Linux-Advocacy Digest #956, Volume #29 Tue, 31 Oct 00 05:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Why should I keep advocating Linux? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: The BEST ADVICE GIVEN. (Shannon Hendrix)
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (2:1)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (2:1)
Re: Why Linux is great. (2:1)
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Tuff Competition for LINUX! (Chris Sherlock)
Re: MS Hacked? (2:1)
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (2:1)
Re: Why don't I use Linux? (2:1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should I keep advocating Linux?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 07:54:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To the Wintrolls.....Go Away! This post has nothing to do with you.
>
> During the time I've tried to advocate Linux,
> I keep getting flamed about how I'm not doing
> advocating Linux correctly.
Any advocacy is better than nothing. Ideally we want to be as honest
and realistic as possible. We want to set realistic expectations,
and we don't want to make rediculous claims (like "using Linux will
get you laid":-).
You have had positive experiences with Linux, and you want to tell
others about your positive experiences.
This might not be the best time to discuss the features that will be
offered in 2.4, but it's still good to discuss the features that are
supported officially.
> I'm afraid that the right way to advocate
> Linux seems to be to just say nothing,
> run Linux on my own systems, and say
> nothing hoping that the other people see what
> I'm running and flock to my machine to
> find out more about Linux. I've
> done this but I've never had this happen.
I've been pretty successful at creating Linux "showcases", putting
a Linux powered system in a location that makes it easy to see that
Linux is more than just "a text only system based on UNIX".
> It seems I can't say Linux is ready for prime time,
Sure you can. Bless any of the formally released versions. I
personally like Mandrake and SuSE for desktop use, and Red Hat
for servers.
> nor am I allowed to say that it will ever be ready
> for prime time in order to properly advocate Linux.
Actually, several versions of Linux have been released that have
produced extraordinary results. There are more goodies coming up,
but you need to focus on "What Is" rather than beta releases that
may be months away.
> I find this very hard to do since I've been running
> Linux on my machines for the past 2 years, and have
> been able to get my work done in prime time
> (including doing work for my employer on my
> laptop running linux).
Very good. You might want to put some of this information on
web pages and get it documented.
There are WinTrolls who will disguise themselves as Linvocates
saying that you shouldn't say that.
> So when am I going to be able to advocate that
> it is ready for prime time? Apparently, even hinting that Linux is
> ready for Prime Time is being a 'bad' Linvocate.
Actually, we know that Linux IS ready for Prime Time. The currently
available official releases are remarkable. They still provide
massive "bang for the buck".
No, there is no officially released kernel that supports USB scanners,
fire-wires hard-drives, and very large files. These will have to come
later. They aren't supported in any current official release.
So don't focus what isn't available. Focus on what is available.
You still have support for USB mice and Keyboards, parallel port
EPP drives such as Zip and Jazz, and CD-Burners. You can focus
on what Linux does do well today.
> I seem to have to join a group philosophy
> that Linux has to be compared to Windows.
> I really don't understand why.
Quite simply, there are about 500 million Windows users. They
have known and played with Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, and 98. A much
smaller group has played with NT 3.51, NT 4.0, and Windows 2000.
> My research into the
> history of Linux has pretty well convinced
> me that Windows was nowhere a
> factor into the creation and development of Linux.
The main significance was that Microsoft had successfully blocked
Linux' entry into the marketplace from about 1994 (Yddragasil,
Slackware, Red Hat) to 2000. The OEMs did plan a series of linux
releases, but delays in the 2.4 kernel and planned implementation
using USB, FireWire, and streaming video (large files) has put
the entire product line on hold.
> Furthermore, a lot
> of people keep popping off about how KDE
> and Gnome are both Windows
> look-alike, but what I see is that
> KDE is more of enhanced CDE Desktop,
You are correct. KDE is loosely based on CDE look-and-feel.
Given that CDE is normally only available on $10,000-$80,000 UNIX
workstations, it's not exactly a well-known desktop. Only about
10 million people, mostly very technical, have ever seen CDE close-up.
Of course, few people have driven a Porsche or Corvette either, but
at least millions have SEEN Corvettes and Porsches. The few UNIX
displays seen in the media have been things like La Femme Nikita,
the Norad display on War Games, and some science fiction shows.
And even then, the use of time-lapse photography to make displays
go about 10 times faster than the real thing just completely blow
credibility.
> and Gnome seems to be a cross/enhancement
> of Motif Window Manager and
> CDE (Common Desktop Environment).
Correct again. GNOME uses Athena 3-D which was the enhanced
open source version of the original Athena extended to provide
the look and feel of Motif. Lestif was an attempt to bring
most of the Motif API to Athena. And GNOME much better toolkit,
including CORBA (distributed) support.
> So, why in the process of advocating
> must I keep measuring Linux progress against Windows?
Nothing wrong with comparing it to other things. You could compare
it to an I-Mac, or to an Ultra, or an HP/9000 workstation, or an
RS/6000 workstation. But you would have to have some way to show
people what the original looked like.
The paradox is that NTSC video can't display UNIX displays with
2048x1536 resolution. Perhaps the most dramatic Linux exposure
was the use of Linux on "Titanic", but even then the actual graphics
display consoles were SGI Indy's.
> I seem to have to join a group philosophy
> that Linux has to have a
> single GUI standard just like Windows.
Sounds like you've been hammered by some WinTrolls.
As Bob Young says, the primary selling point of Linux is
that the user get control. They can choose which window
manager, desktop, toolkits, office suites, and groupware
products they want. Since there are standards which are
common between the choices, the user has the freedom to
choose.
> I can't buy this and I just
> won't.....I enjoy my freedom of choice,
Precisely. If you didn't want choice, you'd go back to
Microsoft.
> and really appreciate that I can
> make my machine look like Motif or CDE or
> Windows or Amiga or Atari or
> Macintosh or just a simple Unix only
> Desktop on an account by account
> basis.
More important, you can set your configurations based on your
performance and capability needs.
> However this seems to make me an improper Linux advocate.
Actually, this makes you a very good Linux Advocate. It might
not qualify you as a KDE advocate, but that's fine. So long as
KDE continues to support ICCCM, you can mix and match GNOME, KDE,
FVWM2, or any other tool-kit/desktop combination.
This is hard for people to grasp. Many people don't realize that
TCP/IP makes it possible for hundreds of different types of computers,
including several different operating systems, manufacturers, and
performance levels, to interoperate seemlessly.
> And, finally, I've read the Linux Advocacy-HOWTO,
> and all I really get out of it is to show Linux by example,
> but don't buck the Windows hierarchy.
Unfortunately, Windows bashing is often threatening to those who
have never used anything but Windows. By making comparisons between
the best of Windows and showing how Linux goes a step beyond, you
tend to make more friends and fewer enemies among the Linux community.
> I don't understand how we can promote Linux if we don't let
> the world know that Linux is here, yet we can just take it when the
> Wintrolls keep spreading their lies about Linux.
Lately I've noticed that there seem to be a bunch of WinTrolls
posing as Linux Advocates. They attempt to argue that Linux
developers DONT CARE about making money, or even gaining commercial
acceptance.
It's a pretty good strategy. I've even been suckered by it.
If they can get the Linux advocates attacking each other, they
can undermine the credibility of Linux as a business, desktop,
and consumer platform.
The old arguments that Linux was too hard to install disappear with
products like TiVo and NetPliance machines that let even the most
computerphobic users have fun with Linux "Appliances".
The possibility of seeing fully installed, fully functional Linux
systems on Workstations and laptops in the $1000-$2000 range
creates the possibility of something really exciting. It could
easily blow the Windows market wide-open.
> I just don't think this philosophy will ever
> get Linux in a position where people will
> even look at it.
Precisely the point. WinTrolls are using deception, posing as
"politically correct" advocates.
> So I guess I have to conclude that
> I'm not a Linvocate that plays by the
> Linux Advocacy rules (who made these rules anyhow?).
There are some people who are legitimately upset with Linus for
the delays to 2.4 (including myself), but if you look at press
releases from Bob Young, Ransom Love, and the other hundreds
of corporate leaders who put their butt on the line for Linux
every day, you can see that you aren't so far off.
> Comments?
Just keep doing what you're doing. Let people know what you love
about Linux TODAY.
>
--
Rex Ballard - VP I/T Architecture
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shannon Hendrix)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The BEST ADVICE GIVEN.
Date: 30 Oct 2000 22:28:23 -0500
In article <0k5L5.116868$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No I don't. Thats why Open Source is scary. The source code means you can
> create a binary with a back door that has the exact same functionality as
> the original binary.
That is ridiculous. It's far more likely those black box binaries
will have this kind of thing, and you can't do anything about it.
I can create my own program and just tack it onto a close source
binary. You know, like a virus program.
--
"We have nothing to prove" -- Alan Dawkins
shannon @ w i d o m a k e r . com
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:51:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > dir for directory is less cryptic than ls;
>
> Not when the things being displayed are called folders, as in Windows.
Well, dir is at a DOS prompt. Please explain how ls is less cryptic
than dir?
> > type as in typea file is less cryptic than cat;
>
> Type is quite misleading. But it would be very easy to install a
system wide
> alias or symbolic link for type.
But type is less cryptic than cat.
> > find is less cryptic than grep;
>
> grep is not the same as Windows find. Linux find does what you want.
No
> problem here.
Find is more obvious than grep, surely.
> > Seems perfectly simple to me.
>
> Only because you are used to the Windows way of doing things.
Actually I'm used to the OpenVMS way of doing things. And the RISC-OS
way of doing things. Please don't make the mistake of assuming that
just because I'm using Windows right now, that's the only OS I've seen
and worked with for any length of time.
--
---
Pete
Why don't I use Linux? I'm waiting for Delphi to appear on Linux...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:00:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
No-Spam wrote:
> No just a bit different from the DOS things you know.
Or OpenVMS or RISC-OS. Funny, they have similar commands to Windows.
Strange how UNIX is out on a limb with its obscure command set.
Let's see...
Windows OpenVMS Linux
Type a file type type cat
Get a directory dir dir ls
Print a file print print lpr
Edit a file edit edit/edt vi or emacs or...
Delete a file del del rm
Conditional expr. if if if
Linux has a wacky and obscure command set, yet at least two of the OS's
I know are consistant with each and make a kind of sense.
> Type "man ls" and find out .... Wintroll
Of course I know what 'ls' means, idiot! I'm trying to get across the
point that 'ls' is obscure whereas 'dir' is less so.
> > Why 'ls', why
> >not 'list' - why so short?
> I beleieve its because programmers are lazy, I know I am. We hate to
type when
> its not neccessary.
I'm a programmer and I like to enter loads of white space and comments.
> Because Goodwin is a Wintroll, no one could be this persistently
ignorant.
> >Waiting for Borland to release Delphi.
> Its called Kylix
Now who's being ignorant. Kylix is the project name. It probably won't
be called that when it's released. More than likely it'll be "Delphi for
Linux".
--
---
Pete
Why don't I use Linux? I'm waiting for Delphi to appear on Linux...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:04:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Once again you are confusing find and grep. If you want a Linux
equivalent
> to find, use find.
Try find /?
Searches for a text string in a file or files.
FIND [/V] [/C] [/N] [/I] "string" [[drive:][path]filename[ ...]]
/V Displays all lines NOT containing the specified string.
/C Displays only the count of lines containing the string.
/N Displays line numbers with the displayed lines.
/I Ignores the case of characters when searching for the
string.
"string" Specifies the text string to find.
[drive:][path]filename
Specifies a file or files to search.
If a pathname is not specified, FIND searches the text typed at the
prompt or piped from another command.
find looks for strings in a file, not pattern matching file names like
find does on Linux.
grep looks for strings in a file... so find and grep are equivalent.
--
---
Pete
Why don't I use Linux? I'm waiting for Delphi to appear on Linux...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:02:29 +0000
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : If you have 10,000 users on at once context switch speed becomes one of
> : the most importent things.
>
> Do you seriously believe those 10,000 users are actually running
> seperate processes on the Windows machine? Having a server process
> do things *for* them by proxy doesn't count as having 10,000 users
> on the machine at once.
You still need to switc between threads. If they are hardware threads,
then it matters.
-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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:07:28 +0000
Bruce Schuck wrote:
>
> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Bruce Schuck wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Shannon Hendrix" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:8t2458$15a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > In article <WGgI5.32396$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > > Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Linux does detect the memory correctly, although it uses only
> the
> > > first 64
> > > > > > > MB of it until you change some configuration files. Chad
> might've
> > > meant
> > > > > > > that. The only distro I've seen which detects and uses all of
> the
> > > memory was
> > > > > > > Caldera 2.4.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is not true. Sigh...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The problem is that when Linux is being loaded, a check was made,
> > > > > > basically a BIOS call for memory (can't remember which one), and
> it
> > > > > > often returned 64M at the most. If you knew you had 128MB of RAM
> then
> > > > > > you added a boot parameter to Linux to tell it how much RAM you
> had
> > > > > > since your BIOS/motherboard combination couldn't get it right.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a PC/BIOS bug, not a Linux bug.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, it's a linux bug. Windows detected it just fine.
> > > >
> > > > Can you even get Lose98 to INSTALL on 386 or 486 machine?
> > > >
> > > > A) yes, you can keep old hardware in production
> > > > B) NO, YOU MUST THROW AWAY YOUR OLD MACHINES.
> > >
> > > I've run Windows NT Server a 486 with no problem. I admit it wasn't as
> fast
> > > as I liked but it ran just fine.
> >
> > Ypu don't say whoch one. 3.5.1 will go on a 486 (if you could be arsed
> > with 300 floppies). I'd love to see NT4 on a 486 with ie5.
>
> It was NT4. And NT4 installs just fine from a network folder. You don't need
> floppies.
I saw 3.5.1 on floppies. I think someone at the company i worked for
actually installed it. The mind boggles.
I have to say I'm surprisd to hear that NT4 works OK on a 486
considering Win95 doesn't (it's horribly slow).
-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: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:09:06 +0000
This guy can't be for real. Take a more light hearted approach to the
posts and they become extremely funny. Expecially the 1,2,3,5 bit.
-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: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why don't I use Linux?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 09:15:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're the one that always calls people to task for not being
> specific. I was merely calling you out for doing the same.
I didn't start it.
I kept using Linux to lump together Linux, X and KDE.
Now I see people use the term "Windows" when they really Windows
95/98/ME, and not NT/2000.
> ... that you choose to use. There are plenty of options, as you have
> been told several times. What does Delphi offer me that XEmacs
doesn't?
Quite a lot more than most IDE + compiler packages offer. It's the
resource editor + VCL + forms + integrated editor and reasonably well
thought out classes that make the whole thing. I've yet to see anything
else even close to it.
> > Unfortunately the last time I upgraded from 7.0 to 7.1 things did
not go
> > terribly well.
>
> Don't upgrade. Reinstall from scratch. It's a little work up front,
> but it will pay off in terms of stability.
That's pretty piss poor for a user. At least when I upgrade Windows it
works!
> You make a common mistake; you assume that your needs are universal.
> I'll venture that very few people who use a PC actually care about 3-D
> sound. The few that do can run Windows. Use what works best for you,
> but don't assume that what works best for you works best for everyone
> else.
Now you're making an assumption. You're assuming I want the world to
have my needs - when did I ask for that?
What I'm saying is I can't switch to Linux as yet as there are some
packages missing from it.
> So your argument boils down to the fact that you don't want to learn
> anything new.
No, I don't want to learn a new GUI API. There's a big difference, one
that you chose to misread.
Oh, incidentally, the GUI API's available on Linux aren't exactly 'new'
are they. They've been playing catchup for ages now. MOTIF was the
strongest one around, but it wasn't free, so that left a pretty
big vacuum. Now we have Qt and GTK.
--
---
Pete
Why don't I use Linux? I'm waiting for Delphi to appear on Linux...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 20:40:56 +1100
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tuff Competition for LINUX!
Well, the WINE people could certainly use it. The Samba people could
REALLY use it. All those people with Windows only devices could use it.
The colour management code would be pretty groovy. Security analysts
could check the network code to see any exploits and get rid of them. VB
could be locked down. The NTFS Linux kernel people could use the NTFS
code.
You get where I'm going?
Chris
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> Let's us assume that you get your wish, MS goes GPL.
> If *I* was MS, I would release the code for 2k (9x sucks anyway), *without*
> the comments.
> OSS would die while everybody would try to understand how this thing works.
> :)
> Exactly how much time would it take to analyze the code?
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:q0tgt8.n6k.ln@gd2zzx...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'll tell you what! After this weeks events in
> > > Microsoft history, I would not want to be any
> > > kind of systems administrator or developer
> > > for ANY Microsoft product.
> > >
> > > NOOOO WAY man!
> >
> > This is the crux of Microsofts problem. They are now in an
> > untenable position as far as I can see. For any companies
> > mission critical applications they cannot use Microsoft s/w.
> > Unless of course Microsoft realise that they must make their
> > source code open so that companies can audit it themselves.
> > Isn't it sad? :-)
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Hacked?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:45:16 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I guess things have changed. When I went to school, we had a old IBM
> 360.
> > All programs were typed up on punched cards and submitted to batch.
> > Turn-around time near the end of the sumester was up to a week. Under
> those
> > circumstances, you really only had one or at best two chances to get it
> > right. It was obvious at the time why gotos were bad - they made it
> more
> > likely that the program wouldn't work on first try and you could end up
> > failing the course.
>
> Huh? Goto's do not make code any more or less likely to work.
If the programmer is spagetti coding, and it doesn't work first time, it
can be hard to fix.
> They do make
> the code more difficult to maintain over time.
True.
> The programmer writing the
> code knows exactly what the goto is doing at the time, but a year later that
> same programmer might not have a clue, or might miss the program flow
> because of a goto.
They need good documantation much like everything else.
> This is exactly my point. Everyone talks about how evil goto's are, yet few
> people that say this seem to really know WHY.
They are extermely good in some circumstances (much more efficient than
testing for an error condition at every level). However, when used in
excess, they can me very bad. Also, the code I saw could have been done
very esaily without gotos: it was sloppy.
Incidentally, gotos were condemmed from their conception in 1840 (yep,
1840).
-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 don't I use Linux?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:50:41 +0000
> >>Cryptic names are too common on Linux. Does a user know what 'cat' or
> >>'ls' or 'grep' or 'pwd' mean? As opposed to 'type', 'dir', 'find'?
> >
> >Own a car ?
> >Know what "efi", "fwd", "airbag", and "air" mean ?
>
> dir for directory is less cryptic than ls;
ls stands for list. How is that less cryptic than dir, when Windows has
folders, not directories
> type as in typea file is less cryptic than cat;
cat catenates files. Not really that cryptic.
> find is less cryptic than grep;
And find in unix finds files? less cryptic than your find?
> Seems perfectly simple to me.
Not if you don't know what it means. find is cryptic in that you
wouldn't know what it was trying to find.
-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 don't I use Linux?
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:55:40 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2:1) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> Your statement that Word is "fuck all use" is wrong.
> >
> >Mabey it's exaggerated. It's not much use.
>
> Maybe it's wrong. There's a big difference.
I think word is little use.
>
> >In the UNIX world, multiple features are gained by using multiple
> >programs. Us xv as an image browser. Use GIMP as an image editor. The
> >windows way and the UNIX way are different. You don't want to accept the
> >UNIX way (or you'd use a seperate program as an image browser). Your
> >lack of acceptance does not make it worse.
>
> It has nothing to do with the UNIX way...
>
> PSP can edit AVI, MPEG, animated GIF... can GIMP?
>
> >> And that makes me a "troll"? Sheesh!
> >
> >What makes you a troll is that you think that an cryptically names app
> >under windows (such as paradox etc...) is somehow less cryptic than
> >under UNIX.
>
> type is less cryptic than cat
No its not. Type is what you do at the keyboard. Besides, cat stands fot
catenate, which is what it does. What's wrong with the word catenate?
> dir is less cryptic than ls
More cryptic. Windows has folders.
> find is more meaningful than grep
Not really. What't is trying to find. The UNIX find searches for
different things. It would be better to call it search_file or
something.
> >I said Exel is a cryptic name. You said it isn't because I know what it
> >means. That meand that NONE of the UNIX commands are cryptic because I
> >know what they do. Clearly, that's bollocks.
>
> I didn't say they were less cryptic, I said you knew what they meant.
You said they were less cryptic.
> Why do you know what they mean?
Because I've used them. But you know ehat grep, ls, cat etc do because
you have used them. So what is your point?
>
> Because they appear on a more popular system. Everyone has heard of them.
that has little to do with crypticness.
--
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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
