Linux-Advocacy Digest #760, Volume #29 Fri, 20 Oct 00 12:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Grant Edwards)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Drestin Black")
Re: Why Linux is great. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Drestin Black")
RE: Clearing things ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Real Linux Advocacy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Drestin Black")
Re: Astroturfing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Real Linux Advocacy (Nick Condon)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Drestin Black")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Edwards)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:17:43 GMT
In article <uQOH5.10147$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> All the people I've worked with spend 90% of their time from
>> the very beginning futzing with fonts and margins and
>> backgrounds and colors and whatnot rather than actually
>> producing content. It would almost be excusable if they ended
>> up with something nice looking but vacuous. But the don't.
>> They end up with something ugly and vacuous.
>
>Word is actually capable of using style sheets where the
>details are provided by the style which can be changed,
>but I don't think many people use them.
Yes, it is possible to use Word the "right" way. Marking
things by content and applying format with style sheets. But
I've never seen anybody actually _do_ that. They always
manually adjust the fonts/margins/whatever until they think it
looks good. Trouble is, they're often wrong. But, I suppose,
that is a matter of taste.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I know things about
at TROY DONAHUE that can't
visi.com even be PRINTED!!
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 20 Oct 2000 10:30:15 -0500
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8sncsl$bma$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> : I can remember for YEARS having to listen to people, fairly and
accurately,
> : tell me that Windows and SQL Server were lightweights and they would
quote
> : TPC-C (either when Windows simply wasn't there or during it's infancy
when
> : it was making a very poor showing). Touts of Sun is king and Oracle
rules...
> : there was no other benchmark to throw around. Oracle STILL has posters
in
> : it's main lobby (quite old now) that show all of the top 10 positions
> : occupied by hardware that ran Oracle. Sun would put TPC figures (even
> : price/performance figures) in their sales material. There was a time
when
> : even at the hyper inflated prices for IBM and Sun equipment and software
> : they were kings and MS blew donkey dicks, compaq was a toy-maker.
>
> I suppose it never occurred to you that the same people who dislike
> TPC metrics for Windows might also not like them for UNIX either.
Perhaps, but I'm not talking about them.
>Hint:
> The set of all UNIX advocates is not a homogeneous set.
Neither are MSCE's or Windows advocates - but they are constantly painted
with the same broad strokes.
>As such, any
> accusations of two-facedness by "the community" are total bullshit.
While I'm sure you can never paint an entire "community" with any single
characterization; I can find quite a few people who prefer windows and also
like unix - but it's rare to find someone who prefers linux but likes
Windows - that differences is significant.
> An individual can be two-faced if that one individual said things
> that contradict, but only if it was the same individual who said them.
> Saying that a private indivudual can't deride TPC merely because
> some TOTALLY DIFFERENT marketting poeple made use of it is a bullshit
> stance.
>
I'm glad I wasn't talking about these individual then...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:30:50 GMT
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 07:15:01 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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 disagree with everything in this paragraph except for the last
sentence in which you make a valid point.
>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.
I'd be out of business in a couple of months :)
But, in a strange sort of way I do agree with what you are saying
here, if only because compared to the old DOS days, I have completely
lost control of my machines. Programs, Dll's, leftover registry
garbage etc. Back in the good old days I knew where everything on my
drive was.
Linux is pretty logical in it's structure.
>>
>> > 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.
I think Linux is going to fall into the bloatware / featuritus game
that Windows and Windows software has.
I hope it doesn't.
>>
>> > 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.
If you are dropped in front of the computer already setup and running
with everything you need and you have someone to help you when you
change things (software/hardware etc) that is true.
>> > 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.
I agree 100 percent.
>
>>
>> > 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?
While I am forced to use Word on occasion, and don't really like it, I
refuse to ever use Office again.
>You are conditioned, you have been assimilated.
He speaks from his experience, as I do. I think you Linux guys are
conditioned and brainwashed by some psycho penguin lover :)
claire
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: 20 Oct 2000 10:37:16 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8sndt0$1grh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?articleid=RWT101600000000
> >>
> >> That's the headlines once they fail to support this chip.
> >>
> >> Linux will be supporting it just like they currently have IA64 working!
> >>
> >> Microsoft doesn't even have the IA64 working!
> >>
>
> > oh, and p.s., MS HAS run windows on a IA64 system... but not on the
power4
> > cause IBM has never shared one with them, kinda hard to do. Of course,
your
> > "prediction" that linux will support it is as likely as MS supporting
it. In
> > other words, it's pure speculation and has NO facts supporting it - pure
BS.
>
> Actually, youre wrong again, dresden. Which is not surprising, since you
continue
> to prove over and over again that you have no idea at all about whats
going on
> at IBM, or what has been going on there over the past few years.
>
> Linux will run on the power4, because the power4 is going into the next
generation
> S/* mainframes, under which linux is *officially* supported.
So you are saying that your 100% rock solid "proof" of this future event is
that, since IBM has announced that it is "officially" supporting Linux on
it's server that WHEN these next generation machines are finally built that
IBM will be able to insure that the open source community bends to it's will
and supports this chip, no matter what anyone else might say/think or what
may happen between now and then.
So, do you work for the psychic network on the side or is that your day job?
Until it happens it's speculation. It may be likely that it will happen,
even very likely but until it actually happens you just don't know.
Tell me what part of this I've said is inaccurate or wrong? Hmmm? Unless you
actually have a copy of Linux running on a Power4 - your shouting "it will!
it will!" are meaningless.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Clearing things
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:33:57 GMT
In article <MZUH5.75$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Idoia Sainz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[el snippo]
> Whatever you want, it is the best browser around. URL autocompleting
> and full screen view are great, but just the most trivial ones.
>
My latest copy of Mozilla also does URL autocomplete. I don't really
care for it, and it's a feature I could easily do without. And I can't
even imagine a use for full screen view, except maybe surfing p0rn sites.
But I suppose if I were stuck with a single-tasking, single-user
operating system, I wouldn't care about covering up all the other
windows where I'm actually accomplishing work.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:40:22 GMT
I nominate you for worst attempt at trying to advocate Linux.
Do you ever say anything constructive, for Linux that is?
Trust someone else's script, from god knows where to set up my
firewall?
Thanks but no thanks.
At least users of Blackice are all using the SAME script that is well
tested by legions.
Not some hacked POS that somebody put up on their web page to suck
people in.
claire
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:36:00 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Kelley)
wrote:
>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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Real Linux Advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:41:06 GMT
Pretty much what I would say as well.
claire
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 09:13:33 -0400, "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: 20 Oct 2000 10:43:17 -0500
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Gosh, linux supports a chip that NO ONE running Linux would(/could)
afford.
>
> 1 If noone running linux can afford the chip, then how come people have
> got linux running on it?
you clipped the rest, it was a comment on the fact most linux users are
using it because it's free.
>
> 2 Is an IA64 based machione going to cost more than an S/390?
dunno - haven't seen one yet
>
>
> > And, IBM couldn't afford to buy MS - it's that simple. But Bill could
buy
> > IBM if he stopped donating CASH (not promises) to charities and
non-profit
> > foundations.
>
> 1 No he couldn't
Yes, he could.
>
> 2 What's wrong with him donating cash? Do you disagree with charities?
Nothing wrong with it at all; I donate frequently.
I meant that he gives away so much money that if he didn't he could buy IBM
:)
(about equal to IBM buying MS - get it?)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 15:44:17 GMT
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:46:13 GMT, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What does that have to do with anything? Windows on these same
>boxes detects the RAM perfectly.
>
>-Chad
>
It's the blame someone else for Linux's faults syndrome.
claire
------------------------------
From: Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Real Linux Advocacy
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:44:50 +0100
"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.
In Usenet, like natural conversations, replies go *after* the quoted text.
How many times have I told you "Steve/Heathe/Amy/Keys88/Claire_lynn"?
*ploink*
> "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8sctou$f5p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > : Also schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > :>You mean you have been posting Linux advocacy here for months and you
> > :>just got Linux online?
> >
> > : You can be an advocate for something and yet not do it. I'm sure that
> > : you advocate brain surgery, and it's quite obvious you've never done
> > : that.
> >
> >
> > I've always used a variety of OSen, advocating those that meet my
> > needs excellently, and generally criticizing those that do not.
> >
> > My first posts regarding Linux (circa 1996 or thereabouts) were mildly
> > negative, of the form "Linux has great potential but needs to overcome
> > problems X, Y and Z before I will be able to make much use of it for
> > my needs." Very often, I'd learn that these "problems" either
> > reflected a limitation of my own understanding, had already been
> > solved, or were in the process of being solved.
> >
> > Today Linux represents by far and away the best OS (out of the ones
> > I've used) for most of my needs. The free *BSDs are almost as good
> > (and in some instances better). The greatest part of their value to
> > me stems directly or indirectly from their being free (aka
> > open-source). Hence, it is extremely unlikely that any closed-source
> > OS, no matter how could, could replace it.
> >
> > But because many of my present and past employers and clients believe
> > that proprietary OSen better meet their needs, I'm often forced to use
> > them. This actually is a plus for my advocacy work. Familiarity with
> > other (and sometimes spectacularly horrid) OSen helps me to better
> > appreciate the strengths of the ones I use when I have the choice.
> >
> >
> > Joe
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: 20 Oct 2000 10:45:05 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8snu1l$r7l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have a question in this reply however. Has Microsoft eliminated the
> need for real-mode assembly in the new versions of its OSes (NT,9X,2k),
> or does it still have a 640K (LOL) boundary. Honestly the solution (if
> required) would be to eliminate DOS all together, and make an
> emulator. DOS programs should not be running native on Windows
> 9X/NT/2k if it wants to be called a true operating system (my opinion)
Neither NT nor W2K uses real-mode or DOS or is in any way affected by any
640K boundary.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
