Linux-Advocacy Digest #51, Volume #30 Sun, 5 Nov 00 05:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Why Linux is great ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chip Anderson)
Re: I think I'm in love..... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: I think I'm in love..... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: I think I'm in love..... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays. ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows.
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 08:04:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, where does Windows fit in? It (in any of its incarnations) is not
> as stable as Linux, and not as easy to use as the Mac, so what's the
> point?
The point is that there's already a huge amount of PC (non-Mac)
hardware out there that will only run Windows or Linux/BSD. To have the
Mac take over the user-friendliness portion so that Windows can no
longer "fit in", you'd have to discount the huge number of non-Mac
owners who also need user-friendliness. Unforunately, you can't have
that ideal world scenario where Linux/BSD and Mac divide the entire
market share plunder, because Windows has been around long enough
already that people who've used that will want that again. Plus,
Windows has more apps than any of the other OSes, so by ignoring
Windows you're also ignoring those aps. (please please someone port
Quark to Linux...)
I personally like Linux, and if I had to choose a new machine for a
friend who didn't know all that much to begin with, I'd get them a Mac.
But I don't have a magic wand that'll be able to get rid of all
instances of Windows, and there's a heeeyuge user base out there that
knows how to get things done with Windows (even with all the faults)
and will probably prefer going to Win2000 or WinME than start from
scratch again on a Linux box, or probably even on a Mac box.
-ws
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 08:21:32 GMT
Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:0t8N5.13162$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:248N5.20921$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Damn. For $10,000 you coulda had a NeXT Cube, or a station. I feel
for
> > the
> > > idiots who spent 10,000 on a 386.
> >
> > Why, I got one with a perfectly good AT&T System V UNIX on it and used
as
> a
> > LAN server for 200 some users in 1986.
>
> Then you should have recognized the lies about NT being a better unix
> than unix and realized that Linux with Samba would do the same for
> free.
>
Les, we've had this discussion before. There are some NTLM features that
Samba just doesn't support that are important me and those I support. I
made a long post a year or so ago, that followed the evolution of Automated
Service through MIS to IT. The story as I wrote it also roughly parralelled
my career starting with big iron, moving through the upstart open systems
(NOTE: I'm not referring to Open Source) until they thought they were king
to where we are no and in the near future where the user is boss. As long
as the user is paying the bills and for my toys ;-) I'll keep giving them
the best way to do ALL of the things they want with the least hassle to me.
Right now that solution is NT or 2K because they'll do all the things that a
UNIX can do, all the things Novell can do and all the things the users want
to do. The reverse just isn't true.
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 08:24:37 GMT
Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:i88N5.13159$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:TX7N5.20905$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > Give us some examples. I had no problem going from MSOffice97 to
> > > Office2k.
> > >
> > > Try Office95 to 97. By the way, why are you in such a hurry to dump
> > > your old versions and jump to the new ones. Did you have some
problems
> > > from this vendor's products along the way?
> > >
> >
> > I've routinely transferred data between Office4.2, Office95 and Office97
> > without difficulty. Did you install all of the conveniently supplied
> > filters?
>
> Perhaps your idea of convenient is different than mine. Mine doesn't
> involve having to find some already-installed application CD when
> it says it needs it to update what you thought was already loaded.
>
I always do a complete install so as to avoid problems like this. The old
pound of prevention thing.
> But the real issue with win97<->win95 was the backwards direction
> where the app simply would not read the document, predictably
> causing the user who received the document from someone who
> got a cheap pre-loaded copy of win97 to insist on having the company
> pay for a full price upgrade to his copy. How can people continue
> doing business with a company that manipulates them in such insidious
> ways?
Or you could download a Win97 reader/printer for Win3.1 or Win95 for free
from Microsoft.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chip Anderson)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 08:29:30 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Salvador Peralta) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
--snip--
>This meant that he had to manipulate a month's worth of log data 30 text
>files totalling about 600 megs on his new win2000 workstation. Like
>most winAdmins, he opened up wordpad and tried to cut and past the files
>into a single document. Due to memory limitations of the product, he
>couldn't get more than 1/3rd of the data into any winDocument including
>word.
>
--snip--
The Admin was simply an idiot. He could have catenated the files using
the copy command. Next he could have hacked out a QBASIC program to
remove any unwanted lines. Make a batch file and run it once a month.
The failing was in the Admin, not his tools.
Chip
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I think I'm in love.....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 09:06:29 +0000
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Not when I've seen the defaults work nicely in many other situations. I
> think
> it tells me something about you instead, but I am not quite sure what. I
> thought Mandrake 7.2 was the first distribution with acceptable fonts
> configured as the defaults.
I've said the same about Windows configurations - I never seem to see any
problems, yet people here complain about problems that they're having, and
imply that somehow because of their problems, Windows is crap.
> Try it. It might keep you quiet about the lack of Linux fonts
> for a few days.
But that's not the problem. When I first installed the system, I had all
the fonts I wanted. Somehow, I lost them and I'm stuck on a fixed font. I
have reported this a bug to KDE.
--
Pete Goodwin
Just waiting for Linux to get there...
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I think I'm in love.....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 09:03:51 +0000
Terry Porter wrote:
> Fair enough, mine is a home machine too, and its been on every day since
> Aug1997.There are reasons for leaving a Linux box on 24/24.
So now my choice of switching it off is the wrong one?
> Goodwin is just a Linux newbie kind of Wintroll, and a reasonable one at
> that, I think in a decade or so, he might get the idea :)
I doubt anything will be the same in a decade or so.
> I'm waiting for Goodwin to actually *use* Linux.
What do you think I'm using now? I'm reading your reply with KNode and
replying with KNode on KDE 2.0 on... (wait for it)... Linux Mandrake 7.2
--
Pete Goodwin
Just waiting for Linux to get there...
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I think I'm in love.....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 09:13:24 +0000
Weevil wrote:
> So what is your real purpose here, Pete? You're clearly not here for help
> with a Linux system. This is the Linux advocacy group, and this thread is
> not cross-posted anywhere else.
You said it - this is a Linux advocacy group. I see a load of stuff that is
written that is anti-Windows and is just plain wrong; I see equal amounts
of stuff that is written that is pro-Linux that is wrong too. So I write
about what I find.
> You are here to bash Linux and praise Windows, and that is the only reason
> you're here. You're just another Wintroll trying to disguise himself as a
> concerned newbie Linux user.
Wrong, I have criticised Windows too. Where have I praised Windows? I have
said in other posts that I think Windows is not very good.
Why is it you guys immediately believe anyone who thinks Windows is better
in some ways than Linux is a Wintroll out to bash Linux?
> If you want help with Linux, go to a newsgroup that addresses your
> problem.
I already have.
> If you want to bash Linux, go to alt.os.linux.die.die.die or something.
But this is the advocacy group, is it not?
> What is UP with all you Microsoft fanatics, anyway? This is a serious
> question. Why the hell are you in here? Do you fear Linux so much?
> Linux
> has zero market share. You have nothing to be afraid of, right?
> Microsoft
> has ninety some-odd percent of the desktop market. Obviously nothing to
> fear there.
I'm not a Microsoft fanatic.
> Linux has zero chance of displacing Windows on the desktop, right? This
> newsgroup is for the few people who do use Linux to talk about it, to
> discuss what we like about it and how we think it might be improved. And,
> of course, to recommend it to other people who might wander in here out of
> curiosity.
The reason why it has zero chance is because it has a way to go as yet.
> But you can't leave it alone, can you? The lot of you come swaggering in
> here, imagining you have the power of a giant corporation behind you, and
> crap all over the floor.
No, I imagine I have some valid concerns that others might want to hear.
Clearly some don't want to hear me, but some do.
> Do you see Linux users in windows advocacy groups doing what you do here?
> Or Mac users, or OS/2 users? No, you don't. Take an honest moment and
> try to figure out what that says about you.
Yes but you're wrong about what you think I'm doing here.
--
Pete Goodwin
Just waiting for Linux to get there...
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: 2.4 Kernel Delays.
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 04:08:56 GMT
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Does it matter? If fact is, they do. You and others were ignorantly
> > > > claiming that if Redmond got nuked (how cute, by the way), that Windows
> > > > would be lost forever which is simply rediculous.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But even if code survives, there are still a few issues. First, who owns
> > > the code? Second, would that owner(s) be able to control changes to the
> > > code?
> >
> > There would certainly be someone left alive from MS, regardless,
> > MS would be done and the remaining employees or an appointed lawyer
(assuming
> > all the lawyers died as well) would be responsible for selling the
> > remainder of the assets to pay off debts in good faith. Someone would
> > purchase it in an auction (probably IBM) and either throw it away (unlikely)
> > or continue producing Windows and assume leader in the multi-billion dollar
> > market of the desktop OS.
>
> But Windows isn't just the code. Who could stringarm the OEM's into
> preinstalling it?
"stringarm"? There's no stringarming necessary. Dell, Compaq, Gateway,
and many others wouldn't be where they're at, if at all had it not
been for Windows and the fortunes it has brought those who sell it.
They are more than happy/willing/able to sell it and make the profits.
No "stringarm"ing necessary.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 05:36:36 GMT
"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Lo5N5.36197$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 19:09:40 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:%N3N5.35894$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 11:27:15 -0800,
> >> Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Access is a great starting point.
> >> >If you get busy you can upgrade later
> >> >to something robust like SQL Server.
> >>
> >>
> >> Are you trying to suggest that Access isn't robust?
> >
> >Not for 1000's of users.
>
>
> I am glad that you admit the truth about
> Access.
No one claimed it was on the level of SQL Server or Oracle.
However, there are uses for small businesses to use a database
without spending several thousands for a RDBMS of which they'll
only use 5% of the features and require a consultant to help
them get everything set up.
Many, if not a huge majority of small businesses use Access as
their database platform for managing clients, other contacts,
inventory, accounts recv. and accounts pay., etc.
Only recently have applications like Quickbooks Pro invaded
on this space, and they still don't offer all the features
and customizability that Access offers.
> >> Many experienced individuals would agree with you.
> >
> >>
> >> So Access is a toy,
> >
> >Never said that.
>
>
> I am saying it.
Well, you are wrong. You have a fundamental misunderstanding
(read: you're ignorant) of this subject and what this application
does, and why it's so great at what it does.
>
> >In fact, it is a great tool for small to medium databases,
>
>
> No, it isn't. Access does not even meet the
> challenge of medium sized databases.
You are incorrect. You probably don't even know what Access is.
>
>
> > as a front end to
> >SQL Server and Oracle, and as a tool to learn about RDBMS.
>
> Schuck, do you remember when I mentioned ODBC? Do
> you understand why I mentioned it? Do you recall the context
> of our conversation? Let me remind you. Some moron
> said that there does not exist software on *nix which has
> the functionality of Access. I disputed this. You cited
> this feature of Access, that you can connect, as a front end, to
> other databases. Well, as you know, so can many products.
> This feature is by no means unique to Access.
But its much more available in Access. Access provides an easy
and quick way to connect to dozens of databases (legacy DBF fox
pro, newer fox pro, Excel, text files even, SQL server, Oracle,
etc), design a quick user input form (without developing a whole
application), and design quick, useful reports with only a few
waves and clicks of the mouse.
This _is_ nothing like this for Linux, or Unix in general, as
a matter of fact.
Mac has something close: ClarisWorks, but it's a sad example.
> But now you want to argue that the true strength of
> Access is as a pedagogical tool. A learning aid, courtesy
> of Microsoft. So now, when you pay money to MS, they
> will supply you not with robust products, but with learning aids.
> You pay them for the training wheels. Is that what Chad Myers
> meant when he began this argument about Access? Did
> he mean that Access cannot be matched in functionality
> as a pedagogical tool?
It does many things. And yes, it's unmatched in its functionality.
All these features wrapped into one easy to use tool that the
average small-business one-man to 25 or so-man operations can
use and get going with quickly without spending outrageous amounts
of money or hiring expensive contractors to set up their system
for them.
> Am I to understand that Microsoft is marketing
> Access as a learning instrument?
No, well, you can understand whatever you want, but that's not
what it is.
> If that is the case, then
> they are charging quite a bit for it. Someone who wants to
> learn about database management using recognised standards
> like SQL can do so for $0.00 by downloading MySQL or Postgres.
But you'd only have a SQL database server. There is more to a
database than just executing SQL statements and storing data.
How do you access the data? How do you display the data logically?
That's the application's job, right? Of course. Well, what if
you were joe-average small-business owner and needed an inventory
tracking database and you didn't have any development experience.
You only had basic computer experience (Word processing [Word,
Wordperfect, etc], spreadsheet-ing, etc).
Would MySQL be of any benefit to this person? Would MS SQL Server
or Oracle for that matter? Of course not.
They need something simple, hell, many of them use Excel because
it does enough, they don't know what they're missing with Access.
> >Linux has nothing like that.
>
>
> Like what? IIRC, you can even download Oracle for linux
> if you are interested in just learning. And let's not
> forget IBM's DB2.
Those products (yes, even MS SQL Server) would be completely
useless and overkill for the customers that Access targets.
> You've opened up quite a can of worms here. A student
> of database theory doesn't have to shell out bucks for
> crappy non-robust garbage like Access, when he can
> to choose from Oracle, DB2, Postgres, MySQL.
crappy? Non-robust? Quite bold statements for someone who
has an obvious, and proven lack of understanding and complete
ignorance of common sense.
<SNIP: the rest is irrelevant after that tidbit of moronica>
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 05:47:41 GMT
"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Gd6N5.36225$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 20:51:08 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Goldhammer:
> >> Then why is Schuck reccommending a migration path from
> >> Access to MS SQL server?
> >
> >You know why.
>
>
> Perhaps you overestimate me. I'm not a mind-reader.
>
>
> >Access is both a great database development tool for small to
> >medium applications,
>
>
> But I was told by you and Myers that Access has more functionality
> than anything available under *nix workalikes. If this is so, why
> do I have to migrate to a more expensive product from MS, to achieve
> the same functionality that I had to begin with from a free
> product like Postgres?
>
> Do you understand this question, Bruce?
I understand the question, but you're asking it either from a
stance of complete ignorance, or a stance of complete trollery.
No one ever claimed Unix didn't have databases, we're claiming that
Unix (and Linux) don't have a good small-business database management,
form designer, and report designer tool all in one so that the
average joe could use it. I suppose it makes sense because the average
joe wouldn't be using Unix or Linux because there's no point.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 05:47:44 GMT
"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9n6N5.36231$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 21:23:36 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:Lo5N5.36197$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 19:09:40 -0800, Bruce Schuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Goldhammer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:%N3N5.35894$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> >Before we waste anymore time with your drivel, name the *nix tools that
> >matches the feature list of Access.
>
>
> You must have not been paying attention
> when I said MySQL or Postgres.
Not even close or Not even close.
Access does much more than execute SQL queries.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Relax" <[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: 5 Nov 2000 03:41:11 -0600
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:00110216303401.02705@pc03...
> > and there is still a long way to go on several other aspects.
>
> Such as? Just curious.
Well, to make a long story short, all unixes taken together certainly do all
what NT does and maybe more. But no single implementation has it all out of
the box and you certainly know that.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
