Linux-Advocacy Digest #759, Volume #29 Fri, 20 Oct 00 11:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Real Linux Advocacy ("MH")
RE: Why Linux is great. (David M. Butler)
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? (Nick Condon)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donal K.
Fellows)
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE (David M. Butler)
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE (Roberto Alsina)
Re: KDE starting to stress out a little? (David M. Butler)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donal K.
Fellows)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Michael
Livshin)
Linux or Solaris (Malte Ubl)
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! (chrisv)
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE (Tim Kelley)
Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux (Tim Kelley)
Re: Why Linux is great. (Tim Kelley)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Joseph Dalton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:55:10 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:C5PH5.10150$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:fQMH5.13374$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Matt Kennel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > :Yes. I have the courage enough to state that to my knowledge, Microsoft
> does
> > > :not write its products so as to deliberately cripple competing
> companies'
> > > :products. Its applications have no innate advantage over other
> applications
> > > :on the same OS.
> > >
> > > Do its programmers
> > >
> > > 1) know about future API's sooner than other non Microsoft programmers?
> >
> > If so, how does this cripple competitors products?
>
> In every way possible. How long was MS developing Word for Windows
> while misleading Wordperfect about the future of OS/2?
Ah yes, it's always Microsoft's fault when a misguided company fails...
Which APIs did MS throw in to purposely cripple Wordperfect? After all,
that is the current topic.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Real Linux Advocacy
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:13:33 -0400
Since many are incapable of replying with any semblance of intelligence. Let
me give it a go.
One reason, cost. Many universities run a *nix infrastructure due to the
cost incurred by using retail solutions. On the home front, some folks don't
like paying 100's of dollars for software. (OS & APPS). There is MUCH more
to it that this, but I'll stop here.
Stability. Linux, when properly configured, rarely, if ever crashes. It just
keeps going, and going, and...
Power. If you're really into learning to leverage the true power of a
computer, the console shells & binaries that ship with most *nix systems
provide you with that means. If you know DOS, you'll be amazed with a few
days with a good book in front of a *nix shell.
You're into programming. Linux is a great tool by which to learn programming
and to continue with programming once you've got a good grasp of it.
Philosophy. Gnu is pretty cool once you know a little about it and think of
what those who believe in it have done with it. (-:
There's more, but I'll stop with what I believe to be the most important.
<< Linux Zealots>>
Notice not once did I compare linux to windows.
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> James E. Freedle II wrote:
> >
> > I have been wondering, why use Linux? Of the several Linux distributions
> > that I have tried, none of them equaled Windows on my computer. At most
the
> > functionality was close to DOS 5.0 and Windows for Workgroups 3.11. And
do
> > not say stability, because Windows is perfectly stable even when I tax
it
> > the most.
>
> A new troll!
>
> Allow me to welcome you to cola.
>
> -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: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Why Linux is great.
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:25:45 -0400
Idoia Sainz wrote:
> Such as typing URL's at browser, such as copy paste and full
> inter application consistency, such as saving a full web page, as
> some examples.
Just a quick comment. I do all of the above just fine in X Windows using
KDE 2.0. URL's can be typed into the standard file browser just as easily
as IE allows... A command/URL box can be attached to the "panel" (similar
to the windows taskbar) if the user wishes to have quick access to any
website or command line app. Saving a full web page is still a little
goofy, but as of yet I've seen no complaints on the wishlist... it's
possible though. Copy & Paste works fine between all my apps... I can
either use the KDE clipboard, which saves a history of cuts/copies, or I
can use the built in X copy/paste. The built in one is used by
highlighting text in anything and pasting it elsewhere with the middle
mouse button (or right & left on a two button mouse). Drag n' drop between
KDE apps works nicely, also, but I've rarely ever used this even in windows
so I can't comment on the extent of the functionality.
Anyhoo, go on arguing, just wanted to stick that comment in.
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[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 14:28:47 +0100
David Brown wrote:
> Bruce Schuck wrote in message ...
> >
> >Well ... the biggest hack on the Internet was the Unix worm.
>
> What is "the Unix worm" ?
On 2 November 1988, a self-replicating program called a "worm" attacked the
Internet and spread within hours to between 2,000 and 6,000 VAX and Sun 3
computer systems running UNIX (BSD 4). The worm program did not steal, corrupt
or destroy data, nor did it alter the systems; but its rapid proliferation and
the ensuing confusion disrupted service and shut down some systems and network
connections throughout the Internet for two or three days.
Melissa (April 1999) on the other hand, hit more than 300 companies and at least
100,000 PCs. It was variously described as "the fastest proliferation of a virus
ever" (CERT) and a "record setting Internet rampage" (ZDNet).
The Unix Worm is now the stuff of legend and was undoubtedly very serious,
anyone who calls it "the biggest hack on the Internet" is clearly talking out of
his backside. Additionally the Internet Worm led to the Unix security hole being
closed and lessons being learned (the incident has never been repeated).
Microsoft refused to admit there even was a security hole and Melissa variants
continue to multiply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 20 Oct 2000 13:24:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Michael Livshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows) writes:
>> Functional languages are characterised by their semantics
>> consisting entirely of the evaluation of expressions. They don't
>> have updatable state. (Well, most practical functional languages
>> do, but that stuff is typically ring-fenced quite carefully.) SML
>> and Haskell are excellent examples, and Lisp is (practically
>> speaking) a pretty poor example.
>
> why is Lisp a pretty poor example?
Because most Lisp code (or at least most that I've seen or read about)
is extremely imperative in nature. Sure, you can write functionally
with Lisp, but it seems to be rather rare out in the field. Which is
why I put the parenthesised proviso in.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The guy who sells me my audio hardware explained that a computer will never
produce the same level of sound quality that a stereo will b/c stereo have
transistors and sound cards don't. --Matthew Garson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:38:10 -0400
Donn Miller wrote:
> I agree. I have been using FreeBSD and Linux, and these two OSes for
> the most part have been very very very very stable. I also tried GNOME
> and KDE, and when you properly configer these, any Windows user can feel
> right at home using FreeBSD or Linux. But, the biggest problem is with
> X itself. In order to get the most out of GNOME, don't you have to
> stick with gnomelibs/gtk almost exclusively? Also, with KDE, you are
> pretty much restricted to doing C++-only programming with Qt. So, you
> are basically forcing programmers to stick with either Gtk or Qt
> depending on which desktop they are using. If you want to do some Motif
> programming or use some Motif apps, the API's don't really match up well
> with either Qt or Gtk. DnD is also tricky between Gtk<-->Motif<-->Qt.
Well, I disagree with the part about being forced to stick to either Gtk or
Qt, as any generic X app will run in either desktop environment... but DnD
is a bit tricky. KDE has (is implementing?) a generic XML interface to the
desktop, so that an app can be written without the KDE headers/libraries
and still communicate with other K apps (Drag n' Drop, etc). There's a
server that translates between the native K communication and XML
transparently... so at very least, K compatibility is pretty easy to add
with any program.
Oh, and if I'm horribly misunderstanding the concept here, let me know. :P
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:45:23 -0300
El vie, 20 oct 2000, David M. Butler escribió:
>Donn Miller wrote:
>
>> I agree. I have been using FreeBSD and Linux, and these two OSes for
>> the most part have been very very very very stable. I also tried GNOME
>> and KDE, and when you properly configer these, any Windows user can feel
>> right at home using FreeBSD or Linux. But, the biggest problem is with
>> X itself. In order to get the most out of GNOME, don't you have to
>> stick with gnomelibs/gtk almost exclusively? Also, with KDE, you are
>> pretty much restricted to doing C++-only programming with Qt. So, you
>> are basically forcing programmers to stick with either Gtk or Qt
>> depending on which desktop they are using. If you want to do some Motif
>> programming or use some Motif apps, the API's don't really match up well
>> with either Qt or Gtk. DnD is also tricky between Gtk<-->Motif<-->Qt.
>
>Well, I disagree with the part about being forced to stick to either Gtk or
>Qt, as any generic X app will run in either desktop environment... but DnD
>is a bit tricky. KDE has (is implementing?) a generic XML interface to the
>desktop, so that an app can be written without the KDE headers/libraries
>and still communicate with other K apps (Drag n' Drop, etc).
DnD already works between KDE, Motif and Gtk+ apps.
The generic XML interface you mention is probably the DCOP-XMLRPC bridge. KDE
apps use DCOp for IPC. It's a protocol based on libICE, and can be used from
outside of KDE, there are C bindings, etcetera.
However, in some cases, if you really want to break loose, use XMLRPC. Anything
that can open a socket and generate XML can use it. bash+telnet can use it ;-)
XMLRPC is, BTW, quite similar to SOAP, so it's been suggested that after KDE2.0
a similar bridge for SOAP could be done, enabling easy IPC with, say Visual
Basic ;-)
> There's a
>server that translates between the native K communication and XML
>transparently... so at very least, K compatibility is pretty easy to add
>with any program.
>
>Oh, and if I'm horribly misunderstanding the concept here, let me know. :P
You got it right :-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE starting to stress out a little?
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:51:30 -0400
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Bandwidth is no longer an issue.
Except for those of us still stuck on those "ancient" copper lines with no
cable modems or DSL available yet. Of course, there's a large division
where I live. If I were to move literally 50 feet (across the street),
cable (internet, yes we have TV cable) would be available, and I am moving
soon... but amazingly enough, there are still a lot of places without high
speed access.
Incidentally, is there ANYWHERE else in the rest of the United States where
a phone call across a specific street is long distance, while a call 30
miles in the opposite direction is still local?
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 20 Oct 2000 13:36:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
FM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only reasons why I think OO is helpful (or the parts of the
> philosophy that I find actually applicable to problem solving), are
> that it forces the programmer to codify more abstract type
> information and that it promotes a higher degree of code reuse. On
> the other hand, these can be done without much of the garbage that
> OO brings.
Some problems are more amenable to tackling with OO than others. It
is very useful when you're modelling a large system of entities
(especially where you can identify classes and a class hierarchy) and
an unwelcome distraction if you're doing FFTs or inverting large
matrices. All of which demonstrates that there is *no* magic bullet...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The guy who sells me my audio hardware explained that a computer will never
produce the same level of sound quality that a stereo will b/c stereo have
transistors and sound cards don't. --Matthew Garson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Michael Livshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 20 Oct 2000 15:43:11 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Michael Livshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows) writes:
> >> Functional languages are characterised by their semantics
> >> consisting entirely of the evaluation of expressions. They don't
> >> have updatable state. (Well, most practical functional languages
> >> do, but that stuff is typically ring-fenced quite carefully.) SML
> >> and Haskell are excellent examples, and Lisp is (practically
> >> speaking) a pretty poor example.
> >
> > why is Lisp a pretty poor example?
>
> Because most Lisp code (or at least most that I've seen or read about)
> is extremely imperative in nature. Sure, you can write functionally
> with Lisp, but it seems to be rather rare out in the field.
aha. you mean the fact that one _can_ write Lisp (or Scheme, or ML)
programs using non-functional paradigms implies that Lisp (or Scheme,
or ML) is somehow less of a functional language?
this would imply that "functional language" is defined as "a language
that allows programming using the functional paradigm and disallows
programming using any other paradigm", as opposed to just the first
clause.
I call that _seriously_ muddled thinking, sorry.
[
note that such word games are in widespread use in propaganda,
and are very effective. but let's not get into that. ;)
]
--
(only legal replies to this address are accepted)
Life's a duck, and then you sigh.
------------------------------
From: Malte Ubl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux or Solaris
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:43:45 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
we are currently developing a business a plan for a rather
large e-commerce site.
I am trying to figure out which is the best direction to
go concerning server and database technology. One possibility,
of course would be to walk the SUN/Oracle path. But you can buy
20 Linux boxes for the price of one sun server. So Linux might
be the way to go. On the other hand, I heard the Oracle for
Linuy is supposed to suck. So if we go with Linux which database
would you recommend and how well do they compared to Oracle.
I appreciate you comments,
Malte Ubl
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:12:17 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>Its not "linux" that supports video cards, brainiac. Its the X-server.
>You're probably referring to XFree86, and yes it does.
But is the video card recognized during install or do you have to set
it up later? As I said, my V3 was supposedly supported, but trying to
get XFree86 configured was a non-working nightmare. Comical in it's
hostility.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 11:30:27 -0300
El vie, 20 oct 2000, chrisv escribió:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
>>Its not "linux" that supports video cards, brainiac. Its the X-server.
>>You're probably referring to XFree86, and yes it does.
>
>But is the video card recognized during install or do you have to set
>it up later?
Depends on the distribution.
Some configure it during install (Corel).
Some configure it optionally during install (Conectiva, Red Hat)
Some don't configure it during install (Debian, Slackware).
All allow you to configure it (again) after the installation.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Kelley)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:33:37 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:40:40 -0400, James E. Freedle II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That is fine if you have all the time in the world to work with your
>computer. I have a little time every night, and I want to get things done,
>rather than spend months trying to figure out how to work with linux.
>Besides the fact that it will not work with my hardware, and I am not going
>to spend extra money on getting hardware that will work with Linux. Windows
>2000 is rock solid, of course Linux is rock solid (it just sits there). I do
>not know half of what is installed on Linux. At least I can get my homework
>done in Windows. And Windows 2000 is perfect for home use. I switched from
>Windows 98SE because of the limited resource heaps.
>Linux may be ready for the desktop in some years, but until it is, it will
>be only in VMWare.
I don't have $15,000 for extra software to bring Win2K up to par with
linux and all the applications that come with it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.iww.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Kelley)
Subject: Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:36:00 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 10:07:04 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>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?
>
>claire
yes steve/heather/keys88, you can just download someone else's
firewall script if you don't feel like learning ipchains. then just
change the variables. It's easy, and it works better than shitIce, or
whatever that crap is.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.iww.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Kelley)
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great.
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:43:19 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 02:41:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Yea....Real great descriptions like:
>
>
>"A Cool Biff Clone"
... as you could be described as "a cool steve clone" or "a cool
heather clone", or just a "psychotic babbling moron".
>Or:
> "This is alpha level software and may produce unpredictable
>results"
>
>So is Linux.
actually it's beginning to sound like you.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.iww.org
------------------------------
From: Joseph Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: 20 Oct 2000 10:48:05 -0400
Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 19:25:05 GMT, Haoyu Meng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >U need to read a whole book to understand how to use Latex. I am in the business
> > >of writing books using computers. I don't want to have to learn programming to
> > >do that.
> >
> > You have an exceedingly unprofessional attitude regarding your tools.
> >
>
>
> What does THAT mean...that one should HAVE to learn programing in order
> to
> write papers?
>
> What nonsense. The writing is secondary to the work, unless one is a
> journalist.
> If one is a scientist, your job is to do science, not learn
> typesetting. Your
> scientific WORK is what matters most and it is a waste of time and
> effort to
> learn something that isn't needed just to write about it.
>
Well how much time do you spend learning to use and futz with Word
then? :-)
> Science, Nature, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Biochemistry,
> Journal of Virology, Virology, Journal of Molecular Biology, Genetics,
> Gene, Journal of Molecular Evolution, RNA...NONE of them accept latex
> (tex) format
> documents. They DO accept word and wordperfect. Some of them accept
> Wordstar.
> A few of them accept plain text, which latex _can_ handle in these
> circumstances.
>
I went to the web page for paper submission for Science. You can
submit in PDF or postscript. These are easily created from LaTeX. I
don't know about the other journals but I suspect they are similar.
> My colleagues are all scientists who publish in the above journals, and
> a few
> others. They all use Word. They do not have the need nor desire to
> take time
> away from doing X-ray crystallography, biochemistry, virology, or
> molecular
> biology research in order to learn something like latex when all they
> need
> to publish is Word or WordPerfect plus EndNote. For graphics they use
> Freehand or Illustrator. The EDITOR(s) at the journal gets to deal with
> all that
> typesetting crap. That is what they are paid to do.
>
I think you spend more time dealing with typesetting crap in Word than
in LaTeX. LaTeX frees you from that. It deals with it. The journals
don't care about your typesetting anyway, so why should you futz with
fonts and such in Word?
> Perhaps in physics, math, and computer "science" this is different but
> in the
> above fields, it is practically useless to spend time learning latex.
>
LaTeX is very useful for mathematically heavy works. You can buy
add-ons for Word that will "construct" your equations using GUI
buttons, but they just don't compare to the time saved just writing it
out in LaTeX. Actually I think some of them might accept TeX style
math input strings, ...but there you go learning to program again. And
no doubt, not all of your colleagues have that particular add-on.
> To consider this reality unprofessional is ridiculous. Priorities.
>
> praedor
The response was to someone who considers themselves a professional
writer. ("I am in the business of writing books using computers.")
Therefor I agree with jedi's assesment. LaTeX is not that hard to
learn. The output is gorgeous. It saves time. Why ignore it?
--
-- Joe Dalton
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
