Linux-Advocacy Digest #765, Volume #29 Fri, 20 Oct 00 18:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (.)
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! (.)
Re: Distro 8.0 wish list... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! (.)
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! (.)
Re: Real Linux Advocacy (.)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (.)
Re: The Linux Experience (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? ("Matt O'Toole")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Tired O'Shills)
Re: Linux or Solaris ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("John W. Stevens")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [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 20:47:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[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.
As is your assertion about W2K running on intels little 64 bit toy, Dresden.
Thanks for graciously trapping yourself and proving my point.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: 20 Oct 2000 20:49:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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.
Not that youd know, because you have exactly zero experience with it,
though you have claimed in the past (falsely) that you do.
What exactly do you not like about linux again, having had no personal
experience whatsoever with it?
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Distro 8.0 wish list...
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 20:40:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It was the Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:23:08 GMT...
> ...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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.
Really? They've already released the white papers and are encouraging
developers to begin getting ready to port. How long does it take to go
from that stage to official release?
-ws
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: 20 Oct 2000 20:50:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [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?
Either.
> As I said, my V3 was supposedly supported, but trying to
> get XFree86 configured was a non-working nightmare. Comical in it's
> hostility.
Thats an XFree thing, not a linux thing. If you want an easy to install
XServer, run AccelX. Its about 5 clicks to install and picks everything
for you automagically.
=====.
k
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: 20 Oct 2000 20:52:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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.
Not that youd know, having never read any of these how-tos or even
having any experience with the operating system at all.
> 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?
I think I get it now...are you upset because you couldnt figure out
how to install linux? Then did you feel like you had to lie about
your experience (making up experience with half a dozen distributions
and then being caught repeatedly remarking inconsistently with your
own apparant experience) in order to not feel like an idiot?
Its alright to be an idiot, claire. Lots of people are idiots.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Real Linux Advocacy
Date: 20 Oct 2000 20:53:28 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Pretty much what I would say as well.
Because you cannot think for yourself, partially because you have no
experience at all with the subject at hand.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [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: 20 Oct 2000 20:54:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy 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.
Neat.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:25:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Karen Rosin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:02:05 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>What about Nautilus as a desktop? Very similar the Windows idea???
I am not at all familiar with Nautilus, so I can't say
anything about it. Of course, some people have complained
about the fvwm2-95 workspace looking almost identical to
Win95, and the KDE window manager/session/environment has a
vague similarity to Win95, although it also has a number of
extra icons reminiscent to CDE (well, why not; KDE ~= CDE).
So who knows? I for one wonder if Linux should replicate that
which its hardliners most vilify -- the dreaded Windows --
if it should offer a Win95-like look and feel as an option,
or aim for something entirely different, highly distinctive,
yet very useful. How one does that, I'm not sure.
One possibility, though, might be a modified Apollo/DOMAIN Aegis/
Display Manager environment, for any of you even remotely familiar
with that Chelmsford hardware producer prior to its acquisition
by Hewlett-Packard. It had three windows on the bottom:
a command prompt (also used for login), an alarm bell indicator,
and a message indicator. All were text-based.
Something like that, coupled with a popup desktop menu (which the
Display Manager did not have, as I recall), might work reasonably
well, especially if the command prompt understood scripts. Note
also that the windows were also positionable, in the sense that
one could put in a script something like
(100,200) MARK
(500,600) CP /com/sh
(CP = create process; /com/sh is the traditional Aegis shell, which
was a little different from /bin/sh) and expect a window created at
(I think) (100,200) to (500,600) at the corners -- which is presumably
exactly what one desired, in this case.
There were also 5 default positions (if one doesn't specify a
pixel range, as above) that were settable as well; my favorite was
two windows of equal width and height side-by-side, just above the
aforementioned command prompt/alarm bell/message trio.
One other thing that the Display Manager had was a split input-pad/
transcript-pad system; one had printed text in the upper part of the pad,
a narrow horizontal dividing line, and an input area (called an
input pad) in the lower part which was usually one wide high, that
one types into. (It could get taller, up to about 4 lines, if
one pressed the "HOLD" key and put multiple lines therein -- once
one releases the "HOLD" key, lines up to but not including the one
containing the input cursor get eaten. (The system had one global
mouse pointer; if it wasn't in the input window, the system would
eat all but the last line.)
If the shell wasn't ready to eat (e.g., it was running something that
took a few seconds or minutes), the line would remain in the input
pad until the shell was in fact ready for it. Input lines were
echoed in the transcript window, as well.
Oh, we were spoiled back then! :-) We did have icons, as well,
although all represented open pads -- open in the sense of being
displayed; a program can close the input pad, in which case someone --
I don't know if it's /com/sh or the Display Manager -- appends
the line '*** Pad Closed ***' and thereafter the window behaves
more or less like a read-only edit window, until closed.
The transcript pads also had multiple-font capability, and could
even incorporate simple graphics, or be used as a platform for more
comprehensive graphics display -- the so-called "direct" mode which
could display graphics in a pad, temporarily superseding what was there,
and the "borrow-display" mode, where the entire display board
was given over to pure graphics display -- such as X, at one point.
It was nice. :-) I've not seen a desktop like it since, although
a company did subsequently promote an editor/terminal emulator
package that duplicated part of the Display Manager's functionality,
using Motif.
Just as an aside, the DN-660 had all of 16 megs and 1024x1024x16
colors -- or maybe 256 colors -- was 1 MIPS, and was the size of
an endtable. This was back in about '84 or so, I think.
Moore's (?) law in action.
[snip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random reminiscence here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 21:35:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 19 Oct 2000 21:31:11 GMT
<8snp6v$1grh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:00:59 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>
>>> I never had any problems with my Voodoo3, or Voodoo2, or Intel 740,
>>> or S3Virge, or Matrox G400.
>
>
>> Is the Matrox G400 FINALLY fully supported under Linux, or is it still
>> single head only support?
>
>Its not "linux" that supports video cards, brainiac. Its the X-server.
>You're probably referring to XFree86, and yes it does.
Pedant point -- or maybe a question. It's clear that Linux has to
have at least partial support for a card -- VGA being the drop-dead
bottom, perhaps -- in order for X to use it. Maybe.
But does Linux have multihead text-only console support, and
possibly multihead graphics support (svgalib or equivalent),
for such a beast? (How would one switch from one "head" to the other?)
>
>Though AccelleratedX has for a bit longer.
>
>Funny, you seem to have claimed repeatedly that you have lots of experience
>running linux. Even someone with very limited experience would have
>known that linux doesnt support ANY sort of video hardware directly, and
>that all of that happens inside the X-server.
Herewith the pedant point; there is a VGA driver of some sort
deep within Linux, if only to drive the multi-console.
In partciular, /usr/src/linux/drivers/video appears
to contain vga16fb.c, vga_font.c, and vgacon.c. I suspect, not
having looked at the contents thereof, that these files do in
fact handle some aspects of VGA for the Linux multi-console.
I could be wrong, mind you. :-) Once X gets involved, it
most likely twiddles the registers itself or something anyway.
I've had problems with X and SVGATextMode (the latter is a program
that wiggles the VGA registers to increase the resolution to
as high as 180x80, if the card or monitor can handle it) to the
point of having an unusable text console after X terminates,
if I push my card much beyond 80x50. (I don't remember my card
offhand; I'm at work.)
However, Linux stays up; this is "merely" a display problem.
[.adhomsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Matt O'Toole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Matt O'Toole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 14:18:29 -0700
"Matt Garman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:gq1I5.4141$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 23:35:59 -0600, Praedor Tempus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > 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
> > ...
> > 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.
> > ...
> > 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.
Most likely, the editor doesn't have to bother with it, either. If there
isn't a graphic artist at the journal, there's probably one at the printer.
Sometimes there are editors who also do layout, but that's not too common
outside the world of punk rock fanzines.
> If the scientist's job is scientific *work* and the editor's job is
> *typesetting*, why does the scientist need to bother with anything but a
> text editor (and something separate for graphs or illustrations, of
> course)?
> If the scientist submits something that's going to be re-typeset by the
> editor anyway, it's foolish to use Word or LaTeX. It seems that in this
> case, the journals should *only* accept in plain text format. What are
> the chances that a scientist is going to submit his article in *exactly*
> the format required by the journal? So, clearly the editor is going to
> spend some time formatting the article to meet the needs of the journal.
> I don't think the editor is going to lose any more time if the article was
> submitted in plain text.
A Word document with half-decent fonts, large/bold headings, and footnotes
is a lot easier for an editor to read than an ascii .txt file. That's what
editors do: they read stuff, make notes, suggest changes, etc. They all
have their preferences: some are particular, some not. I get requests for
everything from plain ascii to "Word is fine," to Postscript or Acrobat with
all kinds of crazy font and style specs. I've found that most editors like
both: raw text that can be manipulated, as well as something they can print
out and read easily, like a nicely formatted Word document, a .pdf, .ps, or
LaTeX file. I've noticed that "nicely typed, double spaced," is still very
popular, and that can be had with a .txt file, Notepad set to double spaced,
and then printed.
To actually start editing the file, they can often resave a Word document to
.txt, cut and paste it, send it to the graphic artist for layout, etc. This
sometimes causes trouble, because with long, complex documents, Word messes
up things like paragraph spacing, etc. However, with shorter documents,
this stuff can be fixed by hand without too much trouble. It's only when
you get into the longer documents that Word becomes a turbo time waster.
And then it's a bona fide pain in the ass.
> In fact, if the journal editor has a Word template for articles appearing
> in his journal, then it seems as though he'd *prefer* plain text.
Perhaps, but this is unlikely, too. All journals, magazines, etc. are laid
out by hand, page by page, and so are all quality books. The graphic artist
will be cutting and pasting blocks of raw text by hand into Pagemaker or
Quark anyway.
As I said before, the main users of LaTeX files are university presses, who
cut costs by eliminating the graphic artist. But look at the typical
university press book. They look terrific compared to a Word document. But
they all look pretty much the same, and don't look nearly as good as books
done page by page by a good designer.
> So Word is *still* a waste, because the money the scientist spent on Word
> could have gone towards hardware or other scientific tools.
80 bucks, or it came with the computer. Big deal.
Matt O.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 20 Oct 2000 21:03:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Livshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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?
That means it is a *poor example* for a functional
language. You can write imperatively in Lisp but is
it a good example for an imperative language? I
think not. He hasn't argued that Lisp is a poor
functional language. (which I think it is; I don't
think it's as appropriate for pure funtional
programming as let's say Haskell)
Dan.
------------------------------
From: Tired O'Shills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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 15:01:54 -0700
Simon Cooke wrote:
> Provide one SHRED of proof that "DOS ain't done 'till Lotus won't run" is
> anything more than an anti-Microsoft FUD mantra. I will gladly post that
> line, and the qualifying proof as my signature for the rest of my Usenet
> days if you manage to do so.
>
> Proof that qualifies is any kind of evidence that Microsoft did indeed
> change DOS explicitly so that Lotus would not run, or any kind of order from
> a Microsoft executive of that form.
>
> I'll be waiting. But I won't hold my breath.
>
If only.
It's easy to verify the fact that this phrase was regularly used by Steve
Ballmer. As reported by Fred Langa (in his 09/02/98 column titled "Reasonable
Doubt?"):
Years ago, I asked top Microsoft executive Steve
Ballmer about the stories that claimed he'd shout
“DOS ain't done until Lotus won't run” at DOS
product manager's meetings. He said the statement
was out of context, and that it referred to adding
legitimate new features to DOS (a perfectly legal and
good way to compete); it didn't refer to planting
software booby traps to create artificial barriers to
competing products (a sleazy and possibly illegal
way to compete).
Ballmer doesn't deny he would "shout (it) at DOS product manager's meetings".
Humorously, Ballmer would like us to think there is some context where this
phrase could be considered as simply motivation for the DOS programmers.
Certainly, this phrase is not just anti-Microsoft FUD as some would have us
believe.
And, this is certainly more than just a "shred" of proof that this phrase is
more than an "anti-Microsoft FUD mantra". However, I'm betting Mr. Cooke will
never acknowledge the reality of this quote, or be able to comprehend the
probability that the programmers who were present would act on the expressed
desire of the #2 man at MS.
Anyway, Simon knows that the standard of proof he requires is unachievable.
Therefore he feels safe to deny everything and make any bet without risk. But
that denial is just bullshit.
Tell you what, Simon. You honor you're bet, and I'll gladly post "Simon Cooke
Has Integrity"
in my signature for the rest of my Usenet days. I figure that's equivalent to
the risk you took, which is to say: none.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux or Solaris
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:55:53 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Here's a little article on what Compaq thinks of Oracle for Linux:
>
>http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2944
>
>Notice the last paragraph, and I quote:
>***************************************************************************
>But today, Linux is not very useful beyond simple Web, mail, and DNS
>services on small Intel-based servers, she says. Linux is "not for
>database servers or online transaction processing. The independent
>software vendor support [is not there]: Oracle has to do the next
>version of its database [for Linux] because the current one is
>horrible."
>
>**********************************************************************
>
>claire
>
It's still getting 4x the downloads of the windows version according to
oracle (and they should know).
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[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 16:01:48 -0600
Darin Johnson wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Kennel) writes:
>
> > One source is stupid business magazine platitudes and slogans like,
> >
> > "Business Is War"
> >
> > No it's not! That's a repulsively immoral statement. We should
> > wisely craft our economic system for the benefit of society.
>
> Off topic, but I wonder if that statement came about in 19th century
> England or Europe.
Actually, this sound bite comes out of the Japanese economic boom, and
can be directly traced to the fact that Japanese business and business
schools use Sun Tzu's famous work to teach business practices.
> "War" then is a tactical and strategic game played by gentlemen.
"Gentlemen, you misunderstand. We are not on hemmed in ground, we are
on DESPERATE ground."
See Sun Tzu for clarification . . . suffice it to say that at one point,
the Japanese believed they were on desperate ground.
> So in that context, "business is war" takes on a different meaning.
> So do people who say that today to describe what they do use the
> strategy/tactics meaning, or do they use the death/despair meaning?
They use it in the "We win", sense.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[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
******************************
