waiting for GNUstep to take over the world after these
two giants destroy each other...
-ws
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE starting to stress out a little?
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 18:15:34 -0300
El mar, 17 oct 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>Check this out:
>
>http://dot.kde.org/971680096/
>
>With all of the KDE vs GNome stuff going on, and with all the added
>corporate pressures these days, I was starting to wonder if the "Meet
>the folks behind KDE" articles that had been going on lately were part
>of a PR response (along with GPLing everything, trying to get KOffice
>out in time to match OpenOffice, etc.). Is the stress starting to
>affect these guys, you think?
>
>Maybe a KDE Foundation is in order to start adding some internal
>infrastructure (management, office assistants, etc.) to help the
>programmers out a little. Just so long as management doesn't take over
>(grin)...
Yeah, I'm really needing a secretary. And a personal trainer.
>Meanwhile, still waiting for GNUstep to take over the world after these
>two giants destroy each other...
Everything is possible, I guess ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
