Linux-Advocacy Digest #773, Volume #29 Sat, 21 Oct 00 00:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system. (mlw)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("JS/PL")
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Christopher Browne)
Re: IDC Estimates Linux growth at 183% per year (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system. (Donn Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 03:29:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Haoyu Meng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Windows 2000 is rock solid.
You should probably qualify that. What software are you running?
What hardware? Were all drivers provided by Microsoft? Did you
have to download/install any drivers?
Windows 2000 is MUCH more reliable than Windows NT. And if you
have enough memory (128 meg or more) MUCH faster to display.
> I have used it for almost half a year.
> Only had to reboot twice, both times due
> to conflict from newly installed
> hardware devices.
Pretty much the norm. Also adding third party software, especially
NT software that hasn't specifically been updated to run on W2K can
be an adventure. And if you run Office 95 or Office 97, you'll have
to upgrade to Office 2000.
Of course, you'll also have to upgrade other NT software as well, and
you really DON'T want to try and run video games on it.
Generally, you won't blow away your entire system, but you can blow
away applications for no good reason.
The bad news is that if you try and run too much 3rd party legacy
stuff, The system can choke and blow away your hard drive.
> Windows 2000 is stable, powerful, and easy to use.
It's pretty much the same as Windows NT 4.0 with IE 5 Active Desktop,
but faster and cleaner. There are a few cosmetic changes, but nothing
significant.
> So does anyone see it as seriously challenging
> the relevance of pushing Linux to the desktop?
Not really. Most people who want to consider upgrading will be
looking at new machines (too much labor to configure manually).
This means that there will be a bunch of old NT machines.
This creates the opportunity to offer users the option of getting
either an additional Linux machine, or replacing the old NT machine.
Finally, with VNC, the NT and Win2K users can share Linux "desktops"
through virtual terminals. Since Linux can support multiple users,
users will have the option of flipping between Linux and Windows on
the same console.
With Linux 2.4 extending the speed and range of from 80486 (appearantly
80386 is no longer practical or supported), on up to OS/390 and S/80
clusters, you have an incentive to learn Linux.
Finally, with Microsoft making "laptop in the hotel" development of
server software impractical, there will be a stronger incentive among
consultants and commuters to support Linux, which can be prototyped on
a Laptop, instead of Windows 2000 Server, which is severely limited in
it's ability to support server prototyping.
> Personally, I had been a Linux fan since
> Kernel version 1 with Slackware
> floppies downloaded over 28.8k modem.
> While in college I used Linux as
> my main workstation OS, with Win95/98 relegated to
> secondary role. But Win2k changed all of it.
> Right now, all the workstation frontends I use
> at home at work is win2k boxes with the headless
> Linux servers tucked away on a network link to
> do only number crunching and code comping.
>
> Any similar stories?
I use VNC which gives me Linux on the desktop, but then gives
me the ability to switch between virtual desktops to access
a Win95 server, a Windows NT server, or a Windows 2000 server.
I can use Windows 2000 as the front-end, but then I gave no
virtual desktops. The NT resource kit offers virtual desktops, but
this implementation is very memory intensive since each desktop is an
entire virtual machine.
If you like, you can use Windows 2000 and install X11R6 to have direct
X11 access to the Linux systems. It's pretty fast, but it's also a bit
expensive, about $300 for additional software. But then again, you
have to pay extra "ala-carte" for everything else with Win2K, including
support, so why not shell out extra.
The more important issue is that people are getting exposed to
the Linux desktop. Whether it is via VNC, which users understand
will be slower than "on the desktop/laptop" Linux, or via
Hummingbird/Exceed, or via a second console on the same desktop,
Linux on the desktop is now something that can very easily be made
available to most corporate users.
This will give them the option of running Linux software that they
would have had to purchase at artificially high prices an Windows 2K.
The ISVs are pretty much moving Windows 2000 to the back of the
priority queue. Microsoft hasn't done much for them lately, Win2K
isn't exactly blowing away the market (even the "free upgrades" have
been ignored), and Linux is starved for top-line name-brand
applications supported by 24/7 help-desks.
In fact, just offering 24/7 help-desk support for the available
Linux applications, whether Gnome or KOffice, can provide a highly
leveragable resource that can be supplemented with additional "thanks
for joining" features like wizards and themes. Applix could be a
big bonus in this area. Applix ELF lets vendors create custom
wizards and layouts that can be used as incentives to sign up for
support contracts. Obviously, your vendor would want to have a
support contract that allows them to call Applix.
The big question then becomes, do you want to pick your own
specialists, or choose a consolidator such as IBM or LinuxCare
who provide "one call" support.
You can pick a vendor who supports only one distribution, like
Red Hat, or Caldera. You can pick a vendor who supports multiple
distributions like IBM and LinuxCare. I would hope that we will
also see a third, and perhaps a fourth "all distributions"
competitor.
And you will also have the option of choosing a national/international
provider, or a local provider who has licensed 3rd party support
through major providers.
Essentially, we will be seeing both a franchising opportunity on the
distribution side (call your local supporter or call national and
they'll "call" someone who's already awake (India, China, Australia,
London, New York, or California), and a supplier heirarchy
(vendors that support only a particular package but do it extremely
well, and accept calls from the megavendors who have support contracts.
KISMET!!
> Haoyu Meng
>
> Telpic Internet Solutions
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 50 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system.
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 23:50:30 -0400
This is where you tip your hand and give yourself away.
Installation has nothing, I repeat noting, to do with usability.
Like buying a car. The purchase process has nothing to do with driving.
So what, it was easy to install (this time). This is because you had a
machine that had all the components on the HCL.
I have had many an easy install with Linux, in fact, truth be told I
have fewer problems installing Linux than I have installing Windows, in
an over all sense.
Let your system run for three months, if it can.
Trust your system not to crash, HUH!
You are raving about the paint-job while ignoring the drivetrain. Or
even better, you are sitting in your driveway saying: "This radio is
fantastic, what a great car." Nothing that you posted means anything
about using Linux or Windows, it is only that YOU are lucky enough to
have a machine which the individual parts happen to be on Microsoft's
supported list. Under Windows installation has to be optimized like a
feature because you have to do it so often, where as Linux, one only
installs once.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I've finally installed Win2k after using Windows 3.1/95/98/98se all of
> these years. I am still using Windows 98SE for all of my digital audio
> work though.
>
> I have never used NT or Win2k before so this was completely new
> territory for me.
>
> Win2k installed perfectly and created a boot manager under BootMagic
> (already was installed) that allows me to boot Win98SE, Win2k or
> Mandrake 7.1 (Shudder).
>
> Unlike Linux, ALL of my hardware worked perfectly the first time.
> Ultra-DMA was enabled by default during the install but it took me a
> while to find it (under the controller instead of the drive like in
> Win98).
> My Matrox G-200 card was set up perfectly and even the SBLive worked,
> digital input and output included.
> Network card was set up, the DHCP for ICS worked and the other
> computers recognized the ICS and worked as well, but they did need to
> be re booted.
>
> It was a simple matter to install Agent, Blackice, Norton Internet
> Security (the ad blocking works great), MusicMatch Jukebox and
> Napster/AudioGnome/Gnutella and so forth.
> Everything worked perfectly the first time.
>
> No playing with hosts files.
> Screwing with fonts and True-Type servers with instructions from
> Darren's web page trying to get Netscape to be readable without a
> microscope.
> No screwing around trying to find a Ghost. or Apps (SuSE) filter to
> make the printer work.
> No living without a scanner because it is a parallel port model.
> No updating a kernel to support USB.
> No having to turn on IP forwarding (or even knowing it has to be
> turned on).
> No screwing with X because the display (a Sony 21") looks like crap.
> No setting up 3 programs and editing text files just to read news
> offline.
>
> And you know the best part?
>
> I didn't have to read one page of instructions and I've never had to
> open the manuals for any of the programs I use, except for my digital
> audio programs which are very complex.
>
> And again, I have never used any variation of NT before.
>
> With Linux, I spend more time reading poorly written documentation and
> less time using my programs all to achieve a second rate end result.
>
> As an example: When BlackIce stops an attack I can click on it and get
> a pretty good technical description of what happened. I can also paste
> the IP address into NeoTrace and get all kinds of information even so
> far as emailing the ISP the information all in one place.
>
> With Norton I can use the firewall rules agent to create rules
> automatically (or manually) without ever editing a text file and
> possibly rendering the system useless.
>
> The performance under Win2k seems faster as well. My modem transfers
> are a bit faster and things just seem smoother.
>
> Time will tell, but my only regret is that I didn't switch sooner.
>
> Linux is crude compared to a professional, user friendly system like
> Windows 2k.
> Linux should stay in the back of the glass house in the server room
> where the pencil necked misfits can oohh and ahhh over it.
>
> I'm going to try Mandrake 7.2 when it is released but I suspect it
> will be the same old stuff, so at that point I will most likely
> reclaim the 10 gig I have allocated to Linux.
>
> After just a brief exposure to Windows 2000 it becomes painfully clear
> how pitiful Linux is as a home desktop environment.
>
> claire
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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 23:46:47 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >My position is entirely supportable. And it's an honest one -- which is
why
> >I said "to my knowledge". Saying one way or the other without factual
> >evidence to base either decision on would have been innately *dishonest*.
> >Not to mention stupid.
>
> You appear to be under some delusion that having the courage of your
> convictions means you've already been proven to be factually correct.
> This is empty posturing, at best. Having the courage of your conviction
> means that you are convinced you will be proven right, regardless of the
> currently accepted facts. Not that the idea that Microsoft isn't a
> criminal monopoly is an accepted fact, or that Microsoft is a criminal
> monopoly is not one.
>
> >I have a physics background. When you're stating facts, you back them up
> >with your error-margins. This enables people to take your statement in
> >context.
>
> Too bad real life isn't as clear-cut as physics.
>
> >If I say a door is 1m tall, do I mean precisely 1m? According to that
> >statement, you can't tell. If I say it's 1m tall, +/- 5cm, then at least
you
> >know how accurate I believe my statement to be.
>
> And this has to do with software... how?
>
> >Therefore, saying that *TO MY KNOWLEDGE* these are the facts as I see
them
> >is a damn good statement. It doesn't imply courage, or lack thereof. It
> >implies facts. Not emotion. FACTS.
>
> You say "to my knowledge" because you want to hedge your bet and allow
> yourself an "out" when you're eventually proven wrong because you a)
> don't have the courage of your convictions, and/or b) know you are
> wrong, and are presenting an empty pretense of an argument.
>
> >> In contrast, just to point out what "courage of your convictions"
means:
> >>
> >> All Microsoft software is crap, designed to prevent competition rather
> >> than to provide value to the consumer, and the Appellate Court will
> >> uphold the entirety of Jackson's ruling.
> >
> >That's opinion, not fact, Max.
>
> Well, you'll notice we're not discussing what is fact, which is
> debatable, but whether or not we have the courage of our convictions.
> In point of fact, my statement is, in fact, fact. That you don't accept
> it as such is entirely ephemeral.
>
> >It's also supposition.
>
> No, its presumption.
>
> >And going off what has
> >been going on in the courts recently, it's highly doubtful that they'll
> >uphold the entirety of the ruling.
>
> Only based on your obviously preposterously skewed idea of what "has
> been going on in the courts recently". It isn't doubtful at all, to me;
> I don't doubt it. Thus, the "courage of my convictions" in stating that
> it will, in fact, be entirely upheld.
Entirely upheld...pfft. Keep talking out your ass Marx...err...Max
<quote>
"The structural remedy was never my remedy of choice," Jackson said. It was
"a last resort, and in my judgment, Microsoft's intransigence was the
reason."
At the same time, he said without further elaboration, "Virtually everything
I did may be vulnerable on appeal." The case is headed to an appeals court
in Washington that ruled in favor of Microsoft in an earlier dispute with
the government.
</quote>
For a charge which began as an attempt to prohibit integrating a web browser
then radically expanded MID TRIAL! Jackson has clearly demonstrated bias
against Microsoft and towards the DOJ, Bias is just about the WORST thing a
judge can do. He will most likely be removed from the case altogether.
Apparently he thought his role was to see to it that MS be found guity of as
much as possible, as quick as possible, and recieve the harshest possible
sentence. Every single action led towards that goal. He's an embarrassment
to his profession and to the country.
Hopefully the assault against the successfull will take a 180 degree turn on
the first Tuesday of next month. :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 03:54:45 GMT
In our last episode (Fri, 20 Oct 2000 19:54:52 GMT),
the artist formerly known as Matt Garman said:
>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)?
True enough.
>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.
Actually, I would think this an argument in favor of the _wisdom_ of
using LaTeX.
The scientist, having some mathematical equations in the report,
obviously needs to represent them somehow. LaTeX provides that.
The major alternative would be TeX, which leads you down the road
towards the more intimate control that I'd think we were trying
to get away from, so as to leave layout in the hands of the editor.
Further, the other _major_ thing that one does in LaTeX, namely
indicating paragraph structure, section structure, and such, can
be nicely accomplished using the default LaTeX macros such as
\section{Whatever}. This does not determine layout; the layout
editor is free to define \section to provide whatever layout she
desires.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/document.html>
Where do you want to Tell Microsoft To Go Today?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 03:54:57 GMT
In our last episode (Fri, 20 Oct 2000 12:03:03 -0700),
the artist formerly known as Matt O'Toole said:
>
>"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In our last episode (Thu, 19 Oct 2000 18:28:19 +0400),
>> the artist formerly known as Jan Schaumann said:
>> >"Garry Knight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Jan Schaumann wrote:
>> >>>Garry Knight wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>>Most of the word processors I've come across can import and export RTF
>> >>>>pretty well.
>> >>>
>> >>>The most portable document format is PDF (Portable Document FOrmat -
>> >>>D'uh). RTF is not half as portable.
>> >>
>> >> Great. Let's see you "port" a PDF document into Word 97.
>> >
>> >See <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> further below.
>> >
>> >Opening one document-type with an application that is not intended to
>> >handle that type can not produce the correct output.
>> >
>> >*You* try opening a word-document with xv.
>>
>> The point, which should be underlined by virtue of the Subject: line
>> above that asks
>> "Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?"
>> is whether there is something sufficiently analagous to MS Word.
>>
>> One of the properties of MS Word is that it is used to read, view,
>> _AND MODIFY_ documents prepared using the formats that it accepts.
>
>There are plenty of "analagous" programs. That you're not aware of
>Wordperfect and Staroffice for Linux is amazing. Either will open and edit
>Word files, though perhaps not the very latest version of Word. OTOH,
>neither will older versions of Word.
_Of course_ I'm aware of their existence. The point in this part of
the thread was not to deal with what software might read Word "*.DOC"
documents, but rather to respond to the suggestion that Adobe's
PDF format was somehow relevant.
>BTW, I've found RTF files to be no more reliable than Word files, or
>any other word processor file format. For this reason, I have all the
>major word processing programs installed on my machine. Sometimes I'll
>get a .wp or .lwp or .rtf or even .ps file that can't be opened by one
>program, but for some inexplicable reason can be opened by another. So,
>true cross platform, or even multi program compatibility is a myth.
>Except for ASCII. So stick with that unless it's absolutely necessary.
I can't disagree with that; I've seen all sorts of data formats "crash"
all sorts of programs.
>I've found that of all the major programs, that Staroffice for either
>Windows or Linux is the best at opening "foreign" file formats. Lotus
>Wordpro is pretty good, too. Wordperfect is probably the most finicky.
>YMMV, depending on which .dlls are broken in your Windows system. ;-)
You should take a look at a document on my laptop that has Lotus
WordPro installed; the document is in the "native" WordPro format, and
makes WordPro crash. And it's just a simple 2 page report. I'll have
to go with "flakey, flakey..."
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/wp.html>
Where do you want to Tell Microsoft To Go Today?
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IDC Estimates Linux growth at 183% per year
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 03:54:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am suprised that Microsoft is still selling
> Windows, considering that 80%
> of their revenue comes from Microsoft Office.
> If I was the CEO from Microsoft I would open source
> Windows (both NT and 98), combine the good
> aspects of GNU/LINUX and Windows and release a Microsoft Linux.
Appearantly, the SCO agreement still limits their ability to enter
the Linux/UNIX market. However, Microsoft did give Corel a $125
million bail-out to port their ".Net" application technology to
Linux, at which time Microsoft would hold exclusive rights (which
they could then grant back to Corel.
It's a wierd relationship, but it does establish Microsoft as
a competitor in the Linux/UNIX applications market. Of course,
Microsoft still has to compete with everything else in the Linux
market (which is probably why they didn't dump $1 billion "up front").
But at least they're "In the Game".
This indicates two things. First, Microsoft has a pretty good picture
of what's going on with the Linux market (they have 10 huge sites that
count cookies and Browser/OS signatures). They obviously see enough
of a market to merit a $125 million investment with a 1 year return.
> Considering, in the near future OSs will
> play a smaller role as applications
> will move onto the web and all processing
> made centralised, either via a web
> browser or Citrix Winframe client (which
> is available for many platforms).
Citrix is pretty good, but the server is a bit pricey.
VNC is open-source and provides the best of both. It' a bit slower,
more like PCAnywhere or SMS, but it's pretty effective. Although it
comes with it's own security (encryption and userid/password) the
source allows implementation of PAM, Kerberos, and LDAP if desired.
> matt
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
>
> > It was hiding sorta near the bottom of this article.
> >
> >
http://www.infoworld.com:80/articles/hn/xml/00/10/16/001016hnsoftware.xm
> > l
> >
> > IDC predicts strong growth with the Linux operating system.
> > In the Linux applications development and deployment market,
> > the forecast is for a 183 percent growth rate. Linux, however,
> > will continue to lag behind Microsoft's 32-bit Windows operating
> > system development revenues.
> >
> > Put more simply, actual dollars spent on Windows will be more
> > than Linux because Windows Server is about 10 times the price
> > of Linux server.
> >
> > It's only logical that if Linux cost 1/10th the price of Windows NT,
> > that Linux could grow to 10 times the number of users of NT and
still
> > only have the same revenue in terms of License/Package fees.
> >
> > On the flip side, the deal with Linux has been Free Software, would
> > you like some service (consulting, operations support, help desk,
> > web hosting, outsourcing...) to go with it?
> >
> > Granted, there is more competition in a market where everyone has
> > access to the same source code, but you're also less at the mercy
> > of a single vendor for access to critical information.
> >
> > I'd like to acknowledge IDC for recognizing the phenomenal growth
> > of Linux (estimates range from 180% to 270% per annum).
> >
> > This may indicate that actual license shipments will exceed Windows
> > (It looks like Linux is already outshipping Windows 2000 and Windows
> > ME upgrades). About the only barriers to market still standing are
> > the preinstallation of Linux vs ME/2K on new laptops and desktops,
> > and the proliferation of new applications.
> >
> > Microsoft is by no means "out of business", but it will soon have to
> > start playing by Linux/UNIX rules.
> >
> > --
> > Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
> > Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
> > http://www.open4success.com
> > Linux - 50 million satisfied users worldwide
> > and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 50 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system.
Date: 20 Oct 2000 23:00:53 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No playing with hosts files.
> Screwing with fonts and True-Type servers with instructions from
> Darren's web page trying to get Netscape to be readable without a
> microscope.
I think we can thank the popularity of Windows for this problem. Since
Windows (tm) is the recognized operating system everyone seems to use,
companies (such as Netscape) spend most of their time programming for
Windows, not X. X programming thus takes a back seat to Win programming, and
I think this shows in the crappy support in such Linux apps as RealPlayer (or
whatever that thing is called now). RealPlayer doesn't support full-screen
mode, yet full-screen mode is readily available under XFree86 in two ways:
1.) Drawing on the screensaver. 2.) XFree86 DGA, which is similar to
Windows' DirectX (I think). The problem you've described of fonts being too
small under the X version of Netscape is a good example of this. The
programmers don't know enough about X to use a big enough font size.
The more popular Linux becomes, the more time programmers are going to devote
to doing X programming. Hence, the Linux/X apps should be getting better
over time.
> No screwing around trying to find a Ghost. or Apps (SuSE) filter to
> make the printer work.
I know one thing. In the past, I was trying to edit /etc/printcap by hand in
order to setup my printer. Yikes! Appsfilter at least saves me from that
mess. Apsfilter may be tedious with all those questions. But, try to edit
/etc/printcap by hand.
> No living without a scanner because it is a parallel port model.
I hear you there. PPT scanners are much cheaper than SCSI. People always
talk about how SCSI scanners are faster. Big deal, I say. It's as if I need
photos scanned in at superman-like speeds.
> No updating a kernel to support USB.
FreeBSD supports USB pretty decently. You can do it via kernel mods (klds)
or you can statically link the drivers in the kernel. Don't know about
Linux, as I haven't run it too much these days, and I don't have any USB HW.
> The performance under Win2k seems faster as well. My modem transfers
> are a bit faster and things just seem smoother.
I've heard that the TCP stack for W2k was taken from FreeBSD 3.2. In that
case, I'm running FreeBSD 4.1.1, so I should be one-upping W2k in this area.
> After just a brief exposure to Windows 2000 it becomes painfully clear
> how pitiful Linux is as a home desktop environment.
It's good to see that Linux has gained such widespread acceptance. After all
the progress that has been made in desktops for Linux, I think the greatest
accomplishment of Linux is that it has brought unix to the masses. It has
proven that an open source, (optionally) freely available operating system
can go head-to-head with the corporate "big guys" (Microsoft, Sun) and still
hold its own in terms of stability, and even some cases, user-friendliness.
I'm glad you like Win 2000, and I'm sure it's a great OS. However, you're
going to pay the price ($$$$) if you want both stability and
user-friendliness. Linux is also available for free download, and it still
competes with Windows 2000 with stability, and to a lesser extent,
user-friendliness.
So, if you want to buy an operating system strickly for user-friendliness and
HW support, and you have lots of $$$$$ to burn, obviously you're going to
like Windows 2000 over Linux. But, see the previous two paragraphs for the
strengths of Linux over Windows.
- Donn
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
