Linux-Advocacy Digest #758, Volume #29 Fri, 20 Oct 00 09:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? ("David Brown")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Nick Condon)
RE: Clearing things ("Idoia Sainz")
RE: Clearing things ("Idoia Sainz")
Re: Why Linux is great. (mlw)
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? ("ostracus")
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? ("Nik Simpson")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (Truckasaurus)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Andy Newman)
Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Clearing things ("MH")
Re: Astroturfing ("Chad Myers")
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE (David M. Butler)
Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web! ("Chad Myers")
RE: Clearing things ("Osugi Sakae")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:11:10 GMT
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 02:54:45 GMT, "Les Mikesell"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Exactly....
>>
>> Typical Linonut semantics again..When will they ever learn..
>>
>> claire
>
>Correct semantics are important. But if you deal with that other
>company I can understand why that would surprise you...
Funny how an operating system with a collection of dis-jointed,
misspelled, highly general (useless to most) and outdated How-To's
have a collection of supporters so interested in correct usage of
words, terms and phrases.
Maybe that's because at least in COLA, most of them are doing such a
dismal job of trying to defend a miserable and hostile operating
system?
Or maybe they really don't have much to say at all, correct as it may
be semantic wise.
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:02:16 +0200
2:1 wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> I AM learning to deal with lyx and pybliographer because of the
>> bibliography app integration - in my work, this is a MUST. The
>> main problem with it is that its output (lyx and latex) is not
>> accepted by any of the scientific journals to which I could
>> conceivably publish. They all accept word, wordperfect, wordstar,
>> pdf. SOME accept simple ascii text, which lyx/latex can handle,
>> but not a single one will accept latex or lyx format documents.
>
>
>lxy/latex can make PDF documents. Try pdflatex. This isn't the best
>solution, since it doesn't deal with postscript images. The best method
>is to latex the file, use dvips to make a ps file with embedded images,
>then ps2pdf to make a pdf doc. I think there is a pslatex to avoid the
>first step.
>
For on-line documents, pdfLaTeX is much better, as it makes it very easy to
produce links. A couple of packages (such as hyperref) are all that are
needed to turn cross-references into hyperlinks, and the table of contents
into a nice tree of contents links. Thumbnails can easily be produced and
linked in, so that the final pdf has all the gimics you could want, all
without changing more than a couple of lines at the start of the document.
Obviously, this does not matter for printed documents, but for on-line
documents it makes a huge difference.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:12:24 GMT
And if you knew anything about DOS you would know that DOS 4.0 was the
worst version released by far.
claire
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:44:22 -0700, "Simon Cooke"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:QbOH5.10137$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> This is way late in the game. I thought we were talking about the
>> 'DOS isn't done ...' phase. How about a list of all the things
>> that broke with DOS 4.0? Remember, the one where, after
>> coasting for years, MS tried to match a few of the innovations
>> from DrDOS and failed badly. I forget whether they even
>> tried compression with that version or if the unpleasant business
>> with Stac happened in 5.0 where at least a few things actually worked.
>
>Ah... the Lemon version of DOS. :)
>
>I thought compression came in with 5.0. And, before anyone says it, no they
>didn't steal Stac's code. They infringed their compression algorithm
>patent -- which, as you'll read on Slashdot, isn't exactly difficult in the
>computer industry.
>
>Simon
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:15:49 GMT
Typical linonut, always blaming something/someone else when Linux goes
belly up.
Look up in the sky "It's a Winprinter"
"It's a WinModem"
"It's the motherboard"
No.............
, It's LinSux, the operating system that requires your
lifetime to make work.
claire
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 02:47:41 GMT, "Les Mikesell"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>
>> Don't tell me how to fix the shortcomings of Linux. Tell me when they have
>a
>> package out that will see all available memory by itself, with no input
>from
>> me and no searching through one and a half million man pages!
>> Once again, and I'll type this slow because I know your not too swift - I
>do
>> not want to edit SHIT! I will continue to use the OS that handles basic
>> hardware automatically.
>
>Just give it hardware with the standard bios functions.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 11:17:11 +0100
Richard wrote:
> > (Java's still a reasonably good language, IMO; maybe
> > Smalltalk's a better one. I don't know; haven't used it.)
>
> Java is impossible to teach to most people. Even Smalltalk
> isn't as simple as it could be because of classes. So that
> makes "reasonably good" strictly relative to programmers.
Fancy that. A programming language that's only good for programmers.
------------------------------
From: "Idoia Sainz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Clearing things
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:18:20 GMT
> > Outlook Express, Outlook <--- free
> Of course it's "free", the intent is to lock sites into Exchange.
Companies do that, even Redhat, SuSE and Debian do, even when
Debian is not a company.
> > kmail ? xfmail ? pine ? netscape ? mutt ? sendmail ?
> > fetchmail ? procmail ? qmail ? Combine like you want
> > to get the same that at Windows programs.
>
> Why would anyone combine *all* those?
Well fetchmail+procmail+sendmail+mutt is on of the most
extended forms of reading mail Linux people do. I did not mean
all of them, just the ones you wanted among them.
> > Internet Explorer <--- free
> Of course it's "free", the intent is to lock you into MS proprietary web
> extensions.
Whatever you want, it is the best browser around. URL autocompleting
and full screen view are great, but just the most trivial ones.
> Again, the cost is folded back in to the cost of the OS.
I agree, but given the cost of Windows ME and the cost of SuSE Linux
as an example, that cost start to be irrelevant ... and the cost of Linux
is hidden in the cost of time to learn, ask, read and surfing the net.
------------------------------
From: "Idoia Sainz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Clearing things
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:18:21 GMT
> Crawl back under your bridge TROLL.
Thanks for your well thought answer, but it would have
been enoughwith three names (in the case the programs
exist). When I am wrong I just say it, if Linux is better
I say it, never told anyone such kind of things just because
Linux make a better server ... why shouldn't it be the
same if Windows does a better desktop ?
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great.
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 07:15:01 -0400
Idoia Sainz wrote:
>
> > Sure, but, Windows' ain't it and that's what we are talking about.
>
> I think it tries more than Linux does ... I mean, it tries to make
> the daily work easier (don't mean easier to learn, but to use), while
> Linux tries to do it powerful ... the two worlds are getting nearer
> each time, but starting from different points.
I think Linux is both easier to use and easier to learn for a couple
reasons. Linux is more robust and protective, thus more likely to be
forgiving when a person makes a mistake. I come from a "blue collar"
background, and most of my friends from childhood and family are
completely clueless about computers, as such, after using Windows and
royally screwing it, many times, are "gun shy" about
experimenting/learning new things.
I have seen, with my own eyes, friends use Linux, and after a couple
months, much more confident and commanding on the Linux machine than
they had been on a Windows box after years. They "get" get difference
between normal user and "root" and they like it. It is a comforting
idea.
>
> > Yes, but I don't use them and I have that option, which you do not have
> > with NT/2K.
>
> Wait and see ... if Linux requires desktop power, it will fall into
> similar
> mistakes that Windows fell.
I feel pretty confident that wont happen.
>
> > Then, you are not an average computer user. You may think you are, but
> > the majority of users have trouble with the concept of a hard disk.
>
> I know I am not. You're giving me the reason, if average user have
> trouble
> with that (and indeed many of them have) they won't want to use Linux
> nowadays. Anything further than inserting a CD and clicking till a program
> is running is too much for a lot of them ... and Linux is not ready for
> that,
> even Windows can't do it a lot of times.
See, here is where you are mistaken. To these users, and they are the
majority, a Mac, Windows, Linux, makes no difference. Where Linux makes
a difference is stability. Linux will be better for these people, as I
explained previously.
>
> > Inconsistencies are a fact of life in the real world. People have fewer
> > problems understanding them than an appearence of stability and
> > uniformity which is false.
>
> Don't mix real world with computers interfaces.
Why? Isn't that what the "desktop" metaphor is all about? Isn't that
what the UI gurus are trying to do. Isn't the objective to make
computers easy by making them "make sense?" Well, our understanding of
things come from the real world, and we can deal better with
inconsistencies than we can a false sense of security, and things that
are noticeably different are easier to deal with than those that are
subtly different. That is human nature.
>
> > They were talking about crashes while using Word and publisher. A backup
> > would not have helped.
>
> Well if they save often and have a recently updated backup the lost work
> can't be too much, can it ?
Why do they need to save often? Why should they care? The house did not
lose power, the VCR wouldn't have stopped working. The toaster oven
wouldn't have stopped toasting. Why did Windows stop?
You are conditioned, you have been assimilated.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "ostracus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 06:19:35 +0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bailey/Davis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am interested in whether the market created the best (fast,
> efficient) hardware/software products in light
> of MS Windows dominance.
NO it doesn't.
Even if something could be claimed to be the best in such a world. It has
the potential (and motivation) to be much better in a world that isn't.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 07:26:11 -0400
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8sp2ti$vnd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> It is interesting that you mention the AMD SledgeHammer - a chip that
Linux
> will fully support in all its 64-bit glory when it comes out (simulation
and
> testing is going on now), whereas MS has no plans to support it at all.
And
> as for SMP - going the Windows route, you have to buy the expensive w2k
> server to take advantage of two processors, whereas Linux supports SMP on
> every system.
>
Beep wrong answer, thankyou fo pllaying. Just for you education, all
versions of Windows 2000 support SMP.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 11:26:30 GMT
In article <55CH5.13009$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I stated about Linux not being able to detect RAM properly is a
simple
> fact, check it.
Maybe on your planet, Chad. But here on earth, Linux has always
detected my RAM just right. And my partitions have also been detected
right, not like Windows 95, which once detected my Linux partition as
being an "audio CD"...
--
"Hello, everybody!"
- Doctor Nick
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:20:01 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>Revenues down 20% from hundreds of billions
If you think they sell hundreds of billions per year there's
a little bridge I'd like to show you. They report 5.8 bill
in the quarter. Quick, four times six is?
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:03:46 -0300
El vie, 20 oct 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>Try clicking on the help icon in BlackIce.. Duhhhh!
>
>IPChains/masquerading/forwarding and all of the other hostile Linux
>firewall scripts DO have online help I assume?
Sure. Start linuxconf. Network config. -> Firewall -> Help.
However, using linuxconf is harder than doing it by hand.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Clearing things
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:01:03 -0400
Welcome to the world of Linux advocacy~!
"Idoia Sainz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:NZUH5.76$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Crawl back under your bridge TROLL.
>
> Thanks for your well thought answer, but it would have
> been enoughwith three names (in the case the programs
> exist). When I am wrong I just say it, if Linux is better
> I say it, never told anyone such kind of things just because
> Linux make a better server ... why shouldn't it be the
> same if Windows does a better desktop ?
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:46:13 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ByOH5.10142$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9mCH5.13026$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > I've done that on the second of three installs, it still shows 66mb
> when the
> > > > install is complete. I also have a pretty good feeling that just
> typing
> > > > mem=256M will not magically work if it doesn't already see the maximum
> > > > amount available.
> > >
> > > You have an awnser to your problem, but your not interested in it. Why
> > > bother to ask?
> >
> > Are you penguinistas so devoid of common sense that you cannoy see the
> > obvious?
> >
> > Who's the leading seller of buisiness PCs? Dell? If not, Compaq, right?
> >
> > Let's talk about Dell then...
> >
> > What's Dell's leading PC? The OptiPlex line And/Or the Dimension line?
> >
> > The Dimensions and the OptiPlexes range form Celerons at the low
> > end to PIIIs at the high end.
> >
> > The Celeron boxes all use the 810 or 810e chipset, and the PIIIs use
> > the 815 or 815e chipset, which isn't too much different.
> >
> > Shall I now explain to you why water is wet?
>
> No, but you might mention whether the bios in all of these boxes
> misreport the memory size if that is what you are trying to imply.
What does that have to do with anything? Windows on these same
boxes detects the RAM perfectly.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:10:57 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 23:21:16 GMT, Idoia Sainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > To an office or workstation job, Windows 2000 has no
> >advantage over Windows 2000. To a home user Windows
> >98 would be better ... Windows 2000 shouldn't exist.
>
> huh?
>
Uh... I was just going to ask the same in depth question... huh? Win2k
isn't better than Win2k? That's good... might cause some logic problems.
And this contributes to why Win2k shouldn't exist? I'm confuzzled.
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web!
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:50:27 GMT
"Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:HSMH5.31016$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:QDCH5.13035$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :
> : "Mike Coleman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : > "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : > > 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.
> : >
> : > I'd rather flip burgers in hell than aid and abet in Redmond.
> :
> : With that kind of attitude, it won't be long then...
>
> You'll be ordering burgers using CLI pretty soon.....
$ordrbrgr -p dill -t ripe -c american -b low-fat -bn sesame-seed >
grill -medium-well < money -value $5.00
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Clearing things
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:10:33 +0900
In article <MZUH5.75$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Idoia Sainz"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Outlook Express, Outlook <--- free
>> Of course it's "free", the intent is to lock sites into Exchange.
>
> Companies do that, even Redhat, SuSE and Debian do, even when
> Debian is not a company.
I'm calling your bluff, troll - name one thing that debian has done for
the express purpose of locking users into a proprietary protocal.
Sure, many companies try to get you to keep using their stuff, but no one
has done it to the extent that MS has. (though some might wish they
could).
>> > kmail ? xfmail ? pine ? netscape ? mutt ? sendmail ? fetchmail ?
>> > procmail ? qmail ? Combine like you want to get the same that at
>> > Windows programs.
>>
>> Why would anyone combine *all* those?
>
> Well fetchmail+procmail+sendmail+mutt is on of the most
> extended forms of reading mail Linux people do. I did not mean all of
> them, just the ones you wanted among them.
Personally, kmail works just fine (bit slow, but no big deal). Don't know
what features LookOut has that I would need. 'Course, I don't have to
worry about virii.
>> > Internet Explorer <--- free
>> Of course it's "free", the intent is to lock you into MS proprietary
>> web extensions.
>
> Whatever you want, it is the best browser around. URL autocompleting
> and full screen view are great, but just the most trivial ones.
You aren't worried about never having a choice again? Doesn't bother you
that IE is only "the best" now because MS used their monopoly to crush
Netscape? (Do you honestly think that IE 3.0 was better than Netscape at
the time?)
I find IE's internet options needlessly complex. Give me the simple, easy
to use Netscape layout any day.
>> Again, the cost is folded back in to the cost of the OS.
>
> I agree, but given the cost of Windows ME and the cost of SuSE Linux
> as an example, that cost start to be irrelevant ... and the cost of
> Linux is hidden in the cost of time to learn, ask, read and surfing the
> net.
So you admit that the cost of developing IE (and LookOut?) is included in
the cost of Windows, so IE is not really free, is it?
SuSE is free - beer and speech. Windows isn't. Either way, IE costs more,
windows costs more.
You make it sound like everyone is born knowing how to use MS windows -
that isn't the case. Linux is free, and any time spend learning how to use
your linux system is more than made up for by the power of the system.
Please tell me, is WinME multi-user? Really multi-user? Didn't think so.
MS decided you have to pay extra for that. Same with even elementary
stability - linux you get it, WinMe you don't.
--
Osugi Sakae
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
