Linux-Advocacy Digest #762, Volume #29 Fri, 20 Oct 00 14:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Distro 8.0 wish list... (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Linux to equal NT 3.51???? (Keith Peterson)
Re: Does anybody offer free Linux access?~! (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Don Barzini)
Re: IDC Estimates Linux growth at 183% per year (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Real Linux Advocacy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Claire Lynn (Andres Soolo)
Re: Does anybody offer free Linux access?~! (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: Magnetism (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why Linux is great. (2:1)
Re: Why Linux is great. (2:1)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (NAVARRO LOPEZ,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Manuel)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (NAVARRO LOPEZ,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Manuel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 23:44:52 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 19 Oct 2000 22:45:34 +0200...
...and James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Universal, consistent, printing for one ...
>
>
> "Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It was the Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:06:11 +0200...
> > ...and James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Comparing Win2k to Gnome/KDE is really unfair. They are still playing
> > > catchup to Win95/98. Hell, in some ways (ease of use, consistent
> interface,
> > > available apps) they have yet to pass Win31 ...
> >
> > Interface consistency with the rest of X applications is impossible to
> > achieve, applications are coming; what puzzles me is your third point:
> > How is Windows 3.1 more user-friendly than either GNOME or KDE?
OK. GNOME at least is working on it ;-)
(Care to reply below the quoted text next time, how it's supposed to
be done?)
mawa
--
[About the Imagine rendering software:] Warning: this software does
not have a learning curve. This software has a learning WALL.
-- Steve Worley.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Distro 8.0 wish list...
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 23:46:22 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:23:08 GMT...
...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > It was the Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:43:19 GMT...
> > ...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > GNOME 2
> >
> > That'll take a while. What about GNOME 1.4?
>
> I guess. So long as it's using GTK+ 2.0 I'd be satisfied (I'm a wannabe
> developer).
Oops... no, that won't be the case, the leap from GTK+ 1.2 to 2.0 is
too drastic.
> > > GNOMEOffice
> > > OpenOffice
> >
> > These two will probably overlap a lot, enough to say they're the same.
>
> Huh? I thought OpenOffice was the new name for the Open Sourced
> StarOffice...
Yes. Which will be integrated into GNOME. Sun is cooperating with
GNOME for a reason.
> Okay, never mind. GNOMEOffice and StarOffice.
>
> > > Mozilla 1
> > > Netscape 6
> >
> > These two are the same (Netscape with proprietary additions).
>
> Yeah, I'd still like to see both for comparisons. Plus, I wouldn't even
> mind having a Linux IE port, so that you could compare HTML renderings
> across different browsers (assuming a Lx IE was consistent with a
> MS/Mac IE...).
Probably not (font issues).
mawa
--
[About the Imagine rendering software:] Warning: this software does
not have a learning curve. This software has a learning WALL.
-- Steve Worley.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith Peterson)
Subject: Re: Linux to equal NT 3.51????
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:44:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I thought MS-LOSEdos was supposed to be "intuitive"
MS-LOSEdos
Windoze
MicroSloth
Microflaccid
..
What a bunch of stupid little children.
By the way, Aaron - you're a UNIX system engineer? Odd - you act like a six
year old.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Does anybody offer free Linux access?~!
Date: 20 Oct 2000 18:43:58 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
junekis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Have you tried netzero ( http://www.netzero.com ) ?
Appears to be windows only:
"System Requirements
NetZero currently supports Windows 95/98 and Windows NT.
There are plans for a Mac version at a later date. Express your
interest in having a Mac version by sending an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
The guy asked about free _Linux_ access.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
sign the Linux Driver Petiton: http://www.libranet.com/petition.html
------------------------------
From: Don Barzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:43:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
> >
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "." wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Strange, my girlfriend (who is in a MUCH better position to
evaluate)
> > >> > disagrees with your assessment.
> > >>
> > >> Funny. Ive been told that you're a homosexual.
> > >>
> >
> > > Your source is unreliable.
> >
> > That could very well be the case. However, since there is no proof
> > positive in either direction, I shall find comfort in the blind
> > assumption that you are indeed gay.
>
> My girlfriend says you're an idiot.
>
You mean the Irina blow-up doll you ordered from Russia can speak.
That's better than betsy-wetsy.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: IDC Estimates Linux growth at 183% per year
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:53:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Colin R. Day
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:58:27 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Nigel Feltham
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Wed, 18 Oct 2000 21:23:11 +0100
>> <8sl162$k2m5f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >>Linux - 50 million satisfied users worldwide
>> >>and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >Time to recalibrate that sig then Rex - 183% per year is at least double
>> >your 5% per month ( can't be bothered to work out exact percentage due to
>> >forgetting formula for compounded percentages - e.g. each month you have to
>> >add 5% + 5% of the previous montht percentage etc).
>>
>> 1.05^12 = 1.7958563259
>>
>> It's not very far off. (Isn't 'bc' wonderful? :-) )
>>
>> --
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
>
>But 183% growth means a factor of 2.83
>
>Colin Day
>
Oops...that's a very good point. Mea culpa.
To achieve 183% growth in a year would require
exp(log(2.83) / 12) - 1
= 9.05% per month growth rate.
Check: 1.09^12 = 2.81266...
A 5% growth rate would result in only a 79.6% increase.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Real Linux Advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:54:15 GMT
Dork :(
Next time try replying to the person who wrote the message.
claire
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 16:44:50 +0100, Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"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: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Claire Lynn
Date: 20 Oct 2000 17:19:14 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> license and the GNU freeware license -- as I recall, Linux itself
> is distributed under the LGPL, not the GPL).
No, Linux is distributed under a version of GPL. That means, GPL
+ some interpretationing by Linus. It's sometimes called `modified GPL'.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
One advantage of talking to yourself is that you know at least
somebody's listening.
-- Franklin P. Jones
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Does anybody offer free Linux access?~!
Date: 20 Oct 2000 19:16:20 +0200
In article <8s0eou$5gd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Right now the only free Linux access is through a
>local-only ISP. Try www.freedomlist.com, and all the ones
>which list "linux" under supported OSes require either
>that you live in Washington, Oregon, Puerto Rico, or
>New York; or some complicated system involving you getting
>a local ISP (any local ISP) and then a company to whom you
>grant your credit card number reimbursing you the ISP
>monthly fee in exchange for you completing a monthly
>survey.
[... nice to see OR and WA are helpful though...]
I found 5 ISPs that way in Germany, and of those only www.freenet.de
said they support Linux (and their FAQ info indicates that this is
serious). I know absolutely nothing about ISPs in Germany due to the
laziness of hanging off the work servers, but I'd like to hear comments
on freenet.de should there be any.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
sign the Linux Driver Petiton: http://www.libranet.com/petition.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Magnetism
Date: 20 Oct 2000 19:20:06 +0200
In article <8s7b51$na2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Gregory L. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>What are the odds of finding a GNU project for the design of magnets and
>magnetic shielding?
Sounds like something you ought to do yourself... especially if it is
for research.
Same comment for CFD: do you trust a black box?
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
sign the Linux Driver Petiton: http://www.libranet.com/petition.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 17:26:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bruce Malmat
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:43:23 -0400
<4rNH5.7598$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Perhaps you mean to say:
>
>"Linux lags behind Windows because not all of its versions are unstable.
>
>That is, a great deal of effort would have to be expended to bring all of
>those versions to a higher level of instability before you could reasonably
>say that Linux has 'caught up' to Windows' instability" ?
Substitute "functionality" for "instability" in the above paragraph
and one might have a fairly good sales document for Windows. :-)
To be fair, however, the functionality that seems to be endemic
to Windows is mostly available in Linux through user-mode programs
and DLLs, although the specifics are different. For example one
can't load a Word file in Linux [*], but one can load WordPerfect
files using WordPerfect, which is a close substitute, or develop
the pages using LaTeX, Lyx, or even Netscape's composer, depending.
To be even more fair, Windows itself uses a lot of DLLs as well.
The entire situation is a tad confusing, as Windows seems to have
a number of stability problems -- yes, even Windows NT -- and
Linux has far fewer, unless one has bad hardware of course.
But they have very similar apparent technology at the lower
and middle levels.
Unless I'm missing something.
I could take this discussion into a very technical area and try to
explore this, admittedly; I'm curious. What are the essential
differences between calling a routine in a Windows .dll file, and
calling a routine in a Unix or Linux .so file? What hoops (vectors)
does one have to jump through? (And are there differences in
the loading of a DLL in Windows NT/2k, and Windows 95/98/Me?)
I do know that Windows DLLs have the interesting property that, if
DLL A loads DLL B, and then program C loads DLL A, C can't access
the symbols in B. This in theory could allow for another DLL D to
load a different version of B (call it B'); program C could then
load A and D without difficulty -- a condition that could conceivably
cause some minor headaches in Linux/Unix. However, it also can
increase code page usage (suppose B and B' are in fact indentical
versions? Does the OS keep track?) and may confuse the OS if
B and B' try to access the same resource (call it E).
Also, it's not clear to me whether Windows, when loading a DLL, loads
it into the system at most once (i.e., if another program requests
the same DLL, do both programs point to the same code pages
of the already-loaded DLL (in either real memory, or what I might call
"common virtual memory" -- in VMS, for example, all processes got
the same system pages at memory locations starting at 0x80000000),
making a Windows DLL not only dynamically loadable, but truly
shareable as well, not unlike the Amiga? This would solve a few
problems -- and create a few others). One other issue would be
whether Windows maintains separate data spaces per process
(thread?) per DLL, as well, or whether the DLL has only
one data space. Or maybe both! (Each thread has its own stack,
so that's not much of an issue.)
Linux loads a library in the context of a process, so data space sharing
and code page sharing are not possible -- at least, as far as the
user-level process is concerned (if loading a Unix DLL requires
initialization, that part might be better off in a kernel module
or in the kernel, apparently -- which makes some sense; the library
could also open and lock shared memory or communicate via a master
daemon through a pipe or Unix-level socket). However, code pages
tend to hang around in cache memory, so another process loading the
same DLL will get improved load performance (since the pages don't have
to be read from disk again), although increased memory usage -- unless
Linux attempts to share read-only code pages and each page has some
sort of use count. (I'd have to look -- and with Linux, I do have
this option, although I'm far from expert in Linux's paging management
code; there's also the issue of pages being thrown onto the swap
partitions or files, as well; who knows what that does to use counts! :-) )
[rest snipped]
[*] Actually, one can. StarOffice is reputed to have this capability,
and so do some other programs.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great.
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:24:30 +0100
Idoia Sainz wrote:
>
> > OI USE YOUR BRAIN!
> > You can't be accused of trolling if you advocate something on its own
> > advocacy group. The group is here for people to advocate linux.
>
> How do you know I am not using it ?
That is not relavent. You are accusing an advocate of advocacy on an
advocacy group. There really is no sense in that.
>
> > > > A typical Linux distribution, out of the box, has 95% of anything
> anyone
> > > > (that's ANYONE!) would want to do with a computer.
> > >
> > > Again 0 facts in here.
> >
> > No, 1 fact here, the fact being stated above.
>
> How do you know what "people" do need ?
OK, Agreed. I don't. It does, however come with a lot of stuff, more
than any other OSs.
It's certainly useful not to have to keep installing stuff.
> > Word prettier than TeX? You must be joking. It is a fact that it is more
> > cometant at producing high quality text. For instance, it uses
> > ligatures, such as ffl, ffi, ff, fi, fl, word does not. It also does
> > other things that word does not. Th see a list of it's features, read
> > the book.
>
> Word does things TeX does not. Anyway I said LyX was big
> for some things (scientific texts as an example), and I know it is the
> most featured system around.
In what area are the things that word does? In terms of typesetting the
utput, it does much less.
-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: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great.
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:27:39 +0100
> >Such as look at dancing paperclips?
>
> You don't like it? Turn it off.
>
> Some people like it.
It is nopt a rational opinion. They should be sumarily shot for
stupidity. With out trial.
-Ed
------------------------------
From: NAVARRO LOPEZ, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Manuel
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:11:41 +0200
Haoyu Meng 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.
>
OOOOAH, That's funny indeed!!!! So, your are "...in the business of
writing books using computers" but still, you're not expected to know
the tools to do so????
Well, I'm in the bussiness of driving Formula1 race cars. I don't want
to have to learn the use of the manual changer for it.
(Is it called "changer"? I mean the bar to change the engine
de-multiplication relationship, contrary most USA cars work with
authomatic changer)
--
SALUD,
Jesús
***
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
------------------------------
From: NAVARRO LOPEZ, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jes=FAs?= Manuel
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:30:27 +0200
Praedor Tempus wrote:
>
> [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?
>
By no means. All you have to know is your mother tongue, the art of
writing, some papers and a pen. But look at some sligth difference you
have introduced between your first and this post:
A/ I am in the business of writing books using computers
B/ What does THAT mean...that one should HAVE to learn programing in
order to write papers?
You see? (I'll make it even clearer)
***I'M IN THE BUSSINESS*** / ***USING COMPUTERS.***
Ahaaaaaa
You need to know the proper tools to write on papers (the use of the
pen) => You need to know the proper tools to write on computers
> 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.
>
Ahaaaaaa even another slighty (geeee) difference. One thing is
*writing*, that is, one letter after other. For this you don't need any
special training, just open notepad (if a windows environment) and shoot
a letter and then other, and a *very* different one is *typesetting*
which, from the Age of Guttemberg to-date has been a proffessional
occupation, which obviously requires a variable trainning (from using
the mobile types print to *look at this!!!* programming various
special-purpouse languages like TeX).
Obviously the main job of a scientist is to do science, so he will need
to learn science (whatever this means); the main job of a "typesetter"
is typesetting, so he will need to learn typesetting. If the scientist
wants to do the work of a typesetter, he will need to know what is
needed to become a typesetter (seems obvious to me).
> 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.
You have told it: They *accept*. Do you *really* think Nature goes to
print rigth up from Word documents????? (and... when has Nature changed
its policy? they used to accept TeX documents)
> A few of them accept plain text, which latex _can_ handle in these
> circumstances.
>
> 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
Geeeee. That's planly untrue. As soon as a mathematician needs to
include anything more complex than y=a*x+b, he is *desiring* to use
LaTeX instead of having to go to the printer a dozen of times just to
correct the preprint (as it was in the "old days").
--
SALUD,
Jesús
***
[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
******************************
